jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (45 posts)

Campaign for Liberty message...

  1. SparklingJewel profile image64
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    ...just thought I would give you another group's view of the health care bill and November votes...
    I really find it hard to believe that people can't see the points of unconstitutional abuses, except of course as a nation we have allowed it to go on for too long, and now some have no "gumption" to change it...or they have gotten so wrapped up in the mess that they don't know who to believe, I understand that, where do you think I have been?!!! smile

    March 27, 2010

    Fellow Patriots,

    Before the ink dried on the health care boondoggle President Obama just signed into law, fourteen states sprang into action to defend their sovereignty by filing suits in federal court against ObamaCare’s individual mandate.

    Thirteen states – Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington – filed suit jointly in Pensacola, Florida, citing the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” as an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and basing their case on the 10th Amendment.

    Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, filed suit separately in Richmond, Virginia.

    Thanks to the tremendous work of Virginia Campaign for Liberty Executive Director Donna Holt and the tireless lobbying efforts of VA C4L, the “Healthcare Freedom Act” recently passed the Virginia General Assembly and was signed into law by Governor Bob McDonnell. This law effectively declares the individual federal mandate null and void for citizens of Virginia.

    The Healthcare Freedom Act has given Attorney General Cuccinelli unique standing on which to base his lawsuit. The Virginia law reads, “No resident of this Commonwealth…shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage….” As the Cuccinelli suit states, “The collision between the state and federal schemes also creates an immediate, actual controversy involving antagonistic assertions of right.”

    It continues: “…thus far in our history, it has never been held that the Commerce Clause, even when aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be used to require citizens to buy goods or services.”

    The federal government, despite boasts to the contrary, knows the individual mandate rests on a perversion of the Commerce Clause that it has been allowed to get away with for far too long.

    In addition to action in the courts, states around the country are also voicing their opposition toward this unjust, unconstitutional usurpation of power through legislation. Along with Virginia, Utah and Idaho have signed into law variations of Healthcare Freedom Acts, and similar legislation has been introduced in more than 25 other states!

    It is invigorating to see states finally beginning to reassert their sovereignty against the tyrannical powergrabs emanating from Washington, D.C. The momentum will only continue to build as additional states join the fight, but for that to happen, we must remain diligent in spreading the word and continuing to fight for free market health care reforms.

    Campaign for Liberty members nationwide have been turning up the heat on their local politicians, demanding they act against the overreaching federal government and its schemes to take away our liberties. Our members continue to collect petitions, testify before committees, and hold their elected officials responsible for their actions.

    Indeed, we were successful in pushing back against this latest intrusion for far longer than anyone would have thought possible. What was supposed to be a done deal with the election of President Obama became a knockdown, drag-out fight that will continue into the November elections and beyond.

    Without the intense efforts of Campaign for Liberty members taking action all across the country, the final legislation could have even been much worse. Our elected officials may now try to convince themselves that the outcry will die down and our Revolution will fade away, but we must ratchet up the pressure even more and make sure they know we will not rest until we take our neighborhoods, our states, and our country back.

    While ObamaCare’s passage was widely heralded by the mainstream media as a defeat of our movement and a victory for Obama, you and I both know that this is only the beginning. There comes a time in each generation when people must decide whether to stand up and defend their natural rights or bow down before the seat of power. Let us steadfastly maintain our resolve to see this battle through to victory!


    In Liberty,

    (the Ron Paul crowd)

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Great Update! Freedom from tyrants! Thats what I'm talking about! "Don't Tread On Me!"

  2. Faybe Bay profile image84
    Faybe Bayposted 7 years ago

    Are all of those states working on the Equal Rights Amendment? I thought it was ironic that the ERA was never passed into law because it wasn't ratified by the requisite 38 states, and went past the allotted time frame, and yet everyone is up against the Health Care Bill and in a frenzy. Wouldn't the Health Care Bill need to be ratified bay a number of states before passing into law anyway? I am asking because I do not know. I thought the ERA had passed into law until last week. sad

    1. SparklingJewel profile image64
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      there are so many of those types of things going on,or rather not going on,  in our legal system and courts, it is absurd...it reminds me of the tax laws...I have read a whole series of perspectives that say there is no Constitutional law for the types and excessive taxes that we pay. There are people working on that too.

  3. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    From the Washington Post

    State sovereignty provisions.

    "Several states are considering measures attempting to exempt their residents from an individual health insurance mandate. While such provisions may have a political impact, none is likely to have any effect on the legislation's constitutionality. Under the 10th Amendment, if Congress enacts a law pursuant to one of the "powers . . . delegated to the United States by the Constitution," then that law is supreme, and nothing a state can do changes this. Any state power to "nullify" unconstitutional federal laws has long been rejected. "

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01470.html

    Of course, Ron Paul can do fund rasisng with any preposterous claims he wants to make. This one's a dead duck.

    1. SparklingJewel profile image64
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      opinions are like you know what...everyone has one smile

      We shall see what the courts decide...it should, I hope, be an interesting and informing round of legal maneuvering... and whom ever  happens to be the judge for that particular case will determine as only he can do, from his perspective of the Constitution.

      interpretation is 9/10th of the law, so they say...

