Indiana Introduces Bill Nullifying UN ‘Agenda 21’

Indiana State Representative Tim Neese has introduced a bill that would block implementation of UN “Agenda 21” policies  in the state.

HB 1021 would amend the Indiana Code concerning state and local administration.

“An Indiana governmental entity may not adopt or implement: (1) certain policy recommendations relating to the United Nations’ 1992 ‘Agenda 21’ conference on the environment and development that deliberately or inadvertently infringe on or restricts private property rights without due process; or (2) any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana.  Provides that an Indiana governmental entity may not enter into any agreement with, expend any sum of money received from, or pay any money to, an ‘Agenda 21′ organization.’”

This bill, if passed, would nullify the UN’s resolution, which could have scary potential. “Agenda 21” was created to be an action plan for sustainable development worldwide.  This agenda, makes a stronger UN, and may be another step closer to a single world government.  A section from this agenda reads:

“Agenda 21 stands as a comprehensive blueprint for action to be taken globally from now into the twenty-first century-by Governments, United Nations organizations, development agencies, non-governmental organizations and independent-sector groups, in every area in which human activity impacts on the environment”.

It can also be argued that UN “Agenda 21” may be laying out plans for population control.  One of the programme areas in the agenda is listed as “improving human settlement and management.”  Clearly, this power of the UN has dangerous possibilities, strengthens their role, and brings us closer to a “one-world government.”

HB 1021 will be assigned to a committee when the House reconvenes on Monday, January 7, 2013.



Today’s Lesson: Nullifying ‘Gun-Free’ Zones

Class is in session.

It’s on the subject of school violence, and in the wake of the massacre at a Connecticut elementary school.  First of all, let me address those who argue, I shouldn’t “politicize” a tragedy, or I should respect the families.  But the truth is, more respect for these families, I couldn’t have.  This is a tragedy beyond comprehension, and I can’t begin to fathom what the Newtown community is going through.  It is gun control advocates that are politicizing, and exploiting the situation, with U.S. legislators now saying they will introduce assault weapon bans in Congress.  Regardless, we also can’t ignore the growing epidemic of school shootings.  I’ve heard many answers to solve this problem from eliminating public access to semi-automatic weapons to better access to mental healthcare.  These are unrealistic.  In one case, it’s also unconstitutional and bad public policy.  The answer to this problem is to eliminate the federally mandated “gun free” zones, and allow local school boards to decide how best to protect their students.

This is an education issue, as much as it is a Second Amendment issue.  Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, in the federally enumerated powers, does it list education as a power delegated to the Federal Government.  And while the Feds have continually worked to create this power for themselves (through No Child Left Behind, and Michelle Obama’s federal school lunch program, to name a few) it is a power left to local governments, and local school boards.  The Federal Government also unconstitutionally created the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, thus allowing for only deranged psychopaths to bring weapons into our public schools.  While the SCOTUS originally declared the Act unconstitutional, Congress was able to circumvent the ruling, and the GFSZA of 1990 still lives.  Young, innocent, and defenseless students have been paying the price ever since.

Local school boards should be able to determine the best and most effective way to protect their children.  And yes, this would include having armed and trained personnel to defend kids, instead of making them sitting ducks.  Now, this doesn’t mean a Federal Law should be made requiring all schools to arm teachers.  It means that every local school board should decide.  Maybe one school will have a gun safe in the Principal’s office, allowing only him or her access.  Maybe a school will arm and train every teacher.  Maybe a school will put in additional security measures without arming anyone.  Maybe they will hire an armed security guard.  Maybe they will do nothing.  The point is that it’s their decision to make.

Some will, and have, argued that armed teachers would end up turning weapons on their own students.  However, if we are hiring murdering lunatics to help raise our kids, I think our problems are a little worse than this possibility.   Teachers go through very strict licensing requirements, if they can pass this requirement, they can be trusted to protect our children from violent attack.  And while it will be shown below that no federal gun control laws can be allowed, it is much better to have responsible and caring teachers with guns in our schools, than a crazed madman, who only wants to murder as many young kids as possible.


