
Left:
"Anatomy of Unallotment" poster, thumbnail (download 11"
x 17" version, MS Word document)
Right: Carney/McGaughey "viral campaign card", front & back.
News Release: Carney/McGaughey campaign calls news conference for 10 AM
Friday, 7/2/10, Room 125 at the Capitol -- will release "hard documentary
evidence" that Emmer won Republican endorsement by pandering to 'a faction of
radical but misguided constituents' advocating for Minnesota's secession from
the United States Tom and me --
episode two is in production, scheduled for release Monday.
Contact: Bob Carney Jr. -- (612)-824-4479 (home and business)
(612)-710-2212 (cell)
Note: please use this e-mail temporarily -- bobcarneyjr@msn.com
My e-mail address at republicancontract currently has technical problems -- Bob
Note: if you prefer to receive news releases at another e-mail address, please let me know -- Bob
For an archive of all news releases, and more information, please visit: www.republicancontract.com
-------------------
Minneapolis, MN, July 1, 2010 -- The Carney/McGaughey Minnesota Republican primary ticket for Governor will hold a news conference at 10 AM, Friday, July 2, 2010, in Room 125 at the State Capitol. The campaign will provide to those in attendance "hard documentary evidence" that during the endorsing process Tom Emmer, the endorsed Republican candidate, pandered to "a faction of radical but misguided constituents" in the Minnesota Republican party, advocating for secession from the United States.
Carney and his running mate, Bill McGaughey, both plan to be at the Friday news conference. John Uldrich and Rob Hahn, candidates for Governor in the Independence party primary, have also been invited.
Emmer's Secessionist Amendment
Emmer is one of three authors of HF3738, introduced in the Minnesota House March 25, 2010, and referred to the State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections Committee. The text of HF3738 follows this news release.
Emmer's proposed Constitutional Amendment states in part:
A federal law does not apply in Minnesota unless that law is approved by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the legislature and is signed by the governor.
"Based on this text, if this Amendment was ratified by Minnesota voters, our State constitution would then proclaim that, effective immediately, no Federal law would apply in Minnesota. This is not nullification -- this is secession," Carney said.
The modern Republican party formed shortly before the Civil war, and was dedicated to preserving the Union.
The Carney/McGaughey campaign will be demanding that both Mr. Emmer, and the Minnesota Republican party, explain to the voters of Minnesota whether they are, in fact, advocating secession from the United States. Alternatively, if this is not Mr. Emmer's position, he must answer to the question of whether he deliberately attempted to win the endorsement by fraud: cynically posturing in support of a secessionist position.
Campaign is heating up -- investigations may be ahead
In recent days, the Independence party's endorsement of Tom Horner has been called into question by the campaign of Rob Hahn. According to multiple sources, Hahn is questioning the Horner campaign's direct link to a co-owner of Decision Resources Ltd., a company that received significant revenue from a company Horner worked at. Decision Resources released a poll showing Horner with significantly higher support than indicated by other polls. Hahn will be invited to participate in the Carney/McGaughey news conference, and to comment on issues raised concerning the Emmer campaign.
"Tom and me -- episode two" will investigate Emmer's secessionist amendment
Last week, Carney released Tom and me -- episode one, the first in a series challenging Emmer's unwillingness or inability to answer questions for Minnesota Republican primary voters before the primary. Tom and me -- episode two will look at what "...a republican form of government..." is, and how it is supposed to work. The focus will be on Emmer's extreme positions -- which appear to represent a rejection of the core process of "... a republican form of government." |
<end>
Following is the text of HF3738:
H.F. No. 3738, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Mar 25, 2010
House Authors Drazkowski ; Anderson, B. ; Emmer
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution; affirming the
1.3 sovereignty of Minnesota citizens.
1.4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.5 Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.
1.6 An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the
1.7 amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article I, to read:
1.8 Sec. 18. Citizens of Minnesota are sovereign individuals, subject to Minnesota law
1.9 and immune from any federal laws that exceed the federal government's enumerated
1.10 constitutional powers. A federal law does not apply in Minnesota unless that law is
1.11 approved by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the legislature and is
1.12 signed by the governor. Before voting to approve a federal law, each legislator must
1.13 individually affirm that the legislator has read the federal law and understands it. Citizens
1.14 of Minnesota enjoy inherent, natural, God-given rights as reflected in the Bill of Rights
1.15 of the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. Minnesota citizens
1.16 have the right to seek redress for any alleged violation of these rights committed by the
1.17 state of Minnesota exclusively through a jury trial in a Minnesota court and through
1.18 enactment of a change in Minnesota
law.
1.19 Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.
1.20 The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2010 general
1.21 election. The question submitted must be:
1.22 "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to affirm the sovereignty of
1.23 Minnesota citizens by requiring two-thirds legislative approval before a federal law
2.1 becomes effective in Minnesota, and by ensuring the right of citizens to seek redress for
2.2 any alleged violation of constitutional rights?
2.3
Yes
.....
2.4
No ..... "