RESOLUTION FOR a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE in PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

by Diane Rufino  (written as a draft for Special Operations Speaks)

RESOLUTION FOR  A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE in PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

Whereas, the American Founding Fathers and Framers of the US Constitution recognized that presidential abuse of power carried the greatest potential to derail and destroy the republic, and determined that the American presidency that there were creating should never become a monarchy, they armed the US Congress with two responsive weapons: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment; and

Whereas, we have seen in the years since 2008 that the power of the purse is not a practical check on President Barack Obama. While Democrats intentionally defy the Framers’ design, Republicans frustrate it by aggressive passivity;

Whereas, the Constitution divides and limits power according to individual branches of government and by subject matter (specific enumerated powers), and not by percentage of governmental control; and

Whereas, the numerous infractions of the Constitution and abuses of office committed by President Barack Obama have resulted in certain “Articles of Impeachment” to have been filed in the US House; and

Whereas, there is no likelihood that either Judiciary Committee consideration or full House action is likely to occur, if ever (although perhaps when and if the Republicans retain control of the House and take narrow control of the Senate at the end of the year); and

Whereas, in a highly-charged partisan political environment, there is no other avenue to put the brakes on a president who demonstrates repeated and egregious violations of the US Constitution; and

Whereas, in countries that operate with a parliamentary form of government (such as Great Britain and Spain), there is a procedure known as a “Motion of No Confidence” (alternatively “Vote of No Confidence”) which is a statement or vote which states that the person holding a superior position is no longer deemed fit to hold that position. This may be based on said person falling short in some respect, failing to carry out obligations, or making choices that other members feel are detrimental. As a parliamentary motion, it demonstrates to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in (one or more members of) the appointed government.

Whereas, there is no such instrument in our Constitution or in existing law that prevents the use of a “Vote of No Confidence” as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for Contempt of Congress, violations of Oath of Office, and of the Constitution itself; and

Whereas, a list of some particular areas where President Obama has acted in a way so as to cause a “Loss of Confidence” –  a “Bill of Particulars” – would include the following:

1.  The failure to produce a Birth Certificate (that is not a forgery) to show that he is indeed meets the qualifications established in the US Constitution to hold the office of President;

2.   The repeated empty promises he has given for a transparent, accountable, non-partisan, post-racial, lobbyist-free and completely “fair and balanced” administration;

3.   The scandals that define his administration (including Fast & Furious, Benghazi, NSA domestic spying, and targeting of conservative groups by the IRS), thereby leading to the name for his presidency – “Scamalot”;

4.   His use of class, racial, and moral warfare to divide Americans, thereby creating social disharmony and erosion of traditional American values;

5.   His blind ambition to re-define social justice by pushing the Affordable Healthcare Act (federal, socialized healthcare) when he knew the majority of Americans were against such a federal program;

6.   His disregard for the strict constitutional limitations placed on government in the Bill of Rights by his expansion of Executive powers to target Americans under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), by his support of the UN Small Arms Treaty, his use of the NSA to spy on law-abiding American citizens, his use of the IRS to intimidate and silence groups that criticize his policies, his support and enlargement of the Drone surveillance program to improperly expand the powers of law enforcement, and his use of Drones to target Americans abroad.

7.   His unprecedented reliance on three dozen or more un-vetted and largely unaccountable regulatory “czars” and on scores of executive orders (over 20 on gun control alone), whose regulatory implications are virtually unknown — and not subject to congressional oversight;

8.   His crony-capitalist takeover and wasteful funding of most “green energy” initiatives — and simultaneous impediments to fossil energy production: coal, natural gas fracking, and “offshore” oil and gas on most federal lands — costing countless jobs, government revenues, balance of trade, and revenues to state and local governments;

9.   His explosive and “waste and fraud” expansion of the many welfare-state programs (food stamps, housing assistance, cell phones, disability status, workman’s comp, Obamacare, Medicaid, child care, school lunches, etc. ad infinitum — which has given rise to the term “Goverment Plantation;

10.   His use of Executive Privilege to frustrate the investigation of government scandals, his de-facto contempts of Congress, and his multiple violations of the Constitution’s mandates for both Separation of Powers and Equal Protection of the Laws;

11.   His constant manipulation of unemployment, economic growth, Obamacare, deficit spending, National Debt, and so-called climate change numbers — exemplified by his complete rejection of the Simpson-Bowles Commission’s bipartisan recommendations for solving the crisis that still threatens the stability of the American economy – as well as his rejection of Congressional Office of Budget and Management (OBM) Reports;

12.  His feverish efforts to remove God, Jesus, Christmas, the Nativity Scene, and major Judeo-Christian symbolism from federal government venues and usage, especially in the Armed Forces, and from the public square in general — while according Islam and sharia (Islamic law) more respect and deference than he does Christianity, Judaism, and the Bible.

13.   His feverish efforts to promote homosexuality and erode the institution of marriage.

Therefore Let it Be Resolved that the Pitt County GOP believes that the aforementioned list of deceits, misdeeds, mal-administrations, and violations of law are sufficient to justify an official expression of “No Confidence” by the US House of Representatives.

And Be it Further Resolved that the Pitt County GOP supports efforts to encourage a vote of “No Confidence” by members of the US House.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

RESOLUTION TO CHALLENGE OBAMACARE AS VIOLATING THE 13th AMENDMENT

by Diane Rufino, Deputy Director of the NC Tenth Amendment Center and Resolutions Chair of the Pitt County GOP.  The following resolution will be presented at the 2014 Pitt County GOP Convention on March 8.

