Oregon needs to end Obamacare, and here is how.

Senator Boquist was brave enough to sponsor another nullification of Obamacare for 2013 (SB282).  We need to ensure this bill gets at least a hearing in the Senate.  In order to do this I am challenging all of the followers of the Oregon Tenth Amendment Center to follow my lead and write one letter to the editor and one letter to be sent to every Senator in Oregon (it is only 30, and you can send the same letter to all if you choose.  but make sure you send the letter to your Senator as a person to person email so he knows you are writing to him and him alone.)

A very close friend and political ally of mine once said there is no more moving story than your own personnal true story.  With that in mind I am asking my followers to do something that is uncomfortable for many liberty oriented individuals.  I want you to tell your story and how Obamacare directly effects you.

Does it make your care more expensive, is it making you lose your insurance or job, What effect is this having upon your family?  Since this will be uncomfortable for many of you I want to start with my story here (which has been sent to all of the Senators, and to the Oregonian.) 


Pennsylvania Memo: HB357, Right to Bear Arms Protection Act


DATE: MARCH 1, 2013

In mid-January, State Representative Daryl Metcalfe proposed the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (HB 357) which nullifies all federal firearms laws adopted after December 31, 2012.  HB 357, which provides criminal penalties for attempted enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws in Pennsylvania, amassed 69 co-sponsors in the last month.

Despite the popularity of HB 357, a number of Republican and Democratic state legislators have refused to join as cosponsors, invariably citing the Supremacy Clause for the proposition that federal laws are supreme and only federal courts can say otherwise.  The Supremacy Clause is one of the more abused and misrepresented clauses in the Constitution.   Only laws “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” are supreme, not any old laws passed by Congress. Critics, including those who teach constitutional law in our nation’s universities often repeat this common but nonsensical viewpoint, given that its logical conclusion makes the federal government’s discretion the only limit of its powers.  No State would have ratified a Constitution wherein Congress could pass unconstitutional laws that were then upheld by its own judicial branch.

As Alexander Hamilton explained at New York’s ratifying convention


Agencies of Chains

Like no other time in U.S. history, states are standing their ground against an overreaching federal government. Their efforts have been led, in part, by organizations like the Tenth Amendment Center—the preeminent and most steadfast defender of the states’, and ultimately the people’s rights.

The main driver behind this push-back against the federal government in the last few years is the rightful reaction of citizens to mandates in the form of Obamacare and incursions against their privacy rights in the the case of the NDAA.  These are just two examples, but it is the sheer size and scope of the federal government that makes these unconstitutional forays possible. Over the decades politicians have created, enabled, and overfed the vast array of bureaucracies, departments, and agencies, only a few of which are actually allowable (legal) under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. I’ll refer to them all as agencies as they act as agents of the federal behemoth.

Federal agencies were/are created by politicians and influential constituents to address specific “needs.” But poor people didn’t take to the streets to demand an agency like HUD (housing) or Agriculture (food stamps). American Indians didn’t clamor for a Bureau of Indian Affairs. (A much simpler—and just—option would have been to leave them alone.) Yogi and Boo Boo did not take a break from their picnic raids to petition for a National Park Service. And I don’t remember ever hearing about schoolchildren skipping recess and demanding the creation of the Department of Education. These are but a few examples, the point being that only a few, “caring” people saw a “need” that needed to be addressed—at the federal level, of course.


Two Bills Would Nullify Federal Gun Laws and Regulations in Idaho

Legislators in Idaho introduced not one, but two bills this week that show their support for the second amendment. Most specifically they contain language prohibiting the federal regulation of fire arms within their state.

HB 219, Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine, and Register Ban Enforcement Act,  would add to existing law and concerns actions prohibited by public and governmental entities in regard to firearms. It establishes certain laws as unenforceable within the state of Idaho, and also provides penalties for violations.

Stephen Hartgen has said that Idaho will not weaken on this issue, but will continue to protect the 2nd amendment. He co-sponsored this bill, which was sponsored by Representative Mark Patterson, along with 21 other co-sponsors.

If passed into law, it would become a misdemeanor for any state agent or employee to knowingly and willfully enforce, or order another agent to enforce a law or regulation contrary to the provisions in section 11,  article 1 of the Idaho constitution, which “clearly secures and prohibits government interference with the right of individual Idaho citizens to keep and bear arms.”  It would protect law enforcement officers from being ordered by their supervisors to violate the statute.


Iowa legislation to prevent unmanned ‘hawk eyes’ – predator style

Iowa Senator Kent Sorenson, along with five other Republican colleagues [ Rick Bertrand, Dennis Guth, Brad Zaun, Sandra Greiner, Nancy Boettger ] introduced SF 276 on February 27,2013.  Iowa becomes the 21st state to introduce legislation designed to reject drone spying.

“An Act relating to the use of an unmanned aircraft system” specifically precludes UAV’s from being used by the authorities under the jurisdiction of Iowa, but does not address any such privacy violation’s perpetrated by the federal government.  This Bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee on Feb. 27.

Key areas:
” 1. A state agency or an agency of a political subdivision of the state having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement shall not utilize an unmanned aircraft system prior to July 1, 2015.”

“3. Under no circumstances shall a weaponized unmanned aircraft system be deployed by or its use facilitated by an agency of the state or an agency of…..”

SF 276 does allow the use of UAV’s for limited purposes: