August 17, 2011


14th Amendment Information Websites:

Nullification websites,


     List of Documents Prepared and Hand-Delivered by CSBP


Title of Handout                                                                Date Delivered

1.   Personalized Letter to Gov., Lt. Gov.. AG and each State Senator & Rep.   –    01/31/2011

2.   NULLIFICATION – The “Rightful Remedy” for “ObamaCare”                         –    02/14/2011

3.  Nullification in a Nutshell                                                              –   03/01/2011

4.   It’s Time to Nullify the Real ID Act of 2005 and Its Regulations                  –   03/15/2011

5.  “ObamaCare” is Unconstitutional, therefore it is not a Law!                          –    03/29/2011

6.  There Is No Such Thing As “Case Law”                                                                  –    04/14/2011

7.  The So-called 14th Amendment Was Not Lawfully Adopted or Ratified!    –    04/26/2011

8.  It’s Time to Nullify Real ID and its Regulations                                                   –    05/10/2011

9.  Red tape chokes true liberty                                                                                     –    05/24/2011

10. It is unconstitutional to require and/or issue a “permit”                                 –    06/08/2011

to carry a concealed weapon!

11. American Jurisprudence:  Constitutional Law                                              –    06/21/2011

16 Am, Jur 2d Sections 58 and 59, plus Section 52

12. PennDOT, Real ID, Driver’s License, and Social Security Numbers.              –   07/05/2011

13. Certain Lawyers and Judges Played an Essential Role                                      –   07/19/2011

in the Destruction of Our Lawful Government!

14. What is the Original Intent and True Meaning                                                    –   08/02/2011

of the “Commerce Clause”?

Other Documents Prepared But Not Delivered:

A.    Nullification websites

B.    14th Amendment Information Website

What is the Original Intent and True Meaning of the “Commerce Clause”?

Consider the following parts of the “ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT” by Judge Roger Vinson, of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, PENSACOLA DIVISION, in Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT – Jan. 31, 2011.

[We encourage you to read the entire opinion and the referenced documents cited therein.]


Judge Vinson’s Analysis starts on page 19 and continues through page 37 of 78 in his Order.

… “The Commerce Clause is a mere sixteen words long, and it provides that Congress shall have the power:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 3. …

There is considerable historical evidence that in the early years of the Union, the word “commerce” was understood to encompass trade, and the intercourse, traffic, or exchange of goods; in short, “the activities of buying and selling that come after production and before the goods come to rest.” …

In a frequently cited law review article, one Constitutional scholar has painstakingly tallied each appearance of the word “commerce” in Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist [Papers], and discovered that in none of the ninety-seven appearances of that term is it ever used to refer unambiguously to activity beyond trade or exchange.  … (further examining each and every use of the word that appeared in the state ratification convention reports and finding “the term was uniformly used to refer to trade or exchange”). Even a Constitutional scholar who has argued for an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause (and, in fact, has been cited to, and relied on, by the defendants in this case) has acknowledged that when the Constitution was drafted and ratified, commerce “was the practical equivalent of the word ‘trade.’” See Robert L. Stern, That Commerce Which Concerns More States than One, 47 Harv. L. Rev. 1335, 1346 (1934) (“Stern”).

The Supreme Court’s first description of commerce (and still the most widely accepted) is from Gibbons v. Ogden, [22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)], which involved a New York law that sought to limit the navigable waters within the jurisdiction of that state. In holding that “commerce” comprehended navigation, and thus it fell within the reach of the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Marshall explained that “Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse.” 22 U.S. at 72. This definition is consistent with accepted dictionary definitions of the Founders’ time. See 1 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 1773) (commerce defined as “Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick”). And it remained a good definition of the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause interpretation throughout the Nineteenth Century. See, e.g., Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 20-21, 9 S. Ct. 6, 32 L. Ed. 346 (1888) (“The legal definition of the term [commerce] . . . consists in intercourse and traffic, including in these terms navigation and the transportation and transit of persons and property, as well as the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities”).

As Alexander Hamilton intimated in The Federalist, however, it did not at that time encompass manufacturing or agriculture. See The Federalist [Papers] No. 34, at 212-13 (noting that the “encouragement of agriculture and manufactures” was to remain an object of state expenditure).This interpretation of commerce as being primarily concerned with the commercial intercourse associated with the trade or exchange of goods and commodities is consistent with the original purpose of the Commerce Clause (discussed immediately below), which is entitled to “great influence in [its] construction.” See Gibbons, supra, at 188-89 11

[Note; the original “foot note 11” is presented in full at the end of this paper and is incorporated herein by reference.]

There is no doubt historically that the primary purpose behind the Commerce Clause was to give Congress power to regulate commerce so that it could eliminate the trade restrictions and barriers by and between the states that had existed under the Articles of Confederation. Such obstructions to commerce were destructive to the Union and believed to be precursors to war.

The Supreme Court has explained this rationale:

“When victory relieved the Colonies from the pressure for solidarity that war had exerted, a drift toward anarchy and commercial warfare between states began . . . [E]ach state would legislate according to its estimate of its own interests, the importance of its own products, and the local advantages or disadvantages of its position in a political or commercial view. This came to threaten at once the peace and safety of the Union. The sole purpose for which Virginia initiated the movement which ultimately produced the Constitution was to take into consideration the trade of the United States; to examine the relative situations and trade of the said states; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulation may be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony and for that purpose the General Assembly of Virginia in January of 1786 named commissioners and proposed their meeting with those from other states.

The desire of the Forefathers to federalize regulation of foreign and interstate commerce stands in sharp contrast to their jealous preservation of power over their internal affairs. No other federal power was so universally assumed to be necessary, no other state power was so readily relin[q]uished. There was no desire to authorize federal interference with social conditions or legal institutions of the states. Even the Bill of Rights amendments were framed only as a limitation upon the powers of Congress. The states were quite content with their several and diverse controls over most matters but, as Madison has indicated, “want of a general power over Commerce led to an exercise of this power separately, by the States, which not only proved abortive, but engendered rival, conflicting and angry regulations.”

H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 533-34, 69 S. Ct. 657, 93 L. Ed. 865 (1949) (citations and quotations omitted). The foregoing is a frequently repeated history lesson from the Supreme Court. In his concurring opinion in the landmark 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, for example, Justice Johnson provided a similar historical summary:

For a century the States [as British colonies] had submitted, with murmurs, to the commercial restrictions imposed by the parent State; and now, finding themselves in the unlimited possession of those powers over their own commerce, which they had so long been deprived of, and so earnestly coveted, that selfish principle which, well controlled, is so salutary, and which, unrestricted, is so unjust and tyrannical, guided by inexperience and jealousy, began to show itself in iniquitous laws and impolitic measures, from which grew up a conflict of commercial regulations, destructive to the harmony of the States, and fatal to their commercial interests abroad. This was the immediate cause that led to the forming of a convention.

Gibbons, supra, 22 U.S. at 224. In the Supreme Court’s 1888 decision in Kidd v. Pearson, Justice Lamar noted that “it is a matter of public history that the object of vesting in congress the power to regulate commerce . . . among the several states was to insure uniformity for regulation against conflicting and discriminatory state legislation.” See Kidd, supra, 128 U.S. at 21. More recently, Justice Stevens has advised that when “construing the scope of the power granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause . . . [i]t is important to remember that this clause was the Framers’ response to the central problem that gave rise to the Constitution itself,” that is, the Founders had “‘set out only to find a way to reduce trade restrictions.’” See EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 244-45, 103 S. Ct. 1054, 75 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring). The foregoing history is so “widely shared,” [see id. at 245 n.1], that Constitutional scholars with opposing views on the Commerce Clause readily agree on this point. Compare Stern, supra, at 1344 (“There can be no question, of course, that in 1787 [when] the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution . . . considered the need for regulating ‘commerce with foreign nations and among the several states,’ they were thinking only in terms of . . . the removal of barriers obstructing the physical movements of goods across state lines.”), with Bork & Troy, supra, at 858, 865 (“One thing is certain: the Founders turned to a federal commerce power to carve stability out of this commercial anarchy” and “keep the States from treating one another as hostile foreign powers”; in short, “the Clause was drafted to grant Congress the power to craft a coherent national trade policy, to restore and maintain viable trade among the states, and to prevent interstate war.”). Hamilton and Madison both shared this concern that conflicting and discriminatory state trade legislation “would naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars.” The Federalist [Papers] No. 7, at 37 (Hamilton); see also The Federalist No. 42, at 282 (Madison) (referencing the “unceasing animosities” and “serious interruptions of the public tranquility” that would inevitably flow from the lack of national commerce power).

To acknowledge the foregoing historical facts is not necessarily to say that the power under the Commerce Clause was intended to (and must) remain limited to the trade or exchange of goods, and be confined to the task of eliminating trade barriers erected by and between the states. The drafters of the Constitution were aware that they were preparing an instrument for the ages, not one suited only for the exigencies of that particular time. See, e.g., McCulloch, supra, 17 U.S. at 415 (the Constitution was “intended to endure for ages to come” and “to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs”) (Marshall, C.J.); Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 373, 30 S. Ct. 544, 54 L. Ed. 793 (1910)” ….

“11  As an historical aside, I note that pursuant to this original understanding and interpretation of “commerce,” insurance contracts did not qualify because “[i]ssuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce.” Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168, 183, 19 L. Ed. 357 (1868) (further explaining that insurance contracts “are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word” as they are not objects “of trade and barter,” nor are they “commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another, and then put up for sale”). That changed in 1944, when the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate the insurance business under the Commerce Clause. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assoc., 322 U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162, 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944). “Concerned that [this] decision might undermine state efforts to regulate insurance, Congress in 1945 enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Section 1 of the Act provides that ‘continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest,’ and that ‘silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States.’” Humana Inc. v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299, 306, 119 S. Ct. 710,   142 L. Ed.2d 753 (1999) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1011). Thus, ever since passage of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the insurance business has continued to be regulated almost exclusively by the states.”


It is well past time for those in Pennsylvania’s government to nullify Obamacare. Please do it Now!

Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

Certain Lawyers and Judges Played an Essential Role in the Destruction of Our Lawful Government!

Consider the following:

From the “PREFACE” of the book titled:






“It is appropriate that the Centennial observance of the Conference coincides with the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights. The concluding article of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, epitomizes the federal system the Constitution created. It reserves to the states “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states …” Because of this limitation, implicit in the original Constitution, nearly all private law – contracts, negotiable instruments, business organizations, marriage and divorce, for example – and most areas of criminal law, are left for definition and regulation by the legislatures and courts of the several states. For 200 years this autonomy of the States has been enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

For the nation’s first 100 years, this system of legal diversity worked fairly well, although in one sense the Civil War grew out of the decidedly non-uniform state law concerning slavery. But after that war, as the nation came together again, moved westward, expanded its borders, began to industrialize, and acquired the means of transcontinental travel, the need for a common, predictable, nation-wide legal system became crucial. There were at least two methods for unifying the legal systems of the states. State law could be preempted by the Federal Government through repeal of the Tenth Amendment, or by expansive interpretation of the commerce clause and other expressed powers delegated to Congress. Alternatively, the states could create a forum and a vehicle by which they could voluntarily agree to develop, and then separately adopt, uniform legislation on important subjects of common concern. That was the path chosen in 1891 when the Conference was conceived. It is probably not coincidence that the origin of the Conference occurred during the Centennial celebration for the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment.”  (Bold print added for emphasis)


Walter P. Armstrong, Jr., published by West Publishing Company in 1991.  (No ISBN provided)

Since 1892, the Commissioners have implemented all three alternatives stated above!


They and others have intentionally, in essence, abolished the 10th Amendment and greatly expanded the interpretation of the commerce clause and other expressed powers delegated

to Congress – all done unconstitutionally according to the original intent of the Constitution.


From the chapter titled: “THE BEGINNING” (on page 11):

“The report of the first conference says with pardonable immodesty:

             It is probably not too much to say that this is the most important

             juristic work undertaken in the United States since the adoption

             of the Federal Constitution.”

           Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

PennDOT, Real ID, Driver’s License, and Social Security Numbers.

An individual who exercises a right does not need permission from government to exercise that right.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”  Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania Constitution states in part, “…no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience….”

Court opinions have created the following criteria with respect to religious freedom:

For a free exercise claim to have any chance of success, two things must first be established.  First, it must be shown that the religious belief allegedly burdened by the government is central to one’s religious beliefs. Second, it must be shown that the religious belief that is allegedly burdened is sincerely held.  Once a good faith belief is established, the court’s inquiry should end:  there should be no attempt to determine whether the belief is true.

Since passage of the Real ID Act of 2005, PennDOT consistently refuses to issue a driver’s license to individuals who do not have a Social Security Number (SSN) because of their religious belief based on several scriptural passages.   The state is violating Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania Constitution because the driver’s license has become the de facto ID card needed to open a bank account, travel on an airline, or exercise other rights.  In other words, it no longer just applies to one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle or know the “rules of the road.”

Many individuals who do not have a SSN do have a tax ID number.

PennDOT has turned a right to open a checking account or fly on a domestic airline into a privilege, requiring one to have a SSN, which, among other things, violates religious beliefs of many citizens.

Maybe operating the “conveyance of the day” to exercise their right to travel without permission from government is the only options left.

The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness  and safety.  It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”  [Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784, 787; Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579,583]

Hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

          American Jurisprudence:  Constitutional Law

                                     16 Am, Jur 2d Sections 58 and 59, plus Section 52

“2.  State Constitutions [Sections 58 and 59]

Section 58.   Generally

A state constitution is the supreme written will of the people of a state regarding the framework for their government and is subject only to the limitations found in the Federal Constitution.  It is the basic and supreme law of a state.  It must be interpreted and given effect as the paramount law of the state, according to the spirit and intent of its framers.  State constitutions derive their force, not from the conventions which framed them, but from the people who ratified them, and the intent to be arrived at when ascertaining the meaning of constitutional provisions is that of the people.

A state constitution declares general principles or policies and establishes a foundation for the law and the government, and is the direct and basic expression of the sovereign will.  It is the mandate of a sovereign people to its servants and representatives, and no one of them has a right to ignore or disregard its mandates; the legislature, the executive officers, and the judiciary cannot lawfully act beyond its limitations.   Thus, it is also the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of government with respect to all matters covered by it, and must control as it is written until it is changed by the authority which established it.

While the text of a state constitution must always be the primary guide to the purpose of a constitutional provision, it must be interpreted in a principled way that takes into account the history, structure, and underlying values of the document.  Among the various interests that state governments seek to protect and promote, those interests represented by the state constitution are paramount to legislative ones, and thus no function of government can be discharged in disregard of or in opposition to the fundamental law.

Constitutional provisions control in any case of conflict with lesser laws, such as statutes, local ordinances, or administrative regulations.  Thus, acts passed by the legislature inconsistent therewith are invalid.  Neither an emergency nor economic necessity justifies a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantees, nor can the common law or public policy considerations override constitutional mandates.  It is the obvious duty of the legislature to act in subordination to the state constitution, for with reference to the subjects upon which the constitution assumes to speak, its declarations and necessary implications are conclusive upon the legislature.  Thus, constitutional provisions prevent the enactment of any law which extinguishes or limits the powers conferred by the constitution.

A state constitution is equally binding on the political subdivisions and courts of the state, and on every department and officer and every citizen.  Any attempt to do that which is proscribed in any manner other than that prescribed or to do that which is prohibited is repugnant to that supreme and paramount law and is invalid.

Section 59.  Effect of emergency

The principles already stated with reference to the exercise of powers during emergency and the relation thereto of the provisions of the United States Constitution[1] are equally applicable to the provisions, inhibitions, and guarantees of the various state constitutions.  Thus, no new power or authority is created by a public emergency, although such a situation may disclose the existence of latent power and may call for liberal construction of constitutional powers.

Many state constitutions or legislation enacted pursuant to such constitutions, provide for the exercise, usually by the state’s governor, of emergency powers, although some do not so provide in specific situations.”

(Note: All citation references have been omitted in the interest of time and space.)

[1]  (from the discussion in Am Jur 16 2d Section 52 on “effect of emergency”  with respect to the Federal Constitution)

Section 52.  –  Effect of emergency

No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution.  An emergency, however, while it cannot create power, increase granted power, or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon the power granted or reserved, may allow the exercise of power already in existence, but not exercised except during an emergency.

The circumstances in which the executive branch may exercise extraordinary powers under the Constitution are very narrow.  The danger must be immediate and impending, or the necessity urgent for the public service, such as will not admit of delay, and where the action of the civil authority would be too late in providing the  means which the occasion calls for.  For example, there is no basis in the Constitution for the seizure of steel mills during a wartime labor dispute, despite the President’s claim that the war effort would be crippled if the mills were shut down.

IIII  Observation: The Supreme Court has not denied the reality of dangers from foreign or internal conflicts.  Rather, it has recognized the need to respect constitutional requirements even in troubled times.  Security interests may be affected by fluctuations in international trade and the supply of natural resources, by social unrest at home and abroad, and by public disclosure of policy deliberations; but such events cannot routinely justify invasions of privacy or restrictions on expression without devaluing and eventually destroying those rights.  Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that authority of an emergency nature to protect national security information is vested in the President as head of the executive branch and as Commander in Chief.”

Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

It is unconstitutional to require and/or issue a “permit” to carry a concealed weapon!


   Question: Generally, does a Citizen need a “Permit” or a “License” to exercise a constitutionally protected, secured and guaranteed Right?


    First consider the definitions of the words: “Permit” and “License” found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, which states, in part for each word, the following:


Permit:  In general, any document which grants a person the right to do something. A license or grant of authority to do a thing.  …  A written license or warrant, issued by a person in authority, empowering the grantee to do some act not forbidden by law, but not allowable without authority.

License:  The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowable.  … A license is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit.

Therefore, when someone applies to government for a “permit” or “license”, he or she is saying that they wish to do something that is unlawful or illegal and to do something that cannot be done without government’s permission. This request admits that the government, as licensor, has authority or jurisdiction over the person, as licensee, and over the subject of the application. Further, the licensee waives their constitutional protections; admits that they will follow all of the statutes, codes, regulations, rules, etc., that exist, and those that will be created in the future, with respect to the requested “permit” or “license”; and that if they are cited for a violation of the said statutes, codes, etc., they are guilty unless they can prove either they did not do that which they are accused of doing, or the citation contains one or more substantive errors.  This is not a right, but rather a privilege given by those in government. What the government gives, the government can take away!

But, if a natural person has a constitutionally secured, protected and guaranty right, he or she does not need government’s permission to exercise that right and government is prohibited from creating any restrictions on the lawful exercise of that right by a free Citizen. The exercise of a right cannot be converted into a crime.  Further, if a natural person is tricked into applying for, or accepting a “permit” or “license” concerning a God given and/or constitutionally protected right, those involved in the trickery commit, at a minimum, fraud.

The Black’s Law Dictionary definition for the word “Fraud” is, in part: “An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right.  A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it

be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture.”

So, for example, requiring a Citizen of Pennsylvania to obtain a “permit” to carry a gun concealed is prohibited by Article I, Section 21, Right to Bear Arms, of the “Declaration of Rights” in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This Section states: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense    of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” This means exactly what it says and needs no additional interpretation and/or “construction”.  Further, Article I, Section 25, Reservation of Powers in People, of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: “To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.”  (See Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 80, 91 & 92 (1903))

Therefore, passing such an alleged “gun control law” at any level of government is unconstitutional and those involved in this prohibited activity have committed and/or are committing multiple serious crimes and have violated and/or are violating their solemn constitutional “oath of office”.

It is the constitutional duty and responsibility of all those in government to read, study, understand and always strictly “support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United State and the Constitution of this Commonwealth ….”   Please perform your official duties and responsibilities with fidelity at all times!

Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

The following is a true, correct and complete reproduction of the original document:

Letters to the Editor

        Red tape chokes true liberty

                                                              DAILY LOCAL NEWS, West Chester, Pa. Sun. April 23, 1995

True liberty and freedom is the ability to do something without a permit, license, or reporting from or to the government.  Look at your daily activities; what can you do without a license or permit from the government?

If I want to drive with my dog to the shore to walk on the beach and fish, I may need the following permits, stamps or licenses:

Drivers license, auto registration, safety inspection, emissions inspection, certificate of insurance, dog license, proof of certain dog vaccinations, beach tag, ticket to cross the river, parking permit, and fishing license. Some states require a permit to transport fish back across state lines, some fish require a special stamp, some fish require a report of catch, and if the fish have value I may have to report their value on my income tax return.

If I catch many fish and want to sell a few to offset the cost of my trip, I may need a commercial fishing license, a food handler’s license and special food handling equipment.  This, then, may require me to get a commercial driver’s license since I am transporting a product on the highways. I am now clearly involved in interstate commerce which requires me to file various reports with the federal government as well as to comply with OSHA regulations.

If I buy a six-pack at the shore I should not bring any extras back into Pennsylvania without filing out a special form to pay the tax.  If I bring back more than a couple cases, I may be considered an importer in which case I may be required to spend weeks of time and thousands of dollars on the application. If the rod or reel was made outside the U.S., a sticker should be attached to them indicating that they passed customs.  If I fillet the fish and throw the carcass to the gulls or crabs, I may be liable for a $5,000 federal fine for pollution.  If I throw the carcass out on the side of the road, that is littering, a $200 fine.  If I bury the fish, should I first get a permit to operate a landfill?  If I bury the fish in a field containing an endangered species, I should file an environmental impact statement with the federal and state governments and then get permits to proceed.  I shouldn’t burn the fish without an open-air burning permit.

If I feed the carcass to my dog and he chokes on the bones, I may be guilty of cruelty to animals, a $300 fine.  Oops, I forgot that I left my target gun in the truck of my car.  Boy, I hope the B.A.T.F. doesn’t find out or I may be ambushed by federal agents wearing masks and flack vest.

Ah!  The simple pleasures of life to walk your dog on the beach and fish.  Our founding fathers would be so pleased that only 200 years later our government has done so much to so many for so long.  Perhaps, Congress and state legislatures should pass one new law this year — a law that repeals all laws passed since 1950.  Think of it as spring house cleaning.  We seem to have lost all notions of freedom and liberty.


West Chester

                                                                                                                    James P. MacElree II  is a Common Pleas

                                                                                                              Court judge and former district attorney of  

                                                                                                              Chester County.


  (Note: William Taylor Reil, a constitutional scholar, believes the date “1950”, should actually be 1860)



                 Hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

It’s Time to Nullify Real ID and its Regulations

Fifteen states have passed laws to prohibit implementing Real ID.  Real ID is nothing more than a way for the Federal Government to capture biometric data and have control over our lives.

Real ID regulations require states to meet benchmarks to be in full compliance with the act.  The sad situation is that DOTs and DMVs of states who prohibit implementing Real ID are nevertheless implementing benchmarks.

Notice where Homeland Security says Pennsylvania stands.

REAL ID Implementation Status State / Territory
Submitted full compliance certification packages to DHS1 Conn., Del., Md., S.D., Tenn. (5)
Self-certified: Issuing materially compliant licenses (meeting the first 18 benchmarks) + compliance mark (gold star) Ala., Fla., Ind., Utah (4)
Self-certified: Issuing materially compliant licenses (meeting the first 18 benchmarks) Ark., D.C., Iowa, Kan., Ky., Miss., N.J. (7)
Committed to meeting material compliance but need time Colo., Hawaii, Ill., Neb., Ohio, Puerto Rico, R.I., Texas, Va., W.Va., Wis., Wyo. (12)
Certifiable Enhanced Driver’s License programs N.Y., Mich, Vt., Wash. (4)
Committed to meeting 15 of 18 benchmarks Ariz., Calif., Ga., Minn, Mo., Nev., N.H., N.C., N.D., Pa., S.C., U.S. Virgin Islands (12)
Will not meet four or more benchmarks in the next 12 months Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Idaho, La., Maine, Mass., Mont., N.M., Okla., Ore., N. Marianas2 (12)

Is it constitutional for a government agency to take one’s biometric characteristic without the person’s knowledge, probable cause or a warrant?

Is it constitutional for PennDOT to deny an individual a driver’s license if the individual doesn’t have a social security number due to religious beliefs?

Is it OK for a government agency to subject individuals to identity theft by storing one’s name, address, date of birth and social security number in one database which is accessible by thousands of people, both state employees and contractor personnel?

Does the US Constitution grant the Federal Government powers not listed in Article I, Section 8, of the said document or does the 10th Amendment address non-granted powers?

Below are the 18 benchmarks addressed in the Real ID Regulations.  Notice that the Federal Government wants the facial image captured even if the driver’s license is not issued.  Do you know why?   Does it agree with our American principles?

Interim Benchmarks (Material Compliance Checklist)

Does This State:

  1. Subject each applicant to mandatory facial image capture and retain such image even if a drivers license (DL) or identification card (ID) is not issued.
  1. Have each applicant sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that the information presented is true and correct, and retain this document pursuant to subsection 37.11.
  1. Require an individual to present at least on of the source documents listed in subsections 37.11 (c)(1)(i) through (x) when establishing identity.
  1. Require documentation of:

a) Date of birth

b) Social Security Number

c) Address of principal residence

d) Evidence of lawful status

5.   Have documented exceptions process that meets the requirements established in 37.11 (h)(1)-(3) (if states choose to have such a process)

6.   Make reasonable efforts to ensure that the applicant does not have more than one DL or ID already issued by that state under a different identity.

7.   Verify lawful status through SAVE or another method approved by DHS

8.   Verify Social Security account numbers with the Social Security Administration or another method approved by DHS

9.   Surface (front and back) of cards include the following printed information in Latin alpha-numeric characters:

a) Full legal name

b) Date of birth

c) Gender

d) Unique DL/ID number

e) Full facial digital photo

f) Address of principal residence (with exceptions)

g) Signature ((with exceptions)

h) Date of transaction

i) Expiration date

j) State or territory of issuance

11.             Commit to mark materially compliant DL and IDs with a DHS approved security marking

12. Issue temporary or limited term licenses to all individuals with temporary lawful status and tie license validity to the end of lawful status

13. Have a documented security plan for DMV operations in accordance with the requirements set forth in Subsection 37.11

14. Require all employees handling source documents or issuing DL or IDs to attend and complete the AAMVA approved (or equivalent) fraudulent recognition traing and security awareness training.

15. Conduct name based and fingerprint based criminal history and employment eligibility checks on all employees in covered positions or an alternative procedure approved by DHS

16. Commit to be in material compliance with subparts A through D no later than January 1, 2010 or within 90 days of submission of document, whichever is earlier

17. Clearly state on the face of non-compliant DLs or IDs that the card is not acceptable for official purposes, except for license renewed or reissued under subsection 37.11

It’s time to stop PennDOT ‘s collaboration with Homeland Security.  It’s time to govern by the rule of law, i.e., the US and Pennsylvania Constitutions.  Let’s pass a bill to nullify the Real ID Act and the regulations thereunder and prohibit its implementation in Pennsylvania.

The So-called 14th Amendment Was Not Lawfully Adopted or Ratified!

Our April 12, 2011 handout included the statement: “Until after the War between     the States and the unconstitutional 14th Amendment …”. This may have caused some reader uncertainty. The following are some of the many factual, evidentiary sources that emphatically prove the total lack of validity of the so-called 14th Amendment:

There are many unconstitutional actions that have contributed to the destruction of constitutional governments in the States of the Union and the United States of America, but the so-called “14th Amendment” was the first major unconstitutional step taken after the “War between the States”.  The statement that “the 14th Amendment is and always has been unconstitutional” is supported by extensive and compelling documented evidence.  We offer the following as a starting point and suggest that you obtain copies  of the remaining referenced documents herein either in a law library or on the internet:

1)     State of Utah, Plaintiff, v. Kipp Phillips, et al., Defendants, 540 Pacific Recorder, 2d Series, 936, 941 & 942 (1975)

Justice Ellett (concurring & commenting on the dissenting opinion) states, in part:

… The dissenting opinion asserts that “the Fourteenth Amendment is a part of the Constitution of the United States.” While this same assertion has been made by the United States Supreme Court, that court has never held that the amendment was legally adopted. I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was property approved and adopted. 3

Footnote 3 states: See Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968).

2)     Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968)

(This is an excellent discussion of the history of the so-called 14th Amendment.)

3)  Tulane Law Review 28 (1953)


By: Walther J. Suthon, Jr., Esquire

 4) South Carolina Law Quarterly  – Vol. 11 (1959)


By: Pinckney McElwee, Esquire

5)                                   Congressional Record

Proceedings and Debates of the 90th Congress First Session

Volume 113 – Part 12  June 12, 1967 to June 20, 1967

Pages 15309 to 16558

From –Pages 15641 thru 15646  – June 13, 1967


This June 13, 1967 entry in the Congressional Record ends on page 15646 by stating the following:

It should need no further citations to sustain the proposition that neither the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment nor its ratification by the required three-fourths of the States in the Union were in compliance with the requirements of Article V of the Constitution.

When the mandatory provisions of the Constitution are violated, the Constitution itself strikes with nullity the Act that did violence to its provisions. Thus, the Constitution strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment.

The Courts, bound by oath to support the Constitution, should review all of the evidence herein submitted and measure the facts proving violations of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution with Article V, and finally render judgment declaring said purported Amendment never to have been adopted as required by the Constitution.

The Constitution makes it the sworn duty of the judges to uphold the Constitution which strikes with nullity the 14th Amendment.

And, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out for the unanimous Court in Marbury v. Madison ( 1 Cranch 138 @ 179 )

“The framers of the constitution contemplated the instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as the legislature.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?”

“If such be the real state of things, that is worse than solemn mockery. To proscribe or to take the oath, becomes equally a crime.”

“Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions … courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The federal courts actually refuse to hear argument, on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and evidence as above.

Only an aroused public sentiment in favor of preserving the Constitution and our institutions and freedoms under constitutional government, and the future security of our country, will break the political barrier which now prevents judicial consideration on the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment.

(Bold print added for emphasis)

The so-called “14th Amendment” is and always has been unconstitutional. All actions taken based on these unlawful, null and void actions, are likewise null and void. It is well past time to recognize and understand the importance of these facts and law and to nullify all actions based on the so-called 14th Amendment. For a house build on sand must surely fall. We are experiencing the fall of our State and federal governments.

And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (The Holy Bible -John 8:32)

           Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

   There Is No Such Thing As “Case Law”

                                                   By William Taylor Reil

     The Founding Fathers who wrote the founding documents of both the States and the United States of America knew nothing of “case law”.  They were well-educated men and were learned in the law. Almost all were also devout Christians.  Until after the War Between the States and the unconstitutional so called 14th Amendment, State Supreme Courts provided the final decisions and opinions in most cases. The courts clearly understood the difference between the State and the Federal governments before 1868. That is not to say that corruption did not exist in government, including the courts, before that time. In fact, history confirms that the original method of appointing judges to the courts in Pennsylvania was changed by a constitutional amendment in 1850 to that of electing them because the Courts were so corrupt at that time.

The case method, which ultimately led to case decisions being called “case law”, was created by a law student at Harvard named Christopher Columbus Langdell. Langdell had first gone to Harvard College as a sophomore in 1848 at age 22, an age at which most students had already graduated. He stayed at Harvard College for only a year and did not graduate. After reading law for a year and a half at a law office, Langdell entered the Harvard Law School in November of 1851 where he studied for three years. During this time he repeatedly expounded to others about his “case method”. Among those who listened to Langdell with great admiration was a young chemistry student named Charles William Eliot. Charles Eliot became the President of Harvard in 1869. For sixteen years after leaving Harvard, Langdell practiced law in New York City where he, Langdell, become known as the “lawyer’s lawyer”.

In 1870 President Eliot sought out Langdell and made him Dane Professor of the Harvard Law School.  Professor Langdell immediately introduced his “case method” at Harvard. Shortly thereafter all of the other law professors then at Harvard left because they disagreed with the validity of the “case method” as a way of teaching law. The “case method” was soon introduced at the other “ivy league” law schools, and by the early 20th century, it was used in all of America’s law schools. C.C. Langdell and James Barr Ames, an Assistant Professor under Langdell and Langdell’s successor as Dane Professor of the Harvard Law School in 1895, changed the way law was taught in America. More importantly they were very influential in eliminating the use of the Bible, history, Blackstone’s Commentaries, the Constitutions and references to prior case opinions as the basis of authorities for court decisions, to primarily, if  not exclusively, using only case opinion references.

Ultimately, the repeated use of the term “case law” by attorneys and judges, who had been taught by the “case method”, led to the general acceptance of the term (“case law”) in the twentieth century. However, in 1842 Justice Story stated, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States in Swift v. Tyson [16 Peter 1, 18 (1842)], the following concerning case decisions and opinions:

“In the ordinary use of language it will hardly be contended that the decisions of Courts constitute laws. They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are; and not of themselves laws.”

This was repeated in Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 83 (1937)


                        Only God, the People and their Legislators can make law.


                                         There is no such thing as “Case Law”



      Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

“ObamaCare” is Unconstitutional, therefore it is not a Law!

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

[Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174,176 (1803)]

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

[Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)]



The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

[Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”

[Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise:  Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.

[Watson vs. City of Memphis, 373 US 526, 535 (1963)]

The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.

[Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516 (1884)]

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

[16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256]

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that ever act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principle; that the servant is above his master; that    the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by   virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

[The Federalist Papers, No. 78: Hamilton]

   Can only the courts determine that “ObamaCare” is Unconstitutional?  NO!


“Section 2.  All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. ….”

[Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania]

So, any individual, always being responsible for his decisions, can determine if something is unconstitutional. Since the people give their authority to those in government, at all levels, in trust

to act as the people’s servants/agents, each and every individual in government, as a matter of constitutional duty and responsibility per their “oath of office”, must determine if what they are going to do is constitutional before they act and whether the action(s) of others in government is or has been done constitutionally. If anything is determined to be unconstitutional, it is similarly the duty and responsibility of those in government to do everything lawfully possible to correct the error(s).

Therefore, those in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government in Pennsylvania should immediately declare “ObamaCare” to be unconstitutional and take the “Rightful Remedy”        to not implement or enforce this unconstitutional Act in any way. This is lawful State Nullification!


        Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

It’s Time to Nullify the Real ID Act of 2005 and Its Regulations

The Director of Homeland Security (DHS) has once again extended implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005 until January 2013.  Fifteen states have passed bills to nullify or prohibit implementation of Real ID in their states and nine additional states have passed resolutions denouncing Real ID.  What most legislators don’t realize is that even though laws have been passed to nullify or prohibit Real ID, state Departments of Transportation (DOT) or Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV) are implementing Real ID regulation benchmarks including facial recognition biometrics.  PennDOT is also implementing these DHS regulation benchmarks.

In addition, under DHS Real ID regulations, state DOTs or DMVs are implementing international standards, making the driver’s license an international ID Card.  In March 2007, the DHS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking document stated in footnote 17 of page 68:

“17 The relevant ICAO standard is ICAO 9303 Part 1 Vol 2, specifically ISO/IEC 19794-5 – Information technology – Biometric data interchange formats – Part 5: Face image data, which is incorporated into ICAO 9303.”

Real ID is our nation’s global enrollment system of identification and financial control.  ICAO is an acronym for International Civil Aviation Organization, an agency of the United Nations.

Real ID is unconstitutional and PennDOT is violating our rights while they implement Real ID benchmarks.  Violations include:

  1. Our right to privacy.  PennDOT is capturing biometric data (using facial recognition software) without probable cause or warrant and storing the data in a database mandated by DHS regulations.  This is no different than taking a fingerprint or DNA of an individual.  Although we have not done anything wrong, privacy is not about hiding a wrong; it’s about an inherent, God-given human right and a necessity of maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.  A high resolution camera operator could easily determine an individual’s identity via biometrics.
  2. Our right to religious freedom.  “…no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” ( Article I, Section 3, Pennsylvania Constitution )  PennDOT will not issue or renew a driver’s license if the individual does not have a social security number.   If participating in social security, an insurance program, violates my right of conscience, why do elected officials allow PennDOT to continue to violate the Declaration of Rights?  DHS regulations require the social security number be included in the database.
  3. Subjecting us to identity theft.  We “…have certain inherent and indefeasible rights… of acquiring, possessing and protecting property….” ( Article I, Section 1, Pennsylvania Constitution)  By following DHS regulations, PennDOT has established a database which includes one’s name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number.  Identity theft happened in New York State last year.  Over 200 individuals had their identities stolen.  The thieves made off with over $1M before getting caught.  It only takes a couple of bad apples with access to the database to steal one’s ID.