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA) AS VIOLATING THE THIRTEENTH (13th) AMENDMENT

Whereas, the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 6, 1865, reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Whereas, Sect. 17 of the North Carolina state constitution also reads: “Slavery and involuntary servitude.  Slavery is forever prohibited.  Involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the parties have been adjudged guilty, is forever prohibited.”

Whereas, the term indentured servitude refers to a contractual relationship that exists whereby one person engages in labor for the benefit another, usually in return for exchange for clothing, food, shelter, or other essentials (instead of money); and

Whereas, since indentured servitude is forbidden in the United States by constitutional amendment, it is particularly audacious when the government itself, through policy and legislation, creates a condition in some individuals of servitude for others; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court, in the case Bailey v. Alabama (1911), defined “involuntary servitude” as: “that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another’s benefit”  (219 U.S. 219, at pg. 241) and held that the right to personal liberty guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment is inalienable; and

Whereas, the Bailey decision announced a principle of broad application that says a contract for service is consistent with the Thirteenth Amendment ONLY IF the contractor “can elect at any time to break it, and no law or force compels performance or a continuance of the service.”

Whereas, the healthcare law may not necessarily be a contract (under the definition of Bailey), but the spirit of the decision would seem to suggest that a law forcing or compelling performance for the benefit of another is consistent with the Thirteenth Amendment ONLY IF the individual can elect at any time to break it (without punishment); and

Whereas, Obamacare, through its forced mandate and subsequent higher (significantly higher) insurance prices, is requiring those who can afford to purchase health insurance to also purchase it for others who cannot afford it; and

Whereas, the federal government, through the healthcare law, is directly forcing a class of citizens to work to serve the benefit of others; and

Whereas, an individual may opt not to purchase healthcare insurance under the government plan and pay the penalty instead (ie, the tax). That person would have no health insurance and nothing to show for that payment, but another person would get the benefit of that forced payment.

Whereas, although those who are forced to purchase (unsubsidized) government insurance plans do NOT receive any benefit from those they serve, the Pitt County GOP believes the servitude amounts to that of the type forbidden under the thirteenth amendment.

Thereforebe it RESOLVED that the Pitt County GOP opposes the Affordable Healthcare bill as unconstitutional, being violative, on its face, of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RESOLUTION TO CHALLENGE OBAMACARE AS AN ABUSE OF FEDERAL POWER

by Diane Rufino, Deputy Director of the NC Tenth Amendment Center and Resolutions Chair of the Pitt County GOP.  The following resolution will be presented at the 2014 Pitt County GOP Convention on March 8.

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA) as an ABUSE of FEDERAL POWER 

Whereas, the Declaration of Independence establishes the moral and legal foundation of the United States through its proclamation that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Whereas, our Founding Fathers did not look at Independence as a quest for new Liberties but rather, as a revolt against a government bent on taking their Liberties away; and

Whereas, the US Constitution was drafted, and a federal government designed, to embrace the principles and the notions of liberty proclaimed in the Declaration. The two documents are inseparable; and

Wheres, Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution lists the express powers delegated from the States and the People to the federal government to legislate on their behalf, and

Whereas, Article V of the US Constitution outlines the only legal avenue by which more power and authority can be given to the federal government and that is through the “amendment process,” which is a strict scheme that gives the decision to the States, the rightful parties, and not to 9 unelected members of the Supreme Court; and

Whereas, the unique design feature of the American government system is federalism, which divides power between two sovereigns, and by the vigilante and jealous guarding of such powers by each sovereign, government power shall forever remain checked and evenly-balanced in order that individual liberty is most securely protected;

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution  is the “restatement” of that essential feature: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Whereas, the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution operates to prevent the federal government from overstepping its authority and invading rights, not necessarily listed, that belong to We the People on account of Natural Law and the Laws of Nature (ie, on account of man’s very humanity). The Ninth Amendment reads:   “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Whereas, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in an attempt to explain the meaning of the Constitution and provide assurances to the States that they could RELY on in voting whether to ratify it, wrote in Federalist No. 45: “The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other….. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.”

Whereas, healthcare is NOT one of the areas of responsibility delegated to the US Congress (federal government) under Article I, Section and therefore, it is reserved to the States; and

Whereas, as James Madison explained, the power to regulate for the health of its citizens is one of those powers which “extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….”; and

Whereas and furthermore, the power to regulate for the health of its citizens is one of the implied “police powers” of the State – which is the authority of the States recognized by the Tenth Amendment to delegate to their political subdivisions the right to enact measures to preserve and protect the Health, Safety, Welfare, and Morals of their communities. Under the system of government in the United States, only states have the right to make laws based on their police power. The lawmaking power of the federal government is limited to the specific grants of power found in the Constitution.

