Obama Power Grab: Serves 14-State Governors With Warnings of Arrest

This needs to spread like wildfire. This is just one of many potential trip wires for kicking off a revolution. If the federal government retreats to the Constitutional reservation on which it is supposed to exist, it has nothing to worry about from the states. But if they keep pushing, all bets are off.

Obama has some pretty big balls to accuse these governors of treason.  It is Obama who has and is WILLFULLY disregarding his constitutional duty.  He REFUSES to secure our borders.  He instructs his DoJ to willfully disobey current laws that he doesn’t like.  He himself disobeys laws (War Powers Act among others).  With the aid of democrats in the house and senate, he passes laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.  If he can’t get the law he wants passed, he just gets his executive agencies to legislate via regulation, thus circumventing congress.

And he has the gall to accuse ANYBODY else of treason?  Keep blustering, peckerhead.  Start trying to arrest governors for this, and the s#$^’s gonna get real.

UPDATE:

1.  Forgot to provide the link to the original article (http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/05/obama-serves-14-state-governors-with-warnings-of-arrest-and-why-is-this-not-front-page-news-2636456.html)

2.  The day after the original article was posted, they posted another article that said “An unconfirmed report states that President Obama has “served 14-State Governors in the United States, National Security Letters (NSLs)” (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/state-defense-forces-governors-form-militia-protection-against-martial-law-2641174.html)

3.  There are a number of states with State Defense Forces (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/why-more-states-should-establish-state-defense-forces)

4.  If you want more information on the various State Defense Forces, why not contact them?  CNN’s Clark Howard posted an article on how to do just that (http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/employment-military/state-defense-force-sign/nFZ8/)

5.  The NSL claim in the original article is unverified.  Snopes says not, but Snopes has proven to be the National Enquirer of the internet.  As Beforeitsnews corrected, the claims are “unconfirmed.”  With the current events in Washington (IRS, AP, Benghazi, DoJ, etc), you’re not likely to here about this again soon.  But in light of what we have learned about Obama administration tactics from just those scandals, and other threats and coercion by the DoJ in reference to gun control, you decide whether or not this is at least plausible.
+

---

Obama Serves 14-State Governors With Warnings of Arrest: And why is this not front page news?

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 11:57
by Ken Larive

Barack Hussein Obama had served 14-State Governors in the United States, National Security Letters (NSLs) warning that the Governor’s actions in attempting to form “State Defense Forces” needs to be halted “immediately” or they will face arrest for the crime of treason. The employment of NSLs was authorized by the Patriot Act introduced by George W. Bush. Contained within the section related to these letters, it is forbidden for anyone receiving a NSL warning to even acknowledge the existence of said communication.

Obama is angered by the several State Governors who have reestablished “State Defense Forces.” These forces are described as: “State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States. State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state’s National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.”

Mr. Obama is fearful of these State Defense Forces, in that he does not have control of said forces, and with the U.S. Military stretched to near breaking from multiple deployments and theatre actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, these State military forces would be under the direct command and authority of the Governors in which states have said forces. In essence, the Governors would have “de facto control” of the United States.

The two Governors leading this move are: Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota; and Rick Perry, Governor of Texas. Both of these State Governors stated they have: “…deep fear the President is destroying their Nation.” Governor Pawlenty’s fear of Obama is that since Obama took office he has appeased America’s enemies and has shunned some of America’s strongest allies, especially Israel. Governor Perry has declared that Obama is punishing his State of Texas by dumping tens-of-thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants into the cities and small towns of Texas. Governor Perry further recently stated: “If Barack Obama’s Washington doesn’t stop being so oppressive, Texans might feel compelled to renounce their American citizenry and secede from the union.” (Yeeeeessss!!)

Obama fearing a revolution against him by the states, has moved swiftly by nationalizing nearly all National Guard Forces in multiple states; Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina – to name a few. The Governors of the Great States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia still have under their Command-and-Control the State Defense Forces to go against U.S. Federal forces should the need arise. Also important to note: There are NO U.S. laws prohibiting National Guard troops from also joining their State’s Defense Forces. This dilemma occurred during the Civil War with many “citizen soldiers” choosing to serve their states instead of the Federal Government.

This is a fluid and still developing situation that warrants close attention.

