Fraud Waste and Abuse: Congress funds Military Hardware the Army Doesn’t Want

Congress constantly banks on votes of citizens by bribing people with promises, most of which they cannot fulfill. However national security becomes the hot topic where nothing can be cut, while millions of jobs based on the free market disappear.

As the economy continues to desend, the economy remains the top priority of many politicians to keep their job. The best way to guarantee a vote is to create jobs based on national security. Cities and States have now become dependent on military spending to create jobs in areas where there is a major decline in the economy. These jobs feed into the military industrial complex and hijack states in a no win situation to provide services or products that aren’t even needed.

This situation will not save the economies in states because more and more taxpayer money will be needed to fund pork projects, but it also neglects to address the issue that if these unnecessary jobs are not cut, something service members will need, will be cut. The DoD does have a budget (minus the intelligence black hole budgets) that it will have to adhere to.

Representatives have completely ignored the DoD’s request that it does not need certain products as it tries to trim its budget. However, congress has listened to the dire requests of voters that these jobs cannot disappear because it’s a national security issue. Simply put representatives try to keep districts, cities, and states afloat by funding jobs that have no demand. Jobs like those that produce the M1 Abrams tank. If it was such a national security issue, why would the DoD plead to not have one more tank?


Health Care Nationalization Gamble Goes Bust?

The winning talking point of the Obamacare mandate was that people with pre-existing conditions could not be dropped from coverage or denied coverage for health care. describes each disease or condition a person diagnosed has resulted in an individual’s insurance was dropping their coverage or denial. As a result, the Government created the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program (PCIP), a transition program, that people with pre-existing conditions shall be provided with health care insurance now and easily transfered over to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act when it becomes fully implemented in 2014. That way people have health care coverage instead of people being stranded in a no health care no man’s land until 2014.

PCIP is administered by either the federal or state government but isn’t necessarily apart of a federal or state exchange (There are only 17 states with a state run exchange). If run by the state, the “State will operate a new high-risk pool alongside an existing state high-risk pool, establish a new high-risk pool (if the state does not currently have one), build upon other existing coverage programs designed to cover high-risk individuals, or contract with current HIPAA insurance carriers or insurers of last resort to provide subsidized coverage.” Currently, 27 states provide PCIP coverage. State PCIP providers will suspend their program March 2nd.

If the PCIP is administered by the federal government, the Department on Health and Human Services runs the coverage program. This federal program started off with $5 billion dollars in 2010 and has officially closed in February! The current fund can only pay for those already enrolled, and the government can no longer accept anymore applicants. As the National Review Reports, “The average cost per enrollee in 2012 was $32,108 a year. But the costs varied widely by state, from a low of $4,276 per enrollee to a high of $171,909, and some patients have annual claims as high as $225,000 per person.” breaks down by state those people who are covered by PCIP. has estimated that 110,888 people have been enrolled in PCIP. Ten months from the full implementation of Obamacare, it is now estimated that at least 40,000 people with pre-existing conditions will be dumped off into the land of misfit toys….unless….


Proof is in the Pot

Nullification works!

As Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin often says on Tenther Radio, the feds always need state and local law enforcement. Every drug raid ends with a DEA press release thanking state or local law enforcement for its cooperation.

The feds simply don’t have the resources or manpower to enforce all of their acts.

Judge Napolitano states, “State non-compliance makes federal enforcement almost nearly impossible.”

But don’t believe nullification works just because Michael Boldin says so! Don’t buy into it just because Judge Napolitano agrees.

The DEA says so too!

The Huffington Post reports that the DEA is trying desperately to justify its budget. How can they do their job if states won’t enforce their federal “laws?” Who will destroy the weed?

In California, several nullification bills addressing medical marijuana were signed into law. In 1996, Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act, was enacted after a 56 percent state-wide vote in favor. This bill  allowed patients with a valid doctor’s recommendation, and the patient’s designated Primary Caregiver’s approval, to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use. Since then, the program has been expanded to protect a growing system of collective and cooperative distribution.


Missouri House Passes Firearms Freedom Act by a Veto-Proof Majority

Moments ago, Missouri House Bill 170, the Firearms Freedom Act, passed out of the House by a wide margin.  It passed overwhelmingly with a strong veto-proof margin and will now move to the State Senate for concurrence.  The final tally was 117-41.