Whereas, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government and each time the government seizes power that it was not rightfully and legally delegated, such powers are wrongfully and illegally divested from its rightful depository, which are the People and the States; and

Whereas, a “right” is defined as a moral and inherent claim to freedom of action; and

Whereas, the Declaration of Independence states that certain rights are “self-evident” and these include the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

—  We have the right to Life and the associated rights to protect and promote it; we cannot be deprived of life without due process;

—  Liberty comes from the latin word “libertas,” which means “unbounded.”  Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, defined “liberty” in this way: “Of liberty then I would say that in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will, but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” (In other words, liberty is the freedom to do whatever a person wishes, except when that exercise injures another or deprives another of his/her liberty).  Jefferson also strongly argued that such liberty is not given up when individuals enter into a society.  Individuals cannot be deprived of liberty without the due process;

—  Furthermore, this freedom to act is useless if the Property acquired through productive action can be expropriated, confiscated, or diminished.  To deprive an individual of his right to keep the product or products of his mind, personality, ambition, investment of education, and life-sustaining action is to deprive him of the right to sustain his life.  Property rights are therefore an extension of the rights to life and liberty;

—  Finally, certain freedoms are necessary for the Pursuit of Happiness and fulfillment in life, including the right to property (in all its forms, including salary); no such pursuit can be advanced from within the confines of a cage.  And no individual, even if compelled, could ever “redistribute” his happiness to another; happiness is a unique, personal, self-generated virtue.

Whereas, the only means by which an individual’s rights can be violated is by force, either by another individual or by government itself; and

Whereas, the Affordable Care Act violates the essential rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as follows –

—  It violates the right to Life by putting limitations on life-saving medical treatment and procedures for the elderly and disabled through the controversial Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB; aka, the healthcare law’s “death panel”), a 15-member board created  by sections 3403 and 10320 of the ACA, delegated with the task of reducing Medicare spending and hence helping to control the costs of the government healthcare program. The ACA directs the Board, which is comprised of mostly bureaucrats (experts in “health finance and economics”) and only a few doctors, to issue recommendations to limit what ordinary citizens and their health insurance coverage can pay for medical treatment to keep the rising costs of healthcare as low as possible. Furthermore, the decisions of the board will become law by a fast track process that will bypass the usual legislative procedures.  Doctors who violate a ‘quality’ standard by prescribing more life-saving medical treatment than it permits will be disqualified from contracting with any of the health insurance plans that individual Americans, under the Obama Health Care Law, will be mandated to purchase.

—  It violates Liberty by mandating and coercing individuals into a one-size-fits-all scheme that forces a group of persons to purchase healthcare insurance (government plan), or pay a penalty/tax, for the sole purpose of generating revenue to provide healthcare to other persons who cannot afford it themselves. It also forces individuals to use their hard-earned money to pay for services that they will never need (such as men and the elderly to pay for reproductive services) and hence constitutes a government confiscation of property;

—  It violates the Pursuit of Happiness by taking the fruits of one’s labor and indeed by compelling the performance of one person, to benefit another.

Whereas, wealth redistribution is a major component of Affordable Care Act, there is no provision in the Constitution, and that includes the General Welfare Clause, that grants the federal government the power to collect taxes and use that money to provide healthcare or to improve the welfare of individuals. (To be clear, the federal courts have denied that healthcare is a fundamental right; see the lawsuit filed by Florida and 25 other states to challenge the ACA).  The wealth redistribution takes place in the form of many different taxes placed on wealthier individuals in order to fund subsidies granted to low-income individuals for the purpose of purchasing health insurance. In fact, wealth redistribution is a direct violation of one of our most fundamental God-given natural rights. This right is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence with the phrase “the Pursuit of Happiness.” Pursuit of Happiness means our individual right to acquire property and wealth and use it as we wish as long as we do not harm others or interfere with their rights. We as individuals certainly have an obligation to pay taxes, but only if that revenue is used to provide those services that governments has a constitutional obligation to provide.

Whereas, the ACA has little to do with health care but everything to do with the enlargement of a federal entitlement scheme and the promotion of social equity through massive federal legislature. An article in The American Thinker described the ACA in the following terms: “The legislation is a disgusting and tyrannical seizure of liberty from private business and the American individual.” Those liberties are prescribed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the U.S. Constitution. It can be argued that just about every essential liberty, every one addressed in the texts that follows the words “We the People…” and “When in the Course of Human Events..,” have been violated by the Affordable Care Act.  For example:

(i)  The abortion coverage and the contraception mandates infringe upon the First Amendment’s guarantee of Religious Freedom and rights of conscience of many “religious” employers

(ii)  Some businesses which do not fall under the “religious employer” also find that the abortion coverage and the contraception mandates infringe upon the rights of conscience.

(iii)  The ACA provides that doctors have the ability to ask about firearms ownership and to ask questions designed to explore a patient’s mental stability. The fact that these responses will be included in a patient’s “medical history” that will be stored on-line and shared with the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucracy infringes upon an individual’s Freedom of Speech (First Amendment) and his right to own and bear arms (Second Amendment).

(iv)  The ACA allows the federal government (through the HHS and the IRS) to have full access to a person’s personal health insurance records and to an individual’s bank account against his will (to make sure that he is paying his healthcare insurance premium). The government power provided by the ACA infringes upon an individual’ right to be secure in his person, papers, and effects, and amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

(v)  The Individual Mandate, and indeed the very scheme of the healthcare law, is to confiscate the fruits of one’s labor and to compel the performance (service) of one person, to provide a benefit for another, often without providing the compelled party any benefit at all in return. (Thirteenth Amendment ban against “involuntary servitude”).  With the ACA, the federal government forces a group of individuals (those who make “enough money”) to “work” in order to fund the insurance policies of another group of individuals (lower-income) – to take an “economically productive action for another, without compensation.” Furthermore, an individual deemed “able to purchase” the government’s healthcare insurance is penalized should he fail to provide that service to benefit another.

