Rick Perry Grandstands Against Obamacare

Texas Governor Rick Perry announced last week that he will not comply with Obamacare; he refuses to expand Medicaid and will not establish a state-run health insurance market exchange.

Rick Perry is grandstanding because he has failed to protect Texans from the threat of the new IRS enforced “tax” against people who decline Obamacare.

Oklahoma State Representative Mike Ritz plans to introduce legislation that does protect the states’ citizens because it authorizes Oklahoma’s Attorney General to defend citizens who fail to purchase insurance against the federal government, and it criminalizes enforcement of the individual mandate.

The proposed Oklahoma bill is based on model legislation from the Tenth Amendment Center, the ‘Federal Health Care Nullification Act’.

Although Bilderberger Rick Perry pretends to be a conservative and constitutionalist, his opposition to Obamacare is a lightweight effort that fails to protect individuals.

Nonetheless, it is still helpful in the movement to nullify Obamacare.  If states refuse to set up insurance market exchanges, the federal government says it will implement the insurance exchange for them.  However, Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said, “if the federal government had the resources to do this in the first place, states wouldn’t even be part of the equation.  It is unlikely that that the feds have the funding to do this, and they’ll need the complicity of the states to pull it off.”

Perry’s weak refusal is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough because the people will still be subject to IRS tax penalties and massive new taxes that will be required to fund the Obamacare monstrosity.

Details

Smashing Tyranny, Restoring America

Ron Paul’s Restore America Plan is a 12-page budget that cuts $1 trillion in spending the first year and balances the budget by the 3rd year.  Paul proposes eliminating 5 federal executive agencies that include the following departments: Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development and the Interior. The video below explains why it would be a tremendous benefit to get rid of the Department of Interior.

The Department of the Interior has over 70,000 employees and receives more than $12 billion in taxpayer funds.


map-owns_the_westFederally Owned Land

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is unconstitutional because control over land, water, resources and wildlife are not mentioned as an enumerated power in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Additionally, the federal government’s ownership of nearly 30% of US land, primarily in the Western states, is an affront to the Equal Footing Doctrine

Details

EPA’s Scandalous Policies vs. States’ Responsibility

The EPA pesticide and herbicide approval program requires industry manufacturer applicants to fund the studies that are submitted.  This means that if companies like Monsanto or Dow Chemical have a new product, they are required under EPA rules to pay for all of the safety testing when they apply for approval of a new weed or bug killer.

In the absence of independent testing and oversight, there appears to be a wide open door for potential fraud as manufacturer applicants could cherry pick their studies and simply use ones that show favorable results.

Templates were devised by to make industry manufacturer applicants’ study data uniform in a 2002 NAFTA deal struck between the EPA and Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PRMA).  Templates are used so that the EPA and PRMA can approve of applicants’ poisons more quickly and with fewer resources.  The agencies hope to review approved pesticides only every 15 years.

You can find the profile of these testing templates on the EPA website.

States Carry the Primary Responsibility

On the EPA’s website, they say that after a pesticide is registered (approved) by the EPA, states may have more strict laws regarding poisons and it is up to the manufacturer to comply with state laws in order to register their product in the state.

Details

Vermont vs the Feds: Blocking a State from Environmental Decisions

Recently a federal judge blocked Vermont from decommissioning the leaky Yankee nuclear reactor that is almost identical to Fukushima Reactor #1 (75% of US reactors are leaking radioactive material), using the excuse that only the corrupt federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) can decommission a reactor.

WRONG!

Under the Tenth Amendment States’ Rights, states can do anything they want as long as it is not a power that is:

•  delegated to the federal government in the Constitution
•  prohibited to the states by the Constitution
•  prohibited to the state by its own constitution

The Constitution lacks provisions forcing a state to risk its citizens’ lives in order to boost nuclear industry profits.

Constitutional Remedies

Vermont has a law that gives the state veto power over a reactor when its license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is expired.  The judge in the Yankee case unconstitutionally invalidated the state law, and the NRC granted the Yankee plant a 20-year extension.  An appeal of the ruling would require a lot of time and effort.

A quick and simple option for Vermont would be to collect evidence proving leakage that endangers health or property in order to declare a State of Emergency that would put control over Yankee operations in the hands of the state.  It is unlikely that Vermont could decommission the reactor, but they could close it down until the necessary repairs were completed.  If the repairs were cost prohibitive, the effect would be to shut it down.

