Ice-T Defends Gun Rights “It’s Part Of Our Constitution”

Host – “So you have got guns in your home?”

Ice-T – “Yeah, it’s legal in the United States, it’s part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.”

Host – “And do you see any link between that and this sort of instance (Aurora shooting)?”

Ice-T – “No. Not really. If somebody wants to kill people, they don’t need a gun to do it”

Ice-T gets it and perfectly summed up what those us us that support gun rights have been saying all along.


Nullification May Be On The Ballot In Arizona

Arizona businessman Jack Biltis has spent $1.2M to get enough signatures in order to get his nullification question on the ballot this November and his investment may be paying off. Biltis claims to have submitted over 320,000 signatures to the Secretary of State, and 259,213 validated signatures are required to move the measure forward.

The initiative, if successful, it would amend the state’s constitution to allow the citizens of Arizon “to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution.”


State Sues Blue Hill Farmer, Challenges Food Sovereignty Ordinance

cross-posted from the Maine Tenth Amendment Center

In the last year, five towns in Maine have moved to protect local commerce in a hurting economy by nullifying State and Federal regulations. As previous reported by the Maine Tenth Amendment Center regarding Sedgwick, the first town to do so, “Under the new ordinance, producers and processors are protected from licensure or inspection in sales that are sold for home consumption between them and a patron, at farmer’s market, or at a roadside stand. The ordinance specifically notes the right of the people to food freedom, as well as citing the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Maine Constitution in defending the rights of the people.” National Family Farm Coalition member and local Sedgwick farmer Bob St. Peter noted, “Rural working people have always had to do a little of this and a little of that to make ends meet. But up until the last couple generations, we didn’t need a special license or new facility each time we wanted to sell something to our neighbors. Small farmers and producers have been getting squeezed out in the name of food safety, yet it’s the industrial food that is causing food borne illness, not us.”

The push back has begun, but instead of the Federal Government leading a charge against non-compliance, it is the State Government. Maine Agricultural Commissioner Walter Whitcomb, who was appointed by Republican Governor Paul LePage, has followed through on a threat against local farmers in a struggling economy. In a letter dated April 6th, Whitcomb made it very clear that non-compliance “will be subject to enforcement, including the removal from sale of products from unlicensed sources and/or the imposition of fines.” Dan Brown of Gravelwood Farms is being sued by the State for operating without a license.

Trenton citizen Doug Wollmar, who introduced the Ordinance in his town, noted Article 1, Section 2 of the Maine Constitution and a Statute.

Article 1, Section 2 states: “All power is inherent in the people; all free governments are founded in their authority and instituted for their benefit, [and that] they have therefore an unalienable and indefensible right to institute government and to alter, reform, or totally change the same when their safety and happiness require it.”


Welcome to Tyranny

“The right to be free from federal regulations is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions…”

The above quote, which in its entirety is, “The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins,” was written by Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee, regarding today’s D.C. federal court ruling upholding the Constitutionality of ObamaCare.

Question: If the right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins, as the judge so eloquently puts it is in fact the new dynamic of our once-free nation, then what protects us from tyranny?

What if Congress deems that unabridged free speech (aka “hate speech” in progressive land) is a national problem requiring a “national solution?” How about the current madness surrounding obesity? Gun ownership? Private property rights? The list goes on.


Higher Education, Just Another Government Created Bubble

Every year, high school graduates line up to sign on the dotted line for the opportunity to place themselves and their parents in a financial hole with the hopes of striking gold in the career of their choice. Some of them take the low risk route,  going into fields such as medicine, law, engineering and so on; fields that have some chance of producing a profitable career while others – well you know.

Now, a lot of noise is being made about the debt burden of younger Americans who have mortgaged their future to achieve what is, more or less, a worthless piece of paper. Not surprisingly, most of that noise is being made by the same geniuses who thought that shelling out $100K to major in Feminist Studies was a great idea and was going to get them laid.