HB170, the Firearms Freedom Act, protects two aspects of the right to bear arms: 1. HB170 protects semi-automatic firearms, magazines, and accessories from being registered, restricted or banned; 2: HB170 protects manufacturers from the federal governments infringements and dealers from using a national background database.  It reads, in part:

“It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of this state, or any political subdivision, or any federal firearms dealer licensed under 18 U.S.C. Section 923 to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the boundaries of the state of Missouri.

2. Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.

3. Any person in violation of a federal law created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained exclusively within the boundaries of the state of Missouri may request the attorney general to defend him or her for such violation.

4. Any federal law created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, rule, regulation, or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, shall be unenforceable in the state of Missouri if the law, rule, regulation, or order attempts to: (1) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or (2) Require any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.”  (emphasis added)

In short, any such federal “acts, laws, statutes, rules or regulations” that are already in effect or are passed in the future shall be nullified.  This would effectively create a safe-haven for firearms manufacturers who want to build products that are sold to residents in Missouri.     It also includes a statewide ban on any federal attempt to ban or restrict semi-automatics (including magazines and accessories)  This bill is a great companion for HB436, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, which already passed the House and is on its way to the Senate Floor in the coming days.


Lousiana 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Heading to the Floor.

Representative Jim Morse introduced HB5 this year in response to the newly sought “assault weapons” ban from Diane Feinstein and other threat to prohibit “weapons of war” from the White House Administration.

The Louisiana Preservation of Individual Gun Rights of Citizens Act protects semi-automatic firearms from federal regulation.

HB5 states,

Any federal law, rule, regulation, or executive order adopted or enacted on or after January 1, 2013, shall be unenforceable within the borders of the state of Louisiana if the law, rule, regulation, or executive order attempts to do any of the following:

(1) Ban or restrict the ownership or possession of a semi-automatic firearm, or any magazine, accessory, or ammunition for a semi-automatic firearm, as defined by federal law.

(2) Require that any semi-automatic firearm, magazine, accessory, or ammunition for a semi-automatic firearm be registered in any manner. The provisions of this Section shall only apply to semi-automatic firearms, magazines, accessories, and ammunition for such firearms which are owned or possessed within the state of Louisiana and remain exclusively within the borders of the state of Louisiana.”

The local and state police are prohibited from enforcing any federal law in violation.

“It shall be unlawful for any official, agent, or employee of the United States government to enforce or attempt to enforce a federal law, rule, regulation, or executive order which is unenforceable”

This law provides that,

“Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than two years, or both.

The office of the attorney general of the state of Louisiana shall defend any Louisiana citizen who is charged with possession or ownership of a semi-automatic firearm, magazine, accessory, or ammunition for such firearm in violation of any federal law, rule, regulation, or executive order which is unenforceable”

This bill passed the House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice with a vote of 8-6. This bill now heads to the floor for a vote on  April 23. In an article from The Advocate, Jim Morris said, “This is not only a timely bill, but proper bill to bring.”


Alaska REAL ID Nullification, Round Two.

In 2008, Alaska refused to implement REAL-ID with Senate Bill 202. This law states,

“A state agency may not expend funds solely for the purpose of implementing or aiding in the implementation of the requirements of the federal Real ID Act of 2005.”

DHS has been quietly working behind the scenes – trying to get states to implement REAL-ID through back door deals. One such deal has turned out to be a scandal in the state of Missouri. The Department of Revenue (DoR) in Missouri was caught red-handed. It was found that they were implementing sections of the real id act in defiance of a law banning it. They were also using DHS grants to scan biometric data pro, and storing that data to a 3rd party known for it’s workings with DHS, DoD, and the TSA. Click here for the full scandal.

As a result, the director of the DoR has stepped down. That’s not all, Representative Bahr has introduced legislation that would make it possible to fire any department director or deputy director caught “instances of misconduct, perjury before any committee of the general assembly, violation of any state statute, a conviction or plea of guilty for committing any crime, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.”

In Alaska,


Noncompliance Does Not Mean Spineless: Missouri Style

In 2009, the state of Missouri nullified the Real ID Act.

HB 361 set in stone how Missouri establishes residency, naturalization, and lawful immigration status. This bill also defined information included on a Missouri ID card. It specifically states that, “an applicant shall not have his or her privacy rights violated in order to obtain or renew a Missouri noncommercial driver’s license, noncommercial instruction permit, or a nondriver’s license.” The the law emphatically states,  “Missouri will not comply with the Department of Homeland Securities REAL-ID act.”

