Down with Drones in Tennessee?

Another state legislature has the chance to come to its senses regarding the unwarranted use of surveillance drones on Americans. Tennessee Senator Mae Beavers (district 17) has joined Rep James Van Huss in the House (district 6 – H.B. 0591) with companion language that amends the Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 6. Known as the “Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act”. (S.B. 0796), section (c) states “Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, no law enforcement agency shall use a drone to gather evidence or other information.” Both bills were introduced February 4, 2013 and as of today, the House Bill passed second consideration, was referred to the Civil Justice Committee and in turn assigned to the Civil Justice Subcommittee.

Section (d) of the “Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act” provides that use of a drone shall not be prohibited:

(1) To counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States secretary of homeland d security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk;

(2) If the law enforcement agency first obtains a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone; or

(3) If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life.


In Pursuance Thereof

The federal government’s power grab over states’ rights continues unabated as evidenced by United States v. Pleau, this time in the State of Rhode Island. For the federal government or the people of the State of RI, there is no question of Jason Pleau’s guilt in the 2010 murder of gas station manager, David Main; nor does there appear to be any question that his act was premeditated. Pleau plead guilty and was sentenced in Rhode Island to life in prison without parole to avoid a federal writ called “habeas corpus ad prosequendum” which was obtained by U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha.

Rhode Island’s governor Lincoln Chafee refused the request under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA) to release the prisoner for a federal trial because of the governor’s stated opposition to capital punishment. On May 7, 2012  the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, upheld the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum where: 1) given the Supremacy Clause, the states have always lacked the authority to dishonor a writ of ad prosequendum issued by a federal court, and compliance is not merely a matter of cooperation that the governor may withhold; and 2) under United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 (1978), if a state has never had the authority to refuse the writ, the IADA does not provide it. But have they? Have the states “never had the authority” as the  First Circuit Court of Appeals claims above in referencing U.S. v. Mauro?

The answer to that question can be found in our Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause themselves, which the feds are citing. First, the Supremacy Clause, which states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Citizens who are well versed in the contents of our founding documents know that a key phrase in the Supremacy Clause is the phrase, “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.”

A constitutional law is one that is made in pursuance of the Constitution. A law which is not made in pursuance of the Constitution is not, in fact, a law; but is ‘null, void, and of no effect’. Such a law also violates the Tenth Amendment which states, “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.” In 1798, referring to the federal government, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” [emphasis added]


Responsibility and Nullification

It was a difficult decision to choose between Independence and Responsibility for this title. Responsibility was selected because Responsibility encompasses Independence and Accountability in its’ practice. On the other edge of the sword is Nullification, a term and practice we Americans have been hearing a great deal about lately. Put them together and we can…


Understanding your Duty to Freedom

cross-posted from the Rhode Island Tenth Amendment Center

Freedom is not free! The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are the most important articles of Americas’ Liberty. The Amendments beyond the tenth focus much less on the rights of the people and much more on the power of the state. In a free society, such as the framing of our Constitutional Republic, Independence and Peoples’ Rights are ratified by God. They are unalienable! Starting with the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, ratified February 7, 1795, it was the state that began ratifying successive amendments; as it turns out, to increase their power. Simply put, the first ten amendments aren’t amendments at all; they are original (The Bill of Rights) truths set forth with Liberty for the people as their framework. Draw your own conclusions from these statements, here we will endeavor to lay the groundwork for how we got to this point and then restoring that framework in the name of Liberty for all.

As America descends down this road towards tyranny manufactured by the forces of evil, those who fail to study and understand history, will perish. Under cover of providing security for the people, the banksters and corporate fascists have and will create 1) problems; analyze the peoples’ 2) reaction; then appear as their savior with their 3) solution. Freedom-loving people who have studied history know of this manipulation. In their attempts to inform others of this sequence, they are outcast as ‘whackos, delusional and extremist’ by the majority who are usually self-centered to the point of only caring about their own security and what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitude.

These folks are not free because they are looking to someone or something else to provide for them and it is this reliance on other than oneself that makes one dependent. It was also this attitude that has been recognized by oligarchs throughout history who, no doubt thought to themselves, “how ignorant are these people?” “They think they’re entitled to something so let’s be the ones to give it to them, then we can control them.” One present day term for this is Entitlement Programs; and there are thousands of them in America. Simply put, if one is dependent on another, that person won’t know what to do when that source of dependency goes away. And again, history tells us that it will.


Healthcare Expansionism

The progression of the ‘one-party, two-name’ forced healthcare system in the U.S., the most recent installment of which is known as “Obamacare” (passed 2010, but rejected by the majority of Americans), requires a brief history of how we got here and why it’s important to understand the one-party, two-name moniker. In 1965, the Social Security Act established both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare was a responsibility of the Social Security Administration (SSA), while Federal assistance to the State Medicaid programs was administered by the Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS). SSA and SRS were agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). In 1977, the Health Care Financing Administration was created under HEW to effectively coordinate Medicare and Medicaid. In 1980 HEW was divided into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If you followed just that portion of the expansion, departments being created and split into two more agencies, you’re doing better than most; though there’s more to the education. The creation of new departments, however it is done, means more government jobs, which is not good for our economy. This is also what we the people hear every day when we hear our politicians referring to job creation; most of it is in the public sector. Further, insurance had always been a state regulated industry, until the timeline outlined below; so why the federal intrusion?

It’s important to consider dates here, specifically who was president during these 45 years as the nation steamrolled towards more unconstitutional mandates. The MSM (Mainstream Media) continues to refer to this as ‘reform’, but this writer, having been in the L&H (Life and Health) insurance field for nearly 30 years, has watched this expansionism in more ways (increased numbers of forms, questions, underwriting, etc.) than I care to recall; each with a new federal department-head attached to the regulation. But in all of this, one will notice a pattern towards Healthcare Expansionism that defies one party monopolizing its progression and implementation, contrary to popular belief. Common interpretation is that it is either Democrat or Republican, no doubt because they are always bickering over the issue in a juvenile fashion; when in fact, it is both parties that have strived towards this unconstitutional mandate. Note that each date has a new act, expansion of an existing act, creation of a new department or split of an existing department resulting.

Consider the dates, administrations and actions taken:


Has It Really Come To This?

cross-posted from the Rhode Island Tenth Amendment Center

How is it that there even exists a Food Freedom Ordinance ( anywhere in the United States? With many of our liberties being seemingly taken away by bogus legislation, this one goes to the heart of the matter. Our way of life in America is under attack, starting with the dismantling of our Constitution. There has been so much focus on the Constitution being outdated and no longer applicable in our present day lives. WHAT? People, this is simple. If you live (legally) in the U.S., you agree to live by our U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the state in which you reside. In fact, it is your duty as a citizen to do so (

Since we are natural beings, we are designed to be outdoors and working the land as part of our natural makeup. So the applicable analogy here is: If one has the unalienable right to plant a garden, then ignores it (by choice), one does not eat. If one has the unalienable right to be free, then does not practice (by choice), that which extends ones’ freedom, then that person is enslaved. Much of mankind has ignored that which keeps him free, evidenced throughout much of the Middle East, much of Asia and Africa for so long; and which therefore, now becomes the encroaching enslavement of the West. Further, it could be contended that focus on the erosion of our U.S. Constitution is an intentional diversion away from what people really should be focusing on to maintain many of their freedoms. The unalienable rights referred to of course are found in the Declaration Of Independence. These unalienable rights preceed (In Congress, July 4, 1776) the Constitution (September 17, 1787) itself, just as mans’ desire to be free has preceeded every document or declaration of law as far back as Adam.