you forgot McCains love for illegals? he has been trying to give illegals everything in arizona a few years ago,he is another sorros open borders guy,as well as bush.
we all need to dig deeper to find true Americans to put into office!
I sure dont want to be in "the new world order"!
we all need to dig deeper to find true Americans to put into office!
I sure dont want to be in "the new world order"!
13 hours ago · Report
· 
It doesn't matter that you pat yourself on your back because you think you are so right. The fact is, however, that you're a bigoted know-nothing. Just because someone expresses an opinion on CNN does not make it the truth. The links you post to CNN transcripts are irrelevant. Opinions are like a-holes... and so are YOU.
10 hours ago · Report
· 
wonders who here believes the Original Documents were abandoned? Anyone?
10 hours ago · Delete Post
· 
Most!!
3 hours ago · Report
·
Well for info I sat an watched him say it And i was on Phone Conference with him and Axelrod and Jeff and the rest for info! It is Obvious what you are by your hand that follows your mealy mouth! diana Lower case!!
118 U.S. 356 (1886)
YICK WO
v.
HOPKINS, SHERIFF.
WO LEE
v.
HOPKINS, SHERIFF.
Supreme Court of United States.
Submitted April 14, 1886.
Decided May 10, 1886.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
363*363 Mr. Hall McAllister, Mr. L.H. Van Schaick, and Mr. D.L. Smoot for plaintiffs in error.Mr. Alfred Clarke and Mr. H.G. Sieberst for defendant in error.
365*365 Mr. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the court.
In the case of the petitioner, brought here by writ of error to the Supreme Court of California, our jurisdiction is limited to the question, whether the plaintiff in error has been denied a right in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The question whether his imprisonment is illegal, under the constitution and laws of the State, is not open to us. And although that question might have been considered 366*366 in the Circuit Court in the application made to it, and by this court on appeal from its order, yet judicial propriety is best consulted by accepting the judgment of the State court upon the points involved in that inquiry.
That, however, does not preclude this court from putting upon the ordinances of the supervisors of the county and city of San Francisco an independent construction; for the determination of the question whether the proceedings under these ordinances and in enforcement of them are in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, necessarily involves the meaning of the ordinances, which, for that purpose, we are required to ascertain and adjudge.
We are consequently constrained, at the outset, to differ from the Supreme Court of California upon the real meaning of the ordinances in question. That court considered these ordinances as vesting in the board of supervisors a not unusual discretion in granting or withholding their assent to the use of wooden buildings as laundries, to be exercised in reference to the circumstances of each case, with a view to the protection of the public against the dangers of fire. We are not able to concur in that interpretation of the power conferred upon the supervisors. There is nothing in the ordinances which points to such a regulation of the business of keeping and conducting laundries. They seem intended to confer, and actually do confer, not a discretion to be exercised upon a consideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary power to give or withhold consent, not only as to places, but as to persons. So that, if an applicant for such consent, being in every way a competent and qualified person, and having complied with every reasonable condition demanded by any public interest, should, failing to obtain the requisite consent of the supervisors to the prosecution of his business, apply for redress by the judicial process of mandamus, to require the supervisors to consider and act upon his case, it would be a sufficient answer for them to say that the law had conferred upon them authority to withhold their assent, without reason and without responsibility. The power given to them is not confided to their discretion in the legal sense of that term, but is granted 367*367 to their mere will. It is purely arbitrary, and acknowledges neither guidance nor restraint.
This erroneous view of the ordinances in question led the Supreme Court of California into the further error of holding that they were justified by the decisions of this court in the cases of Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703. In both of these cases the ordinance involved was simply a prohibition to carry on the washing and ironing of clothes in public laundries and washhouses, within certain prescribed limits of the city and county of San Francisco, from ten o'clock at night until six o'clock in the morning of the following day. This provision was held to be purely a police regulation, within the competency of any municipality possessed of the ordinary powers belonging to such bodies; a necessary measure of precaution in a city composed largely of wooden buildings like San Francisco, in the application of which there was no invidious discrimination against any one within the prescribed limits, all persons engaged in the same business being treated alike, and subject to the same restrictions, and entitled to the same privileges, under similar conditions.
For these reasons, that ordinance was adjudged not to be within the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, it was said, in the first case cited, "undoubtedly intended not only that there should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of property, but that equal protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights; that all persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness and acquire and enjoy property; that they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts; that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of any one, except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; that no greater burdens should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition; and that in the administration of criminal justice no different or higher punishment should be imposed upon 368*368 one than such as is prescribed to all for like offences." "Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited, but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment."
The ordinance drawn in question in the present case is of a very different character. It does not prescribe a rule and conditions for the regulation of the use of property for laundry purposes, to which all similarly situated may conform. It allows without restriction the use for such purposes of buildings of brick or stone; but, as to wooden buildings, constituting nearly all those in previous use, it divides the owners or occupiers into two classes, not having respect to their personal character and qualifications for the business, nor the situation and nature and adaptation of the buildings themselves, but merely by an arbitrary line, on one side of which are those who are permitted to pursue their industry by the mere will and consent of the supervisors, and on the other those from whom that consent is withheld, at their mere will and pleasure. And both classes are alike only in this, that they are tenants at will, under the supervisors, of their means of living. The ordinance, therefore, also differs from the not unusual case, where discretion is lodged by law in public officers or bodies to grant or withhold licenses to keep taverns, or places for the sale of spirituous liquors, and the like, when one of the conditions is that the applicant shall be a fit person for the exercise of the privilege, because in such cases the fact of fitness is submitted to the judgment of the officer, and calls for the exercise of a discretion of a judicial nature.
The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less, because they are aliens and subjects of the Emperor of China. By the third article of the treaty between this Government and that of China, concluded November 17, 1880, 22 Stat. 827, it is stipulated: "If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, 369*369 the Government of the United States will exert all its powers to devise measures for their protection, and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty."
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
It is contended on the part of the petitioners, that the ordinances for violations of which they are severally sentenced to imprisonment, are void on their face, as being within the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, in the alternative, if not so, that they are void by reason of their administration, operating unequally, so as to punish in the present petitioners what is permitted to others as lawful, without any distinction of circumstances — an unjust and illegal discrimination, it is claimed, which, though not made expressly by the ordinances is made possible by them.
When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed 370*370 to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.
There are many illustrations that might be given of this truth, which would make manifest that it was self-evident in the light of our system of jurisprudence. The case of the political franchise of voting is one. Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless it is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.
In reference to that right, it was declared by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485, 489, in the words of Chief Justice Shaw, "that in all 371*371 cases where the constitution has conferred a political right or privilege, and where the constitution has not particularly designated the manner in which that right is to be exercised, it is clearly within the just and constitutional limits of the legislative power, to adopt any reasonable and uniform regulations, in regard to the time and mode of exercising that right, which are designed to secure and facilitate the exercise of such right, in a prompt, orderly, and convenient manner;" nevertheless, "such a construction would afford no warrant for such an exercise of legislative power, as, under the pretence and color of regulating, should subvert or injuriously restrain the right itself." It has accordingly been held generally in the States, that, whether the particular provisions of an act of legislation, establishing means for ascertaining the qualifications of those entitled to vote, and making previous registration in lists of such, a condition precedent to the exercise of the right, were or were not reasonable regulations, and accordingly valid or void, was always open to inquiry, as a judicial question. See Daggett v. Hudson, 1 Western Reporter, 789, decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio, where many of the cases are collected; Monroe v. Collins, 17 Ohio St. 665.