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin’s War on Climate

Because the Yankee nuclear plant provides 70% of Vermont’s energy, a replacement energy source is required if Yankee were to close.  Governor Shumlin favors green renewable energy that is insufficient, unreliable and very costly.  Shumlin’s energy plan is centered on the pipe dream of renewables providing 90% of electricity needs by 2050.  Coal is discounted in his fairy tale paradigm.

Details

Phil Hart: Declaring a State of Emergency

Idaho State Representative Phil Hart became concerned about the federal government’s illegal introduction of Canadian gray wolves in Idaho because they pose a public danger.  The federal government and Idaho agreed to allow a population of 100 wolves into the state, but the Canadian wolf population far exceeds that number now, and is estimated to be 1000 to 2000 wolves that can weigh as much as 140 to 180 pounds.  The federal government mismanaged the wolf program under the Endangered Species Act.

The wolves are now a very serious threat to humans and livestock because they carry disease and tapeworms.  Tapeworms from wolf feces can be fatal to humans; it is especially alarming that tapeworms can remain dormant for 20 years.

Details

New Mexico Law and Local Sheriff Trump the Feds

New Mexico just proved that State law trumps unconstitutional federal regulations and that the power of the sheriff is superior over federal agencies.  This is the power of the Tenth Amendment!

Ten years ago, when Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson was Governor of New Mexico, he signed into law a bill authorizing New Mexico to cut trees and thin overgrown forests that can prevent uncontrollable wildfires.  This law applies to federal lands when federal agencies neglect or mismanage forests and put lives at risk.

The US Forest Service, under the USDA, allowed the Lincoln National Forest in Otero County to become dense and  overgrown and it was a life-threatening hazard.  The agency refused to remediate the problem.

Federal agencies are party to a sinister plot for total control and depopulation through the United Nations, called Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.  Many federal employees who enforce bad environmental policies may not realize they are really enforcing UN Agenda 21.  Part of this plot is the Wildlands Project designed to remove humans from rural lands and allowing forests to grow out of control, even when forest fires threaten human life.

Details

Obama Starts a Civil War on Drugs

California legalized medical marijuana for seriously ill patients in 1996 and it is now legal in 16 states and DC.  However, the Obama Administration wants to shut down pot dispensaries in California.

Obama’s renewed ‘War on Drugs’ is ironically led by the Department of Justice while they are currently trying to cover-up the Gunwalker/Fast & Furiousscandal that involves the federal government handing military-style assault weapons over to Mexican drug cartels.  The guns have been used to murder people on both sides of the border.

More than 42,000 people have been killed in drug related violence in Mexico since their president Felipe Calderon stepped up his ‘War on Drugs’ in 2006.

Legalization of drugs will end drug trade related violence.

The US ‘War on Drugs’ is an abject failure that costs US taxpayers $15 billion a year, or $500 a second.  The ‘War on Drugs’ has wrongly imprisoned tens of millions of non-violent American drug users and costs taxpayers almost $200 billion a year.

If the federal government was sincere about stopping drug use, they would end the CIA’s drug smuggling adventures.

The federal government’s enhanced War on Drugs is not really about drugs, it’s about crushing States Rights under the Tenth Amendment and generating mega-profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

Ron Paul endorses ending the War on Drugs.

THE 10th AMENDMENT AND MARIJUANA

California legalized medical marijuana, despite federal government attempts to stop the State, but California nullified the federal drug law under the 10th Amendment.  In 2005, California lost the federal Supreme Court case against medical marijuana.  But California nullified the federal Supreme Court power grab, thus setting a precedent for ignoring the Supreme Court when they fail to follow the Constitution. 

Details

The Endangered Species Act Strikes Against the Constitution

The first of the 5 international and UN treaties that the Endangered Species Act is based on is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The federal government used the Commerce Clause to usurp authority over hunting, but this was an overreach of power, so some states opposed the federal government and won their case…

Details

States’ Rights vs. the Supreme Court

Tom Woods explains that States can nullify (invalidate) unconstitutional federal laws, even if they are endorsed by the Supreme Court. In 2005, one State made a law that the federal government opposed and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court predictably ruled that the state law was subordinate to “superior”…

Details