Tea Party Patriots Ordinary citizens reclaiming America's founding principles.

Friday, July 10, 2015

Action Alert: Time to Defund Illegal Sanctuary Cities!

Action Alert     


In response to the senseless killing of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who was a convicted felon and had been previously deported numerous times, Congressmen Lou Barletta (R-PA) introduced the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act....

The Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act (HR 3002) prohibits any federal funding for a minimum period of one year to any state or local government which has a policy or law that prevents them from assisting immigration authorities in enforcing federal immigration law.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) lists more than 200 such localities in the United States. Barletta’s bill directs the attorney general to compile an annual list of such cities and issue a report on any particular state or locality upon request from a member of Congress. 

A state or local government would only regain federal funding eligibility after the attorney general certifies that its laws and policies are in compliance with federal immigration statutes. (Read More)
These havens for illegal immigrants, better known as "Sanctuary Cities," operate in defiance of federal immigration laws, ignoring those laws as though they did not exist. In the case of Kate Steinle, the illegal immigrant charged in her slaying, readily admits that he continued returning to the US after being deported because he knew San Francisco was a "'Sanctuary City' and he would not be pursued." (Click here for video)

It is difficult to put an exact number on the total Sanctuary Cities and/or cities with sympathetic policies, but the number exceeds 200. In Ohio alone, there are at least 6 designated Sanctuary Cities (Columbus, Dayton, Lima, Lorain, Oberlin, and Painesville), with many other municipalities moving in that direction.

Please call your Congressman and tell them to put the well-being & safety of US citizens over the funding of cities that defy federal law & protect illegal immigrants by supporting Rep Barletta's Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act.


To find contact info for your Congressman, click here.

Below is a list of GOP Congressmen from Ohio. 

** Update**

Rep Jim Renacci & Rep. Dave Joyce have signed on as co-sponsors.  Thank you Rep. Renacci & Rep Joyce for putting US citizens before illegal immigrants.

Rep. Steve Chabot, OH-1
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-2216
D.C. Office Fax: (202) 225-3012
Email: 
http://chabot.house.gov/contact/

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RepSteveChabot
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/repstevechabot

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, OH -2
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-3164
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-1992
Email:
http://wenstrup.house.gov/contact/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepBradWenstrup
Twitter: https://twitter.com/@RepBradWenstrup

Rep. Jim Jordan, OH-4
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-2676
D.C. Office Fax: (202)226-0577
Email:
http://jordan.house.gov/contact/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/repjimjordan
Twitter: https://twitter.com/jim_jordan

Rep. Bob Latta, OH-5
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-6405
D.C. Office Fax: (800)278-8203
Email:
http://latta.house.gov/contact/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/boblatta
Twitter: https://twitter.com/boblatta

Rep. Bill Johnson, OH-6
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-5705
D.C. Office Fax: (202) 225-5907
Email:
http://billjohnson.house.gov/contact/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RepBillJohnson
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/RepBillJohnson

Rep. Bob Gibbs, OH-7
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-6265
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-3394
Email:
https://gibbs.house.gov/contact-me
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepBobGibbs
Twitter: https://twitter.com/repbobgibbs

Rep. Mike Turner, OH-10
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-6465
D.C. Office Fax: (202) 225-6754
Email:
http://turner.house.gov/contact/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepMikeTurner
Twitter: https://twitter.com/RepMikeTurner

Rep. Pat Tiberi, OH-12
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-5355
D.C. Office Fax: (202)226-4523
Email:
http://tiberi.house.gov/contact/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepPatTiberi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/tiberipress

Rep. Dave Joyce, OH-14
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-5731

D.C. Office Fax: (202) 225-3307
Email:
https://joyce.house.gov/email-me
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepDaveJoyce
Twitter: https://twitter.com/RepDaveJoyce 

Rep. Steve Stivers, OH-15
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-2015
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-3529
Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rep-Steve-Stivers/116058275133542
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/RepSteveStivers
Website: http://stivers.house.gov 

Rep. Jim Renacci, OH-16
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-3876
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-3059
Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/repjimrenacci
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/repjimrenacci
Website: http://renacci.house.gov

Monday, July 6, 2015

John Boehner pledges “Immigration Reform”



Art credit: www.examiner.com and numbersUSA

From our friends at NumbersUSA:

Spread the word: Speaker Boehner tells audiences overseas that he will get amnesty and immigration increases through the U.S. House of Representatives.
This hasn't made U.S. headlines...yet.
At the Irish TimesArthur Beelsey reports
“The speaker of the US House of Representatives John Boehner has told a Dublin audience of his determination to overcome Republican resistance to immigration reform.... [emphasis added]
“...His remarks indicate he may yet move to confront opponents of reform within his own Republican party, which is in the vanguard of resistance to it and has a majority in the House.

“The speaker, second in line for the US presidency after Joe Biden, was addressing the Independence Day lunch of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland.”

Speaker Boehner's website also has a write up of the event...but does not mention his comments on immigration. Readers can comment on the blog.
After the mid-term elections, Boehner and soon-to-be Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote: “We are humbled by this opportunity to help struggling middle-class Americans who are clearly frustrated by an increasing lack of opportunity, the stagnation of wages, and a government that seems incapable of performing even basic tasks.”
“Immigration Reform” in the context used by Boehner is commonly understood as (1) granting work permits to approximately 11 million citizens of foreign nations who are in the U.S. illegally, (2) increasing new permanent work permits granted via green cards; and (3) increasing “temporary” work permits via expanded guest worker programs.
Spread the word.
# # #



Friday, July 3, 2015

Thoughts for Independence Day


art credit: dailybail.com

Thoughts to share with family and friends 
over the Independence Day weekend

It’s more than backyard barbecues and fireworks. From military.com
On July 4, 1776, the thirteen colonies claimed their independence from England, an event which eventually led to the formation of the United States. Each year on July 4th, also known as Independence Day, Americans celebrate this historic event.
Conflict between the colonies and England was already a year old when the colonies convened a Continental Congress in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776. In a June 7 session in the Pennsylvania State House (later Independence Hall), Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented a resolution with the famous words: "Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
Lee's words were the impetus for the drafting of a formal Declaration of Independence, although the resolution was not followed up on immediately. On June 11, consideration of the resolution was postponed by a vote of seven colonies to five, with New York abstaining. However, a Committee of Five was appointed to draft a statement presenting to the world the colonies' case for independence. Members of the Committee included John Adams of Massachusetts, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Robert R. Livingston of New York and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. The task of drafting the actual document fell on Jefferson.
On July 1, 1776, the Continental Congress reconvened, and on the following day, the Lee Resolution for independence was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies, New York not voting. Discussions of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence resulted in some minor changes, but the spirit of the document was unchanged. The process of revision continued through all of July 3 and into the late afternoon of July 4, when the Declaration was officially adopted. Of the 13 colonies, nine voted in favor of the Declaration, two -- Pennsylvania and South Carolina -- voted No, Delaware was undecided and New York abstained. John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, signed the Declaration of Independence. It is said that John Hancock's signed his name "with a great flourish" so England's "King George can read that without spectacles!"
Today, the original copy of the Declaration is housed in the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and July 4 has been designated a national holiday to commemorate the day the United States laid down its claim to be a free and independent nation.
From Rush Limbaugh’s father, we learn what our Founding Fathers risked; this extract is always available at Rush’s website:  
Much To Lose
What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?
I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.
Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.
With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century.
Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."
Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."
These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.
They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.
It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be US Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)
Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law.
"The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost.
"If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."
Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.
William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."
"Most Glorious Service"
Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.
[Many harrowing stories of the signers are here.]
Lives, Fortunes, Honor
Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.
And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.
He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."
The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And 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."
Read the rest here.

Happy Independence Day!
art credit: roadtripsforfamilies.com (Roger Mastroianni photog)


Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Ohio Health Care Compact vote postponed


art credit: autoenrolment.org. 

Ohio Patriots: The Ohio Health Care Compact (HB 34) vote that was scheduled for yesterday (Tues., June 30) has been postponed. The vote will be re-scheduled most likely after the summer break. We'll send out updates in due course.
Meanwhile, thank you to all patriots who phoned or emailed legislators in Columbus earlier this week. Ultimately, support of the bill in the House looks good.

# # #

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Ohio Health Care Compact: House votes Tuesday, June 30th



Ohio Health Care Compact (HB 34) House vote scheduled for 
 ~ Tuesday, June 30th
Calling all Ohio Patriots!
In a 6-3 ruling last week, the Supreme Court again ruled in favor of Obamacare.  The ruling upheld the federal government’s right to provide Obamacare subsidies in states that did not set up their own exchanges, despite clear language in the law that stated the contrary.
In light of the SCOTUS ruling and Congress’s failure to repeal Obamacare, it is abundantly clear that if we in Ohio are going to break free from the freedom-sapping chains of Obamacare, we must take action ourselves.
US Senators John Cornyn & James Lankford explain in this op-ed how through the Health Care Compact, we have a second chance to get health care right in our state and in our country.
Ohio is looking to become the 10th member state; the Ohio Health Care Compact (HB 34) is scheduled for a full House vote on Tuesday, June 30.
With your support and immediate action, we can move one step closer to achieving our goal of true health care freedom for all Ohio citizens and getting ourselves out from under Governor Kasich's Medicaid expansion.
Please take a few minutes to contact your Ohio State Representative and respectfully request that they support the Health Care Compact (HB 34) and put Ohioans in charge of their own health care destiny.
Click for OH House Directory. Click here and scroll down for key Committee members.

Cuyahoga County Area GOP State Reps -

Rep Mike Dovilla
Phone: (614)466-4895
Contact: Click Here

Rep. Nan Baker
Phone: (614)466-0961
Contact: Click Here

Rep Marlene Anielski
Phone: (614)644-6041
Contact: Click Here

# # #


Friday, June 26, 2015

Is a Convention of States a good idea?


art credit: redmillenial.com 


The three decisions made this week (on Obamacare, gay marriage, and the Texas "disparate impact" case) by the Supreme Court of the United States have left many of us depressed and wondering what can be done. Can anything be done?
My own e-mailbox brings a daily flow of messages from organizations, political groups, and politicians, most of which are looking for money, most of which offer conservative talking points, and most of which propose solutions based on conservative talking points. Yet we have all become aware that conservative talking points are the stock-in-trade of not only groups, but also – and especially – politicians who have no intention of voting on the basis of conservative values once they are in office. That goes for politicians in Ohio and in DC.
One suggestion that has been gathering support from politicians such as Tom Coburn and Sarah Palin, is the Article V Convention of States. Mark Levin wrote a book about it entitled The Liberty Amendments in which he lays out a case for eleven Constitutional amendments to "restore the Constitution’s moribund chief components: federalism, republicanism, and limited government." 
It all sounds good and promising. But I don’t think it is going to make any difference, and the project is already diverting time, energy, and resources away from everybody’s backyard.
Back in December 2013, someone writing under the name of Suzanne Hamner wrote a piece, “Convention of the States – Good or Bad?,” for her website, Freedom Outpost, and here are two points that got my attention [emphases added]:
Our current government is operating so far outside the Constitution, ignoring basic tenets of the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility, enumerated powers, and restrictions placed on it, that another amendment is just more words for them to ignore.
. . .
It boils down to one thing and one thing only; there is no way to legislate values and principles. Yes, the Constitution provides a remedy for our current situation in Article V; however, every tenet of government is so corrupted with the atmosphere of “the flavor of the month” causes that the risk of further damage outweighs the benefit until the people reclaim their local and state governments, then work up to the federal level. That is, if we can at this point.
Read the whole thing here.
An Article V Convention of States can pass all the Amendments it wants. They will be no substitute for citizens taking daily action in their community.
# # #





Thursday, June 25, 2015

New word of the day: SCOTUScare



Art credit: Tenthamendmentcenter.com

So the SCOTUS validates Obamacare in a 6-3 vote, leaving the Ohio Health Care Compact (HB 34) as the best available protection for Ohioans; see CTPP’s earlier blog here and scroll to the bottom for details on Columbus lawmakers.
William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has posted much of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent. Here are some key passages:
"Scalia points out that the words have a plain meaning:
This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” …. [at 2, italics in original]
"Scalia argued — persuasively — that the overriding goal seems to be saving Obamacare, not exercising normal judicial interpretation of plain language:
“[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. [at 2-3]
"Scalia wrote that the majority opinion rewrote the law “with no semblance of shame”:
The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.” Ante, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) [at 3]
"Scalia then delivered the best line of the day. Looking back over multiple decisions from the Court to rewrite Obamacare in order to save it, Scalia insisted that the law now should be called SCOTUScare:
Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45).
The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. 
We should start calling this law SCOTUScare. [at 20-21, emphasis and hard paragraph breaks added.]
"The legacy of this Court, Scalia wrote, will live on just as Obamacare, but in infamy:
Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.
I dissent.

Call or email representatives in Columbus (scroll down here). 
# # #