The same principle has been more freely extended to the quasi legislative acts of inferior municipal bodies, in respect to which it is an ancient jurisdiction of judicial tribunals to pronounce upon the reasonableness and consequent validity of their by-laws. In respect to these, it was the doctrine, that every by-law must be reasonable, not inconsistent with the charter of the corporation, nor with any statute of Parliament, nor with the general principles of the common law of the land, particularly those having relation to the liberty of the subject or the rights of private property. Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 3d ed., § 319, and cases cited in notes. Accordingly, in the case of The State of Ohio ex rel. &c. v. The Cincinnati Gas-Light and Coke Company, 18 Ohio St. 262, 300, an ordinance of the city council purporting to fix the price to be charged for gas, under an authority of law giving discretionary power to do so, was held to be bad, if passed in bad faith, fixing an unreasonable price, for the fraudulent purpose of compelling 372*372 the gas company to submit to an unfair appraisement of their works. And a similar question, very pertinent to the one in the present cases, was decided by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in the case of the City of Baltimore v. Radecke, 49 Maryland, 217. In that case the defendant had erected and used a steam engine, in the prosecution of his business as a carpenter and box-maker in the city of Baltimore, under a permit from the mayor and city council, which contained a condition that the engine was "to be removed after six months' notice to that effect from the mayor." After such notice and refusal to conform to it, a suit was instituted to recover the penalty provided by the ordinance, to restrain the prosecution of which a bill in equity was filed. The court holding the opinion that "there may be a case in which an ordinance, passed under grants of power like those we have cited, is so clearly unreasonable, so arbitrary, oppressive, or partial, as to raise the presumption that the legislature never intended to confer the power to pass it, and to justify the courts in interfering and setting it aside as a plain abuse of authority," it proceeds to speak, with regard to the ordinance in question, in relation to the use of steam engines, as follows: "It does not profess to prescribe regulations for their construction, location, or use, nor require such precautions and safeguards to be provided by those who own and use them as are best calculated to render them less dangerous to life and property, nor does it restrain their use in box factories and other similar establishments within certain defined limits, nor in any other way attempt to promote their safety and security without destroying their usefulness. But it commits to the unrestrained will of a single public officer the power to notify every person who now employs a steam engine in the prosecution of any business in the city of Baltimore, to cease to do so, and, by providing compulsory fines for every day's disobedience of such notice and order of removal, renders his power over the use of steam in that city practically absolute, so that he may prohibit its use altogether. But if he should not choose to do this, but only to act in particular cases, there is nothing in the ordinance to guide or control his action. It lays down no 373*373 rules by which its impartial execution can be secured or partiality and oppression prevented. It is clear that giving and enforcing these notices may, and quite likely will, bring ruin to the business of those against whom they are directed, while others, from whom they are withheld, may be actually benefited by what is thus done to their neighbors; and, when we remember that this action or non-action may proceed from enmity or prejudice, from partisan zeal or animosity, from favoritism and other improper influences and motives easy of concealment and difficult to be detected and exposed, it becomes unnecessary to suggest or to comment upon the injustice capable of being brought under cover of such a power, for that becomes apparent to every one who gives to the subject a moment's consideration. In fact, an ordinance which clothes a single individual with such power hardly falls within the domain of law, and we are constrained to pronounce it inoperative and void."
This conclusion, and the reasoning on which it is based, are deductions from the face of the ordinance, as to its necessary tendency and ultimate actual operation. In the present cases we are not obliged to reason from the probable to the actual, and pass upon the validity of the ordinances complained of, as tried merely by the opportunities which their terms afford, of unequal and unjust discrimination in their administration. For the cases present the ordinances in actual operation, and the facts shown establish an administration directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons as to warrant and require the conclusion, that, whatever may have been the intent of the ordinances as adopted, they are applied by the public authorities charged with their administration, and thus representing the State itself, with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the State of that equal protection of the laws which is secured to the petitioners, as to all other persons, by the broad and benign provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal 374*374 hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370; and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703.
The present cases, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, are within this class. It appears that both petitioners have complied with every requisite, deemed by the law or by the public officers charged with its administration, necessary for the protection of neighboring property from fire, or as a precaution against injury to the public health. No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they should not be permitted to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood. And while this consent of the supervisors is withheld from them and from two hundred others who have also petitioned, all of whom happen to be Chinese subjects, eighty others, not Chinese subjects, are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. The fact of this discrimination is admitted. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusion cannot be resisted, that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which in the eye of the law is not justified. The discrimination is, therefore, illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is, therefore, illegal, and they must be discharged. To this end,
The judgment of the Supreme Court of California in the case of Yick Wo, and that of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California in the case of Wo Lee, are severally reversed, and the cases remanded, each to the proper court, with directions to discharge the petitioners from custody and imprisonment.
Jane:
After poking around on the ALEC site to get an idea of what they were doing I found it easier to take a look at what they ‘oppose’; the following is a list of their ‘Resolutions’ opposing or against various topics:
Opposing Any Increase in the Starting Wage
Opposing Employer-Paid Health Care Mandates
Opposing Federal Regulation to Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits to New Parents
Resolution opposing increases in minimum wage linked to the CPI
Resolution Opposing Federal Mandates on Unemployment Insurance
A Resolution Opposing A Federal Commission on State Workers’ Compensation Laws
Opposing Disruptive Union Organizing
Opposing Violence in Labor Disputes
Resolution Opposing “Card Check” and Forced, Compulsory Binding Arbitration
Opposing Employer-Paid Health Care Mandates
Opposing Federal Regulation to Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits to New Parents
Resolution opposing increases in minimum wage linked to the CPI
Resolution Opposing Federal Mandates on Unemployment Insurance
A Resolution Opposing A Federal Commission on State Workers’ Compensation Laws
Opposing Disruptive Union Organizing
Opposing Violence in Labor Disputes
Resolution Opposing “Card Check” and Forced, Compulsory Binding Arbitration
Resolution Opposing Taxpayer Financed Political Campaigns
Resolution in Opposition to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Resolution Opposing Federal Takeover of State Election Procedures
Resolution in Opposition to Pay-to-Play Legislation
Resolution in Opposition to the REAL ID Act
Resolution in Opposition to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Resolution Opposing Federal Takeover of State Election Procedures
Resolution in Opposition to Pay-to-Play Legislation
Resolution in Opposition to the REAL ID Act
Resolution in Opposition to EPA”s Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Mobile Sources
Resolution In Opposition To EPA”s Plan To Regulate Greenhouse Gases Under The Clean Air Act
Resolution in Opposition to the EPA’s “Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” and the Treatment of Biomass Energy
Resolution in Opposition of Carbon Dioxide Emission Standards
Resolution in Opposition to S. 1602: The “Chemical Security Act of 2002”
Resolution to Oppose the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)
ALEC Resolution Opposing State and Local Mandates Requiring Warning Labels on Wireless Devices and Packaging
Resolution In Opposition To EPA”s Plan To Regulate Greenhouse Gases Under The Clean Air Act
Resolution in Opposition to the EPA’s “Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” and the Treatment of Biomass Energy
Resolution in Opposition of Carbon Dioxide Emission Standards
Resolution in Opposition to S. 1602: The “Chemical Security Act of 2002”
Resolution to Oppose the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)
ALEC Resolution Opposing State and Local Mandates Requiring Warning Labels on Wireless Devices and Packaging
Resolution Opposing Unfair and Unbalanced Insurance “Bad Faith” Legislation
Resolution Opposing Anti-Indemnity And Anti-Additional Insured Legislation
Opposing Federal Legislation to Repeal or Modify the McCarran Ferguson Act (exempts for Insurance Co)
Opposing Government Mandated Disclosure of Proprietary, Trade Secret Information
Opposing Comparable Worth Legislation
Opposing Ergonomic Regulations Based on Unsound Science
Resolution in Opposition to a Consumer Financial Protection Agency
Opposing Government-Imposed Caps or Elimination of ATM Fees
Opposing “Pay at the Pump” Automobile Insurance
Resolution Against Federal Weight-Distance Tax Proposal
Resolution Opposing Federal Non-Commercial Driver’s License Standards
Resolution Opposing the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Proposal on Truck Driver Hours of Service
Resolution Opposing the Transportation Equity for All Americans Act and the Transportation Act for All Americans
Opposing Federal Standards for Monopoly Bargaining
Opposing Frivolous Complaints and Permits Extortion
Resolution Against U.S. Participation in International Agreement in Copenhagen
Resolution Opposing Government Involvement in Commercial Negotiations
Resolution Opposing Anti-Indemnity And Anti-Additional Insured Legislation
Opposing Federal Legislation to Repeal or Modify the McCarran Ferguson Act (exempts for Insurance Co)
Opposing Government Mandated Disclosure of Proprietary, Trade Secret Information
Opposing Comparable Worth Legislation
Opposing Ergonomic Regulations Based on Unsound Science
