Will Tennessee Lead on Stopping Drone Spying?

After watching the many oppositions to Nullification bills across the country, I was pleasantly surprised that the state of Tennessee was not one of these. In the case of drones used locally, usually anti-drone bills are opposed by lobbyists asking “what about all the jobs it will make” and some local law enforcement wanting bribe from the feds to get a drone. The exact opposite happened here in Nashville!

This week’s hearing started off with Representative Van Huss talking about the bill to nullify drones in Tennessee. He talked about an amendment in HB591. This amendment would allow a search warrant to be issued after 48 hours after an event that was captured by a drone’s surveillance.

Representative Mike Carter asked, “Why not just get a warrant prior? Why get a warrant after 48 hours? I want it to be used like the regular established procedures for warrants. I want a judge to say, this person’s privacy needs to be invaded.”

Representative Jon Lundberg added, “The way this is drafted would have the antithesis.”

Representative Carter stated, The amendment liberalizes where I want to go. If a warrant is not required for a helicopter (in this scenario) than why for a drone?

Representative Womick was under the impression that drones were only used by the military and vehemently opposed to the military operating in Tennessee. However, Representative Carter corrected him, “Drones are used by counties. Hamilton County bought one for $300,000 and no one knows how to fly it! This isn’t just for predator drones, this is for every drone.”

At which point, Representative Van Huss wanted to strike down his amendment. But that wasn’t good enough. Representative Stewart said, there is general support for this bill, but it needs some fine tuning. We should send it to the hill!


By Law, North Carolina will Not Create Obamacare Exchange or Expand Medicaid

Earlier this month, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed Senate Bill 4 (S4).

S4 is an “Act (1) to Clarify the State’s Intent not to operate a state-run or “partnership” health benefit exchange, (2) to provide that future medicaid eligibility determinations will be made by the state rather than the federally facilitated exchange, and (3) to reject the affordable care act’s optional medicaid expansion.”

It passed the Senate by a vote of 32-17 and the House by a vote of 75-42.

As Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, has reported in detail in a new paper on the subject, States rejecting the creation of exchanges and the expansion of medicaid are two linchpins that can bring Obamacare to its demise.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) itself empowers states to block the employer mandate, to exempt many of their low- and middle-income taxpayers from the individual mandate, and to reduce federal deficit spending, simply by not establishing a health insurance “exchange.” Supporters of the law do not care for this feature, yet they adopted it because they had no choice. The bill would not have become law without it.  (see 50 Vetoes: How States Can Stop the Obama Health Care Law)


While a flurry of republican governors initially said that they would not implement the exchanges, an increasing number have changed their minds and are moving ahead with implementation.  That’s why the legislative approach taken in North Carolina is crucial.  S4 protects the people of North Carolina from having to rely on the whims of a single politician – who could obviously be a different person in a few short years.


Carter County, TN Passes Second Amendment Resolution 16-2

Carter County, Tenn. recently joined the swelling ranks of local governments condemning any unconstitutional federal acts violating the Second Amendment.

County commissioners met on Monday, March 11, and took a stand against Federal Gun laws. By a 16 to 2 vote, the commission adopted a resolution calling on the state to step in and protect citizens from Second Amendment violations.

The resolution calls upon the governor and the Tennessee  legislature “to immediately pass acts to protect, preserve and defend the citizens of Carter County and the state of Tennessee guaranteed by the Second Amendment … and specifically to immediately pass any acts as may be appropriate to nullify the implementation within the state of Tennessee of any federal law, regulation or executive order enacted to restrict the rights of citizens of Tennessee to keep and bear arms.”


Las Vegas City Council Passes Resolution Against NDAA Indefinite Detention

LAS VEGAS, NV (March 21, 2013) – Yesterday, the Nevada Chapter of PANDA (People Against the National Defense Authorization Act) announced the passage of a Las Vegas City Council Resolution rebuking the indefinite detention provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). 

