Posts

Tennessee: Legislature moves closer to States’ Rights lawsuit on Muslim Refugee Program

All over the country, Pockets of Resistance,’ are forming to oppose the heavy-handed (secretive and costly) UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program.  Tennesseans get kudos for being among the first to be recognized as resisters by the federal government as I learned here at a 2013 meeting the Office of Refugee Resettlement held in Lancaster, PA.

Now, the legislature itself may be on the cusp of striking a real blow for states’ rights.

Think about it! Private citizens heading up non-governmental organizations: Holly Johnson of Catholic Charities TN and Jan Reeves of Idaho’s Janus Inc. call the shots, along with the feds, about how much state taxpayers must shell out for refugee programs. You know it’s unconstitutional!

See Michael Patrick Leahy, here at Breitbart:

The state of Tennessee is one step closer to filing a Tenth Amendment lawsuit in federal court to end the United States Refugee Resettlement program in that state.

Jan Reeves & Holly Johnson

Holly Johnson (left) of Catholic Charities TN and Jan Reeves of Idaho’s Janus Inc.

The Finance, Ways & Means Committee of the State Senate overwhelmingly passed Senate Joint Resolution 467 in a bi-partisan nine to one vote.

The resolution now goes to the State Senate floor, where it is likely to pass, then on the the State House, where it is also likely to pass.

In Tennessee, the state legislature (called the General Assembly) has the authority to file this lawsuit, which may prevail in the courts on Tenth Amendment grounds, if Republican Governor Bill Haslam fails to act.

[….]

The resolution was filed in the State Senate by Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey a little less than a month ago on January 22, and has moved quickly through the legislative process.

Unlike previous lawsuits filed by Texas and Alabama, which were not brought on 10th amendment grounds, this lawsuit could result in a victory. Such a victory would not prohibit refugees settled in other states by the Obama administration from entering the state of Tennessee. It would, however, prevent the State Department from settling those refugees initially in Tennessee under any circumstances, since such settlement requires the state of Tennessee to pay, in part, for their upkeep.

“Wilson-Fish alternative program” states including Tennessee and eleven others (Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Vermont) who have opted out of the US Refugee Resettlement program have a strong 10th amendment suit against the federal government to stop the program in their states since it is “an unfunded mandate,” proponents of the resolution argue.

[….]

“In 2012, the Supreme Courte ruled in the now famous NFIB v Sebelius case in that case the Supreme Court said ‘a state cannot be compelled or coerced to participate in a federal program for which it has chosen not to participate.’

Continue reading here.

By the way, most people outside of Tennessee are shocked to learn that the state (especially Nashville) is a prime resettlement site for refugees seeded there by Catholic Charities in conjunction with the federal government.

Readers get moving!

For all of you in Wilson Fish states***, you must work to persuade your governor (or state legislature in some cases) to get on board with a 10th Amendment lawsuit ready to file at the Thomas More Law Center.  You ask me all the time, what can I do. Well, if you are a citizen in one of these states this is something you can do!

***Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, South Dakota, North Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump, the Pope, and the wall

Montana: Hundreds turn out in support of letter to Washington opposing refugee resettlement

Muslim ‘Refugees’ not liking life in Finland headed home to Iraq by the thousands

Why doesn’t America want to be sovereign?

There is an urgent need for the U.S. to recover its lost sovereignty, especially in terms of borders and immigration but also in more subtle ways such as freeing ourselves from UN Agenda 21 or Common Core in education. Part of our problem is the distorted idea of what sovereignty really is.

Some think national sovereignty is a possible encroachment on state and personal sovereignty. Some say that sovereignty was a term avoided by the Founders because they were conditioned to think it referred to sovereign kings and queens of Europe. These concerns raise the question of what sovereignty really is, and I hope herein to add a few grains to our understanding. There are several levels of sovereignty, which are, from lower to higher, essentially as follows:

  1. Popular sovereignty,
  2. State sovereignty,
  3. National sovereignty.

The founders did not eschew the notion of sovereignty, as some have worried. In fact, it is central to their founding idea as pointed out here. Nor does national sovereignty imply a loss of state sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment is dedicated to protecting state sovereignty. When I mentioned sovereignty above, I was referring to national sovereignty. National sovereignty is the concept that the national government is not beholden to any other outside country or entity and has the full right to decide its path and destiny.

But in the case of our political class, it is clear that they are following leadership that does not come from We the people. Mind you, it does not necessarily come from the UN or from any particular country. But there are bits and pieces of supranational ,and what could be called ‘foreign’ leadership in Washington.

Recent presidents have all had cabinet members who were members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or the Trilateral Commission. According to Carroll Quigley, a liberal professor who taught at Georgetown, wrote in his book “Tragedy and Hope”:

“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England… (and) believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960’s to examine its papers and secret records…. I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

Richard Haas, as president of the CFR, once wrote that it is time to “rethink” sovereignty. Only a person who does not want countries to be sovereign would think that way. Now you might say, “what’s wrong with that? The CFR is not part of our government, and even if the organization came from England, it is not making the US subservient to England.” All very true.

However, any organization, whether domestic or foreign, that seeks to weaken our national sovereignty, as Quigley describes above, is intentionally undermining the US as a sovereign nation, taking it closer to becoming part of a supranational entity, similar, for example, to the Soviet Union or the EU, whose member states were barred from making independent decisions (the people of EU nations are starting to push back against this authoritarian top-down rule). Yet all presidential cabinets have prominent members from this clearly subversive organization. This does not bode well for our national security or our freedom to shape our own destiny.

There are two aspects of sovereignty that are being undermined routinely by our national government, and they are: borders and immigration. Just as no household can survive for long if the owner leaves the doors wide open 24-7 and hangs a sign on the door “All welcome to enter any time. Help yourselves to furnishings and fridge contents,” no nation can claim sovereignty if it has no control over its borders or invites all and sundry to enter and stay, with or without ID and without any background checks. Spain, under Prime Minister Zapatero, of which Obama seems to be a reasonable facsimile, kept Spain’s borders notoriously wide open, giving rise to a concept dubbed the “call effect”, an unspoken invitation to illegal immigration, a phenomenon that, in our case has birthed the “children’s invasion” from Central America.

I did not mean to give short shrift to state sovereignty. State sovereignty has been unduly undermined, particularly since Lincoln and needs to be restored to its rightful place. For example, state authorities must annul federal laws that encroach on their sovereignty, as in the case of the Bundy ranch.

As for popular sovereignty, it was a concept held in high esteem by our Founders: Sadly, this concept has been so badly distorted in today’s America that there are groups of people who think they are free to drive cars with no plates or drivers licenses, citing the Constitution’s mention of free travel. Others insist that the Constitution gives them the right to buy, sell and take drugs. It also leads some to side with criminals who are shot by police in self-defense. Many “sovereign citizens” openly defy the law, declaring themselves sovereign when confronted by law enforcement. They have gotten the cart before the horse. You don’t acquire freedom simply by declaring yourself to be sovereign. The authorities do not give people special rights based on their ability to quote the Founders. I have known some who wound up behind bars and were forced to find a new hobby.

This warped concept of “sovereignty” has detracted from the overall concept of national sovereignty and is one reason why our national sovereignty has taken a back seat. 

Many fail to apprehend that no one is truly free in a nation that is not sovereign. If people can be deluded into believing that they are each a king or queen, then national sovereignty and winning back our lost national rights to exist are no longer a relevant issue for them. But the reality of the situation is that we are losing jobs and inviting dangerous criminals to our shores in ways that will not be sustainable for too much longer — in ways that will affect even “sovereign citizens.”

So far no national political party has arisen to make this issue of national sovereignty a central part of its platform. Both of the main ones are rushing to open our borders even further, using false mantras and excuses, such as pretending that building a border fence would lead us to become another Soviet Union, with its famous Iron Curtain, or suggesting that because Americans are all descended from foreigners, we should welcome foreigners without background checks or ID. Yet none of these bleeding heart idealists would think of requiring other nations to do likewise.

Americans across the political spectrum would say “we must respect the sovereignty of all nations.”What they mean is, all nations is the U.S.

State Courage Rising: Kansas leading the way

Kansas is showing no fear and leading the way in standing against the Washington D.C. bullies who threaten freedom! The Tenth Amendment is the solution to a growing problem.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/CM_hqVjlnII[/youtube]