   Nullification in a Nutshell

WRITTEN BY PATRICK KREY  – “New American” Magazine  – THURSDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2010

The “Principles of 98,” as they came to be known, are rarely discussed in modern history lectures even though these are integral to understanding how our federal Constitution was intended to function. These are the principles of state interposition or nullification that assert that if the federal government fails to check itself through one of its three branches, then it would be up to the states to rein in the feds.

The main basis for the theory is that the states created the national government when they joined the compact and not the other way around. The states therefore retained the power to judge for themselves the constitutionality of federal laws and reserved the right to refuse to enforce them if they went beyond their constitutionally delegated powers. As a matter of fact, nullification was used even before the implementation of the Constitution when the Colonists nullified laws made by the British Monarchy. The concept of a state nullifying a federal law simply means that a state refuses to comply with the law or permit its enforcement within state boundaries.

The man widely regarded as the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, described just how a federal system would work in his essay Federalist No. 51. Madison, encouraging his fellow countrymen to ratify the newly drafted Constitution, described a system of horizontal as well as vertical checks and balances between the federal and state governments — a system known as federalism. “Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

Madison, joined by Thomas Jefferson, would later go on to expand upon this in the famous Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. The federal government had recently passed the blatantly unconstitutional and shameful Alien and Sedition Acts to silence and intimidate political enemies. Those despicable acts were instituted by advocates of unwritten constitutional power and a more robust central government. Both Jefferson and Madison argued that the states constitutionally had the right to refuse not only to comply with such unconstitutional actions of the federal government, but also to actively prevent the feds from enforcing them within their state boundaries.

These visionaries and their resolutions gave a voice to a peaceful revolution of constitutional principles that would govern this great nation for years to come. Many states have in fact utilized state nullification to check the federal government throughout the history of our Republic. From the Fugitive Slave Act to unpopular tariffs, states did indeed nullify federal laws they found to be unconstitutional.

Nullification has started to be mentioned in the news, as states have once more started to utilize the practice to resist federal overreaching. Many states have either passed or proposed legislation or amendments to their state constitutions that nullify federal laws in the areas of firearms, medical marijuana, and healthcare, to name just a few.

Re-produced and Hand-delivered by members of CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

NULLIFICATION – The “Rightful Remedy” for “ObamaCare”

Please seriously consider and then lawfully act upon the following facts and law:

Pennsylvania was one of the original States that ratified the1787 Constitution, which created the United States of America as a constitutional republican form of government.

The States, as originally intended, are the superiors parties to the Constitution for the United States of America. This Compact gave limited, enumerated powers to the central government, which the Framers and the States’ Conventions of their People had created. (The creator is always superior to its creation, unless specifically stated otherwise) The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, ratified on December 15, 1791, further clarified the limitations of the delegated powers granted to the USA and the States by the People. Therefore, the United States government, particularly its Courts, are not superior to the States, except with respect to the limited powers specifically enumerated in the federal Constitution.  Thus, each State of the Union retains the lawful authority to challenge any action of those in the government of the United States of America that exceeds its specific, limited, enumerated powers. This is called “Interposition” or “Nullification”.

Kentucky became the 15th State of these United States of America in 1792.

In November of 1799, the word “Nullification” was used for the first time in a Resolution passed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in support of its and Virginia’s1798 Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectfully.  These Resolutions proclaimed the “Alien and Sedition Laws” to be usurpations of powers delegated to Congress. Kentucky and Virginia, while pronouncing their continued commitment to remain in the Union, emphatically stated that they could not stand silent and thus seemingly acquiesce to these gross and blatant usurpations of powers not delegated to the central government in the Constitution. (See: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.’s 2010 Book – titled: Nullification – How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century  (ISBN 978-1-59698-149-2))

Pennsylvania is one of the 26 States of the Union that are Plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, commonly known as “Obamacare”, in the Case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. (Case Docket No.: 3:10-CR-91-RV/EMT)

Governor Tom Corbett, then Pennsylvania’s Attorney General, officially claimed that “ObamaCare” is unconstitutional when, on March 23, 2010, he joined Pennsylvania in the Case filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division by the State of Florida’s AG, Pam Bondi.

On January 31, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled that “Obamacare” is unconstitutional.

In his January 31st decision, Judge Vinson discussed at length, starting on page 19 of his 78 page opinion, the history of the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution for the United States. He confirmed, using extensive documented references, that the original intent of the “Commerce Clause” was to make interstate commerce “regular” or consistent among the several States of the Union, thus encouraging interstate commerce by eliminating the then destructive practice by several States, under the Articles of Confederation, of imposing various tariffs and taxes on products sold across State lines. He also confirmed that insurance contracts were not considered by the Framers to be “articles of commerce”.

On January 31, 2011, before knowing about the ruling by Judge Vinson, members of the County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania (CSBP) hand-delivered a one page, personalized letter and a copy of Sheriff Richard Mack’s booklet titled “The Victory For State Sovereignty” to the office of the Governor, Lt. Gov., Acting AG and each State Senator and Representative. Please read, or re-read, these documents.

It is well past time for this State to send a clear, emphatic message to all those in Washington, D.C.  that: “ObamaCare” is, and always has been, unconstitutional, and thus is null and void.  Therefore, Pennsylvania shall not participate in this unlawful and very costly “federal regulatory program”.

Nullification is the “Rightful Remedy” for “ObamaCare”.       

County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania

c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pa. 19520

County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania

c/o P.O. Box 211

Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

January 31, 2011

State Senator Dominic Pileggi

Main Capitol Building, Room 350

State Capitol Complex

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

Dear Senator Pileggi,

Enclosed with this letter from CSBP is an 18-page booklet titled: “The Victory For State Sovereignty”. This document, written by Retired Arizona Sheriff, Richard Mack, is an abridged presentment of the 1997 opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Mack/Printz v. USA case. The booklet also contains a “forward” and “summary” by Sheriff Mack. We sincerely request that you read this very short booklet and apply its lessons to all attempts by those in the United States government to impose “federal regulatory programs” on any Pennsylvania Citizen and/or on the Pennsylvania government or any of the political subdivisions thereof.

This case was a 10th Amendment challenge, initiated by Sheriff Richard Mack, to the constitutionality of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violation Prevention Act.

Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion of the Court.  The Court’s Order states:

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivision, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

There are many alleged laws that are either unconstitutional or unconstitutionally applied.

We also realize that many individuals in government, particularly attorneys, say that “you must do what the United States government says” or that “the issue is a federal matter and the State cannot question it.” Clearly, as the Mack case opinion confirms, those in State government must always question the constitutionality of everything today, especially the commands of the United States government.  Each branch of the State government has a duty and responsibility to “nullify” unconstitutional mandates. Some current examples of federal regulatory programs that we think should be immediately “nullified” are: “Obamacare” (2010), “Real ID” (2005) and the “Food Safety Act” (2010).  There are obviously many other alleged laws which must be nullified.

To learn more about nullification, we recommend that you obtain and read the 2010 book: NULLIFICATION – HOW TO RESIST FEDERAL TYRANNY IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.  – ISBN 978-1-59698-149-2.

We look forward to continue working with you and others to help understand and lawfully solve the very serious problems that confront us all.

Sincerely yours,

William Taylor Reil and Donna Fike

Co-Coordinators of CSBP



June 15, 2011


Farmers speak out: GMOs are a trap that Monsanto is using to take over agriculture

Friday, August 19, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Most Americans have no idea just how pervasive genetically-modified organisms (GMO) have become throughout the food supply. Predatory marketing practices have lured many farmers into converting over to GMOs, and craftily-designed, proprietary growing systems have kept them there. Meanwhile, multinational biotechnology companies like Monsanto effectively seize the reigns of agriculture and dictate how it will proceed from here.

In the short, but highly informative, documentary Farmer to Farmer: The Truth About GM Crops, family farmer Michael Hart interviews a number of farmers in the US about their experiences growing GM crops. He also asks them whether or not they would recommend GM crop systems to other farmers, particularly those in the UK and Europe that are currently being pushed to adopt them.
The story continues here.

Proof that the FDA’s assault on raw milk has nothing to do with consumer safety
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of
(NaturalNews) An astonishing two-thirds of all fresh chicken meat sold in grocery stores today is contaminated with salmonella (…). Diet soda is laced with aspartame, a chemical sweetener made from the feces of genetically engineered bacteria (…). “Natural” corn chips are made from genetically modified corn plants linked to widespread infertility when consumed by mammals (

Processed meats are laced with cancer-causing sodium nitrite ( and everything from soups to salad dressings is “enhanced” with the chemical excitotoxin known as MSG which promotes obesity (

Throughout the food industry, blueberries are faked using artificial colors, corn syrup and antifreeze liquids used to winterize vehicles (…). Milk fats are artificial modified through the process of homogenization, which makes them dangerous for human health (…).

The story continues here.

Court rules organic farmers can sue conventional, GMO farmers whose pesticides                                                ‘trespass’ and contaminate their fields

Wednesday, August 03, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
NaturalNews) Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops — and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them — are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota’s Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.

Oluf and Debra Johnson’s 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson’s farm.

The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson’s farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season’s crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
The story continues here.

Rawesome Food raid videos begin to emerge from the scene where federal terrorists vandalized raw milk business

Wednesday, August 03, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of (See all articles…)

(NaturalNews) From the SWAT-style armed raid on the raw milk buying club known as Rawesome Foods, clandestine video footage is starting to emerge. Although the footage is shaky and low quality (from a cell phone), it shows law enforcement thugs stealing raw milk, cheese, vegetables and even mangos from the Rawesome Foods store and loading them up into a large truck.

NaturalNews was sent these videos by people on the scene. Watch them at:…

The same people from the raid also told us that they witnessed law enforcement pouring all their raw milk down the drain. Essentially, the cops, FDA and CDC were engaged in VANDALISM against a health food business.

Make no mistake: This is law enforcement engaged in acts of terrorism against small farmers and honest raw foods retailers. These are mob-style tactics of intimidation, business disruption, cash confiscation and inventory destruction. Chicago gangster mobs couldn’t have done a better job!

The story continues here.

Hungary destroys all GMO maize fields

Posted on July 16, 2011 by geobear7| 7 Comments

Some 400 hectares of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds have been destroyed throughout Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar said.

The GMO maize has been ploughed under, said Lajos Bognar, but pollen has not spread from the maize, he added. Unlike several EU members, GMO seeds are banned in Hungary.

Authorities have been checking for GMO crops since the beginning of this year as a new regulation came in force this March which stipulates GMO checks before seeds are introduced to the market.

The checks will continue despite the fact that seed traders are obliged to make sure that their products are GMO free, Bognar said.

Compensation unlikely

Controllers have found Pioneer and Monsanto products among the seeds planted. The free movement of goods within the EU means that authorities will not investigate how the seeds arrived in Hungary but they will check where the goods can be found, Bognar said.

Regional public radio reported that the two biggest international seed producing companies are affected in the matter and GMO seeds could have been sown on up to thousands of hectares in the country.

Local farmers complain that the use of GMO seeds has only been revealed now when it is too late to sow again and the entire year’s harvest has been lost.

Another problem is that the company that distributed the seeds in Baranya county is under liquidation, therefore if any compensation is paid by the international seed producers, the money will be paid primarily to that company’s creditors, rather than the farmers.

Criminal Gardening — Grow too much food, and you’ll be fined

Dr. Brownstein: Choose Unrefined Salt Over ‘Toxic’ Table Salt

Monday, May 2, 2011 9:20 AM

Recent survey conducted by the American Heart Association shows that many Americans are confused about salt options available at grocery stores, but Newsmax Health contributor Dr. David Brownstein says that of the salt choices available — refined vs. unrefined — unrefined salt is the healthiest form.

Unrefined salt, which contains more than 80 minerals, is better for the body compared to refined (regular) table salt, which has all its minerals removed and takes on toxic heavy metals during processing, including aluminum. Refined salt is a “toxic substance” that should be avoided, says Brownstein, editor of “The Natural Way to Health” newsletter.

Read more: Dr. Brownstein: Choose Unrefined Salt Over ‘Toxic’ Table Salt

BCP Submitted Resolutions

May 4, 2011

On Tuesday May 03, 2011 the Berks County Patriots submitted a Right to Work Resolution to every member of the PA House of Representatives Labor and Industry Committee. Attached to the Right to Work Resolution were the headers identifying the resolutions for state employee pension and school property tax.

Berks County Patriots

Resolution 4212011-1


Right to Work




In its American sense, the term signifies man’s inherent right with the opportunity to seek and retain gainful employment which he desires based on qualifications. This right need be unfettered by biased restrictions or conditions. Being compelled to belong to any private organization including a labor union as a condition of employment is inconsistent with the fundamental and traditional American values of liberty and freedom of choice. Employees should have the right to form and join private organizations such as a labor union and the concomitant right to abstain from membership and from making any agency shop or fair share payment without compromising ones right to gainful employment. Denying this right is contrary to basis on which our Republic was founded. When weighing individual liberty against the authority of the organization, the rights of the individual must prevail.                                  

Ref: Pennsylvania Supreme Court case opinion, Erdman vs. Michell, 207 Pa. 79, 80 and 91-92 (1903), concerning Article I. This case opinion specifically refers to Article I, sections 1 and 25 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (citizen’s inherent rights).

Beyond the guarantees of fundamental liberties, Pennsylvania citizens are at a competitive disadvantage with Right to Work states when competing for skilled labor and industry. Corporations and workers are fleeing our state for other areas with a more reasonable business climate.


It doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars on education of our children and then have them move out of state because they cannot find employment due to lack of industry in the state.


Finally, numerous independent surveys have clearly revealed that the overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania’s residents support a Right to Work statute in our Commonwealth, confirming that its passage is long overdue. Therefore,



Be it resolved that the Berks County Patriots join with tea party organizations across the Commonwealth and petition the Pennsylvania Legislature to enact PA House Bills 50(Right to Work), 51, 52, 53(Fair Share Dues Protection for teachers and public employees).

Further, that this resolution be forwarded to all members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate.


Berks County Patriots, 1,000 plus members


James Billman, Chairman



Rodney E. Miller, Legislative Research Chairman


© Berks County Patriots 2011


Resolution 4212011-2

State Employee Pension Reform

  • Our State pension system is in crisis.  This includes the state system for state employees, local employees, school teachers, and legislators.
  • Pennsylvania State pensions are defined-benefit plans, which must maintain the contracted level of retirement benefits whether times are good or bad.  In bad economic times, such as these, when the pension funds don’t earn enough to cover these benefits, the benefits cannot be adjusted to compensate.  Consequently, taxpayers must make up the difference during periods when it is most painful.
  • By contrast, with defined-contribution plans, which are common in the private workplace, the employer contribution is fixed, and it is the benefits which fluctuate to reflect changes in the economy and returns on fund investments. This type of plan allows for more consistent planning and budgeting without fear of big surprises threatening to destroy your plans.
  • Defined benefit plans were originally based on the concept of public service.  Young teachers and state workers were often told that they would never make a lot of money in public service jobs, but would enjoy the benefits of job security and good, solid pensions at the end of their careers.  Government pensions were legitimately seen as leveraging the compromise between lower public service wages and what one might earn working in the private sector. In many cases, people graduated from college with teaching degrees in the 1960s or 1970s only to end up working in business careers when they found that teaching simply didn’t pay the bills.
  • Today, the “public service compromise” rationale is no longer valid, because, frankly, most government employees are much better compensated than their private sector counterparts.
  • And, now the plans are in trouble and the pension system is coming with their hand out.
  • SERS, the State Employees Retirement System, is currently funded at 69% and PSERS, the Pennsylvania School Employees Retirement System, is funded at 79.2%.   SERS is down to one contributing active worker for every annuitant, a situation which is not sustainable. By 2014, employer (taxpayer) contributions, which have normally been set at 4% of salaries, will increase to 29.2%, and remain there until at least 2032.
  • PSERS employer contributions are also scheduled to increase, from 5.64% this year, to 29% in 2013.  If past returns on investment cannot be maintained, the increase will be larger.  This creates an unconscionable burden on Pennsylvania taxpayers to maintain pensions for state employees which they themselves cannot afford.  The Commonwealth Foundation projects tax increases of $1,360 annually, per household from these adjustments.
  • Pensions for our legislators are even more egregious, especially considering the fact that  Article II, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution forbids any form of compensation for legislators, other than salary and mileage.
  • The present system is not even fair to it’s participants.  If a state worker decides to leave his job before retirement age, he gets back only what he has contributed. The plan keeps all the interest on his contributions, unlike 401-K plans and other defined-contribution plans, where contributions are invested in the employees’ name from day one.  This often creates a situation where government employees feel shackled to an unrewarding job while they wait for the day they can start collecting their pension.
  • By contrast, a defined-contribution plan creates a portable nest egg that a worker can own and take with him to another job without sacrificing his employment freedom.
  • So, it is becoming clear that our current system of defined-benefit pensions for government employees is not fair to taxpayers, nor to the workers themselves.  For that reason, we offer the following resolution for your approval:


The current defined-benefit system of pensions for Pennsylvania legislators, teachers, and state employees is financially unsound and unsustainable, and requires unreasonable sacrifices from Pennsylvania taxpayers to meet its obligations; and

The current system is struggling to provide pension benefits which the average taxpayer cannot himself afford, and;

Article I, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides Pennsylvanians with  “ .  .  .  an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.”

Now Therefore, Be It Resolved:


The Berks County Patriots support legislation establishing a unified, defined-contribution pension plan similar to those found in the private sector, for all new state and local government employees, while grandfathering current annuitants as well as those scheduled to retire shortly.

Further, that this resolution be forwarded to all members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly and other Pennsylvania tea parties.

Berks County Patriots, 1,000 plus members


James Billman, Chairman



Rodney E. Miller, Legislative Research Chairman

© Berks County Patriots 2011

Berks County Patriots

Resolution 4212011-3

 School Property Taxes

School Tax History:

Act 481 1947 The Home Rule Act Passed (Emergency measure to be temporary)

Act 511 1965 Also Known as the Tax everything Act made the school tax permanent.

Act 1 2006 Property Tax Relief (Known as the Gaming Revenue Bill)


Background for Resolution:

It has been made clear that Pennsylvania voters favor a bill eliminating the profiled school property tax for all property owners and replacing it with an expanded sales tax. Such a tax would incorporate cost controls to curtail the insatiable appetite of school boards for increased spending, budgets, and taxes, and is the only acceptable solution to this serious problem. (Reference: Quinnipiac poll 89% of PA Voters consider property tax reform urgent.)

It is no longer acceptable for Pennsylvania citizens to lose their homes and family farms due to their inability to pay this unconstitutional, profiled tax. (Reference: Allegheny Court Ruling: Base year property tax assessments Unconstitutional)

The 2009 School Property Tax Elimination Act that was introduced by Representative Sam Rohrer provided safeguards on both spending and taxing, while eliminating the school property tax for all property owners and changed the sales tax to a fair tax for all of the citizens of Pennsylvania. (Reference: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Revised June 2003.)

Articles of verification from the Pennsylvania Constitution:

Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 20

The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes by petition, address or remonstrance.

Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1, Section 1.

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 13

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishments inflicted.

Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 26

Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.

Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 8, Section 1

All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws.

Verifying Quote from our Founding Fathers:

John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If Thou shalt not covet’ and `Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. “




WHEREAS, property tax, as the primary source of revenue for financing public education, was never constitutional or fair-based, this profiled tax must be eliminated immediately. (2009 PA Reference 2009 PA US Census Bureau): and

WHEREAS, at this time in history, over 300,000 homes are vacant in Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh Tribune 9/27/2010) and the staggering foreclosures in 2010 were a result of profiled taxes directed at Legal American Citizens; and

WHEREAS, delays in adopting  property tax elimination for both commercial and residential property is a major cause for foreclosures during the current economic crisis, this severely impacts Pennsylvania’s competitiveness when compared to neighboring states.

NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Berks County Patriots join with many taxpayer groups across the Commonwealth, and urge the Legislature to repeal Act 1 and replace it with a Constitutional property tax bill that provides all of Pennsylvania’s property owners with total elimination of the existing school property tax. This replacement bill must be premised upon an expanded sales tax base and possible increased personal income tax while, also providing safeguards against uncontrolled spending and any later implementation of real estate based taxation for education purposes.

Further resolved, that this Resolution be forwarded to all members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate.

Berks County Patriots, 1,000 plus members


James Billman, Chairman



Rodney E. Miller, Legislative Research Chairman

Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1, Section 25.

To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

Verifying Quotes from our Founding Fathers:

John Adams quote:

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

Thomas Jefferson quote:

To compel a man to subsidize, with his taxes, the propagation of ideas, which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.

© Berks County Patriots 2011

PA Leadership Conference Report

April 12, 2011



780 conservatives attended the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference in Harrisburg on April 8th and 9th –the highest attendance ever, to date.  The current turbulent political atmosphere no doubt had a great deal to do with the size of the crowd.  36 of those attendees were Berks County Patriots, including all of the officers and most of the board members.


Speeches and panels with notables such as John Fund of the Wall St. Journal and Fox News Channel contributor Charles Krauthammer, were part at this year’s function.  Many of the speakers and attendees would have been very familiar to our Berks County Patriot audience.  In fact, your intrepid reporter counted at least ten well-known figures there who have been featured speakers at our meeting in the past sixteen months.  Unfortunately, 2012 presidential hopeful Herman Cain was unable to attend as planned, due to a transportation snafu.


Krauthammer was in top form, and his amazing mind was on display, as he spoke for almost two straight hours without notes, barely pausing to catch his breath.  He reviewed the history of President Obama’s career, from candidate to today, pausing only to insert a bon mot here and there.  Krauthammer emphasized the foolishness of underestimating this president, saying that Obama is an astute political animal with terrific skills.


At the time of Mr. K’s speech, we were only an hour from the announcement of a compromise between Republicans and Democrats over a continuing resolution, which some feared might end in a government shutdown.  Krauthammer recommended that John Boehner not push the envelope and risk offending public opinion, describing this as a sideshow to the main event—the upcoming 2012 presidential election.  Interestingly, Mr. K feels that Obama doesn’t hate America, but is a “social democrat” who envisions a European-type cradle-to-grave welfare society for our nation.  (Editor’s note:  I disagree.  I believe our president has only scorn for America’s world leadership, and for traditional American values.  Also, I have not forgiven Krauthammer’s criticism of Delaware Republican senatorial candidate Christy O’Donnell on national TV on election night, 2010.  He did refer to that incident, saying, “You wouldn’t believe the mail I got over that!”  However he expressed no regret, and no apology was forthcoming.)


Mark Block, a spokesman for Herman Cain, addressed the audience on behalf of that candidate, saying, “In all my years of political activism, I’ve never seen anything to compare to the tea party movement.  The left has nothing to compare to it.”  Block said the movement is so deep that we won’t really understand it until the history books are written.  He cited, as an example of tea party influence, the recent re-election victory of Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge Proesser.


One of the more contentious events was a panel set up to discuss SB-1—the school choice legislation pending in the Pennsylvania Senate—which many conservatives view as just another income redistribution scheme to funnel taxpayer dollars to residents of Philadelphia.  Several audience members were very outspoken in pointing out the deck was stacked against them in that no one holding that opinion was allowed to participate in the panel.  PA State Senator Jeff Picola, a member of the panel, noted that this is just a first step, and that this bill is the best that we can hope to pass at this time.


Tea parties were very much in the limelight at the conference.  Sam DeMarco, of Veterans and Patriots United, felt that, “If we succeed in taking back our country, it will be because of tea party activism.”  DeMarco also stated that, “Endorsing candidates is the surest way to divide the tea party movement.”  Kim Schmitner of Lehigh Valley 912 Tea Party Group agreed.  “We don’t endorse anyone, or tell our members whom to vote for.  We’re trying to encourage independence, for people to make up their own minds.  We’re not a political party.  We endorse values and principles, not candidates!”


The Pennsylvania Leadership Conference is always a great opportunity to network with other tea party groups, politicians, and political activists of all stripes.  If you didn’t make it this year, I’d recommend putting it on your calendar for next year.  You’ll probably be glad you did.


Respectfully submitted,

Ed Bender


Berks County Patriots


March 30, 2011

Below is a very interesting memorandum that was received last week from WHISTLEBLOWER at WIKIPENN.

The Republican party in PA is in trouble with this sort of thinking. Endorsing candidates prior to a primary, and now it is exposed for not allowing counties to support in anyway ANYONE that doesn’t have the blessings from those that sit on high ? Really. I guess we’re just too stupid as voters to select who we want as our candidates. And if a candidate hasn’t kissed the ring of the PA-GOP  elite, they can’t even participate equitably in the process ? I thought we were a representative republic ? This harkens on the lines of Monarchial Dictatorship does it not ? Who heads the GOP anyway ? Tony Soprano ? I for one have been a disenfranchised republican voter since last February’s G.O.P. pre-primary endorsement of Tom Corbett. This is just the icing on the cake.

Ed: The author of the below memo was contacted repeatedly to verify its content. There was no reply to our repeated requests.


TO: County Chairs

FROM: Republican Party of Pennsylvania

RE: County Party Cooperation for Endorsed Candidates

As you know, during the February 2011 Winter Meeting, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania’s (PA GOP) membership chose the option to move forward with an endorsement process of this year’s statewide judicial candidates by way of an open roll call vote.

State Party members spent weeks talking with candidates, attending meetings, talking to local Republicans and had the opportunity to see all of the candidates in an open forum in Harrisburg prior to making the decision to endorse candidates.

After this process, Superior Court Candidate Vic Stabile and Commonwealth Court Candidate Anne Covey were endorsed by the committee membership.  Vic and Anne are veterans of Republican campaigns and are ready for the important issues they will face as judges.  By virtue of the endorsement, these candidates will receive the full support of the PA GOP in the Primary Election.

As a partner in this process, the State Party counts on our county committees to assist our endorsed ticket in every way possible.  Currently, our ticket is focused on vigorously campaigning across the Commonwealth and will be visiting your county soon.  As they travel on the campaign trail, our endorsed candidates should receive concessions in regards to official Republican Party events such as county dinners, local party dinners, candidate forums, etc.

As members of the PA GOP and leaders in of county party, we request that you strictly enforce the following longstanding traditions.

1. Only candidates endorsed by the PA GOP should be recognized and/or allowed to speak at official events such as county dinners, endorsement meetings, candidate forums, etc.  Endorsed candidates and staff should be able to attend gatherings as complimentary guests.

2. All candidates for statewide office that attend a Republican Party function in your county should be given time to speak – if only for a brief period of time.

3. County Chairs, party staff & county party members should only be circulating petitions for statewide candidates who have been endorsed by the PA GOP.

4. County Chairs, county party staff and county party members should only be distributing materials for candidates that have

been endorsed by the PA GOP.

5. County Chairs should decline any promotion materials from non-endorsed candidates.

These longstanding traditions help our candidates to direct the precious resources they have toward getting out their message and winning in the fall.

It should be known that the PA GOP has not discouraged any candidate from continuing their campaign for open seats in 2011.  However, after the exhaustive process and out of respect for the time and effort that our elected membership has put in to this process as representatives of their counties, we are counting on your support and your county committee to support Vic Stabile

and Anne Covey in this important Primary.

On behalf of our endorsed candidates and the PA GOP membership, we thank you for your continued cooperation and partnership as we all work to ensure 2011 is a successful election year.

Bob Bozzuto

Deputy Executive Director – Republican Party of Pennsylvania

112 State Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101

In another e-mail also received from WHISTLEBLOWER at WIKIPENN:

We recently received notification that you are providing assistance to an unendorsed statewide candidate. The Voter Vault database is a privilege granted by the PA GOP to volunteers who actively work to support PA GOP candidates.  Unfortunately, your efforts on behalf of an unendorsed candidate are inconsistent with the Voter Vault Agreement you acknowledge when utilizing the system which states

“You agree that you are an authorized Voter Vault user and are utilizing this information for political purposes under a program authorized by the RNC and your State Republican Party.”

As a result, your access to Voter Vault has been suspended.

Reminds me of a horse head in bed, no ? Granted, they broke the rules, but are these kinds of rules really necessary in the Republican party  ? So you think you have a say in who gets on the republican ballot in PA ? NOPE!. That’s up to an endorsing committee, not you … silly goose.

Many Thanx,
Tom Slovik
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

The Amish don’t get Autism

March 5, 2011
The Amish Don’t Get Autism but They Do Get Bio-Terrorism

Written by Thomas Corriher
Thursday, 07 January 2010 14:17
People outside the alternative health community are often confused by the lack of autism in the Amish people.  The Amish do not experience autism, or any of the other learning disabilities that plague our technological society.  The Amish live in a society that consists of outdated technologies and ideals, by contemporary standards.  Their diet consists of eating organic, fresh, locally-grown produce, and of course, they do not follow the established vaccination routines.  To the dismay of the mainstream media and the medical establishment, this has resulted in a healthier people, that are void of all of our chronic diseases.  Heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are virtually non-existent in Amish villages.  Equally non-existent are modern, chemically-engineered medicines, enhanced (chemically-engineered) foods, G.M.O. foods, and of course, vaccines.  How is it that those who are without the “miracles” of modern orthodox medicine are healthier?  The truth about health, medicine, and how they both relate to the Amish is becoming an embarrassment to some rather powerful people. 

There have been 3 (yes three) verified cases of autism in the Amish, and at least two of those children were vaccinated.  No information is available for the third.  The strong correlation between vaccinations and autism is absolutely undeniable, unless you work for the medical establishment, the government, or Big Media.  Proponents of the status-quo claim that the Amish obviously have a special super gene that makes them immune to autism.  They pathetically try to rationalize that autism is some type of genetic failure (i.e. God’s fault), which attacks a brain based on religious affiliation.  We’re tentatively expecting a space alien theory next, in a similar vein to the aliens theory used to attack those who believe in a Creator.  This is truly is F.D.A. and A.M.A. science in all its shining glory.  Vaccine proponents are willing to espouse any ridiculous explanation, so long as they do not have to accept that their entire industry of vaccinations is causing chronic disease, leaving autism for 1 in every 100 children now.

Beware When The G’ Man Comes Knocking

The Amish are constantly harassed by health officials, who attempt to convince them to vaccinate their children.  Whilst most Amish still refuse to vaccinate, a small minority are beginning to succumb to the scare tactics.  This continues despite the fact that health officials actually have no legal right to visit peoples’ homes and harass them into accepting these poisons.  As more of the Amish vaccinate, the autism rates in their community will rise.  Fortunately, the majority of the Amish still contend that vaccinations are against God’s will, which interestingly enough, does indeed seem to be bringing about blessings on their children.

Many of the viruses which children are vaccinated against are no longer circulating.  However, fear tactics by the media have led frightened parents to vaccinate their children against these viruses anyway.  One of those viruses is polio.  Dr. Sherri Tenpenny reported that the most recent case seen in the Western Hemisphere was in Peru, in 1991.  The World Health Organization (W.H.O.) declared the Western hemisphere free of Polio in 1994.  Such inconvenient figures are not cited by the mainstream media, doctors, or the American Medical Association.

On October 14, 2005, the media swung into action after the vaccine-strain of the polio virus was found in the stools of four Amish children.  The media initially declined to mention that the polio virus was the chemically-inactivated version, which is only found inside the oral polio vaccine.  Of course, this discovery was exploited to terrorize parents who avoid vaccines, and to recreate the disease hysteria that existed in the first half of the 20th century.

Big Business:  Intentionally Creating a Paralyzing Pandemic

The horrors of polio were greatly exaggerated by the allopathic establishment’s across-the-board removal of tonsils, which is the only organ that produces polio antibodies.  Coincidentally, around the same time, the newly-created F.D.A. began suppressing the use of silver in medicines, which were the only substances known to kill viruses (like polio).  Finally, ‘the solution’ that industry desired, namely a vaccine, was released at the time that the epidemic was naturally ending, so that the industry’s vaccine could be given credit.  All of this was orchestrated to manipulate the masses into buying into vaccines, radiation, and chemistry for health.

“During the polio epidemics, it was found that people who had their tonsils removed were 3 – 5 times more likely to develop paralysis… There were many at that time that suggested that polio was an iatrogenic disease [caused by the medical establishment] … we caused thousands of cases of paralysis.  We did not cause the polio, but we converted people who would have recovered from a viral illness into people with a paralytic illness.”

― Dr. Mark Donohoe

With vaccinations, we convert people who may have had natural immune-strengthening infections like the flu, or chickenpox into people who have life-changing disorders like autism.  None of the Amish children who had polio in their stools experienced paralysis, or any other horrific symptoms.  That fortunate conclusion to their infections is likely the result of them lacking the ‘miracles’ of allopathic medicine.

We must wonder how four Amish children who live in an isolated community managed to become exposed to the unique chemically-inactivated vaccine strain of the polio virus.  It is more than likely that such a thing was intentional, especially when the harassment by local health officials is considered.  In addition, the vaccine strain that was discovered had not been used for five years, due to the possibility of it causing paralysis.  After all, if some Amish children were to get sickened by the polio virus, the Amish may all rush to get their children vaccinated, and the science of vaccinations is proven with a wink and a nod.

The manner in which this was reported is very telling.  For instance, if the vaccine strain of the polio virus was found in a normal child, would the media have made the story into front page news?  Would it even have been reported?  The Washington Post explained that both state and federal officials had informed them of the story.  Misleading titles such as, “Polio Outbreak Occurs Among Amish Families In Minnesota” were then used to manipulate resistant parents with bio-terrorism.

When the Amish are simply left alone, to live free of chemical toxins found in our medicines and foods, they are not plagued with diseases, learning disabilities, or autism.  They are categorically more intelligent, with the exception of advanced (college-level) writing skills, which is explainable by the fact that English is not their primary language.  Could it be those same Amish ‘super genes’ at work again?  Society could learn greatly from their example, if we would only stop poisoning ourselves, and our children on a routine basis.

Addendum and Comments about the Information War

Opposition websites often claim that vaccination is normal in the Amish community, and so is autism.  These are lies.  While there may be some small Amish groups which do vaccinate, and thus have autism; neither is normal.  The United Press, in conjunction with Generation Rescue, published a story about the rates of autism in an Amish community in Pennsylvania.  Reporter Dan Olmsted went searching for the autistic Amish.  Statistically, there should have been around 130 Amish in the community he examined.  Dan discovered 3 cases (that’s three).  The first was an adopted Chinese girl, who had suffered through all of her vaccinations on the same day.  The second developed symptoms within 24 hours after getting vaccinated, and there was no information about the third case.  The reporter even spoke with the local allopathic (orthodox) doctor, who the Amish sometimes visit whenever herbs and supplements do not suffice (for instance, broken bones).  The doctor admitted that he had never seen autism in the community.

Dr. Max Wiznitzer of University Hospitals in Cleveland is an expert witness for the government, and he fights against families who file for compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.  He made a mistake when he admitted that autism rates in the Amish community are somewhere around 1 in 10,000.   The rate for the rest of us is now about 1 in 95, and growing rapidly.  That means that our children are over 100 times more likely to get autism, and this does not take into account that the numbers are skewed against the Amish, since a tiny portion of their children are actually vaccinated now.

We will be waiting for real outbreaks of autism in the unvaccinated Amish.  If you’re still unsure about the cause of autism, and are looking for studies; read How To Cure Autism and The Time Bomb of Mercury Poisoning.  Studies which attempt to disprove the link between autism and vaccination have all been funded by the pharmaceutical complex.  Truly independent studies have repeatedly shown the clear relationship.  In fact, no vaccine has ever undergone any independent, controlled, double-blind studies to determine safety and effectiveness.  Seriously. Read the studies yourself, research extensively, and do the right thing.  Opt out of vaccinations with a religious or philosophical exemption to defend your child.  The public schools cannot legally turn you away if you do that, so learn your rights, and use them!  Do it, or someday your own children will curse you for not doing the right thing.

Since we wrote this article, we have made a lot of enemies.  People do not want to believe that the guilt for the epidemic lies with them, especially in the case of parents and doctors.  Doctors have been the quietest group of readers, and this could be related to the fact that about half of them refuse routine vaccines themselves, due to “safety and efficacy reasons”, according to the C.D.C..  It is just too rich.  Although, we have heard from plenty of non-doctor “experts”, and as expressed in the article, they are cunning manipulators, who have come to view us as a threat.  I believe that evil is the appropriate word to describe them.  The marketing astroturfers have certainly made their rounds in vain efforts to manipulate us.  They never give their true information, so we do not know which percentage of them are with Big Medica, Big Pharma, or the U.S. Government.  They always use throw-away e-mail addresses from places like Yahoo! and Google.  We’ve learned to spot them a mile away.  We have also discovered that people valuing truth do not hide from investigation, as if they were cockroaches running from the light.

The hateful e-mails we received are intended to persuade us into removing this article.  Our opponents generally give links to blogs which make gratuitous statements, whilst offering no sources, or merely additional links to new websites which run anonymously.  (We ain’t as stupid as they be thinking.)  We have yet to be disputed by any evidence that was not paid for by a pharmaceutical company, or that had the backing of 3rd party, independent, credible, and verifiable sources.  All of their “evidence” has been fully lacking in credibility.  Science and medicine are not remade by the comments on JoAnna’s blogspot blog.  Call us crazy if you like.

We know the difference between credible research and studies, and we are getting stuff that is just being pulled straight out of their rears and presented as gold nuggets; like some feat of alchemy.  No matter how well we do our jobs uncovering and exposing the corruption, they remain too arrogant to do anything other than underestimate our intelligence.   It is actually comical at times.  You will notice that like other credible sources, we sign our names to our work and take responsibility for it.  We also reveal our useful and verifiable independent sources of information whenever it is prudent to do so.

Reporting Voter Fraud and Voter Registration Fraud….Be Informed and Prepared.

October 28, 2010

This information was collected from RESISTNET.COM and is being reposted here for your convenience.


Voter Fraud and Voter Registration Fraud

To be eligible to vote, a person must be a U.S. citizen and have reached the age of 18.

Voter fraud can occur when legally qualified voters vote more than once during an election, when people who are not qualified vote do vote, when a voter’s right to vote is
illegally interfered with, and when a vote is changed without
the knowledge of the person who cast the ballot. It is also
against the law for poll workers in polling stations to interfere with a
person’s legal right to vote or influence how someone votes
(tell someone how to vote).

Voter registration fraud occurs when people register to vote in an area that they are not eligible to vote in, or register when
they know they are not eligible to vote. Examples include: a
person under the age of 18 attempting to register; a person
registering under a false name; a person registering who is not
a U.S. citizen; a person registering in an area where he/she
does not hold a place of residence; or a person registering in
multiple voting districts.

State and local election officials have the responsibility of administrating elections. The first step a person should take to report voter
fraud or voter registration fraud is to contact their
state election office.

Federal authorities may become involved in election fraud matters when a state prosecutor asks for federal assistance. In cases where intimidation, coercion or threats are
made, or attempts to intimidate, threaten or coerce are made to
any person for voting or attempting to vote, federal civil
voting rights claims may be brought by the Voting Section of the Civil Rights
within the Department of Justice (DOJ).

If you have information about voter fraud and/or voter registration fraud, you may also contact the nearest office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)local U.S. Attorney’s
or the Public Integrity Section of the
Criminal Division
within the DOJ.…

Additional Resources:

State/Territory Election Offices

All states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories of America Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands have departments in their government that are responsible for
elections. Some of the responsibilities of these departments include:
helping their citizens register for elections, setting up and staffing polling stations and administering voting laws.

If you have any questions about the election process, please contact your state or territorial election office:

Alabama Kentucky Oklahoma
Alaska Louisiana Oregon
American Samoa Maine Pennsylvania
Arizona Maryland Puerto Rico
Arkansas Massachusetts Rhode Island
California Michigan South Carolina
Colorado Minnesota South Dakota
Connecticut Mississippi Tennessee
District of Columbia Missouri Texas
Delaware Montana Utah
Florida Nebraska Vermont
Georgia Nevada Virgin Islands
Guam New Hampshire Virginia
Hawaii New Jersey Washington
Idaho New Mexico West Virginia
Illinois New York Wisconsin
Indiana North Carolina Wyoming
Iowa North Dakota
Kansas Ohio

Additional Resources:

Please note: To view and print .PDF documents, you must use the Adobe Reader software, which is available for download without charge.…


September 20, 2010


The name of the organization shall be Berks County Patriots.

Mission Statement: Berks County Patriots is a non-profit, non-partisan political action group committed to restoring and promoting the conservative values and ideals espoused in America’s founding documents; that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” including life, liberty, property, free speech, a free market, and the pursuit of happiness, and that a limited government is necessary to ensure these rights for the people.


1. Membership shall consist of anyone completing a membership form and/or submitting contact info. It is our desire to be all inclusive and encourage all to become members.

2. Members shall be responsible for: supporting the organization, attending meetings, abiding by the bylaws, and adhering to the guiding principles and values of the organization.

3. Members shall have the right to vote in person at meetings, be eligible to run for and be elected to the Board of Directors, (BOD) hold an office on the BOD, serve on a committee and receive regular communications from the BOD.



1.      For the purposes of guiding individual and group conduct, as well as maintaining clear focus on organizational goals, Berks County Patriots adopts as general beliefs and guidelines these Principles and Values.  Rigid belief in or adherence to these ideals by individuals is not in any way required for membership, however these should be encouraged throughout the membership and promoted by the actions of the Board of Directors.




1. The Board of Directors shall serve without pay and consist of as many as 11; 9 officers and 2 board members at-large.  There shall also be 2 non-voting participants appointed to the board; a parliamentarian, and a chaplain.
2. Eligibility- They must be a member of Berks County Patriots in good standing for a period of six (6) months, and cannot presently hold a state or federally elected office.

3. All Board members will have voting privileges and serve 2 year terms with the first term ending December 31, 2010 (except for the first year’s election cycle to establish staggering – see section VII-5)
4. The Board shall elect officers from amongst its ranks each year after an election, any mid-year officer vacancies shall be filled by the board from amongst their at-large board members.

5. Board meetings will be held at least 1 time per calendar month.
6. Special Board meeting may be called with 50% plus 1 vote may be taken by Phone or Email.

the BOD will consist of the below-mentioned officers at this time.

1.      Chairman
2.  Vice Chairman
3.  Treasurer
4.  Financial Secretary
5.  Membership Chairman
6.  Public Relations Chairman
7.  Events Chairman
8.  IT Chairman
9.  Unity Chairman

10.  Recording Secretary


Officer Job Descriptions:

1) The Chairman is responsible for running the Board meetings and general membership meetings according to Robert’s Rules of Order.  He will be available to assist other board members on joint projects as necessary. The chairman is the mediator if conflict arises between board members.  The chairman has no voting privileges except as a tiebreaker.  The Chairman must make himself familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order. The Chairman will be in possession of a sealed envelope containing all access information for all BCP websites. This envelope is only to be opened if something happens to the IT Chairman to prevent him from performing his duties, it shall take a 3/4 vote to remove the IT Chairman and open the envelope.

2) The Vice Chairman will assist the Chairman in his duties and shall succeed the Chairman in the event of absence, removal or resignation.  The vice-Chairman does have voting privileges except when acting as Chairman. Vice Chairman must make himself familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order. The Vice-Chair shall oversee the election, education, and legislative committees.

3) The Treasurer is ultimately responsible for all monies coming into and going out of the organization.  He/she shall produce monthly financial reports for the Board and quarterly financial reports for the membership.  The Treasurer must be involved with the counting of all monies collected at events and shall keep collection records signed by the Financial Secretary and either Chair or Vice Chair to be included in the financial reports.  The Treasurer shall also be the required signer on a bank account which requires two signatures; the Financial Secretary, Chairman and Vice Chairman shall also be on the account. All monies collected at meeting will be counted immediately by no less than 2 people with one observer.

4) The Financial Secretary shall be responsible for the organizations checkbook and all bank statements and expenditure reports which he will make available to the treasurer to be reconciled on a monthly basis.  The Financial Secretary must be involved with counting of monies collected during events, and sign off on the collected amounts with the Treasurer.  The Financial Secretary is also charged with organizing all fundraising efforts.
5) The Membership Chairman shall maintain an up to date list of the membership complete with names, email & home addresses, phone numbers, and volunteer availability. This complete list will be made available to the Chairman & Vice Chairman of the Board and The IT Chairman only.  Partial lists shall be made available to Committee Chairs as necessary.  The member list will at no time be made public.  Membership Chair is also responsible for overseeing the phone bank.
6) The Event Chairman is responsible for planning and coordinating events such as; general meetings, local rallies, bus trips and cooperative efforts with other like-minded organizations.  The Events Chairman will be in charge of scheduling, arranging transportation and security, and arranging payments for events. All events sponsored by Berks County Patriots must be approved by the board.

7) The Public Relations Chairman is responsible for coordinating, editing and overseeing all communications from the organization to outside contacts.  The PR Chair shall oversee the newsletter production, video productions, and press releases as needed.  The PR Committee is responsible for outreach efforts to non-political but like minded organizations to present our efforts to promote our vision and mission statements.

8) The Unity Chairman is responsible for contacting and maintaining positive working relationships with other like-minded groups. They will report any new contacts to the board which shall vote upon continued cooperative alliances with these groups; the Unity Chair will then be authorized to initiate action alerts to support approved allies without a BOD vote. The Unity Chair must work closely with events chair to coordinate co-sponsored events.  The Unity Chair shall oversee the Precinct Project and other similar efforts that require broad support from the movement at large.

9) IT Chairman is responsible developing and maintaining the website as the primary tool for the dissemination of essential group information (meetings, events, actions, articles, etc.)  In addition to the IT Chair, the passwords to the website shall be placed in a sealed envelope to be given to the Chairman to be opened and utilized only if absolutely necessary and only with the approval of ¾ of the entire active board which must be present.  Upon the election of a new board, the passwords shall pass appropriately from the outgoing IT Chair to the incoming IT Chair.

10) The Recording Secretary shall prepare the minutes of all Board of Director and general membership meetings. The Secretary shall forward copy to all Board Members via email at least a week before the next meeting. The use of an electronic recording device is recommended for accuracy, retaining the tapes for a period of 1 year. The secretary shall serve for a period of 1 year.

Appointed Job Descriptions:

1) The Parliamentarian shall report to the Chairman of the Board, function as a non-interventionist, and assist and support the Chairman in maintaining order and adhering to time schedules as approved by the Board or membership.  The parliamentarian shall assist with the coordination of motions and resolutions as requested and be available to the membership during normal conference hours or after meetings to answer questions about the role and function of the parliamentarian and parliamentary procedure.  He/she shall also assist with the election and voting procedures and serve as the vice chair of the election committee.  This is a non-voting board position.

2) The Chaplain shall provide for the pastoral needs of the membership.  Specifically, the chaplain assists members to understand more fully life’s events as they relate to their spiritual and emotional well-being.  The chaplain shall also offer blessings and coordinate the prayers and petitions to the almighty that are conducted at group functions where applicable.  This is a non-voting board position.

Board officers shall serve as the chairs of standing committees and deliver periodic reports to the Board.  Committee Chairs must also provide complete and up to date lists of committee participants.  The board of directors may appoint ad hoc committees as needed.

1. Board meetings will be held at least 1 time per calendar month with a minimum notice of at least 3 days, and shall be closed unless announced otherwise.
2. General Membership meetings will be held on the 3rd Thursday of each month or by the call of the board.

3. The Nomination Meeting will be held the second Thursday in November and the Election Meeting will be held on the second Thursday in December
4. Special meetings may be held anytime the chairman or the majority of the board calls for one.
5. Agenda’s must be provided at least 2 days in advance for board meetings and the day/night of the membership meeting. Members on the email list may be provided agendas before the meeting.


1. The Board shall be responsible for endorsing political candidates whose views and platforms support and advance the goals and mission of the Berks County Patriots.  It shall be the intent of the organization to generally withhold endorsements unless a candidate has and continues to demonstrate a commitment to freedom, limited government, and constitutional purity.

2. Only after extensive investigation of the proposed endorsee and due deliberation amongst the board members, a ¾ majority vote is required to officially endorse a candidate for public office.


1. A majority of 50% plus 1 board members constitutes a quorum.  In absence of a quorum, no formal action shall be taken except to adjourn the meeting to a subsequent date.

2. Passage of a motion requires a simple majority, i.e. 1 more than ½ the members present
3. No quorum requirements exist for general membership or election meetings

1. Members may be removed from the board or the organization as a whole for conduct detrimental to the organization and/or gross violation of the bylaws.

2. A board member can be removed for cause by a 3/4 majority vote of the board and the required approval from the chairman of the board.

3. The chairman of the board can be removed by the board by a vote of “no confidence” by 3/4 majority vote.  The chairman cannot cast a vote in, block a motion for, or overrule a “no confidence” motion or decision.  The chairman is immediately removed with the vice-chair assuming the responsibilities of the chair.

4. A member can be removed from a general meeting for disruptive conduct detrimental to the meeting or group by a ruling of the chair or a simple majority vote of the board members in attendance.

5. A member can be removed from the organization as a whole by a ¾ majority of the board.  The member can appeal the board’s decision to the membership only once, and only at the next general meeting, who can reinstate the member by a simple majority vote immediately after the meeting has opened.

6. Any member of the board who has a financial, personal, or official interest in, or conflict (or
appearance of conflict) with any matter pending before the board, of such nature that it
prevents or may prevent that member from acting on the matter in an impartial manner, will
offer to the board to voluntarily excuse him/herself and will vacate his seat and refrain from
discussion and voting on such item.

7. Should a board member develop a conflict with the organization or its various goals and interests, that board member ought to resign from their board position.  If such a conflict is concealed and discovered, there shall be an immediate motion and vote for removal of the conflicted member from the board.
1. Nominations may begin the first day in November by phone call, Email or U.S. Mail to the chairman of the elections committee. Nominations will close on November 30.
2. It is the responsibility of the nominating entity to ensure that their intent is communicated to the chairman of elections.  Self-nominations are permitted.

3. All prospective board members must have their contact & vital information available to be displayed on the BCP Website.

4. Elections will be held the second Thursday Night in December at a 6:30 PM meeting.  The eligible nominees with the highest vote counts will assume the vacated positions and constitute a new board of directors on the New Years Day following the election.

5. Each new board is then responsible for deciding the election of board members to officer positions at their first annual board meeting after the New Year, and then presenting those officers to the membership at the first annual general meeting.

6. For the purpose of staggering the election cycles of the board after the first election year, the board members occupying the positions of; chairman, vice chairman, financial secretary, treasurer, IT chair, and events chair at the end of the first year will serve their second year on the new board.  All other sitting board members must vacate their positions on the board and seek re-election to the new board from amongst the membership.

7. Should there be a vacancy on the board due to resignation or other cause, the board may appoint an eligible member to fill the vacancy or wait until the next available election will fill that open seat on the board.  The appointed or elected replacement shall serve the remainder of the original term in order to maintain a consistent staggering for future elections to the board.

1. A 2/3 vote of the board is required to schedule an open special meeting and to debate the amendment.  The board may close debate by a 2/3 vote, or table and continue the debate at a later date by a simple majority

2. Any properly debated amendment to these bylaws must be approved by a 3/4 vote of board members present at a board meeting, provided that a copy of proposed amendment is provided to each board member at least one week prior to said meeting.

3. The proposed amendment is then presented to the general membership at a meeting and read aloud.  The amendment is then made available to the membership on the website for no less than 30 days and then voted upon at the next available meeting. Passage requires 2/3 of members present.


The rules contained in the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern this organization in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Committee may adopt.



“If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of these bylaws is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.  It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Officers of Berks County Patriots that these bylaws would have been adopted had such unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion not been included herein.”




Upon the dissolution of this political action group, the Board of Directors shall, after paying or making provisions for payment of all liabilities of the Group, dispose of all the assets of the Committee exclusively for  the purpose of the Group in such manner, or to such organization( s) under applicable provisions of the united States Internal Revenue law then in effect as the Board of Directors determine or as shall, at the time, corporation organized exclusively for the aforementioned purposes.

Second Amendment

September 20, 2010

From My Cold Dead Hands

Northeast Senators continue to press anti-gun agenda

Gillibrand, Kerry & Schumer scheme to expoit campus shooter fears

by  Raquel Okyay


North East politicians are rabid about gun control and are unafraid to act.  Let’s take a look at the three U.S. Senators that have co-sponsored the most recent anti-firearm legislation submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, S.436 – Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011.  This proposed duplicative law seeks to place the same legal restraints on private sale and purchase of firearms that is encompassed in the Federal Brady Law, together with some new and so-called improved restrictions.

Senators Charles E. “Chuck” Schumer, D-N.Y., and Kirsten E. R. Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and John F. Kerry, D-Mass., the co-sponsors, proudly boost their, urban-style, anti-firearm positions without regard to the limitations set forth in the Second Amendment, to hell with the rest of the country.  They base their anti-firearm goals, as always, on the false premise that less gun sales is equivalent to less violent crimes, when the stats say — not true.

The story continues here.


Self-Defense Against a Violent Flash Mob

Use the A.W.A.R.E. principles to keep your senses, skin

by  Bruce N. Eimer, Ph.D


Wyatt Earp disbursed many a lynch mob with his resolute demeanor standing behind his Colt .45 six shooters or a shotgun. Was his threat overkill? I don’t think so! It worked and usually, not a shot was fired. Check that thought. What about a “flash mob?”

Are they less or more deadly than what Earp encountered? And do you have the reputation of a Marshall Wyatt Earp?

The story continues here.

Trusting Your Gut and Staying Alive

There is a reason they are called “survival instincts”

by  Mark Walters


Self-defense is more than just carrying a firearm, a stun gun, being a black belt or carrying mace. It starts with trusting your gut.

Have you ever had “that feeling” in the pit of your stomach, that feeling deep down in your gut that tells you something just doesn’t feel right?  Have you ever ignored that feeling only to regret your decision later to learn that your gut instinct was in fact, right?

Of course you have, probably many times. You have also probably told yourself that you are going to start trusting that feeling more often only to make the same mistake over and over to be reminded almost every time that you should have trusted your gut in the first place.

Learning to do so may save your life.

The story continues here.

Anti-Gun Groups To Buy
The Passage Of A Global Gun Ban?

EXPOSED: Pro-Gun Groups Blocked From Arms Trade Treaty Discussions

ALERT: Anti-gun groups are flooding the UN with bucket-loads of cash to make sure the UN Arms Trade Treaty is passed ASAP.

Stop The UN Arms Trade Treaty & Defend Your Gun Rights!

Conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to stop the world-wide gun ban. Newly elected Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul, has vowed to fight to end Obama and Hilary Clinton’s work with the UN to pass the “Arms Trade Treaty.” Paul said, “Disguised as an ‘International Arms Control Treaty’ to fight against ‘terrorism,’ ‘insurgency’ and ‘international crime syndicates,’ the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, global gun control scheme.”

Here We Go!!! Shotguns Coming Under Fire From The ATF And Obama!!!

Basically this targets tactical shotguns as the problem.
There by outlawing many guns that people use for home defense.

What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to it’s “a smooth bore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal.

National Guardsman’s career destroyed by ATF

Posted: March 18, 2011
11:34 am Eastern

© 2011

In recent weeks I have focused on a variety of stupid gun laws. This week I want to look at an example of how application of these stupid laws has seriously harmed one individual.

Albert Kwan lost his small firearms business and his commercial real estate business along with his 25-year career in the National Guard, much of his extensive and extremely valuable firearms collection and all of his life savings. He currently works for a Christian mission program in China and owes his attorney something in excess of $400,000 – all in the name of stupid gun laws and over-zealous enforcement.

Kwan came to the attention of the FBI as they were investigating the 2001 murder of Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Wales. Kwan’s name showed up on a shipping manifest for a company that sold a particular style of replacement barrel for Makarov pistols – an inexpensive Eastern Block pistol. The company’s sales records were sketchy, but the FBI had managed to track down about 1,700 of the over 3,600 barrels the company had sold over the previous decade.

The story continues here.

Feds sneaking around Congress to regulate firearms

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF, has a long history of excess and overreaching … and they’re at it again.

Using exaggerated reports of gun smuggling from the U.S. into Mexico as their justification, the agency has filed for an emergency regulation requiring gun dealers to keep track of their customers and file special reports to ATF whenever a customer purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within any 5-day period. Such special reporting is already required for multiple sales of handguns and has proven to be thoroughly useless as a law enforcement tool.

ATF’s requested regulation – which is unconstitutional, violates a statutory prohibition against firearms registration schemes and was obviously filed as an “emergency” simply as a means of bypassing Congress – would be “temporary,” meaning that it would have to be renewed in four or five months, and is said to only apply to gun dealers in states bordering Mexico, though the regulation, as submitted, seems to be missing that specific limitation.

At this point the proposed regulation is awaiting approval from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Political observers will recall that OIRA is headed by President Obama’s old friend Cass Sunstein, who famously advocated for the abolition of all hunting and for the extension of legal rights – including the right to have a court-appointed attorney – to animals.

While Mr. Sunstein is an attorney and college professor specializing, in part, in constitutional law, his record shows that his Constitution does not include the Second Amendment. It is expected that Sunstein’s office will approve ATF’s Emergency Regulation by the first week of January unless there is immediate and vehement objection from members of Congress and the public.

Click here for the rest of the story

Firearms and the Constitution
Firearms and the Constitution Versus Treaties
Lesley Swann Tennessee
Tenth Amendment Center August 19, 2010 
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under that Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution

Recently I attended a gun show, where I handed out information material and answered questions on the Tenth Amendment Center. Several people were concerned about the U.S. making a treaty that would gut the U.S. Constitution and potentially take away firearms from law abiding citizens here in the U.S. They argued that the paragraph above from the Constitution places treaty law above the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Our Founders very clearly stated the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution could be amended, or changed, in Article 5. It is quite illogical to conceive that our Founders would write such a brilliant document to be the foundation of our union, only to create a giant backdoor for foreign governments to come in and destroy the liberty we had worked so hard to achieve. In fact, our Founders themselves said otherwise.

“The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” – Alexander Hamilton

“I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.” – James Madison

“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

So, when I began re-reading this section of the Constitution I realized that they didn’t leave a backdoor, but in fact were expressly forbidding this type of maneuver in Article VI. The answer to the riddle that confuses many people isn’t to be found in an indecipherable tome on constitutional law, but instead in simple English grammar and a little attention to detail.

In reading through the entire Constitution, you will notice that whenever the Constitution refers to itself the verbiage “this Constitution” is used. The only exceptions to this are the President’s Oath of Office, where the phrase “the Constitution of the United States” is used, and here in the latter part of Article VI. In every other place where you find the word Constitution written in the Constitution itself, it is preceded by the word “this” making it clear that the Constitution is referring to itself. In the President’s Oath of Office the phrase “Constitution of the United States” makes it perfectly clear that the phrase is referring to this Constitution as well.

The Founders were very clear and precise with their use of language in the Constitution, so why do we have “the Constitution” in this case (“any Thing in THE Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”), and “this Constitution” in all other cases where the word is written. The simple answer is that in this case, they were not referring to the United States Constitution at all.

The humble preposition is the key to solving the intent of the Founders in this statement. A prepositional phrase – such as of, to, or in – is a word that can modify and indicate relationships. Prepositional phrases can also modify more than one object. In this case, the prepositional phrase “of any State” refers to both the words “Constitution” and “Laws” that precede the phrase. This means that the final phrase of this clause could rightly be read to mean “any Thing in the Constitution of any State or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Founders weren’t saying that treaties were to be supreme over the U.S. Constitution, but that they could and would take precedence over the state constitutions and laws.

It is clear with a little analysis of the details of the language and grammar used to construct this clause that our Founders were placing treaty law in its rightful place – beneath the supreme law of the land in the form of our U.S. Constitution, but above the laws and constitutions of the states. There is no loophole that can allow international interests to trump the U.S. Constitution, but the treaty must be made in pursuance of our Constitution, just as all laws that Congress makes must be in pursuance of the Constitution.

While some well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) politicians may claim that they can legislate via treaty, this clearly was not the intent of our Founders. Will this knowledge stop those who would seek to take our freedoms from shredding the Constitution by attempting to pass such treaties? Probably not. But we can rest firm in the knowledge that our Founders did not give the Federal government the power to usurp the Constitution by treaty, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not treaty law. More importantly, we can use this knowledge as intellectual firepower to stop the enemies of liberty and the Second Amendment from doing so.

Sheriff says he’ll undermine gun ban
Sheriff says he’ll undermine gun ban  Anti-gun theorists impose dangerous policy
February 23, 2010 6:10 PM
The Colorado State University Board of Governors voted unanimously Tuesday to place students at both of its campuses in harm’s way with a sweeping weapons ban law-abiding citizens will obey and criminals will ignore.
Larimer County Sheriff James Alderden, outraged by the ban, told The Gazette’s opinion department he will undermine it in the interest of student safety.
CSU-Fort Collins Police Chief Wendy Rich-Goldsmith, a relative newcomer to the campus, supports the ban.
“I have told the CSU police chief I will not support this in any way,” Sheriff Alderden told The Gazette. “If anyone with one of my permits gets arrested for concealed carry at CSU, I will refuse to book that person into my jail. Furthermore, I will show up at court and testify on that person’s behalf, and I will do whatever I can to discourage a conviction. I will not be a party to this very poor decision.”
Though each CSU campus has its own police department, Alderden issues all cops on the Fort Collins campus a deputy sheriff’s commission card. He also runs the county’s jail, which campus police use after making arrests.
Alderden said ban advocates have been unable to cite a single study or statistic to show that students will be safer as a result of a weapons ban. He’s convinced they will be much less safe as a result of the ban, which will leave most students defenseless. The ban establishes the campuses as “soft targets,” meaning armed criminals will have a reasonable expectation their intended victims aren’t armed.
“There are volumes of statistical and anecdotal data that show populations are safer when law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons,” Alderden said.
Six years after Alderden began issuing permits, he noticed the homicide rate in his jurisdiction had dropped.
At CSU-Fort Collins, the ban includes pepper spray, in quantities greater than an ounce, and Tasers.
“This ban, which is broad and encompassing, basically denies students at the Fort Collins campus any defensive capacity at all,” Alderden said. “It’s a weapons-free zone for law-abiding people, and it won’t do a single thing to keep armed criminals off of campus. It will only ensure them a lot of defenseless victims. The people who did this are lost in their own world of ideological liberalism. You would think people involved in academia would want to deal in data and experience, but this has been all about emotion.”
Alderden said he realized the sentiment against self-defense is based in emotion after speaking with a public school teacher who asked him to stop issuing concealment permits. He showed her data that prove concealed carry reduces crime. He told her concealed carry would help reduce violent crime in Fort Collins and the rest of Larimer County — a sentiment shared by El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa and a growing number of ranking law enforcement officials regarding their own jurisdictions.
“I made the whole case, based in provable facts. The teacher said, and I quote, ‘I don’t care about the facts.’ She only cared about her emotional response,” Alderden said.
(Please vote in poll to the right, in red type. Must vote to see results. Thanks!)
The student Senate of the Fort Collins campus opposed the ban by a 23-1 vote. That means CSU governors, and administrators who pushed for the ban, don’t seem to care what their customers think. The Student Senate at Pueblo approved the ban, only after administrators said “weapons” did not include Tasers or pepper spray.
“God forbid we have something like the tragedy at Virginia Tech at one of these campuses,” Alderden said, referring to a notorious shooting spree in which a lunatic wantonly killed for hours, while a gun ban ensured him no students or faculty would shoot back.
Alderden questions the legality of the ban, saying the legislature never discussed excluding college campuses when it passed a shall-issue concealed-carry law in 2003. The law requires county sheriff’s to issue concealment permits to law-abiding residents without felonies, misdemeanor domestic violence records, or other disqualifying conditions. Furthermore, he said students who ignore the ban won’t have legal problems if they don’t get caught.
“If it’s properly concealed, so that nobody sees the weapon, it probably won’t be a problem,” Alderden said.
In the event a concealed weapon is needed for defense of self or others, it would become evident to law enforcement. In that unlikely event, Alderden said, safety trumps legal concerns.
“They say it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six,” Alderden said.
That’s the advice of a lawman with a record of reducing crime. The ban is the work of academic ideologues, who theorize about safety and crime. Hope and pray the academicians don’t find themselves begging forgiveness someday, in the wake of a horrible crime. — Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board

Ammunition Control
Ammunition Control by the Obama Administration
by A.W.R. Hawkins
Without bullets, a gun is no more useful as a weapon than a rock or a hammer. Although an unloaded gun could be thrown at an intruder or a tyrant, the lack of ammunition ultimately reduces it to the status of a glorified paperweight.And this is not lost on the nearly 100 million gun owners in America, a number of which are asking if the current shortage of bullets is the result of backdoor efforts at gun control (via ammunition control) by the Obama Administration?The quick answer to that question is — not exactly.

In other words, the reasons behind the current shortage, as the well as the price increases on what little ammunition is available, are both governmental and nongovernmental in nature.

As for the government’s role, a prime example arose in March 2009 when the Department of Defense (DOD) suddenly changed its policy about selling old brass from spent military rounds to Georgia Arms, an ammunition manufacturer located in Winston, Georgia.

According to Curtis Shipley, President of Georgia Arms, on March 12, 2009, the DOD, which had been a longstanding source of cheap brass for the ammo manufacturer, decided that brass could only be purchased from the military if it was “mutilated.” In other words, it would not longer be possible to buy empty brass casings that Georgia Arms could then clean, quickly reload, and sell to the public at a low price.

When I spoke to Shipley, who had been accustomed to buying spent brass in increments of fifteen tons from the DOD, he said, “This portended higher prices because it required us to either mutilate perfectly good brass when we picked it up from a military base or have a DOD employee travel with us (and the brass) to verify that we did indeed mutilate it at a another site.”

Once mutilated, Georgia Arms would have had to melt the brass down, re-alloy it (casings for each caliber require a specific alloy blend that can sustain the pressures for that caliber), and then re-shape it into the proper casing for whichever caliber they were manufacturing. Said Shipley: “Such a process would add approximately $90 to the cost of one thousand rounds of 9mm ammunition right off the bat.”

Fortunately, the public outcry against this DOD maneuver was so great that the order to mutilate all brass was rescinded after just five days. However, those five days were enough to contribute to another problem the government had been causing since November 2008 – namely, fear of an all out Obama-led assault on guns and ammo.
Speaking to this fear, Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, said: “You can go to gun stores all over the country and many of them will have a picture of President Obama hanging on the wall. However, when you get up close to the picture and look at the caption on the bottom, instead of saying ‘President’ it says ‘Gun Salesman of the Year.’”

Pratt said gun owners are rightly leery of this administration. Obama supports the new California law that will require every semi-automatic pistol sold in that state to come equipped with a special firing mechanism that makes a distinctive mark – a “fingerprint” – on every bullet casing it fires. And currently, some Democrats in the House of Representatives want to take that law a step further and enact legislation that would force ammunition companies to place serial numbers on every shell casing they manufacture.

Let me just say that if you think ammunition is scarce and expensive now, wait till manufacturers have to put a serial number on every casing and maintain records containing the names, addresses, etc., of everyone who purchases such casings.

No wonder Pratt said: “None of this is about safety. Rather, it’s about finding ways to create an ammo and gun registry that will allow the government to finally figure out which son got daddy’s gun when daddy passed away.”

And while the government is doing its part to make ammunition harder to find, either directly, via episodes like the one between Georgia Arms and the DOD, or indirectly, by scaring citizens to death through anti-gun posturing that has caused a run on ammo sales, the market plays a role as well. With demand outpacing supply the market sustains higher prices for ammo under Obama than it was able to sustain for that same ammo during the presidency of a pro-gun politician like George W. Bush.

Add to this the fact that we’re now sending the majority of the lead from our recycled car batteries to China, instead of selling that lead to ammunition manufacturers who can cheaply reclaim it to make affordable bullets for their casings, and it’s no wonder consumers are scrambling to find ammunition and then paying a fortune for it when they do.

Did I fail to mention that millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition are currently being diverted to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere right now as well? While this is understandable, it further highlights the fact that we gun owners are in a tight spot, as far as getting ammunition for our guns is concerned.

With all these variables affecting the availability of ammunition, this would be a great time to join a group like Gun Owners of America. By so doing we would assure the politicians in D.C. that if they use their offices to further deny us bullets for our guns, we will use the voting booth to deny them the very offices they now hold.

Guns Save Lives
College student shoots home invader, saves 10 livesYet another reason to keep a gun in the house . . .Several months ago, in the notoriously dangerous neighborhood of College Park in Atlanta, Georgia, two armed criminals broke into a house party of students.

After confiscating the group’s valuables, the invaders split the men and women up into different rooms.

Witnesses say the perpetrators then counted their rounds and discussed if they had “enough” ammunition.

The students believe the gunmen were going to rape and murder the entire group of students, who were celebrating a birthday at the end of the semester.

However, one male student, whose identity is being protected by police and local media, retrieved a handgun from his backpack and fired at the thug who was detaining the men.

(That is: One smart student had prepared for a night in College Park, Atlanta.)

The criminal fled the apartment under the threat of injury and never returned.

The student continuing on into the girls’ room, found the other thug, 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, preparing to rape his first victim.

The student exchanged gunfire with Lavant, lethally wounding him in the process. Lavant fled through a window and died in front of his apartment, only one building away.

One of the female students was injured during the exchange, but doctors expect a full and complete recovery.

So what’s the point

A student saved the girls from rape, and saved the whole group of 10 people (including himself) from murder … and he did it with a handgun.

This is a perfect example of how ludicrous “big city gun laws” are. What if this had happened in New York, Chicago, or any of the other big cities that criminalize their citizens’ self defense?

Yes, we would be reading an entirely different story — one so horrendous that we would shudder at the very words.

Either this whole group of friends would have been raped and murdered by these two sorry excuses for human beings . . . or the hero of this story would be facing prison time for firearm possession and murder.

Thankfully, however, Atlanta hasn’t outlawed self-defense yet. And since someone had a gun and was willing to use it, innocent life was preserved.

Congratulations to the unnamed hero of this story. You saved your friends’ lives.

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights


September 19, 2010

A Summary of the U.S. Senate’s Draconian Gun Control Proposals

February 2, 2013   Source: Lee Rogers,

It is no secret that the second amendment is currently under attack by a number of authoritarians in Washington DC. Several bills have been introduced in Congress that if passed into law would either dismantle or regulate away the ability of law abiding citizens to conduct transactions involving firearms, ammunition and assorted gun related accessories. These people want you to believe that gun related violence will disappear only if they are able to pass a few gun control laws. If this were true than Mexico which has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet would be one of the safest countries in the world. In reality, these restrictive gun laws have empowered Mexican drug cartels to commit countless murders because the average person is unable to defend themselves from people who operate outside of the law. We see the same trend in the United States where gun violence is a much larger problem in areas where there are gun restrictions. Chicago and Washington DC are two good examples of this. When the Supreme Court struck down certain gun control provisions that were imposed in these cities, the murder and gun crime rates actually dropped. Schools which are essentially advertised by the media as gun free zones have now become ripe targets for criminally insane individuals because they know there won’t be anyone who will fight back. Anyone who believes that gun control laws will reduce gun violence either has no basic common sense or has an agenda to disarm the people so they can be more easily controlled and potentially enslaved.

Many new gun control bills have already been introduced in the 113th Congress. In this article we are going to focus specifically on the gun control measures that have been introduced in the U.S. Senate. Here is a quick synopsis of each one of those bills.

Senate Bill 22 or the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2013 seeks to regulate gun shows out of existence. The bill would require anyone wishing to hold a gun show to register with the Attorney General and pay a fee that would be later determined by the Attorney General. In other words, it would give the Attorney General the power to shut down any and all gun shows by simply requiring the gun show promoter to pay an outrageous fee to hold a show. The bill also introduces a ridiculous amount of red tape involving criminal background checks, licensing and recordkeeping requirements that regulate firearm transactions at gun shows. It would make it very difficult if not impossible for vendors at gun shows to conduct any sort of business. The bill also gives the Attorney General the power to examine transaction records at gun shows without any sort of probable cause or a warrant.