---

Asserting State Soverignty

Texas is also one of several states considering resolution to opt out of the unfunded, unconstitutional mandate that will come from socialized medicine and from cap-and-tax should they pass. This is the only way we can defeat Obama and the liberal democrats socialist agenda: individually contributing to movements that swell from the local and state levels that show the usurpers in D.C. that their careers are going to end unless they start obeying the constitution and listening to their constituents. The other things to do are:

• Make it law that they are bound by the laws and programs they pass just like the average Joe. No exceptions.

• Get rid of the pensions for congressmen and senators.

• Institute term limits. If they’re good enough for the president, they’re good enough for the congress and senate.

• Make them vote one each law on its own merits without riders and earmarks.

• Make them actually READ each law before voting on it.

• Make them be present to vote, or dock them pay.

That’s a good start on some things that would go a long way towards cleaning up and un-screwing Washington and the government that is supposed to work FOR the people.

∞ Gadget

Published Jul 27, 2009

Published Monday July 27, 2009

Nebraskans assert state sovereignty

By Martha Stoddard
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

LINCOLN — At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:

Butt out of state business.

Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.

The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Nebraska wouldn’t try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.

“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”

The tension between states’ rights and federal authority has been a repeated theme in U.S. history, starting with arguments among the founding fathers.

The struggle turned bloody when Southern states seceded, citing states’ rights on the question of slavery, and the Civil War ensued.

Critics say the current measures amount to little more than political posturing — passing resolutions doesn’t mean that states refuse to comply with federal law or send back federal funds that come with mandates.

State Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln said the proposals sound disturbingly similar to the states’ rights arguments made in defense of racial segregation and laws blocking blacks from voting.

“The history of this movement is rife with racism in the name of states’ rights,” he said. “I’m not saying that the people making the case now are racist, but I don’t think Nebraska needs to be getting in bed with these kinds of resolutions.”

Colleagues denied links to that history. Fulton, an Asian-American, said he has no intention of promoting racism or segregation.

Interest in states’ rights is spreading asthe federal government has taken over businesses, mandated driver’s license security measures and proposed a public health care program.

Seven states passed resolutions this year affirming their sovereignty, and resolutions were introduced in 30 others. Some states have filed lawsuits or taken legislative action to challenge federal laws.

In Iowa, State Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton offered a resolution this yearcalling on the federal government to “cease and desist” in issuing mandates that go beyond what the 10th Amendment allows. The body’s Democratic majority has kept the resolution alive but bottled up in committee.

The movement’s rise followed the election of President Barack Obama. Most of its supporters, though not all, can be found in conservative camps, such as libertarian talk-show host Glenn Beck and his conservative Web site. The states passing resolutions all voted Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

Online petitions urge Nebraska’s state lawmakers to act.

“Either states can use the Constitution to maintain the power they have always had, or they can give it up,” said Gregory Boyle of Omaha, who started one online petition this spring.

A constitutional scholar questions the effectiveness of legislativeresolutions and legal challenges.

“This is an outlet for those who are worried that the federal government will take over everything,” said Mark Kende, director of the Drake University Constitutional Law Center in Des Moines.

Richard Duncan, a constitutional law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, said legislative resolutions send valuable political messages even with no legal weight.

“It’s kind of a nice warning that people are growing tired of the size of the federal government,” he said.

Under the 10th Amendment, states and citizens retain all powers not specifically given to the federal government.

Sovereignty supporters argue that the federal government has overstepped those bounds on matters such as endangered species protection and seat belt laws. Others say the Constitution, as interpreted by courts from the 1800s on, gives the federal government broad authority.

Fulton and Sens. Mark Christensen of Imperial and Ken Schilz of Ogallala are researching possible resolutions.

“I absolutely don’t like where our government is going right now,” Christensensaid.

Among his complaints are the mandates attached to federal stimulus funds and the new national health care proposals.

Fulton listed federal control of General Motors and mandates imposed on schools under the 2001 No Child Left Behind law.

“I’m not saying that every interaction with the federal government is bad,” he said. “I’m saying that some are over the line.”

Schilz’s concerns include a proposal to extend the Clean Water Act to all bodies of water.

None of the three Nebraska lawmakers is ready to advocate giving up most federal funds to avoid the accompanying mandates, although Christensen supported the governor’s decision to reject some unemployment stimulus money because of the strings attached.

Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature Mike Flood of Norfolk said he wasn’t sure whether he would back a resolution, though he supports states’ rights.

“Every day in the Legislature,” Flood said, “it seems we deal with issues where the federal government has its tentacles, either on the policy or the money or both.”

South Dakota’s GOP whip, State Rep. Manny Steele, introduced his state’s successful resolution. Steele said change will occur if enough states follow sovereignty measures with legal challenges to federal authority.

