Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    And It Has Been Mentioned

    By JGillman, Section News
    Posted on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    Tags: Snyder, RINO, DRIC, THEFT, Canada, Deal, Corruption (all tags)

    In a comment to a previous posting:

    . . . Article 1, Section 10 of that same U. S. Constitution:

        "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation ..."

    No modifiers, no qualifications, no "consent of Congress" clause . . . nothing.

    Even the president must have consent of the US senate before entering into a treaty.  And if one looks at the Lefty cheerleading media, one might find cheerleading liberal democrats extolling the virtues of our one term potentate.

    There is nothing more exhilarating than allowing the socialist neighbors to put down a Michigan business that pays Michigan taxes, employs Michigan workers, and spends money in Michigan, right Rick?  What did they pay you? Where are the accounts?  Why the obsession with giving CANADA the upper hand?

    2014, Nerd.  Time to go.

    < Disgusting Michigan Female Democrat Lisa Brown's Dishonest and Vulgar Mouth | Putting The Screws To The Taxpayers >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    Though, apparently . . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by Kevin Rex Heine on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:01:40 AM EST
    . . . the GoverNerd doesn't seem to care about that pesky detail, as his NITC Agreement Overview would seem to make plain.

    All we need now is someone, with the necessary resources, willing to challenge this puppy all the way up to the SCOTUS.

    We also need to get those currently gunning for Snyder's recall to withdraw their language and resubmit language that focuses on this particular constitutional violation as well as bills (and/or executive orders) he's signed that have expanded the state government's reach into where it doesn't belong.  Because doing so will bring the tea party crowd onboard in a hurry.

    Communist China is smiling (none / 0) (#2)
    by Corinthian Scales on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:51:52 AM EST
    They have every reason to smile.

    "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    It's happening as their global effort was planned, and all enabled through the agenda of those low-level King makers who possess the ring to be kissed for anyone seeking access to the Central Club.

    TEA folk along with sideline Conservatives should not merely turn a blind eye to the renewed hyperbole now surrounding Big Corporations (starting @ 20:21) now that Mr. Bain Capital is the Republican nominee.

    Full video.

    Big Corporations may not have a police force, but they sure as hell do have enough puppets placed in government with ability to shackle those that pay taxes to their NAFTA Bridge agenda.

    Snyder is one that must be replaced in 2014.

    Not only the freep.. (none / 0) (#3)
    by jgillmanjr on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 03:54:20 PM EST
    The Record Eagle is blowing their load all over snyder in re the bridge as well.

    I've been in a running flame-war . . . (none / 0) (#4)
    by Kevin Rex Heine on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 04:21:49 PM EST
    . . . on a couple of tea party pages (Michigan Conservative Political Action Conference and Tea Party of West Michigan) as to whether or not the GoverNerd has the authority to enter into an inter-local agreement with a foreign nation, or whether such an agreement actually violates Article 1, Section 10.  I've been fed several links, but I could use a few extra sets of eyes.

    Could anyone here review these links and tell me if anything therein provides a state's Governor with the authority to override the powers constitutionally prohibited to the states?

    • Curious by Corinthian Scales, 06/15/2012 05:25:40 PM EST (none / 0)
    Name game? LOL (none / 0) (#7)
    by Corinthian Scales on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:17:40 AM EST
    Talk about rubbing folks noses in it...

    "Who knows? We may even have a naming contest," Snyder said. "That's up to the Canadians working with us. But that'd be kind of fun if you think about it."

    Actually, it's up to China, who you, Governerd, and DC, and the wedge-headed Canucks are all in bed together.

    Can the sheeple actually be so easily duped?

    good work. (none / 0) (#10)
    by josmatyb on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:31:28 PM EST
    I read the entire post thanks for this useful blog...

    This is interesting. (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by KG One on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:44 PM EST
    Lookie here:


    Section 1. RFQ Process Requirements. The following are specific requirements for the RFQ process:

    (a) Selection of a short-list of Private Entities to respond to the RFP, with or without negotiations.

    (b) The following shall be considered in evaluating an RFQ submission:

    i. Criteria based on general reputation, qualifications, industry experience, safety record, experience related to development and execution of community benefits plans and community consultations, technical and financial capacity, or any combination of these, without discrimination on the basis of nationality.

    ii. Evidence that the Private Entities have the capacity to obtain all required payment and performance bonding, liability insurance, and errors and omission insurance."

    Ahhhhhhh, "community benefits".

    Can't help but wonder how much that jacked up the final cost?

    And, no, I didn't forget this:

    "Initial Execution Date: June 15, 2012


    Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Transport ("Canada").


    Crossing Authority ("Crossing Authority"), an entity to be established by Canada pursuant to and subject to the Laws of Canada after the Initial Execution Date.


    State of Michigan ("Michigan"), in its own right, as represented by its Governor, and by and through, the Michigan Department of Transportation ("MDOT"), a department of Michigan and the Michigan Strategic Fund ("MSF"), a public body corporate and politic and public agency of Michigan (individually referred"


    The Real Story (none / 0) (#13)
    by Daniel Gremore on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:18:34 AM EST
    I'm not going to let people spread misinformation without someone telling you are either lying, wrong, or misleading people with half-truths.   So I must say this.   This is an economic development issue and I have spent a considerable time cutting through Moroun's lies and half-truths that are being repeated by people like you for whatever stupid reason.  The bottom line is this:  The plan for this bridge is constitutional and the bridge is needed economically.  Here is why in a nutshell:

    The 100 million dollars is the annual toll revenue paid back to Canada.  Some will be Michigan taxpayers.  The toll however is not a tax.   We pay a toll on the Ambassador Bridge... In fact the bridge currently has a monopoly.  A little competition sounds like it is in order and through competition the cost per crossing will very likely lower--saving Michigan taxpayers money.  Losing his monopoly is largely why Moroun has spent millions on ads and political donations to our state legislature...  Well, too bad.  The party is over for this billionaire.  He will have to compete with another bridge.  

    Should our only main crossing be a privately owned bridge which also takes money from Michigan taxpayers?  No.  That is absolutely stupid.  Exports are a very important part of our economy.  During 2008, Michigan exported 45 billion dollars of goods.  In 2011, this amount increased 10%.  With other components like the CIT (6 percent flat tax) replacing the MBT and removing six regulations this trend will continue.  These components that foster an environment for job creation and manufactured goods drive the demand for transportation across the border with our main trading partner--Canada.

    The Ambassador Bridge is over 80 years old.  Do we really want to put the majority of our exports in one basket when much of our manufacturing relies on just-in-time delivery?  No.  Spreading the risk by adding another bridge (which is fronted by Canada) is common sense.

    Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution.  The author cites only this:

             "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation ..."

    It is successfully noted that there is no "Consent of Congress" phrase in Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1.   (The part quoted above.)  However, you guys fail to realize there are two more clauses in this Section.  In fact Clause 3 states the following:  "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."  Notice the consent of congress phrase here.  Now we should take a look at the International Bridge Act of 1972.  Congress gives consent to States for building international bridges.  It states:

             "The consent of Congress is hereby granted to the construction, maintenance, and operation of any bridge and approaches thereto, which will connect the United States with any foreign country."

    In summary: The new bridge is Constitutional and it is needed economically.  

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search