The story continues here.


Court: Obama Appointments Are Unconstitutional

Friday, 25 Jan 2013 11:43 AM

President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro forma” sessions.

The story continues here.

Assault on the Second Amendment

‘I Will Not Comply’

By Mark Alexander · January 10, 2013

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” –Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Patriots, I call on you to pledge: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as ‘endowed by our Creator,’ enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Sign the 2A pledge!

Though tens of millions of American Patriots have already said it, the time has come for one of us to go to the mountaintop and shout it so the whole world can hear it.

I hereby make this public declaration: In keeping with the oath I have taken in the service of my country, I will “support and defend” Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” and enshrined in our Constitution, “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Accordingly, I will NOT comply with any defensive weapons ban instituted by executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates the innate human right to defend self and Liberty, as empowered by “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

What does this mean?

I will neither register with, nor surrender to the government, any weapon in my possession. I further declare that I am not in possession of weapon, weapon component or ammunition that has not been lawfully acquired for lawful purposes, including defense of self and family, home and property, and most importantly, defense of Liberty in accordance with the Second Amendment.

I have spoken with my family and our Patriot Team about the potential consequences of this public declaration, both for our families and for our company. They fully understand the implications of my very public declaration of civil disobedience in defense of Liberty and Rule of Law. They understand that I have and will abide, first and foremost, by my oath to support and defend our Constitution — the very oath that Barack Obama and his NeoCom cadres have solemnly sworn, but stand in abject violation of same.

Since publishing the first issue of The Patriot Post more than 16 years ago, I have made clear that one constitutional prohibition on the central government trumps all others, and that is the proscription against federal infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote, in his eminent “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Story was James Madison’s appointee to the High Court, and Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46, “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

Just after Obama’s re-election, I warned that he would attempt to render neutral the only substantive obstacle between Liberty and his avowed political agenda of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” — the Second Amendment.

I noted that, per their standard political playbook, the socialists and their Leftmedia promoters would wait on some tragic murder spree, and, in keeping with Obama’s game plan to “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” use that event as fodder to seize guns.

A month after writing those words, a mentally deranged sociopath used a firearm to kill children and adults in a Connecticut elementary school. Before the bodies of murdered children had even been removed from Sandy Hook Elementary, Obama was, shamefully, stacking their coffins to use as a soapbox for his latest and greatest assault on the Second Amendment — a renewed effort to not only ban the future sale of many defensive weapons, but register them in order to eventually confiscate them.

Obama has framed this debate as a contest between “public safety” and the NRA — those who “cling to guns or religion” — and insists that the Second Amendment was instituted to protect “hunting and sport shooting.” He has called for a so-called “assault weapons” ban — I note “so-called” because it would more accurately be described as a “defensive weapons” because such arms are purchased, first and foremost, for defense not assault.

Obama claims, “We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting…” If by “hunting” he means hunting down those who offend Liberty, then he is correct.

Some Leftist governors and legislators have already adopted Obama’s “hunting” misinformation memo. New York’s Andrew Cuomo proposed “the toughest assault weapons ban in the nation” this week, asserting, “We respect hunters and sportsmen. This is not taking away peoples’ guns. I own a gun. I own a Remington shotgun. I’ve hunted. I’ve shot. That’s not what this is about. It’s about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles. No one hunts with an assault rifle! No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!”

If, by “risk of high-capacity assault rifles,” he means risk that they might be used for their intended purpose — to defend Liberty against the tyranny of socialist politicos and those who do their bidding — then I understand his concern.

The fact is, these weapons, which Obama and his cadres want to eradicate, account for only a tiny fraction of homicides in the U.S. Obama and Biden know that — which is why they have reframed their gun ban rhetoric around saving a few lives rather than many: “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking,” said Biden.

According to the FBI’s public safety statistics, almost 10 times as many people are murdered annually with knives, hammers and bare hands than are murdered with the type of weapon used in the Connecticut attack. Furthermore, from the time the Senate first banned so-called “assault weapons” in 1994, through the expiration of that ban in 2004 and to the present day, the number of such weapons held by the people has increased by 2.5 million, while murders have dropped by almost 50 percent. In other words, more guns equate to less crime. But Obama is not one to let hard facts interfere with his sacred socialist agenda.

So, why all the focus on so-called “assault weapons” — what is the Left’s real agenda? (That question was rhetorical.)

Patriots, this contest is most assuredly not between public safety and the NRA, but between Leftists and Essential Liberty.

Benjamin Franklin spoke timeless words to this contest: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In the case of those who would give up Essential Liberty for nothing more than the perception of a little temporary safety with more gun prohibitions, they will, ultimately, lose both.

In addition to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s renewed “comprehensive” ban on a long list of defensive weapons, which she plans to reintroduce in two weeks, Obama appointed Joe Biden to be his executive branch lightning rod for this subterfuge.

Three weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder, who once suggested “we should really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” implied that Obama might use an executive order to undermine the Second Amendment. This week, Joe Biden confirmed that, saying, “The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required. It’s critically important that we act.”

On that note, enough is enough.

Liberty is “endowed by our Creator,” not determined by executive decree or congressional legislation or judicial diktat. Liberty is an innate human right. It is a gift from God, not from politicians.

I have, herein, publicly declared that I will not comply with any executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates our Constitution, or the innate human right to defend self and Liberty. I know that there are tens of millions of Patriots who are, likewise, committed. As our Founders affirmed in the last line of the document codifying their rejection of tyranny: “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

Fellow Patriots, I can handle the consequences of my very public declaration of intent to reject Obama’s assault on the Second Amendment. I am not asking you to make the same public commitment, though I know most of you would step up to the line.

However, I am asking you to join me in your pledge to affirm: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as “endowed by our Creator,” enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Please make that affirmation today and encourage others to do the same.

2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants

by KrisAnne Hall http:///www.KrisAnneHall.comKing Barry the Waster, has his “gun ban list.”    As evidenced in  HR 1022 which was proposed in 2007, the Liberals are bent on disarming US citizens.  What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this!  Here is a little 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants.Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788.  Lesson one comes from George Mason.  George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.”  Seems to me a good person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.”  Mason first explains the REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers!

“Forty years ago, when the resolution ofenslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

In the words of the “Father,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government.  But Mr. Mason doesn’t end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and the answer will surely be a surprise to King Barry and his jester, Eric Holder.

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has askedwho are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation?  I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations!

Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster.  Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”  Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

Even the dummies out there should be able to follow that.  Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?

1.     To prevent rule by a standing army;

2.     To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;

3.     To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;

4.     The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

Lesson number 3 comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring Independence).  This interesting explanation is guaranteed to make every liberal and even a “conservative” or two slip into a fit of convulsions.  Mr. Lee explains,

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”  Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.

Mr. Lee explains that it is our DUTY to not simply bear arms but to ALWAYS bear arms. Mr. Lee is probably rolling over in his grave at the idea that we have to ask permission of the government to carry a firearm.  How about that directive that we also must teach our children to bear arms?  I smell the smoke roiling out of the liberals’ ears.

Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry.  Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s duty to bear arms.  No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

“Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

Well, there you have it, 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants.  Yet, perhaps King Barry and his court jesters DO UNDERSTAND the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  Perhaps that is why he is so intent on disarming the people, because he knows, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.

Just remember, the Federal government has no legitimate power beyond what its masters delegate to it.  The States are the final battleground against centralized tyranny.   We will defend our States, until we regain our nation. 

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

Terrorism Center at West Point Warns Against Danger of American Limited-Government Activists and ‘Far Right’

Jan. 18, 2013 11:30am Tiffany Gabbay

The Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point released a study Tuesday warning against American “far right” groups including the “anti-federalist” movement and strong limited government activists.

The report, titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” posits that in recent years, and especially since 2007, “there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self-identify with the far-right of American politics.”

The analysis, conducted by West Point professor and CTC director of terrorism studies Arie Perliger, noted that his study “concentrates on those individuals and groups who have actually perpetuated violence and is not a comprehensive analysis of the political causes with which some far-right extremists identify.” He added that an in-depth look at the data provided addresses three crucial questions:

(1) What are the main current characteristics of the violence produced by the far right?

(2) What type of far-right groups are more prone than others to engage in violence? How are characteristics of particular far-right groups correlated with their tendency to engage in violence?

(3) What are the social and political factors associated with the level of far-right violence? Are there political or social conditions that foster or discourage violence?

The West Point professor said anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

Perliger also identified limited government activists as belonging to one of three categories: “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

According to the Washington Times, the report also draws correlation between mainstream conservatism and what it dubs the violent “far right.” The study then goes on to laud liberals as forward-thinking while maintaining that conservatives harbor a more archaic mindset.

“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo,” the report states.

“The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

Citing a reported 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011, the analysis characterizes the liberal-democratic system as inclusive and “designed to emphasize civil rights” while far-right ideology inherently “excludes” minorities.

Perlinger’s study, however, has not gone without meeting a degree of criticism. Speaking to the Times, a Republican congressional staffer slammed: “If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero.”

He added that the Combating Terrorism Center should be focused on radical Islam and, at the least, publish a companion report underlying the dangers of left-wing terror groups like “the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground.”

The CTC describes itself as “one of the leading academic institutions devoted to the study of terrorism” whose research is informed by three core components including” studying emerging threats, challenging conventional logic and offering counter intuitive insights.”

Judge Slaps Down EPA Bid to Regulate Water as a Pollutant

Thursday, 03 Jan 2013 08:18 PM     By David A. Patten

A federal district judge Thursday shot down a “novel” EPA attempt to regulate the flow of water as a pollutant, stopping dead in its tracks what otherwise would have been a major regulatory expansion.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady handed a significant legal victory to Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, who is running for governor of the Commonwealth.

Cuccinelli personally argued the case before O’Grady on Dec. 14, warning the EPA’s attempt to regulate the flow of water into state waterways would amount to a “tremendous expansion” of its regulatory power.
The story continues here.

FBI: More Killed With Hammers, Clubs Than With Rifles

Thursday, 03 Jan 2013 05:24 PM     By Stephen Feller

Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, Democrats have made reinstatement of the assault weapons ban a major priority for the 113th Congress despite the fact that relatively few murders are killed with weapons that would be banned.

From 2005 through 2011, more people in the U.S. were killed with hammers and clubs, or with hands and fists, than with rifles, which is what the ban likely would have the most effect on, reports Breitbart.

There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records. In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles.

“While the FBI makes is clear that some of the ‘murder by rifle’ numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns,” wrote Awr Hawkins, continuing that “it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein’s dreaded rifle.

Club for Growth’s Chocola: GOP Has “All the Leverage” in Debt-Ceiling Fight

Thursday, 03 Jan 2013 05:01 PM     By Todd Beamon and John Bachman

The Republican Party holds the power in the upcoming talks on raising the nation’s $16.4 trillion debt ceiling — “if they’re willing to use it,” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola tells Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview.

“At some point we have to be serious about this,” Chocola tells Newsmax. “At some point, Republicans have to do what Republicans say they have to do — and they have to stand up for limited government, spending restraint, and fiscal responsibility.

“This is an opportunity they have. They have all of the leverage in the world on their side if they’re willing to use it,” he added. “They have a simple message — and they have public opinion that’s sympathetic. This will be a real test to whether Republicans can do something constructive and put this country back on the path of fiscal solvency.”
The story continues here.

December 26, 2012 by Tim Brown

Indefinite Military Detention Of US Citizens To Be Signed Into Law By Obama
We’ve been trying to keep you aware of what has been taking place with the talks concerning the 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We’ve covered the Feinstein amendment, which effectively did nothing, except to empower Congress to authorize the military at their whim to violate people’s 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights. But now the talks are all done and the legislation is headed for Barack Obama’s desk to be signed into law soon, just as it was nearly one year ago today, including provision to use the military to indefinitely detain US citizens.

Previously, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) voted for the Feinstein amendment to the NDAA. But then there came the hashing out of language in the bill and Paul blasted Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for stripping away the amendment.

The story continues here.

Sen. Grassley: GOP Has ‘Leverage’ Over Obama on Fiscal Cliff

Wednesday, 26 Dec 2012 06:44 PM

By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter

Longtime Sen. Chuck Grassley tells Newsmax that Republicans have a “great deal of leverage” on President Obama because they can refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless he agrees to spending cuts.

The Iowa Republican also says the president wants the nation to go over the fiscal cliff because it will raise everyone’s taxes — then he can be seen as saving the middle class by lowering their taxes in the new year.
Grassley was first elected to the Senate in 1980. He is member of the Budget and Finance committees and the former chairman of the Finance Committee.

The story continues here.

Electric Power Blackout: The Powet of One

by papundits    By Ken Chrosniak ~

There exists a clear and present danger to you, your family and your community; the loss of sustained electric power.  As of now, absolutely no government entity (except for the Department of Defense (DoD)) has initiated plans for survival from a catastrophic breakdown of our electric grid over multiple regions of America.  Even worse, the U.S. government lacks the ability and inclination to provide you with critical information for your survival and well-being.

Even though there exists grace and beauty all around us, we are constantly being bombarded with 24/7/365 news, — mostly negative. While I hesitate to add more angst to your life in these very anxious times, near the end, I’ll give you a glimmer of hope on what positive action you can do. That’s my goal in this ‘conversation’ with you. My perspective is from a private citizen and former soldier, formed from the foundation of a history/english major and not a scientist (actually it’s an advantage). This is a very complicated problem set with many moving parts that affect you directly, and our very survival as a sovereign nation.  It’s best to leave it to you and me to the chase, and get a good picture of the condition of our country.

We are totally dependent on electricity; we literally cannot survive without it. Our extremely tenuous electric grid, comprised of hundreds of vulnerable power extra high voltage (EHV) transformers and over 200,000 miles of aged transmission lines, is the ‘circulatory system’ that runs our country and touches every aspect of your life such as water pressure for daily use, sanitation and fighting fires; your cell phone; the Internet (that makes it possible for the doctor to order Insulin for your child); the supply chain to deliver that Insulin to you; pumping systems to cool the nuclear power plant core rods and spent fuel pools; Wall Street and ATM’s; medical services; all forms of transportation; oil refinery production; refrigeration; military installations and defense industrial bases; your social security/pension check, and virtually all types of emergency communications used by Fire, Police, and EMS to name just a few.

The story continues here.

America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process

By Nina Shea

December 3, 2012 12:28 P.M

Round three of the “Istanbul Process” opens today, December 3, and runs through Wednesday, at Canada House, in London, hosted by the U.K. and Canada. The Istanbul Process is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s major transnational law initiative, undertaken in partnership with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). It was established last year to “implement” measures against speech and expression that negatively “stereotype[s]” Islam and Muslims, with a particular emphasis on enacting them in the West.

This initiative was started as an inexplicable, gratuitous gift to the Muslim world following the March 2011 adoption of a non-binding U.N. Human Rights Council resolution (16/18) on the same theme. While the Obama administration claims that it doesn’t intend for the process to adopt regulations beyond the American free-speech standard, our partner, the OIC, is only too eager to do just that.

The story continues here.

EDITORIAL: Romney’s electoral insurgency

Republicans are picking off states while Democrats scramble

A political tectonic shift is under way. Heading into the final weeks of the presidential campaign, the electoral map is changing decisively. Areas previously thought safe for Barack Obama are becoming competitive, and tossup states are turning into safe havens for Mitt Romney. A month ago, commentators were claiming the roads to victory were closing for the Romney campaign. Now it’s the Obama camp hunkering down to make a last stand around a few critical states.

On Thursday, the RealClearPolitics electoral-vote map gave Mr. Romney the lead for the first time. President Obama had an 88-vote advantage two weeks ago, but now the challenger leads by five. This 93-vote swing took place chiefly because four states on the Great Lakes — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin — changed from “leaning Obama” to tossups. This combined 64-vote loss significantly broadened the territory the Obama team needs to contest.

The story continues here.

Virginia Teacher Charged With Assault: Girl’s Hand Cut in Forced ‘Islamic Hand Sign’ Drill (Updated)

An elementary school teacher in Chesapeake, Va. has been charged with simple assault after a parent claimed her daughter’s hand was cut open as a result of the teacher yanking her arm aggressively while trying to teach students an “Islamic hand sign.”

Officer Leo Kosinski, a spokesman for the Chesapeake Police Department, told TheBlaze that Tara Harris was criminally charged with a misdemeanor on Oct. 11 and released on a summons. The case is currently under investigation.

“It’s still a criminal charge. It happened at the school and it involved a student,” Kosinski said. The police department could not release any additional information.

Stephanie Bennett, the mother of the 10-year-old girl who was allegedly assaulted at Butts Road Intermediate School, told TheBlaze in an emotional phone interview that Harris has a disturbing trend of “indoctrinating” students with Islamic teachings. She also said the teacher openly campaigns for President Barack Obama in the classroom.

The incident of alleged assault occurred on October 2, according to Bennett.

“The teacher was going over Islamic hand signs with the children — she stayed on this issue for two days straight during their reading and math class,” she said.

Bennett’s daughter suffers from a processing disorder, making it difficult for her to quickly grasp things like hand signs. “Not that she’s uneducated or anything. It’s just a processing problem,” the mother said.

When Bennett’s daughter was unable to do the Islamic hand sign correctly after two days of instruction, Harris became frustrated and attempted to twist the girl’s fingers to make the Islamic gesture meaning “power and strength.” The way Bennett described it, it sounds like an upside A-OK hand gesture. It is unclear exactly which “Islamic hand sign” was being promoted as the source information comes from children.

“When she didn’t get it right, [Harris] went over and yanked her hand out of her desk and my daughter’s hand got hung up on the metal wire on her file folder and the skin got caught on it,” the mother explained, her voice cracking with emotion. “The other children saw my daughter’s hand dripping with blood after the teacher had gotten so mad that she went to twist my daughter’s hand into an Islamic sign.”

After her child came home with the cut on her hand and she learned what had happened, Bennett immediately filed a police report. She claims to have pictures of her daughter’s injuries. She has agreed to share the pictures with TheBlaze, however, they were unable to be sent digitally late Wednesday night.