Resolution in Opposition to a Consumer Financial Protection Agency
Opposing Government-Imposed Caps or Elimination of ATM Fees
Opposing “Pay at the Pump” Automobile Insurance
Resolution Against Federal Weight-Distance Tax Proposal
Resolution Opposing Federal Non-Commercial Driver’s License Standards
Resolution Opposing the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Proposal on Truck Driver Hours of Service
Resolution Opposing the Transportation Equity for All Americans Act and the Transportation Act for All Americans
Opposing Federal Standards for Monopoly Bargaining
Opposing Frivolous Complaints and Permits Extortion
Resolution Against U.S. Participation in International Agreement in Copenhagen
Resolution Opposing Government Involvement in Commercial Negotiations
Resolution Against Amnesty
Resolution to Oppose NCCUSL Effort to rewrite the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act
A Resolution in Opposition to Mandatory Unitary Combined Reporting
A Resolution in Opposition to Value-Added Taxes
Resolution Opposing the United Nations Drive for Global Taxes
A Resolution in Opposition to Discriminatory Food and Beverage Taxes
Resolution Opposing a la Carte Cable Offering Requirements
Resolution Opposing the Expansion of the Federal Trade Commissions Rulemaking Authority
A Resolution in Opposition to Mandatory Unitary Combined Reporting
A Resolution in Opposition to Value-Added Taxes
Resolution Opposing the United Nations Drive for Global Taxes
A Resolution in Opposition to Discriminatory Food and Beverage Taxes
Resolution Opposing a la Carte Cable Offering Requirements
Resolution Opposing the Expansion of the Federal Trade Commissions Rulemaking Authority
It’s hard to imagine they have the average American’s interests at heart. Their resolutions, model ‘acts’ and statments numbered close to, if not over, a 1,000. How can so many Republicans, who say they are against big government, belong to an organization that churns out resolutions and model legislation on every topic under the sun? Who’s actually writing this stuff and, as they issue ‘Guides for State Legislatures’, how many legislatures are using the guides, pushing ALEC model acts? And when do they get time to work on legislation their constituents might actually need and want? If the State Legislatures are looking out for ALEC, who’s looking out for the American citizen?
- Mel:
I think the key to cracking this will be found in their non-profit status 501(c)3. Non-profits cannot lobby and a host of other rules, primarily they have to be NON-profit. Who is making profits? Is it hidden profit, cooked books? ALEC has a strong legal team, but they are not part of the “27 person” office in DC. ALEC lawyers did at one time register as lobbyists in North Dakota. Is that significant, has anyone notified the IRS? Where else have they violated 501(c)3 status? If everyone in their own state starts doing research, hitting the databases we have wonderful access to, we can find where they violate 501(c)3 status.
- Jane:
According to ALEC, they are “classified by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) non-profit public policy and educational organization” and they claim, in one publication, that nothing they write “is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the view of the American Legislative Exchange Council, its Board of Director, or its membership,or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the Congress or in state legislatures.”
However, in the same document they say:
“ALEC’s Asbestos and Silica Claims Priorities Act, which has been adopted in Florida, Texas, Georgia and Ohio,…”,
“Over 20 states have enacted versions of ALEC’s Commonsense Consumption Act…”
“ALEC’s Asbestos and Silica Claims Priorities Act, which has been adopted in Florida, Texas, Georgia and Ohio,…”,
“Over 20 states have enacted versions of ALEC’s Commonsense Consumption Act…”
If they are not attempting to “aid or hinder” the passage of bills why brag about the enactment of their model legislation? And why state:
“ALEC is able to respond immediately on issues that correlate to its model legislation on both the state and federal level, essentially communicating policy directives from the states”
“Interacting with state legislative leaders on a daily basis, ALEC policy experts have in-depth knowledge on state legislative issues and activity. In addition, ALEC staff, legislators and advisors provide authoritative testimony before state legislatures and Congress.”
Providing full contact details for their experts.
Furthermore they claim
“Legislators also contribute to advancing the ALEC agenda by serving on ALEC’s Board of Directors, or as State or Task Force Chairs. Among the leadership of America’s state legislatures, ALEC members hold an impressive presence: 38 speakers and speakers pro tempore; 25 senate presidents and senate presidents pro tempore; 31 senate majority and minority leaders; 33 house majority and minority leaders. ALEC alumni include six sitting governors, four lieutenant governors, two senior cabinet-level positions, and 96 members of Congress.”
“Legislators also contribute to advancing the ALEC agenda by serving on ALEC’s Board of Directors, or as State or Task Force Chairs. Among the leadership of America’s state legislatures, ALEC members hold an impressive presence: 38 speakers and speakers pro tempore; 25 senate presidents and senate presidents pro tempore; 31 senate majority and minority leaders; 33 house majority and minority leaders. ALEC alumni include six sitting governors, four lieutenant governors, two senior cabinet-level positions, and 96 members of Congress.”
This is an explicit statement that the legislators who join ALEC ‘advance’ ALEC’s agenda and, by implication, actively work on getting ALEC’s model legislation enacted at both State and Federal levels.
And in their Corporate Membership Brochure they claim “To date, ALEC has considered, written, and approved hundreds of model bills, resolutions, and policy statements. Historically, during each legislative cycle, ALEC legislators introduce more than 1,000 pieces of legislation based on these models, approximately 17 percent of which are enacted.”
“A DYNAMIC PARTNERSHIP – One of ALEC’s greatest strengths is the public-private partnership. ALEC provides the private sector with an unparalleled opportunity to have its voice heard, and its perspective appreciated, by the legislative members…The two groups
work in unison to solve the challenges facing the nation. The results are policies that will define the American political landscape in the 21st century.”
work in unison to solve the challenges facing the nation. The results are policies that will define the American political landscape in the 21st century.”
Implicit in the literature is
(a) our members are State Legislators, Members of Congress and Senators
(b) you get full access to them, and
(c) they will work with you on designing the policies you want
(a) our members are State Legislators, Members of Congress and Senators
(b) you get full access to them, and
(c) they will work with you on designing the policies you want
It is extremely difficult to see how they are not a politically ‘active organization’ attempting to influence legislature in contradiction to the IRS statement that “In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying).” In fact, all of ALEC’s activities appear directed towards that one aim.
- Tamara:
Thank you for all your research. It sounds like a compelling idea. Get ALEC’s not-for-profit tax status revoked. How do you believe this will affect them?
- Tamara:
Actually, not-for-profits are permitted to lobby. There are restrictions on this that may seem byzantine. But there you are, it’s our tax code.
- Tamara:
The model legislation you found appears to be the cartels’ wish list. I recall McCain during the presidential election attempting to cast himself as another Teddy Roosevelt. Yet I don’t remember him mentioning Trust Busting, one of TR’s major planks. Neither did Obama for that matter, but he didn’t mention Roosevelt either. Yet at no other point in our history, not even the ‘golden age’, has our society been more in the grip of monopolies than now. When we hear “business friendly” what are they really saying? Who significantly finances these multi-million dollar political campaigns and the PAC advertisers?
On a separate note, it is not factually true that a 501(3)c cannot show a profit. Further, it seems highly unlikely not to mention organizationally impractical that ALEC performs as some kind of direct cash conduit. I think most people see that. It is true that as a not-for-profit, they receive support. Maybe it’s interesting where that comes from. It should be publicly available information.
- Ed Denver:
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Integration_of_Theory_and_Practice and you will find the answer to your questions. As you continue your research you will see how ALL conservative issues are related to and guided by this document. Thank you.
Reactions
Katherine Yurica of "The Yurica Report" wrote that Paul Weyrich guided Eric Heubeck in writing The Integration of Theory and Practice,[1] and that it calls for the use of deception, misinformation and divisiveness to allow conservative evangelical Christian Republicans to gain and keep control of seats of power in the government of the United States.[2]TheocracyWatch calls the essay "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual"[4] and "a new manifesto" for Dominionism.[5]
[edit] History of the document
Originally appearing on the FreeCongressFoundation.org website in Summer of 2001,[6] it was removed in early 2006. Yurica says it was taken down from the Free Congress Foundation's website and those of other Christian groups after critics began linking the strategy it detailed to Dominionism and specific policies of the religious right.[7][edit] See also
· The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement
·
·
· This essay is based on the belief that the truth of an idea is not the primary reason for its acceptance. Far more important is the energy and dedication of the idea's promoters--in other words, the individuals composing a social or political movement...