Nullify NDAA: Join the Grassroots Effort

NDAA:  The National Defense Authorization Act.  As a Tenth Amendment Legal Analyst says, it has “scary potential.”  The act was signed into law by President Obama on December 31, 2011. The most troublesome provision in NDAA are Sections 1021 and 1022, which allows for the President to detain any person deemed a threat, without a…


Will Texas Nullify Obamacare Mandates?

Representative James White (R-Luftkin) has prefiled House Joint Resolution 48 (HJR 48) in the Texas State House of Representatives.  The bill is designed to amend Article I of the Texas Constitution and would protect the rights of people there to decide for themselves whether or not to purchase health insurance. It states, in part:

“Each individual in this state has the right to choose or decline to choose to purchase health insurance coverage without penalty or sanction or threat of penalty or sanction.”

This bill essentially nullifies the requirement of individuals to purchase health insurance as described in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  In Section 5000A of the PPACA, it states that individuals must have healthcare coverage, as well as their dependents in any given month.  If coverage is lacking, a penalty will be imposed, unless certain income requirements aren’t met. From the act:

‘‘(a) An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

(b) (1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).”

HJR48 would counter the insurance mandate by preventing any State employee or public official from helping effectuate the penalties for non-compliance:


Bob Costas and Bill O’Reilly Agree: Gun Control is Needed

Bill O’Reilly agrees with Bob Costas.  America needs gun control.  At least, gun control regulated by the Federal Government.  This seems evident by the statements he made on his Fox News television show.

“All gun crimes in America should be federalized and that includes illegal possession.   There should be mandatory federal prison time for any person convicted of having a gun illegally, and if you commit a crime with a gun, that mandatory should be ten years.”

The fact though, is that federal gun laws would be unconstitutional.  While O’Reilly seems to agree that the Federal Government cannot regulate the airwaves, giving them complete control over the right of citizens to bear arms seems just.  Talk about hypocritical.  

And he’s even advocating to give the Feds complete control regulating that which is supposed to protect citizens from government.  Talk about ignorant.  The point is apparent.  Whoever advocates federal gun control has no understanding of our Second Amendment, the intent of our founders, or the Constitution itself.   When it comes to guns, the real threat is not citizen ownership, but an ever increasing centralized power – and a complete disregard for our Constitution.

It seems simple.  “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms….shall not be infringed.”  It’s the words from the Second Amendment.  What it does not say is, “The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress – or Bill O’Reilly – deems it necessary.”  Or “The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless advances in technology allow for the prolific purchase and use of advanced weaponry.” Or “The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless the public safety requires their limitation.”


NDAA Nullification Bill Passes Michigan House, 107-0

LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 5, 2012) – The Michigan House of Representatives unanimously voted in favor of House bill 5768 (HB5768) today.  Representative Tom McMillin, who introduced the bill, showed his excitement for it’s passage, and his expectations for the State Senate.

“My bill opposing NDAA’s indefinite detention and taking away due process and prohibiting MI government from participating passed the House today. Onto the State Senate!”

Due to support from a wide coalition of grassroots activists across the political spectrum, including the Tenth Amendment Center and People Against The NDAA (P.A.N.D.A), the bill passed unanimously. The final vote was 107-0. HB5768 asserts that no State employee or agency will assist the Federal government – in any way – in the detainment of people under the 2012 NDAA. The Obama administration has aggressively argued in court that the executive branch has this power. The bill states, in part,


Nullification: As American as Baseball and Crackerjacks.

Secession: it’s the American way.  After all, without secession, the U.S. would never be.  We would still be a product of English imperialism.  But that’s not what happened.  The founding fathers decided that secession was required, and that free people have a right to secede from an oppressive government that was no longer “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  The Declaration of Independence stated that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”  America was built on the idea of secession.  Although secession is historically and morally significant, there is a far more effective tool to return sovereignty to the people.  It’s called nullification.

With the re-election of Barack Obama, secession dialogues are back.  The frustration with an ever expanding federal government, vast political differences, the unconstitutional “Obamacare,” NDAA, and many others, secession talk is running rampant.  Historically speaking, secession is an appropriate check on the federal government.  However, as our founding fathers were aware, a peaceful withdrawal from the U.S. is unlikely.  Nullification, which eliminates the need to secede, and avoids violence, is the “rightful remedy.”

Looking through history, and the words of our founding fathers, it’s easy to see their views on the rights of States to secede.  Take for instance Thomas Jefferson.  To understand his visions, we can simply look to his words.  In Jefferson’s first inaugural address, he said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union . . . let them stand undisturbed.”

Jefferson wasn’t the only one.  John Quincy Adams agreed that states could secede to create a “more perfect union.”  Even nationalist extraordinaire, Alexander Hamilton, argued that “To coerce the States [to remain in the Union] is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.”  To the founders, the right to secede was engrained in the American spirit.  With the threat of secession looming, an ever expanding federal government, with ever increasing powers would cease to exist.  Secession is another check.  Just as the three federal branches check the powers of each other, secession would do the same.

America is the land of the free.  Free men are able to do as they please, which includes leaving something they no longer wish to be a part of.  If freedom is the goal, then secession is a right of free people.  As Murray Rothbard said,

 “Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society.”

Even without the words of our founders, the right to secede can simply be found by understanding our Constitution.  Given the fact that the federal government was created by a compact of the states, and that no single government (state or federal) is sovereign, but the people themselves that are sovereign, then it is the people that have the power to secede.  The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that, “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.”  Since the power of secession is not delegated to Congress, it is the sovereign citizens of the States that have the right to determine whether or not secession is the solution.


‘Due Process Guarantee Amendment’ Passes, Congress Still Able to Indefinitely Detain American Citizens

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s amendment to end the indefinite detention provision under NDAA has passed in the U.S. Senate.  The “Due Process Guarantee Amendment” has a purpose to prohibit the use of military force to detain a citizen, or lawful permanent U.S. resident, without charge or trial.

“Purpose: To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.”

The amendment appears to end the controversial NDAA provision that allows the President to detain U.S. citizens he deems a threat, without a charge or trial.  However, there are many problems with this amendment.  Given the fact that the U.S. Constitution in no way gives Congress, or the President, the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without a charge, trial, or attorney (except in cases of rebellion or invasion), you have to wonder how this amendment improves upon the original NDAA bill.

In this amendment, it states:


Is Louisiana Planning to Nullify Obamacare?

Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal, had some negative words to say about building a health insurance exchange in his state.  In a November 16, 2012 letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, Gov. Jindal made it very clear that he disagrees with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Since the PPACA was signed into law, the State of Louisiana has repeatedly stated that the law has severe legal problems, is bad policy, and is unworkable. Those beliefs remain unchanged. With the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Court agreed with the State of Louisiana that at least one of the over 450 provisions of the PPACA is unconstitutional and the provision requiring all individuals to have insurance coverage can only be upheld as a tax. Even after the Supreme Court’s decision, there remain many questions about the legality of the PPACA involving issues fundamental to all Americans, including religious freedom and unjust taxation.

What is most interesting here is that Governor Jindal is taking the position that the State of Louisiana has independently reviewed the constitutionality of the federal act. Is this a tip of the hat to the Principles of 98?

The letter also argues that while the Supreme Court has ruled certain provisions of the PPACA constitutional, there are still certain provisions the court did not rule on, and are currently being challenged.  These include:


South Dakota will not be Creating a State Health Exchange

Gov. Dennis Daugaard said that South Dakota will not be creating a state health insurance exchange.  This comes amidst several other governors following suit.

Gov. Daugaard said that “After extensive research and analysis, it has become very apparent that operating our own exchange will simply not work for South Dakota.”  Daugaard also said he opposes the federal law, “Because it is a large expansion of government that does little about the rising cost of health care.”

While this is not a full nullification of the Affordable Care Act, it’s a start.  The law only appropriates funds for the exchanges if it is created by the state.  If enough refuse, it will put much pressure on the federal government.   This may cause the unconstitutional federal mandate to become unsustainable.

Gov. Daugaard continued by saying he will not be increasing fees, or taxes to fund the exchanges.

“The federal law requires exchanges to be self-sustaining by 2015, which means we would either have to charge a fee to South Dakota citizens using the exchange, or increase taxes, neither of which I am willing to do.”