She says the day after the incident school officials informed her that Harris had been placed on administrative leave. On Tuesday, she was then informed that the teacher had been terminated from the Chesapeake Public School system all together. Her termination can not be independently confirmed as the messages left with multiple officials with the school system have not been returned. Attempts to contact Harris were also unsuccessful.

The mother said her daughter told her that Harris “prays to Allah in Arabic” around five times a day in front of students and teaches them about Islam and how it is superior to other religions. Bennett claims other parents have confirmed her suspicions after talking with their kids.

One of those parents, Nita Redditt, told TheBlaze that her young son confirmed Bennett’s story. The boy said he was “scared” to go back to school the next day after she found out, she added.

“I think he was intimidated,” Redditt said. “I couldn’t believe what was going on in the classroom in regards to this teacher praying to Allah and having them pray with her.”

Bennett said she wants the Chesapeake Police Department to conduct a full investigation into Harris’s actions. She also wants to know why she wasn’t notified immediately when another parent complained to Butts Road Intermediate School officials about Harris campaigning for Obama in the classroom and bashing Republican GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

Bennett said a school resource officer intially told her that “speaking in Arabic wasn’t against school policy.”

“Kids can’t stand up and fight for themselves. Someone’s got to fight for them,” Bennett said. “Why didn’t someone call me? Why weren’t any of the parents notified?”

What is strange is that no local news outlets appear to be reporting on the incident — not even the fact that a public school teacher was charged with assault.

Chesapeake Public Schools is still reeling from fresh allegations of criminal activity against one of its teachers. WAVY-TV reports that Bryan Carter, an assistant principal at Indian River High School, was arrested earlier this month and charged with abduction, burglary, attempted robbery and assault and battery., which serves the Chesapeake area, also reported on Wednesday that a Virginia Beach piano teacher had been charged with sexually abusing a 14-year-old boy.

So why are local media not covering the story involving Harris, who has been with the school since September, allegedly assaulting a 10-year-old student and forcing her class to learn Islamic hand signs? What makes this story different?

TheBlaze will continue to follow up with Chesapeake Public Schools for additional information on this developing story.

Pa. student who wore Romney shirt: Teacher ‘told me to get out of the classroom’

By Dan Stamm and Claudia Rivero,

A Philadelphia high schooler says she was humiliated after her teacher told her to remove a Mitt Romney T-shirt she was wearing, comparing it to “wearing a KKK shirt.”

Samantha Pawlucy, a 16-year-old sophomore at Charles Carroll High School in the Port Richmond section of the city, says she wore a pink Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan T-shirt last Friday during the school’s dress-down day.

No one made an issue of Samantha’s political T-shirt until she got to geometry class.

The story continues here.

Why I am not only willing to, but plan to get arrested in Washington DC this weekend for your freedom.

The future of religious freedom in America is at risk!  We Must Obey God Rather Than Men!

On Saturday morning I am getting on an airplane to fly to Washington DC where I plan on kneeling down in front of the White House to pray for our President, our leaders and the for the country my children must grow up in. You may ask what this has to do with getting arrested this weekend, prayer is certainly not illegal yet? In most cases you would be right, however not when that prayer takes place on the sidewalk outside the White House. You can stand and take photos, dance, wave your hands, pick your nose or just stand there, however if you kneel down and pray you are breaking the law and face arrest.

So your next question may be why now? Why are you flying to Washington DC to take this stand this weekend?

With the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming Obamacare, the future of religious freedom in America is at risk, and in grave danger of being entirely wiped out. Obamacare will force institutions, churches and individuals to purchase abortion-inducing drugs, and pay for sterilization and abortion in direct opposition to their beliefs, conscience and historic teachings of the Church.

The story continues here.

Chic-Fil-A Breaks World Sales Record

Katie Patlich – News Editor, Townhall

The left’s attempt to damage Chic-Fil-A completely backfired yesterday. Not only did customers wait for hours in line to “eat more chikin” but many Chic-Fil-A locations ran out of food.

The story continues here.

Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen

A motion to dismiss charges based on the use of a Predator drone was denied Wednesday

By Jason Koebler     August 2, 2012

A North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.

A judge denied a request to dismiss charges Wednesday against Rodney Brossart, a man arrested last year after a 16-hour standoff with police at his Lakota, N.D., ranch. Brossart’s lawyer argued that law enforcement’s “warrantless use of [an] unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft” and “outrageous governmental conduct” warranted dismissal of the case, according to court documents obtained by U.S. News.

[Photo Gallery: The Expansion of the Drone]

District Judge Joel Medd wrote that “there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle” and that the drone “appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here,” according to the documents.

The story continues here.

It begins… Federal Government Sues to Gain Control of Southern State’s Water Supply

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, August 1, 2012, 5:32 AM

It’s an Obama world…
The federal government is suing to gain control of New Mexico’s water supply.
Las Cruces Sun-News reported:

Clearly, it was jolting news the New Mexico Legislature’s Water and Natural Resources Committee wasn’t prepared for.

During Monday’s committee meeting, in the Barbara Hubbard Room at the Pan American Center Annex, lawyers representing the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, and the city of Las Cruces, told the committee that a state Water Court hearing will be at 9 a.m. Wednesday, at the Third Judicial Court Complex, 201 E. Picacho Ave., and the future management of state’s water supply could hang in the balance of the hearing’s outcome.

“Why hasn’t this been front-page news?” asked a surprised Clinton D. Harden Jr., a state senator from Clovis. “This is one of the biggest things ever. Frankly, what we’re looking at is under the camel’s nose. This is an unprecedented legal claim to water.”

The lawyers told the committee the U.S. government is apparently trying to take over legal management of the state’s water supply. The federal government has asserted claims for damages to groundwater in a natural resource damage case in New Mexico involving Chevron/Molycorp. The claim seeks for those damages to be awarded in the form of future water rights management.

The story continues here.

Gun Owner Saves Cop’s Life by Shooting Deranged Gunman! (VIDEO)

Story by: dabneybailey

It’s not every day that you hear the police give a civilian a warm “thank you” for entering a lethal shootout, but that’s exactly what happened in Early, Texas on Sunday. But before we get into the heroic civilian shooter, let’s back up a bit.

See a Man About a Dog

It all began, innocently enough, “as a squabble over dogs.” David Michael House, 58, and Iris Valentina Calaci, 53, were both residents at the Peach House RV Park in central Texas. They were also dog owners, and their pooches allegedly had a nasty habit of relieving themselves on the lawn of neighbor Charles Ronald Conner, 58.

The story continues here.


Attacks on Christianity are Designed to Silence Christians and Keep them Home on Election Day

posted on August 1, 2012 by Gary DeMar
Rush Limbaugh said that the attack on a business like Chick-fil-A is tactical. It’s “a direct assault on Christianity — a direct assault on Christians — with economic punishment thrown in, including threats from government officials that are in direct violation of the Constitution.”From its earliest days, Christianity has been attacked because Christians viewed the State as a “minister of God” (Rom 13:4) and not a god. In some circumstances they “must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), including Caesar. Dictatorial governments that believe they are god don’t like competition. That’s why in the French and Russian revolutions, God was persona non grata. The same was true in North Korea, Cuba, and Communist China.It’s been said that “we owe the moral force which won our Independence” on the puritan pulpit.[1]

The annual Election Sermon bears witness that our founders “began their civil year and its responsibilities with an appeal to Heaven, and recognized Christian morality as the only basis of good laws.” In addition, the clergy were often consulted by the civil authorities in the colonies, “and not infrequently the suggestions from the pulpit, on election days and other special occasions, were enacted into laws. The statute-book, the reflex of the age, shows this influence. The State was developed out of the Church.”

Enemies of freedom understood the impact that Christians and Christianity had on America. Alexis de Tocqueville observed long ago:
The story continues here.

This article is a bit old but informative as to what is going on with our money.

Biden Spends $1 Million Annually for Weekend Trips

Monday, 04 Jun 2012 05:04 PM  By Ronald Kessler

Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — Last June, President Obama appointed Vice President Joe Biden to root out wasteful government spending. But behind the scenes, it’s a different matter.

Every Friday, Biden takes a helicopter designated as Marine Two from the vice president’s residence to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland and then hops on Air Force Two to fly back to his home in Delaware. At the end of the weekend, he returns on Air Force Two, usually a Boeing C-32.
During warm weather, Biden regularly returns to Andrews on the airplane on Saturdays to play golf at the Air Force base with President Obama. After the golf game, he flies back to Delaware and returns to Washington on the plane on Sunday evening — all at taxpayer expense.

The cost of flying Air Force Two is $22,000 an hour, so each half-hour trip to or from Delaware costs about $10,000. Each golf game costs taxpayers $20,000. At that rate, the annual cost to taxpayers of Biden’s weekend trips is well over $1 million.
The story continues here.

Feds Jail New Mexico Family, Seize Everything They Own for Being Honest Legal Firearms Dealers

posted on June 23, 2012 by da Tagliar
This has got to be one of the grossest miscarriages of law enforcement that I’ve read about lately.

Rick and Terri Reese, along with their two sons Ryin and Remington ran a federally licensed gun shop in Deming, New Mexico.  They kept meticulous records of all the firearms and ammunition they purchased and which were purchased by customers.  They performed the required FBI background checks when necessary.  Basically, they ran their gun shop by the letter of the law for 17 years.

Even much of their hired help was legal as the Reeses often hired law enforcement officers who were either retired or off duty, to work in the gun shop.  This brought in a substantial amount of business with the law enforcement community and agencies.

In 2011, Terri noticed a customer that had made an unusually large number of purchases.  The customer, Penny Torres, told Terri that they were having a family reunion at a ranch in the area and that they all liked to shoot.  Terri was suspicious of Torres story and being the law abiding gun dealer she is, she reported her suspicions to one of her friends that worked with the Luna County Sheriff’s Department.  Terri told him that she suspected Torres might be a ‘straw buyer’ (someone who purchased guns for illegal purposes such as going over the Mexican border to the drug cartels, kind of like what the US government did with Operation Fast and Furious).

The story continues here.

Can the president rewrite federal law?

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano   Published June 21, 2012

Here we go again. Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land? If it is just a guideline, then it is meaningless, as it only will be followed by those in government when it is not an obstacle to their purposes. If it is the supreme law of the land, what do we do when one branch of government seizes power from another and the branch that had its power stolen does nothing about it?

Late last week, President Obama, fresh from a series of revelations that he kills whomever he pleases in foreign lands, that the US military is actually fighting undeclared wars in Somalia and Yemen, and that the CIA is using cyber warfare — computers — to destabilize innocents in Iran, announced that he has rewritten a small portion of federal immigration law so as to accommodate the needs of young immigrants who came to the US as children and remained here. By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.

Immigrants should not be used as political pawns by the government. When government does that, it violates the natural law. Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity comes from God. Our rights are natural and integral to us, and they do not vary by virtue of, and cannot be conditioned upon, the place where our mothers were physically located at the time of our births. Federal law violates the natural law when it interferes with whom you invite to your home or employ in your business or to whom you rent your property or with whom you walk the public sidewalks.

When the government restricts freedom of association based on immutable characteristics — like race, gender or the place of birth — it is engaging in the same type of decision-making that brought us slavery, Jim Crow and other invidious government discrimination. Regrettably, the feds think they can limit human freedom by quota and by geography. And they have done this for base political reasons.

Along comes the president, and he has decided that he can fix some of our immigration woes by rewriting the laws to his liking. Never mind that the Constitution provides that his job is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and that “all legislative power” in the federal government has been granted to Congress. He has chosen to bypass Congress and disregard the Constitution. Can he do this?

There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president may refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional. These arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, who refused to defend or enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because, by punishing speech, they directly contradicted the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that when a law contradicts the Constitution, the law must give way because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are inferior and must conform to it.This argument is itself now universally accepted jurisprudence — except by President Obama, who recently and inexplicably questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act on the basis that it is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, there is no intellectually honest argument to be made that the president can pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal preferences. And it is a profound violation of the Constitution for the president to engage in rewriting the laws. That’s what he has done here. He has rewritten federal law.

Only Congress can lay down specifics such as in order to avoid deportation and qualify for a two-year work visa, one must have entered the U.S. prior to age 16 and possess a valid American high school diploma or be a military veteran, as the president now requires. By altering the law in this manner — by constructing the requirements the government will impose — the president has violated his oath to enforce the laws as they are written. His second responsibility in the Constitution (the first is to defend the Constitution) is to enforce federal laws as Congress has written them — hence the employment of the word “faithfully” in the Constitution — not as he wishes them to be.

Congress should have enacted years ago what the president is now doing on his own, because it is unjust to punish children for the behavior of their parents, and it is unjust to restrict freedom based on the place of birth. But this can be remedied only by Congress. If the president can rewrite federal laws that he doesn’t like, there is no limit to his power. Then, he will not be a president. He will be a king.

To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit


Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “ It is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom.”

DOJ Releases Muslim Terrorist; Stonewalls Inquiries

by William Bigelow 20 Jun 2012 51 post a comment

Barack Obama’s Department of Justice is up to its secret ways again. Last year, six Muslims in south Florida were arrested and charged with sending tens of thousands of dollars to fund the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Now, as Judicial Watch reports, the DOJ has dropped charges against one of them — but when questioned why, the DOJ has stonewalled and remained silent.

The head of the funding operation is a Pakistani imam, Hafiz Muhammed Sher Ali Khan, who ran a mosque in Miami. The others charged were members of his family: his sons, his daughter, and his grandson.

The federal indictment said Khan ran a school in Miami which provided shelter and support for Taliban soldiers and taught children how to kill Americans in Afghanistan.

Just a few days ago, Khan’s son, Irfan Khan, who has been in jail for nearly a year and if convicted, faces 15 years in jail, was suddenly released and charges dropped. Federal prosecutors did not provide any explanation in a one-paragraph filing.

The initial arrest of the six people was widely reported because of the sensitivity with which they were arrested. Under the Obama administration’s new rules of engagement, federal agents actually waited for prayer service to end before they entered the mosque to arrest the family, even taking their shoes off to respect Muslim tradition.

EDITORIAL: Illegal voters: The winning edge

Justice Department works to allow fraudulent votes

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES    The Washington Times

Could illegal voting decide the next presidential election? Steps are being taken by the Justice Department that may help guarantee it.

On Thursday, T. Christian Herren Jr., head of the voting section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner warning him to cease efforts the state was making to validate its voter rolls. Specifically, Justice said it was concerned that the Sunshine State’s efforts to clean up the registration lists would violate provisions of the 1973 Voting Rights Act and that the state’s actions would have a discriminatory effect. The law covers five Florida counties in which there had been historical cases of voter discrimination.

Florida immediately fired back. “We are firmly committed to doing the right thing and preventing ineligible voters from being able to cast a ballot,” a spokesman for Mr. Detzner said. “We are not going to give up our efforts to make sure the voter rolls are accurate.”

Critics point to the fact that of the 2,700 non-citizens the effort has uncovered thus far, 58 percent appear to be Hispanic. This, they argue, is evidence of the type of discriminatory impact that brings Florida’s efforts under the purview of the Justice Department. This misreads the intent of the law. The 1973 Voting Rights Act was never meant to apply to illegal aliens, and the fact that the majority of unlawfully registered noncitizens are Hispanic tracks with the fact that most of the illegals in Florida are Hispanic. Furthermore, the unlawfully registered aliens have been casting votes. Of the 1,600 registered illegals in Miami-Dade County thus far identified, around two-thirds have actually cast ballots. This is troubling for an extra reason: Illegal-voter participation is much higher than the general public’s.

Illegal or erroneous voter registration is a national problem. A study by the Pew Center on the States, released in February, found 24 million flawed voter registrations nationwide, or one in eight registrations. These include inaccurate or duplicate records, people registered in two or more states and almost 2 million voters who are on the books even though they are deceased. The number of bad registrations is daunting; 24 million is larger than the winning margins of the last five presidential races combined. If the 2012 race is close, the potential impact of fraudulent votes is magnified. The Florida case is especially illustrative. In the contested 2000 vote count, George W. Bush won the state and thus the presidency by just 537 votes. Two weeks ago, Florida found and removed 53,000 dead people from its voter lists.

The Justice Department’s attentions are misplaced. Guaranteeing the legitimacy and legality of elections is a compelling interest of the states, and a power explicitly granted them by the Constitution. In effect, the nation’s chief law-enforcement agency is ignoring the massive problem that Florida has uncovered in favor of focusing on imagined discrimination as the state seeks to rectify it. The fact that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s department is seeking to prevent the purge of Hispanic illegal voters, who can be counted on to vote mostly for Barack Obama, gives the whole affair an awful whiff of dirty politics.

Good flip-flop, bad flip-flop

It’s all in the spin

by Ted Nugent


This grand time of year, the Nugent family is deep into flip-flopping, as in the flip-flopping of bluegill and crappie as we reel them in and filet them for the family dinner table. Beyond yummy.

Talk radio HammerGod of logic, Sean Hannity, hit the liberal hypocrisy media nail squarely on the head the other day.

In the epitome of logic celebration, Hannity stated that when a liberal changes positions, liberals chime in that he or she is “evolving”, but when a conservative changes positions that he or she is “flip-flopping” and cannot be trusted.

Hannity, of course, was referring to President Obama’s new view on homosexual marriage. The president has now “evolved” into personally supporting homosexual marriage. How timely.

The story continues here.

Iraq vet brutalized over guns in D.C.

by Emily Miller


The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) seems to have it out for our military. The department is using the city’s pointless firearm registration mandate to harass, arrest and jail servicemen.

Army 1st Sergeant Matt Corrigan was woken in the middle of the night, forced out of his home, arrested, had his home ransacked, had his guns seized and was thrown in jail — where he was lost in the prison system for two weeks — all because the District refuses to recognize the meaning of the Second Amendment. This week, the city dropped all charges against Sgt. Corrigan, but the damage done to this reservist cannot be so easily erased.

This story will describe how Sgt. Corrigan went from sleeping at home at night to arrested. Subsequent installments of the series will cover the home raid without a warrant, the long-term imprisonment and the coverup by MPD.

Sgt. Corrigan, 35, and his attorney Richard Gardiner appeared before Judge Michael Ryan at D.C. Superior Court on Monday. The District’s assistant attorney general moved to dismiss all ten charges against him – three for unregistered firearms and seven for possession of ammunition in different calibers.

The story continues here.