· We must, as Mr. Weyrich has suggested, develop a network of parallel cultural institutions existing side-by-side with the dominant leftist cultural institutions. The building and promotion of these institutions will require the development of a movement that will not merely reform the existing post-war conservative movement, but will in fact be forced to supersede it--if it is to succeed at all--because it will pursue a very different strategy and be premised on a very different view of its role in society....
· There will be three main stages in the unfolding of this movement. The first stage will be devoted to the development of a highly motivated elite able to coordinate future activities. The second stage will be devoted to the development of institutions designed to make an impact on the wider elite and a relatively small minority of the masses. The third stage will involve changing the overall character of American popular culture....
· Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated to the creation of our own institutions....
· We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today's American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously.
· We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime...
· We must create a countervailing force that is just as adept as the Left at intimidating people and institutions that are used as tools of left-wing activism but are not ideologically committed, such as Hollywood celebrities, multinational corporations, and university administrators. We must be feared, so that they will think twice before opening their mouths...
· We will be results-oriented rather than good intentions-oriented. Making a good-faith effort and being ideologically sound will be less important than advancing the goals of the movement...
· There is no medium more conducive to propagandistic purposes than the moving image, and our movement must learn to make use of this medium. A skillfully produced motion picture or television documentary has tremendous persuasive power...Rational arguments simply do not have this power, and all arguments made in print tend to appeal to the rational, critical faculties of the mind to a greater or lesser degree...
· The visual image allows us to illustrate our beliefs and arguments to our members and others in highly compelling terms--we will be able to show all the examples of cultural decadence, irrationality and disingenuousness in public debate, combined with our commentary, selectively edited and arranged for maximum impact...
· We need more people with fire in the belly, and we need a message that attracts those kinds of people....We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms....
· Some will argue that “conservatives” do not believe in apocalyptic fervor. The reader should simply ask himself, is he happy with the state of cultural conservatism in this country? If not, does he think it likely that conditions will improve in the future by operating according to the current rules? And if not, is he willing to witness the death of true civilization in this country so that conservatism will not suffer the ungentlemanly taint of "fervor"? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, this movement will not appeal to the reader.
· [Emphasis was added by the Yurica Report.]
Stupid
Topic: Stupid
Displaying posts 31 - 60 out of 62.
Kevin W. Golike
Diana Albright
Soup McGee
Clarence Neeley
Clarence Neeley
Clarence Neeley
Diana Albright
Kevin W. Golike
Clarence Neeley
Diana Albright
Clarence Neeley
Diana Albright
Clarence Neeley
Diana Albright
Soup McGee
Soup McGee
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2131565438211553011&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Soup McGee
Kevin W. Golike
Soup McGee
Kevin W. Golike
Soup McGee
Soup McGee
Kevin W. Golike
Kevin W. Golike
Soup McGee
Soup McGee
Kevin W. Golike
Soup McGee
Kevin W. Golike
Soup McGee
· Soup McGee
Soup McGee
Soup McGee
Clarence Neeley
-from Jan Brewer’s Facebook page
Is Russell Pearce a Citizen of the United States of America or a Sovereign Citizen?
http://tucsoncitizen.com/in-the-aggregate/2011/03/22/russell-pearce-you%E2%80%99re-not-a-citizen-of-the-united-states/
PEARCE: U.S. history, most of us weren’t around when the Constitution was written. But you remember we kind of existed before Congress, the states. We created the Congress, we created the federal government, by compact. Do you know what existed before the Congress, the states? Do you know, you’re not a citizen of the United States. You’re a citizen of a sovereign state. The fifty sovereign states makes up United States of America, we’re citizens of those sovereign states. It is not a delegated authority. It’s an inherent authority that states have over the federal government. [applause] It’s about time somebody gets it right!
These Words I Have Heard With My Own Ears! Is Russell Pearce An American Citizen?!??!?
Sovereign Citizens?: http://www.ajc.com/news/clayton/fbi-sovereign-citizen-cases-861611.html
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Federal authorities are seeing an increase in the number of foreclosed and unoccupied homes in metro Atlanta being seized by members of an anti-government group."I'm not sure I can connect it with the economy, but we've seen a surge of these in the last year, in particular," Stephen Emmett, special agent in the Atlanta field office of the FBI, said Saturday. Emmet said federal and local authorities increasingly are running into confrontations with members of a sect known as "sovereign citizens."
The group believes banks can't own land or property and that any home owned by a bank -- including the thousands of foreclosed properties throughout Georgia -- are theirs for the taking.
"They're expanding throughout the Metro Atlanta area," Emmett said. "DeKalb has had (its) fair share of problems with them and now Clayton."
On Friday, Clayton County SWAT was called to a foreclosed home near Riverdale where a couple had been living illegally. SWAT members surrounded the house after getting reports the people inside had threatened violence against anyone who approached the house. Gideon Israel and his wife, Deborah, had been living illegally in the bank-owned, gray stucco house on Stimson way near Riverdale in the northwest part of Clayton County and had submitted reams of fraudulent paperwork to county officials to try to block the eviction, according to Major Jeff Mitchell, who heads the enforcement division for the Clayton County Sheriff's Office.
The Israels were not charged and left without incident. Shortly after, cleanup crews for the bank put furniture and other belongings on the lawn and boarded up the house.
Mitchell said the Riverdale couple is thought to be part of the sovereign citizen sect.
"We're trying to identify other sovereign citizen cases in the county," Mitchell said, noting local law enforcement is working with the FBI to target group members.
Sovereign citizens don't believe courts have jurisdiction over them. They don't believe in paying taxes or acquiring driver's licenses or car tags.
They do, however, believe abandoned properties are ripe for the taking. They often use quit-claim deeds to take over properties and as soon as they move in post trespassing signs warning people to stay off the property.
The group uses YouTube to educate the public about their philosophy and recruit new members.
The Riverdale incident is among at least two dozen Atlanta-area incidents of home takeovers by the sovereign citizens, including a $1 million home in south DeKalb County seized by the sect last year. Authorities say the sect has taken over 20 metro Atlanta properties, including a shopping center.
The FBI has listed Sovereign Citizens as a domestic terrorist organization. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which also tracks the group, estimates the sect numbers more than 300,000 nationwide.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.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 the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
the guy who ran aganst joe Garcia
| SOURCES: | |
| 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | Americans for Tax Reform: In the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases. Rivera signed the pledge. |
| 6. | |
| 7. | Miami Herald (July 25, 2010): Garcia supported “President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform, extending unemployment benefits, allowing ex-President George W. Bush’s tax cuts expire, pushing for change…and promoting federal immigration reform.” |
| 8. | |
| 9. | The NRA gives him an F = True enemy of gun owners’ rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights and/or actively leads anti-gun legislative efforts, or sponsors anti-gun legislation. |
| 10. | Pro-ChoiceAmerica.org (9/29/2010): This pro-abortion group reported that the pro-abortion group, NARAL Pro-Choice America, endorsed and donated money to Democrat Joe Garcia. - http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/elections-press-releases/2010/pr09292010_paccontributions.html - http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/pro-choice-voter-guide/race/fl-25.html |
| 11. | Americans for Tax Reform: In the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases. Joe Garcia did not sign the pledge. |
| 12. | Miami Herald (July 25, 2010): Garcia supports “federal immigration reform.” |
| As we have explained before, Seven Mountains dominionism seeks to place Christians in control over top of seven forces that shape and control our culture: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion. The reason for this, as Lance Wallnau, the leading advocate for Seven Mountains theology, explained is that Jesus "doesn't come back until He's accomplished the dominion of nations." And that way "dominion of nations" is accomplished is by having Christians gain control of these "seven mountains" in order to install a "virtual theocracy" overseen by "true apostles" who will fight Satan and his Antichrist agenda. 2 seconds ago |
No comments:
Post a Comment