But alas, this is America, and no one is accountable for their own stupidity. So, it has to be someone else’s fault. Now with the OWS crowd, it’s easy to blame those big, nasty corporations for not seeing the value in a degree in Comic Book Art and lining up to throw money at you. But there really is someone to blame and it is… drumroll please…



Nullification In Connecticut: Senate Passes Marijuana Decrim Bill

Connecticut took a step toward joining a number of states, including neighboring New York and Massachusetts, that are standing up to the federal government and nullifying federal penalties for simple possession of cannabis through decriminalization initiatives. While decriminalization is not the same as legalization, it does take away the threat of a criminal record and…


Divided We Fail

If you are a supporter of liberty, anti-war and anti-state, you may have noticed the growing divide among supporters of former NM Governor Gary Johnson and TX Rep Ron Paul. Both men, Johnson who has announced he is running and Paul who has formed an exploratory committee, want to be the next President of the United States and will run on the platform of shrinking the federal government, increasing personal liberty and ending our foreign policy of international intervention along with getting our military out of the unconstitutional wars we are now involved in.

Sounds great, two candidates who’s views are different from what will be the usual slate of big government, anti-liberty, neo-cons running for the highest office in the land. But herein lies the problem; instead of rallying around both men, there is a rift developing among their supporters.

Those who see Dr Paul as the one true libertarian who can turn our republic around question Gov Johnson’s libertarian credentials, often calling him a “beltway libertarian”, saying that he does not propose cutting Leviathan enough and that his record as a two-term Governor of NM proves this. I’ve even seen where it has been thrown out there that Johnson is indirectly being supported by the Koch Brothers.


Real ID – Real Nullification

You may not realize it but the May 11 deadline for states to be in compliance with the 2005 Real ID Act is fast approaching. Fortunately, many states have taken efforts to nullify this attack on liberty by refusing to comply, with 16 states having laws against enactment and another 10 that have passed resolutions in opposition to the Act*. A representative for the National Conference of State Legislatures believes that there is not a single state currently meeting the standard.
Undeterred, House Republicans have sent a letter to Big Sis (who as Governor of AZ signed a law in 2008 forbidding the state from cooperating with the federal requirements) urging her not to extend the deadline. Bad enough that they already pushed through the extension of the Patriot Act, but now they want to continue the assault on our freedom, all in the name of security, by forcing the states to require documentation from citizens. It’s only a matter of time before babies are Lojacked at birth.


Words Have Meaning

JBS CEO Art Thompson spoke at the recentNullify Now! event in Phoenix and brought up an interesting point about how vocabulary and the choice of words can be used to frame a point of view. He correctly pointed out that supporters and opponents alike generally use the term states’ rights as opposed to states’ sovereignty.

On the face it may not seem like much of a difference but when you look at the meaning of the two words, you see that there is actually a big difference in terms of interpretation.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, rights were considered natural rights; something that we have and are inalienable. In other words, rights were not endowed by a law or government, rather they were self-evident. Today, on the other hand, what is looked upon as a right is something that is given to us through the government or by law. So, by today’s definition, states’ rights are derived from the federal government. This flies in the face of what the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution had in mind, otherwise, what is the point of the Tenth Amendment?


Nullification Is Unconstitutional?

So says John Miller of the WaPo. Mr Miller bases this of course on the misplaced idea that the Supremacy Clause over-rides Article I, section 8 of the Constitution which granted Congress specificenumerated powers. Except people like Mr Miller most likely don’t understand the Supremacy Clause because if they did they would know that federal laws are only supreme if they are “made in pursuance thereof” the Constitution. In plain English, the law must fall within the confines of the Constitution to be supreme. Put another way, as Tom Woods asks in response to another anti-nullification article by Paul Zummo, “does the Supremacy Clause say, ‘This Constitution and laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, along with any old laws we may choose to impose on you, shall be the supreme law of the land?’ That’s not what my copy has.”

The big government types truly believe that the several states gave up all their rights when they ratified the Constitution, completely disregarding the wealth of information from the Ratification Conventions along with the opinions of those both for and against the Constitution in the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers.