There will be a “Just Say NO” rally at the Tennessee State Capitol on Wednesday, December 5th at 12 noon Central time. The rally will be an effort to put Governor Bill Haslam and the Tennessee General Assembly on notice that Tennesseans do not want the state to cooperate with the federal government by creating…Details
The day of deployment is drawing nearer. Soon, thousands of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) unmanned aerial vehicle license holders will launch their drones into the skies over the United States.
Despite the delay of lawmakers to establish constitutionally sound guidelines for the use of these eyes in the sky, a handful of congressmen are pushing to move forward the date of deployment.
Why would legislators — typically not the most hurry-happy group — be interested in accelerating the drive to permit civilian drone use?
A collaboration between Hearst Newspapers and the Center for Responsive Politics paints the pecuniary picture:
The drone makers have sought congressional help to speed their entry into a domestic market valued in the billions. The 60-member House of Representatives’ “drone caucus” — officially, the House Unmanned Systems Caucus — has helped push that agenda. And over the last four years, caucus members have drawn nearly $8 million in drone-related campaign contributions….
House members from California, Texas, Virginia and New York on the bipartisan “drone caucus” received the lion’s share of the funds channeled to lawmakers from dozens of firms that are members of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, Hearst and CRP found.
Eleven drone caucus lawmakers from California, where many aviation firms are located, received more than $2.4 million from manufacturers’ political action committees and employees during the 2012 and 2010 election cycles, according to CRP tabulation of Federal Election Commission reports.
Eight Texas House members in the caucus received more than $746,000. And four caucus members from New York got more than $185,000 from companies connected to the business of unmanned vehicles.
The big winner of the drone manufacturer lobbying lotto was Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.). According to the investigation, McKeon — cochairman of the House Unmanned Systems Caucus — received $833,650 in contributions from the drone industry.Details
by Ron Paul
As the year draws to an end, America faces yet another Congressionally-manufactured crisis which will likely end in yet another 11th hour compromise, resulting in more government growth touted as “saving” the economy. While cutting taxes is always a good idea, setting up a ticking time bomb with a sunset provision, as the Bush tax cuts did, is terrible policy. Congress should have just cut taxes. But instead, we have a crisis that is sure not to go to waste.
The hysteria surrounding the January 1 deadline for the Budget Control Act’s spending cuts and expiration of the Bush tax cuts seems all too familiar. Even the language is predictably hysterical: if government reduces planned spending increases by even a tiny amount, the economy will go over a “fiscal cliff.” This is nonsense.
This rhetoric is based on the belief that government spending sustains the economy, when in fact the opposite is true. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken from consumers, businessmen, or investors. Reducing spending can only help the economy by putting money back in the hands of ordinary Americans. Politicians who claim to support the free market and the lower and middle-class should take this to heart.
The reality is, however, that neither Republicans nor Democrats are serious about cutting spending. Even though U.S. military spending is exponentially larger than any other country and is notorious for its inefficiency and cost overruns, Republicans cannot seem to stomach even one penny of cuts to the Pentagon’s budget. This is unfortunate because this is the easiest, most obvious place to start getting spending under control. The military-industrial complex and unconstitutional overseas military interventions should be the first place we look for budget cuts.Details
On FBN’s Varney & Co. yesterday morning, Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in on the issue, saying that Costas and Whitlock have “no basis” for the conclusion that Belcher and Perkins would still be alive if he did not have access to a gun. “We all use steak knives to help us enjoy our meals, but…Details
Blake Filippi, legal analyst for the Tenth Amendment Center discusses passage of the “Feinstein Amendment” to the 2013 NDAA – and how indefinite detention is still a serious concern. Read his analysis HERE and HERE. “We don’t really know whether or not NDAA Indefinite Detention is being used. When asked by Judge Forrest, “are you…Details
As mentioned in Friday’s feature article about the Feinstein-Lee Amendment by Tenth Amendment Center Legal Analyst Blake Filippi, it did absolutely nothing to rectify the loss of rights Americans faced from the indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 NDAA that we are working to nullify throughout the country. However, Senator Mike Lee disagrees about the…Details
If you’re a hockey fan, you’re probably pretty irritated that the National Hockey League’s owners and players still haven’t reached a deal on a new collective bargaining agreement, and thus the 2012-2013 season remains in limbo. You also probably know that negotiations got off to a rough start after the owners, who are presumed to have the upper hand, made a rather insulting initial offer to the players.
Well, the Obama administration must’ve stolen a page from the NHL owners’ negotiating playbook. Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner—playing the role of NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman—delivered to congressional Republicans the president’s opening proposal to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff.” The proposal’s reported contents were too extreme for the GOP, and they should insult anyone who gives a fig about the federal government’s unsustainable budgetary path.
Here are the details as reported by the Wall Street Journal:Details
I am thinking a lot about taxation in light of all this “fiscal cliff” talk. According to the late Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, ”taking the earnings of n hours of labor” is not different from “forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose,” and therefore the taxation of earnings is “on a par with forced labor” and cannot be morally defended.
Get an overview of Nozick’s ideas in this article by Roderick Long.
I covered this a bit in this six-minute video last year:Details
Secession: it’s the American way. After all, without secession, the U.S. would never be. We would still be a product of English imperialism. But that’s not what happened. The founding fathers decided that secession was required, and that free people have a right to secede from an oppressive government that was no longer “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Declaration of Independence stated that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” America was built on the idea of secession. Although secession is historically and morally significant, there is a far more effective tool to return sovereignty to the people. It’s called nullification.
With the re-election of Barack Obama, secession dialogues are back. The frustration with an ever expanding federal government, vast political differences, the unconstitutional “Obamacare,” NDAA, and many others, secession talk is running rampant. Historically speaking, secession is an appropriate check on the federal government. However, as our founding fathers were aware, a peaceful withdrawal from the U.S. is unlikely. Nullification, which eliminates the need to secede, and avoids violence, is the “rightful remedy.”
Looking through history, and the words of our founding fathers, it’s easy to see their views on the rights of States to secede. Take for instance Thomas Jefferson. To understand his visions, we can simply look to his words. In Jefferson’s first inaugural address, he said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union . . . let them stand undisturbed.”
Jefferson wasn’t the only one. John Quincy Adams agreed that states could secede to create a “more perfect union.” Even nationalist extraordinaire, Alexander Hamilton, argued that “To coerce the States [to remain in the Union] is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.” To the founders, the right to secede was engrained in the American spirit. With the threat of secession looming, an ever expanding federal government, with ever increasing powers would cease to exist. Secession is another check. Just as the three federal branches check the powers of each other, secession would do the same.
America is the land of the free. Free men are able to do as they please, which includes leaving something they no longer wish to be a part of. If freedom is the goal, then secession is a right of free people. As Murray Rothbard said,
“Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society.”
Even without the words of our founders, the right to secede can simply be found by understanding our Constitution. Given the fact that the federal government was created by a compact of the states, and that no single government (state or federal) is sovereign, but the people themselves that are sovereign, then it is the people that have the power to secede. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that, “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.” Since the power of secession is not delegated to Congress, it is the sovereign citizens of the States that have the right to determine whether or not secession is the solution.Details