(vi)  Forcing an individual to purchase an object to further a goal that is not enumerated in the Constitution amounts to a Taking (an unconstitutional confiscation of property without due process violation)

(vii)  Constitutionally, the federal government is empowered to legislate and regulate under the Commerce Clause when individuals are part of an economic activity; it does not have the power to regulate individuals simply as individuals and to compel them into conforming to a scheme the government has unconstitutionally established. [As the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) noted in 1994: "Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society.”]

(viii)  The federal government’s unconstitutional take-over and pre-emption of healthcare constitutes a violation of the Tenth Amendment and the Ninth Amendment (an individual should have the inherent right to manage his own healthcare).

(ix)  The ACA violates the constitutional principle of “Equal Protection of the Laws.” The law certainly does not treat every citizen equally. Its gross inequality is seen in its treatment of those citizens forced to pay for the government’s healthcare insurance while providing exemptions (and even rebates!!) and special privileges to millions of Americans who do not have to participate in the scheme. (Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment)

(x)  The US Supreme Court (in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012) defined the Individual Mandate penalty as a “tax.”  As the National Review points out, “This is a direct tax on the middle class (through the ACA’s proposed $500 billion in tax increases, the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and the Individual Mandate, and other regulations).  Furthermore, as a tax on income, the mandate is a tax on the person and is, therefore, a capitation tax. So the Sixteenth Amendment’s grant of taxing power to Congress to assess an income tax does not apply. The Constitution does allow Congress to assess a capitation tax, on the express condition that the capitation tax be assessed evenly based on population. Yet that is not how the healthcare mandate works.  It grants exemptions and carves out far too many exceptions to pass muster as a capitation tax. The healthcare law and its Individual Mandate may have been deemed a “tax” by Justice Roberts, but it is still unprecedented and unconstitutional even as a tax. (Sixteenth Amendment).  Indeed, as opined by Justice Antonin Scalia for the dissent, the legal gymnastics and convoluted contortions that were performed by Chief Justice John Roberts are beyond comprehension. Worse, he engaged in rewriting a law that was passed by Congress and as explained and sold to the American people (Congress and President Obama gave assurances that the healthcare mandate was not a tax).  The judiciary is forbidden, under the Separation of Powers doctrine, from substituting its intentions and opinion for those of another branch, especially the legislature (which is a branch voted upon and directly accountable to the people every two years). There is one thing we now know for certain about Justice Roberts’ decision in the National Federation of National Business case. First, Roberts originally said the law was unconstitutional. He was the primary author of the opinion that eventually became the minority opinion. Then very late in the process Roberts abruptly switched and supported the constitutionality of the law. He then wrote the majority opinion. It was hastily written and illogical.

(xi)  The President is improperly and unconstitutionally altering provisions of the ACA, in violations of Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution (“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”), Article II of the Constitution (“The executive Power shall be vested in a President..”; that is, the President is to see that the laws of the federal government are faithfully executed), and the Separation of Powers doctrine.

Whereas, On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court, the ruling body that our Founding Fathers created to protect citizens from tyranny, decided to uphold the Affordable Care under the most expansive interpretation ever of the Taxing Power, and thus stripped Americans of their personal liberties and freedoms.

LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Pitt County GOP takes the position that the US Constitution was written to be understood by the average citizen;

FURTHERMORE, the Pitt County GOP embraces the “original intent” of the US Constitution and believes, as our Founding generation explained, that the US Constitution is a fixed and certain document that represents the permanent will of the people as to the boundaries of government in their lives. Its purpose is “to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.” [Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782]. “A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.” [Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (1791-1792)]

FURTHERMORE, the Pitt County GOP is skeptical of the mindset that the federal government, including the Supreme Court (which, after all, is a branch of the federal government), is the sole interpreter of the Constitution and the ultimate authority on of the powers of the federal government. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: “If any branch in government could ultimately settle questions of the location of constitutional authority, it would tend to settle them in favor of the government to which it belonged, and ultimately its very own body. In short, the tendency would be to concentrate all authority in one body, and that body would have few or no restraints on its authority. Such a concentration of power would sooner or later be arbitrary and capricious and hence tyrannical.”

FURTHERMORE, the Pitt County GOP embraces the mindset of Thomas Jefferson who understood that America was born of protest, revolution, and a mistrust of government. It believes that people who do not stand up for their rights are unfit to maintain a free society and aren’t deserving of the freedoms we were once promised by our founding documents; and

FURTHERMORE, the Pitt County GOP is of the position that the Affordable Care Act exists because Barack Obama is in the White House.  This piece of unconstitutional legislation is a direct consequence of the American people’s political decisions and dereliction of duty in electing a servant who would uphold and support the US Constitution instead of violating it. And much like President Obama himself, the healthcare bill was deceptively sold to the American people.