The department of revenue shall not amend procedures for applying for a driver’s license or identification card in order to comply with the goals or standards of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, any rules or regulations promulgated under the authority granted in such act, or any requirements adopted by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for furtherance of the act.

Any biometric data previously collected, obtained, or retained in connection with motor vehicle registration or operation, the issuance or renewal of driver’s licenses, or the issuance or renewal of any identification cards by any department or agency of the state charged with those activities shall be retrieved and deleted from all databases. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any data collected, obtained, or retained for a purpose other than compliance with the federal REAL ID Act of 2005. For purposes of this section, “biometric data” includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Facial feature pattern characteristics;
(2) Voice data used for comparing live speech with a previously created speech model of a person’s voice;
(3) Iris recognition data containing color or texture patterns or codes;
(4) Retinal scans, reading through the pupil to measure blood vessels lining the retina;
(5) Fingerprint, palm prints, hand geometry, measuring of any and all characteristics of biometric information, including shape and length of fingertips or recording ridge pattern or fingertip characteristics;
(6) Eye spacing;
(7) Characteristic gait or walk;
(8) DNA;
(9) Keystroke dynamics, measuring pressure applied to key pads or other digital receiving devices.
5. No citizen of this state shall have his or her privacy compromised by the state or agents of the state. The state shall within reason protect the sovereignty of the citizens the state is entrusted to protect.

The End-Around

But it appears state bureaucrats are implementing Real ID through a back door, in direct violation of state law.


South Carolina a Step Closer to Nullifying Obamacare

A bill that would nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in South Carolina through noncompliance passed out of a House committee Tuesday.

The Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee approved H3101 by a 14-9 vote along partisan lines.

The bill originally included penalties on federal agents who enforced the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,  but sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center  indicate the bill was dead with penalties included, and they were amended out.

(3) It is the stated policy of the South Carolina general assembly that provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 grossly exceeds the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

(4) The provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 which exceed the limited powers granted to Congress pursuant to the Constitution, cannot and should not be considered the supreme law of the land.

(5,) The General Assembly of South Carolina has the absolute and sovereign authority to interpose and refuse to enforce the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that exceed the authority of the Congress.

The bill also prohibits state cooperation with implementation  of the unconstitutional federal act within the state.

(A) No agency of the State, officer or employee of this State, acting on behalf of the state, may engage in an activity that aids any agency in the enforcement of those provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and any subsequent federal act that amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that exceed the authority of the United States Constitution.

(B) The General Assembly…is empowered to take all necessary actions to ensure that the provisions of subsection (A) of this code section are adhered to by all agencies, departments and political subdivisions of the State.


Maine Legislation Would Nullify Unconstitutional Hemp Ban

Maine LD 525 is an Act to Promote Industrial Hemp. This bill, sponsored by Representative Harvell, is currently in the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.  If passed into law, it would authorize the growth and production of the plant within the state of Maine.

The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to regulate the production of hemp, or any agricultural product, within a state’s borders, but has banned it for decades.

Hemp is a major product worldwide, and is widely used in the United States in food products, clothing, oils and more.  It can be a competitor to the oil, cotton, and paper industries (and many more), which is a likely reason why the federal government refuses to budge on its view that no one in the US should produce it.  The results?  The United States is the world’s #1 importer of hemp.  The top 2 exporters are China and Canada.

However, the DEA stated in an FOIA request that they are “opposed to any consideration of hemp as a legitimate fiber or pulp product.” LD525 authorizes production in Maine, effectively nullifying the unconstitutional federal ban.


Anti-Drone Bills Pass out of Committees in Tennessee

Drone regulation in Tennessee moved a step closer to reality this week.

Both the House and Senate versions of the Freedom of Unwarranted Surveillance Act moves forward in Tennessee out of their respective committees. SB796 unanimously passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee 9-0.  The House Civil Justice Committee recommended passage of HB591 if amended.

The bill prohibits the use of drones  by law enforcement agencies in Tennessee only under the following circumstances.

– Toe counter the high risk of terrorist attack by a specific person or organization.
– With a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone.
– With evidence of reasonable suspicion that there is an immediate threat such that “swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life.

The proposed amendments add two more exceptions for drone use.