Just before noon Wednesday, the Las Vegas City Council passed a resolution rebuking the indefinite detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA, 5-2. The resolution may be read here at:http://tinyurl.com/cyu5bue. The Resolution will now head to the Clark County Commission; if passed, it would be the first Joint City/County Resolution passed anywhere in the country in response to the NDAA. 

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011. The 2012 NDAA declares the United States to be a battlefield in the war on terror and Section 1021 & 1022 authorize the indefinite military detention, without charge or trial, of persons on US soil. This violates at least 23 Articles of and Amendments to both the US and Nevada Constitutions.

PANDA’s Clark County Chapter Head, Daphne Lee, stated, “I am so incredibly grateful to the honorable Council members for supporting our efforts. I would especially like to thank Councilman Beers for helping me introduce this resolution to the board, and to Mayor Goodman for her amazing vocal support for the rights of all persons in Nevada. This action will support other cities, counties and states all over the country who seek to take a stand to protect constitutional rights.” 


Two hemp legalization bills introduced in California

Two bills have been introduced in California to nullify unconstitutional federal laws by legalizing hemp, the industrial companion to the conscious-altering plant marijuana. Thomas Jefferson would be proud that his pastime of hemp farming, criminalized by the federal government since 1970, is being revived by 16 state legislatures this year.

California’s Assembly Bill 1137 from Asm. Allan Mansoor and Senate Bill 566 from Sen. Mark Leno make an exception for industrial hemp under the legal definition of “marijuana.” They stipulate a .03% THC potency limit, about 1/50 of the amount found in medical marijuana. Both bills cite these economic facts surrounding the issue:

(d) According to a study commissioned by the Hemp Industries Association, sales of industrial hemp products in the United States have grown steadily since 1990 to more than two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) in 2005, increasing at a rate of approximately twenty‑six million dollars ($26,000,000) per year.

(e) California manufacturers of hemp products currently import from around the world tens of thousands of acres’ worth of hemp seed, oil, and fiber products that could be produced by California farmers at a more competitive price, and the intermediate processing of hemp seed, oil, and fiber could create jobs in close proximity to the fields of cultivation.

Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill in October 2011 citing federal supremacy. SB 566 acquiesces to Brown’s constitutional ignorance making it unenforceable “unless authorized under federal law.” AB 1137 is not self-limiting in that way.


MI Bill in Committee Prohibits State’s Participation in the Common Core Curriculum

Over the next year, Michigan and 45 other states will be transitioning to the same grade-level curriculum standards for their K-12 schools under the Common Core State Standards Initiative.  Since this curriculum has never been implemented or piloted before, the states’ children will become guinea pigs for this experiment.

MI Bill HB4276 changes 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,” by amending section 1278 (MCL 380.1278), as amended by 2004 PA 596, and by adding section 1278c.  On February 19, 2013, the bill was introduced by Representatives McMillin, Hooker, McBroom, Somerville and Howrylak and referred to the Committee on Education.

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1278 (MCL 380.1278) The State Board Model Core Academic Curriculum content standards shall not be based upon the Common Core Standards described in Section 1278C.

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1278C (MCL 380.1278)  (1) The State Board and the Department shall not  implement the Common Core Standards promoted by the Common Core Standards Initiative coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.  The State Board shall take the necessary action to rescind the State Board’s adoption of those Common Core Standards, which occurred on June 15, 2010, and to discontinue any assessments aligned to those Common Core Standards.  

(2) After the effective date of this section, the State Board or any other state official or agency shall not participate in the Common Core State Standards initiative described in Subsection (1).

(3)  The State Board shall ensure that the State Board Model Core Academic Curriculum Content Standards under Section 1278 and the subject area content expectations that apply to the credit requirements of the Michigan Merit Standard under Sections 1278A and 1278 are not based upon the Common Core Standards described in Subsection (1).

Diane Ravitch, a former assistant U.S. secretary of education who was appointed to office by both Clinton and George H.W. Bush, recently changed her mind about Common Core. Ravitch now refutes claims by Obama and Common Core that the standards were created by the states and voluntarily adopted by them.