FURTHERMORE, the Pitt County GOP takes notice of the disastrous effects that the federal healthcare law has already had on the economy, on the jobs situation, and on the healthcare market.  So far, at least 5 million Americans have lost their current healthcare plans because their insurance no longer meets the new standards set under the Affordable Care Act. And of those who already have an insurance policy, most have seen their premiums go up significantly. While the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that that 7 million people would sign up through state- and federally-run exchanges by this time, only approximately 3 million have actually signed up.  (March 31 is the 2014 enrollment deadline to avoid the law’s individual mandate penalty for going without coverage). In its report of February 2014, the CBO announced that the healthcare bill will cause Americans to work fewer hours – enough to be the equivalent of 2 million fewer jobs.  (Businesses with at least 50 full-time employees will cut back or limit full-time staffing to avoid the penalty for not providing health insurance meeting minimum standards). The healthcare law is a job-killer.  Furthermore, an analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation from November 2009 shows that by 2016, three-quarters of the tax imposed by the individual mandate will fall on those making less than $120,000 of income for a family of four or $59,000 for an individual. Families of four making $72,000 or less and individuals making $35,400 or less will bear nearly half of the mandate tax. The ACA is a massive taxation scheme to be borne by the middle class

LET IT BE FIRMLY RESOLVED that the Pitt County GOP believes the Affordable Care is an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the federal government, in violation of the powers legally delegated to it in Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution.  It also believes the Supreme Court wrongfully decided the National Federation of Independence Business v. Sebelius case and incorrectly concluded that the Affordable Care Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ taxing power.  The Supreme Court, by incorrectly interpreting the Constitution and redefining the boundaries of government in the lives of the American people, has allowed the government to violate and usurp our precious individual liberty.

The Pitt County GOP hereby supports every principled effort by members of the NC General Assembly, local authorities, and even citizens to reclaim their constitutional rights, and it encourages the same.  It encourages citizens to fight every hour, every day, with every opportunity, with every voice, in every form of communication, and in every body of government to oppose and repeal the Affordable Care Act.

References:

“Obamacare and the Constitution.”  Referenced at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3075257/posts

Rand Paul, “Obamacare is not Constitutional,” National Review, June 28, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304386/obamacare-not-constitutional-sen-rand-paul

Deborah B. Sloan, “ObamaCare vs. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” American Thinker, February 5, 2011.  Referenced at:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/obamacare_vs_life_liberty_and.html.

“Does Obamacare Violate the US Constitution?,” Constitution Myth Buster, June 25, 2011.  Referenced at:  http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/25/does-obamacare-violate-the-us-constitution/

“Does Obamacare Violate the US Constitution?,” Constitution Myth Buster, August 22, 2011. Referenced at:  http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/08/22/does-obamacare-violate-the-us-constitution-article-2/

Wesley Coopersmith, “Obamacare’s Biggest Impacts: Americans Losing Hourss and Losing Coverage,” The Daily Caller, February 3, 2014.  Referenced at:  http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/03/obamacares-biggest-impacts-americans-losing-hours-losing-coverage/

David Nather and Jason Millman, “Obamacare and Jobs: CBO Adds Fuel to Fire,” Politico, February 4, 2014.  Referenced at:  http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/obamacare-first-year-enrollment-numbers-103098.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RESOLUTION TO RESPECT & PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN

by Diane Rufino, Deputy Director of the NC Tenth Amendment Center and Resolutions Chair of the Pitt County GOP.  The following resolution will be presented at the 2014 Pitt County GOP Convention on March 8.

RESOLUTION TO RESPECT & PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN

Whereas, the Declaration of Independence guarantees the Right to Life, without any pre-conditions; and

Whereas, the Bill of Rights evidences a position of greater rights as opposed to less rights; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court has found ways of enlarging rights for various groups, while extinguishing them for the unborn in Roe v. Wade; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, articulated the right of a woman to control her fertility and have an abortion on demand in order to make social change from the bench (in order to give woman unfettered ability to compete equally in the workforce); and 

Whereas, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court put a greater value on the right of a woman to control her fertility (including the ability to terminate a pregnancy that has produced a new life) than on the developing life she has created by virtue of the laws of nature; and

Whereas, the Court overlooked the obvious reality that a woman already has the right and the power to control her fertility; it’s called “consent to sexual intercourse” (She holds the power to have children, not to have them, or to decide when she will have them); and

Whereas, if a woman decides to engage in sexual activity with protection and that protection fails, she has the option of immediately addressing the situation.  After all, a fertilized egg doesn’t immediately begin its program to create life. Even after 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg cell still remains a single cell.  Only after approximately 30 hours does it finally begin to divide from one cell into 2 cells.  And then another 15 or so hours after that, it divides again, to yield four cells.  At the end of three days, the conception event is still merely a ball of 16 cells; and

Whereas, the current legal climate shows very little concern for the struggling life inside a woman and the current moral compass of our society continues to subject the most innocent of human beings to the sad and horrific consequences of unwanted pregnancies; and

Whereas, in our current social climate where individuals can do what they want without having to suffer the consequences of their actions, the government seems to have an interest in the population control that abortion offers.

Therebywhile recognizing of the competing interests and allowing a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy, the Pitt County GOP wonders how a society, and indeed our highest courts, can legislate compassion for hardened criminals yet allow the torture and murder of an unborn human being simply because it hasn’t had the opportunity to take its first breath. 

Be It Resolved therefore, that the Pitt County GOP takes a position of greater respect and protection for the unborn, whether it be legislative, judicial, or through social policy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RESOLUTION DENOUNCING THE NSA’s SURVEILLANCE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

by Diane Rufino, Deputy Director of the NC Tenth Amendment Center and Resolutions Chair of the Pitt County GOP.  The following resolution will be presented at the 2014 Pitt County GOP Convention on March 8.

RESOLUTION DENOUNCING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY’S (NSA) UNCONSTITUTIONAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM and CONFISCATION of PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE

Whereas, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides:  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.“; and

Whereas, Article I, Sect. 21 (“General Warrant”) of the constitution of the state of North Carolina provides: “General warrants, whereby any officer or other person may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and shall not be granted.”

Whereas, these provisions, both federal and state, are grounded in the right of an individual to “retreat into his home” and thereby be free from government intrusion. A man’s home should be his castle.

Whereas, these provisions recognize that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their person, their home, their papers, their computers, etc so that the government cannot detain a person without probable cause nor seize his or her personal effects to examine them or to find any instance of wrongdoing after the fact. In other words, a person has the reasonable expectation to enjoy his or her privacy without the feeling that someone or government is watching over him. This is the very essence of freedom.

Whereas, each one of the first ten amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) holds a particularly significant LIMITATION on the function of the federal government, as proclaimed in its Preamble: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire to add further declaratory and restrictive clauses in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, to extend public confidence in the Government, and to best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”;

Whereas, the Fourth Amendment, as is every other amendment comprising the Bill of Rights, is meant to be a check on the government by the People and not a check on the people by the government; and

Whereas, the test for the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” and it would seem that an amendment that protects the People should have that term defined by the People (and not the federal government). The people, therefore, must be heard.

Whereas, the secret surveillance program called PRISM targets, among other  things, the communications of U.S. citizens on a vast scale and monitors searching habits of virtually every American on the internet; and

Whereas, This dragnet program is, as far as we know, the largest surveillance effort ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens,  consisting of the mass acquisition of Americans’ call details encompassing all wireless and landline subscribers of the country’s three largest phone companies; and

Whereas, every time an American citizen makes a phone call, the NSA gets a record of the location, the number called, the time of the call and the length of the conversation; all of which are an invasion into the personal lives of American citizens that violates the protections of the Fourth Amendment; and

Whereas, the NSA monitors the phone records of billions of Americans each month and has already confiscated millions of such records; and

Whereas, unwarranted government surveillance is an intrusion on basic human rights that threatens the very foundations of a democratic society; this program represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association, the exercise of free speech and expression, the right to privacy, and the pursuit of happiness; and

Whereas, this program goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act since the Patriot Act was passed as a response to the horrific events of 9/11 and classified those persons or communications which can be targeted for surveillance by the government (NSA) as those “relating to terrorism”;  and

Whereas, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wi), an author of the Patriot Act and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee at the time Section 215 was passed (“Access to Records and Other Items Under FISA”; aka, “the Surveillance Program) called Section 215 surveillance program “an abuse of that law,” writing that, “based on the scope of the released order, both the administration and the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court are relying on an unbounded interpretation of the act that Congress never intended.”

The Pitt County GOP denounces government policy that takes God out of schools, God out of society, morality out of the legislative process, conscience out of the bedroom, and accountability out of personal conduct, and also turns its back on border control and the infiltration of individuals that mean us and our country harm while at the same time creating safe havens and sanctuaries by embracing political correctness, and then has the audacity to infer that we’re not “good enough” so that the government can spy on us all, take away our gun rights, and keep us living under the threat that at any time we are breaking one law or another;

Therefore, let it be Resolved that –

The Pitt County GOP acknowledges that American citizens, whom the government has pledged to protect from terrorist activities, now find themselves the victims of the very weapon designed to uproot their enemies.

The Pitt County GOP denounces government policies that takes God out of schools, God out of society, morality out of the legislative process, conscience out of the bedroom, and accountability out of personal conduct, and also turns its back on border control and the infiltration of individuals that mean us and our country harm while at the same time creating safe havens and sanctuaries by embracing political correctness, and then has the audacity to use the consequences of such policies as the basis for increased government control, regulation, and surveillance.  A free people should not have to live under the threat that at any time we are breaking one federal law or another or sending“red flags” (whatever they may be defined to be) to the government.

Be it Further Resolved, that the Pitt County GOP encourages Republican law makers to call for a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of the NSA’s domestic spying and the committee should create specific recommendations for legal and regulatory reform to end unconstitutional surveillance as well as hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance.

Be it Further Resolved, that the Pitt County GOP calls upon Republican lawmakers to immediately take action to halt current unconstitutional surveillance programs and provide a full public accounting of the NSA’s data collection programs.

Be it Further Resolved that the Pitt County GOP stands firm in its position that Americans should NOT have to tolerate Big Brother watching over them.  The hallmark of American society is individual freedom. This country fought for their independence from England because through its laws and scheme of control, it made the exercise of their freedom nearly impossible and made their lives intolerable.  We have to recognize that our current government is heading in the same direction.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RESOLUTION TO PROTECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

by Diane Rufino, Deputy Director of the NC Tenth Amendment Center and Resolutions Chair of the Pitt County GOP.  The following resolution will be presented at the 2014 Pitt County GOP Convention on March 8.

A RESOLUTION TO PROTECT the SECOND AMENDMENT

Whereas, upon taking office, state and local elected representatives, police and sheriff departments, and other local civil servants must solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States and promise to be “faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina..”