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you about opinions.. which is why I quoted WaPo rather than offering my own.  MY opinion - since you asked - is that  all but one of the AGs is republican and all of them are working their political futures by grandstanding at taxpayers expense.  The same is true of Ron Paul.

        1. SparklingJewel profile image64
          SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          ...and the democrats have not done the same...?

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            then we agree it's just grandstanding -

            1. SparklingJewel profile image64
              SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              it's not grandstanding if they get something Constitutionally aligned, having truly changed their rhetoric along with their soul and mind...if you are just talking about the AGs, I haven't watched them...but I do agree that most of the republican party establishment may be trying to control the TEA Party's message to conform to their own desires...that is still to be seen if they truly change their soul and mind as well as their rhetoric...

              1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The Republican Party Establishment could care less about the message. They want campaign contributions and votes in November. OF course if you look to see who's behind the Tea Party movement you find convicted sex ofender Dick Armey and Freedom Works, big-money  lobying firm DLA Piper, and follow the strings of big businees to DLA to Dick to Freedom Works to the Tea Party Movement.

                1. profile image0
                  sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Ok? Whats your point? Democrats are as pure as the driven snow?

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course not.

                    My point is that the Tea Party Movement cons their own people aboutt he origins and financing of the movement.  They want to claim that it's spontanious and grass roots, but check out Armey and  DLA Piper and Freedomworks, and you see it's a scam.

  4. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

    Down with ducks! Especially the dead ones!smile

    1. Sab Oh profile image58
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      How about the lame ones?

  5. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    Ron Paul may be a nice guy, but the Libertarian Party straddles the fence too much on too many issues.  Its Platform touts more of a free-for-all instead of freedom for all.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Meaning Ron Paul supports the idea of secular governement instead of the homophobic distortion of a Christian  thocracy Brenda wants

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It means he really has no set values.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          He has values, just not your values.

      2. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        For all of her sanctimonious blather, Brenda would be dead-set against a Christian theocracy in this country. She'd probably be stoned to death for getting a divorce and getting remarried. She is living a life far more removed from Christ's commandments than most of the gays and lesbians she loves moaning about.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You would be wrong.

          I wouldn't necessarily be against a Christian theocracy.
          I would, however, be against a religious one.
          Impossible for most people to tell the difference.
          Especially someone like you.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            A significant portion of the Tea Potty Movement is comprised of religious nuts who want to deny the separation of church and state. It's Sarah Palin's evangelical background that makes her the high priestess of the movement. Her lack of political qualifications is obvious, but she's likely the GOP nominee in 2012.  (rolling eyes)

            I believe once the religious component of the movement is recognized by the voters, it will be rejected.  Sarah tries to fly under the radar of perception, but it's not something she can conceal as a candidate.

            1. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I go to church every Sunday where do you get your facts? I've never heard any political anything at my church. It's ok for people to disagree with your opinion and I don't remember the left throwing out Acorn when they were exposed. So just be happy to be the kettle and quit calling everyone who doesn't agree with you black.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I said 'religious nuts'. I don't know if that's you or not. Certainly it doesn't apply to those Americans who go to church regularly but do not want their religious faith to become the law of the land.

                When Sarah Palin became mayor of Wasilla, she tried to impose censorship at the local library and the local mainstream Christians who elected her wouldn't have it. While this country self-identifies mostly Christian, there's not strong support for homophobia and censorship.

          2. donotfear profile image92
            donotfearposted 7 years ago in reply to this


            I understand what you are saying here.

          3. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You'd be against a religious theocracy but not a Christian theocracy?

            Classic Brendalogic.

  6. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Doug, not all conservatives are enamored with Palin - especially moderates-conservatives.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm glad. From listening to some on here you'd think they all were.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      habee - I know that not all conservatives - or even all Tea Party Pats are in love with Sarah. But I think she will come away with the marbles of the  movement and because the GOP spent the last 4 years driving out moderates, she's got the inside track.

      This is sad, because there are/were moderates in the GOP who understood how to get things done. None of them has a shot at running against Obama in 2012. That's good for the democrats, but the race should be against the best that the GOP can put up against the best the democrats have. Sarah Palin is a blithering idiot.

      Tina Fey should do well.

  7. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    UW, she definitely has her share of devotees, but I'm not one of them.

  8. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

    Palin is a hoot! She is right out there in the trenches blasting away! I admire her moxie but she doesn't have the experience to hold a top office and neither does Obama.

    1. Sab Oh profile image58
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Good points.

  9. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago

    I think the States are making a mistake. Rather then asking the federal government to rule if the law they created is unconstitutional, the states should just rule it so on their own nullify it and ignore it.

    How can the Federal Government, which only exists out of an agreement made between the States and was therefore not even a party to it's creation, rule on whether or not a law it created is constitutional?

    Seeing as it was the States that crafted the constitution, it should be the States that decide what is constitutional!

    1. Sab Oh profile image58
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They've tried that before. It didn't work out.

 
working