Some challenges have already popped up, on both conservative and liberal issues.

Montana, for example, passed a law this year asserting that guns made, sold and used in the state are exempt from federal laws and taxes. The law’s chief backers said they hoped it would trigger a court battle.

Arizona lawmakers put a measure on the 2010 ballot that would exempt residents from a federal health care plan.

On the liberal front, Massachusetts cited the 10th Amendment in filing suit against a federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages.

And six states sided with a California woman who argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that states had the power to legalize medical marijuana. The court ruled for the federal government in the 2005 case.

Kende questioned the states’ chances of prevailing, saying the federal government won all cases from 1937 to 1995, although its record has been mixed since.

Courts already have upheld the practice of attaching strings to federal funds, Duncan said.

No matter the result of the court cases, states can make a difference through political pressure, said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center in Los Angeles. The howls that greeted a George W. Bush-era law increasing driver’s license requirements, for example, forced the federal government to rethink that law.

“With each state,” Steele said, “we gain power.”

Contact the writer:

402-473-9583, martha.stoddard@owh.com

[categories oppressive government, 10th amendment]

Don’t Mess With Texas!

Don’t Mess With Texas!  Since I’m legally a Texas resident, hopefully they’ll let me back in…

---

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/texas_constructs_u_s_border_wall?utm_source=a-section

Texas Constructs U.S. Border Wall To Keep Out Unwanted Americans

The Texas-U.S. border wall will protect Texans from foreigners who do not share their beliefs and customs.

WICHITA FALLS, TX—Calling it an essential step toward securing the Texas border and protecting his people’s way of life, Gov. Rick Perry announced Tuesday the completion of a 1,953-mile wall designed to keep out millions of unwanted Americans.

According to Perry, the 75-foot-high barricade running along the northern boundary is the culmination of more than 160 years of escalating tensions between Texas and the United States.

Though a protective barrier has been under consideration for decades, the Texas Legislature voted unanimously to begin construction on the project immediately following the 2008 presidential election.

“As governor, it is my responsibility to do whatever’s necessary to maintain the territorial integrity of Texas,” Perry told reporters during a press conference held inside a sniper tower overlooking Oklahoma. “If you are a Texas citizen, you shouldn’t have to worry about some American coming in here, using your goods and services, and taking away your job.”

“Let the record show I have nothing personal against Americans,” Perry added. “I just think they should stay in America, where they belong.”

The wall is comprised of six security layers: a razor-wire fence equipped with motion sensors, surveillance cameras, and guard towers; a 70-foot-wide trench with expert marksmen stationed along its perimeter; a roadway patrolled by armed vehicles equipped with synchronized electromagnetic wave gradiometers to detect Americans attempting to tunnel their way into Texas; and a second, third, and fourth fence.

The final section of the barricade, a reinforced concrete enclosure containing the city of Austin, will be finished by August 2009.

“These Americans are destroying the moral and social fabric of our state,” said Rep. Chris Turner, who added that he worries when he looks around Texas and sees people from places like Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Vermont. “The man who used to repair my truck was replaced by some mechanic who moved in here from Kansas. Lately I can’t go to the store or the bank without running into all kinds of these foreigners. This wall is the only hope we have of keeping Texas safe.”

“The truth is, Americans are just different from us,” Turner added. “We don’t even speak the same language.”

According to Texas Army National Guard Brig. Gen. Tom Alford, Americans will only be permitted to cross the border if they have immediate family living in Texas, in which case they can apply for a 90-minute monitored visitation to be held inside a checkpoint detention facility.

However, Alford stressed that any American attempting to transport barbecue sauce, beef jerky, belt buckles, or longhorn cattle back to the United States will face the death penalty.

Thus far, a majority of Texas citizens support the border wall, with nearly 8 million signing up to join a coalition of Minutemen that will guard the fence.

“These good-for-nothing Americans want to come in here and wait in the same lines as me, watch the same movies, and eat at the same restaurants,” El Paso resident and border patrol volunteer Larry Carlile told reporters. “Who do they think they are? I’d never dare waltz into America and act like I owned the place. That country’s a godforsaken hellhole, anyway.”

“Round ’em up and get ’em out,” Carlile added. “Go back to Seattle or whatever you call it.”

Since the wall’s completion, there has been no official comment from Washington. However, sources close to President Obama said that upon being informed of Gov. Perry’s announcement the commander in chief muttered, “Thank God.”

---