Whereas, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides:  “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“; and

Whereas, each one of the first ten amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) holds a particularly significant LIMITATION on the function of the federal government, as proclaimed in its Preamble: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire to add further declaratory and restrictive clauses in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, to extend public confidence in the Government, and to best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”;

Whereas, the Second Amendment is meant to be a check on the government by the People and not a check on the people by the government; and

Whereas, Article I, Section 30 of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina provides: “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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice”; and

Whereas, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms but merely recognizes it and protects it from government regulation.  Indeed, none of the provisions of the Constitution establish any “natural” rights. They recognize such rights. These rights, as proclaimed “to a candid world” in the Declaration of Independence, are “self-evident.”   And therefore, any action by a government body that attempts to repeal or burden these provisions would not end such rights;  and

Whereas, the Second Amendment was proposed by the States, acting as agents for the People, in order to secure constitutional protection and assurance that the federal government would not interfere with their right to protect themselves. So strongly did the People feel about such assurances that the Constitution would not have otherwise been ratified by the States.  One such comment at the time of the state ratifying conventions was made by Tench Coxe, a noted federalist and friend of James Madison, who wrote: “Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American… the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Whereas, the Second Amendment articulates the natural right of self-defense, from persons with evil intent, and even from one’s own government, if that need should ever arise; and

Whereas, the Second Amendment also recognizes the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court in recent months has twice upheld the Second Amendment as applying to individuals’ right to keep and bear arms [District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010)]; and

Whereas, Article V of the US Constitution outlines the ONLY avenue to alter the meaning and intent of the Constitution and that is through the rigorous requirements of the amendment process; and

Whereas, all elected officials and public servants in the state of North Carolina are required to take an oath before executing the duties of their office, and this solemn oath demands that each official and servant support and uphold/maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina; and

Whereas, esteemed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who presided on the bench during the very early years of our nation’s birth, offered this opinion: Any state officer or civil servant, particularly those with enforcement authority, who violates his or her oath will “be utterly worthless for…the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people.”

Whereas, recently the federal government has shown its intent to use the current climate of school-centered violence to propose legislation, regulations, qualifications, and actions which would have the effect of infringing on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms; and

Whereas, the reasons given in support of such infringements as gun registration, banning certain kinds of weapons and accessories, requiring extreme background checks, restricting the bearing of arms such as excessive restrictions on concealed carry and possibly other restrictions, have not been shown by the substantial weight of scientific evidence to have been effective in accomplishing the stated objectives of such restrictions as compelling necessities for government action to protect the public safety; and

The Pitt County GOP takes particular notice of the “social entrapment” that the progressive element of the federal government has been engaging in for many years in order to disarm Americans of their rights to govern themselves, to express their religious beliefs (especially when they are the same ones on which our nation was founded), and to defend themselves.  For years the federal government has taken God out of the public square, taken God and morality of our schools, proclaimed that it “has no business” legislating morality, allowed women to dispose of their unborn babies out of mere inconvenience, protested for the rights of serial killers, protected extreme violence as free expression (so our kids can overdose on graphic violent video games), and ushered in a new era of social reform that fights the family unit at every turn and turns a blind eye to the mal-adapted children of broken homes and irresponsible parents.  And then it has the audacity to use the products of its degenerate policies (the ones who bring guns to schools or movie theaters, for example) to argue that people can’t be trusted with the right to own and bear arms and thereby seek to curtain the rights protected by the second amendment.

THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Pitt County GOP fully supports a full and expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment. The right to protect oneself is a natural right and not one that is defined or limited by the federal government.  As John Adams wrote, “You have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.”  And as Benjamin Franklin once said: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Let it Be Further Resolved that the Pitt County GOP calls upon our local and state legislators and elected officials to join with us in the affirmation of the rights of North Carolina citizens under the 2nd Amendment.

Be it Further Resolved that the Pitt County GOP takes the position that all federal acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, and rules or regulations of all kinds with the purpose, intent, or effect of confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore, infringes upon North Carolinans’ right to bear arms in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, any such law is not made in pursuance of the Constitution, is not authorized by the Constitution, and thus, is not the supreme law of the land, and consequently, is invalid in the State of North Carolina and shall be further considered null and void.

Be it Further Resolved that the Pitt County GOP takes the position that all officials, local and state, should refuse to support and endorse any policy of the federal government that serves to erode the spirit and intent of the Second Amendment. Any endorsement of such policy shall amount to a clear and palpable violation of his or her oath of office, as well as a negligent comprehension of the notion that we are a “nation of laws, based on the US Constitution.”

Be it Further Resolved that the Pitt County takes the position that all officials and agencies of Pitt County, and indeed, all officials and agencies of the state of North Carolina, should refuse requests and directives by federal agencies acting under unconstitutional powers (enumerated above) that would infringe upon our residents’ second, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendment rights, or other inalienable rights not here explicitly enumerated, and no local or state resource shall be used to assist in the implementation of any such unconstitutional federal policy, directive, law, or executive order.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RESOLUTION OPPOSING COMMON CORE

by Diane Rufino, Deputy Director of the NC Tenth Amendment Center and Resolutions Chair of the Pitt County GOP.  The following resolution will be presented at the 2014 Pitt County GOP Convention on March 8.

RESOLUTION OPPOSING COMMON CORE EDUCATION STANDARDS

WHEREAS, Common Core (CC) is a set of (math and English language arts) academic standards, created by two private membership organizations, the National Governor’s Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and promoted as a “State Standards initiative” and as a method for conforming American students to uniform “internationally-benchmarked” achievement goals to make them more competitive in a global marketplace (www.commoncore.org), and

WHEREAS, Common Core is being promoted as a “state initiative,” that description is merely offered to give the public the illusion that the agenda is “state-led.” Common Core standards were actually initiated by private interests in Washington DC and not by state lawmakers. Both the NGA and the CCSSO are both DC-based trade associations (organizations founded and funded by businesses that operate in a specific industry) which used ACHIEVE, Inc. to do the creative work. ACHIEVE, Inc. is a progressive non-profit group based out of DC which has received much of its funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; and

WHEREAS, Common Core uses copyrights and licenses to control its top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to education. A “one-size-fits-all” approach frustrates the very thing that makes a teacher a real “teacher” – her ability to recognize and address the fact that every child learns differently, progresses at a different pace, and responds differently to teaching strategies. The CC standards were founded on a severely flawed idea – that every child can learn the same way and at the same pace. It assumes that every child across America will “be on the same page at the same time”; and=

Whereas, Common Core is designed to bridge gaps in education performance, just as “No Child Left Behind” was designed to do. A one-size-fits-all approach to education that aims to bridge gaps is a formula for failure. A system of education can’t concentrate on bringing certain groups of students up without bringing many others down at the same time; and

WHEREAS, Common Core changes the fundamental role of education – from teaching HOW to think and process information to WHAT to think. Common Core teaches for job placement. The emphasis that Common Core puts on “job placement” puts the focus of our education system primarily on the economy and not on the well-being of our children; and

WHEREAS, the promoters of the Common Core standards claim they are based in research, the truth is that the creators were not researchers or educators or otherwise qualified to write the standards; and

WHEREAS, Common Core is an “untested” curriculum, which has not been field-tested anywhere, and which comes with a potential human price tag (requiring experimenting on our precious children), and

WHEREAS, Common Core comes with an enormous price tag (independent estimates put the cost at $14-16 billion over 7 years) yet that cost is not built in anywhere; and

WHEREAS, Common Core will require “Data Mining,” which is an unconstitutional invasion of an individual’s right to privacy under the 4th amendment. For those states who have adopted Common Core to continue being eligible for Obama’s “Race to the Top” federal funding (which includes North Carolina), they will be obliged to implement a State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) in order to track students. They will track students by obtaining personally identifiable information, including such intimate details as the SS# of parents, mother’s maiden name, political affiliation or beliefs of the student and parents, mental and psychological problems of the child and family, sex behavior or attitudes, a history of personal behavior (including illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, and demeaning behavior), special relationships (with lawyers, physicians, ministers, etc), religious beliefs and affiliations, and income. Furthermore, changes have been made to the federal FERPA law (Family Education Rights & Privacy Act), which took effect on January 3, 2012 expanding the definition of two key terms – (1) “personally identifiable information” and (2) “authorized representatives.” In short, the revised law permits a lot of the information collected by data mining to be shared with the Attorney General of the United States without student or parent permission.  [http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/1999-2/060199e.html  and       http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/dangerous-federal-ferpa-changes/ ];  and

Whereas, education is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government by the States in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Common Core, and the government’s participation in it runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment, as education is a right reserved to the States. The government knows it doesn’t have the power to invade the states and create a one-size-fits-all take-over of education, yet it uses its power of conditional spending to achieve the same purpose (an end-run around the Constitution). If the federal government has enough money to bribe the states to adopt its policies with taxpayer money, then the government is clearly overtaxing the American people. It should tax less and allow the states to tax more so at least the states can use its people’s money to serve their interests; and 

Whereas, the responsibility over education was designated to the state government by the people of North Carolina in their state constitution. It has no business being delegated to an un-elected, un-accountable group of persons who are administrative in function; and

Whereas, Common Core was adopted, like Obamacare was by the US House, by a group of public servants who did not read it or due any form of due diligence, which is rightfully inferred and expected in their position; and

Whereas, Common Core was adopted solely for the purposes of applying for and acquiring federal “Race to the Top” funding. It had nothing to do with ownership and responsibility of education to the citizens of the State. By placing funding before the legitimate responsibility of our State through an exercise of state sovereignty and before the legitimate interests of parents who want accountability and a voice in their children’s education, the state Board of Education has taken the carrot of coercion that puts our state under the power of an organization that thinks it knows better than the people and officials of North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, Common Core will force consistency and uniformity across the nation. As long as the States are bribed and coerced into adopting a national one-size-fits-all education scheme, then education in general (and in North Carolina specifically) will suffer severely because the states, as 50 independent laboratories of experimentation, will be precluded from trying to innovate and improve education and find solutions to the problems that plague our current education system (in other words, this imposed uniformity will stifle the innovation that federalism fosters); and

Therefore, let it be –

RESOLVED, that the Pitt County GOP demands that the state Board of Education and our state legislators acknowledge and meaningfully address these criticisms of the Common Core Standards; and

RESOLVED, that the Pitt County GOP rejects the collection of personal student data for any non-educational purpose without the prior written consent of an adult student or a child student’s parent and that it rejects the sharing of such personal data, without the prior written consent of an adult student or a child student’s parent, with any person or entity other than schools or education agencies within the state; and

RESOLVED, that the Pitt County GOP emphatically urges our Legislators to get further involved in the current debate over Common Core, to halt implementation of the standards while a state initiative is pursued to do the due diligence that the state Board of Education failed to do and perhaps take an independent state-based approach to the improvement of our education system, and to eventually introduce legislation to remove this system permanently from our schools in North Carolina.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment