Archive | Politicians RSS feed for this section

A Libertarian Case for the Department of Education

By on May 1, 2013 in Congress, Constitution, Education, Politicians

Last week the Rooney-Blansten amendment requiring the federal Common Core curriculum to devote equal time to Republican presidents was narrowly defeated in the U.S. Senate, despite a RealClearPolitics poll showing 87.8921% of the public supported the idea.

I’m a libertarian who writes frequently for the Tenth Amendment Center, and years ago I donated to the Cato Institute. But despite these impeccable credentials, I support a yeasty view of the Constitution and believe it politically expedient to pass federal legislation that ensures Republican politicians receive the same favorable treatment as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in any national civics curriculum approved by the federal Department of Education.

Anti-federal supremacists need to refine their priorities, with an eye to keeping moderate Republicans in office. The focus on “federal involvement in education” is wrong-headed and counter-productive, and overlooks the legislatively-mandated benefit (explicitly affirmed in Rooney-Blansten) of having all public schools teach no fewer than 15 positive things each about Richard Nixon, the two Bushes, and even failed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Continue Reading →

Comments { 64 }

Oklahoma Legislation Would Nullify Agenda 21

By on January 15, 2013 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Nullification, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

Senator Patrick Anderson has introduced a bill in the Oklahoma State Senate that combats the United Nations Agenda 21 and reaffirms the sovereignty of the American people against globalist and internationalist forces.

The bill as introduced, SB23, is for “prohibiting state and political subdivisions from implementing certain Agenda 21 policies supported by the United Nations.” The law, if passed, will ensure that the state of Oklahoma “shall not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process.”

If this passes, it will be a big win for both Constitutionalists and supporters of liberty. Private property rights for Oklahomans would be strengthened while the process of representation for the American people will be protected from a pernicious outside influence.

The US federal government officially endorsed Agenda 21 in 1992 when President George H. W. Bush signed on to a treaty with 177 other countries that he personally described as ’mammoth’ at a U.N. meeting called the ’Earth Summit’ in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. He triumphed this accomplishment as emblematic of a world coming together to maintain a safe, living environment for present and future generations. However, there is more to Agenda 21 than what these world leaders are willing to let on. Continue Reading →

Comments { 12 }

Nothing to Worry About on Indefinite Detention? Guess Again

By on December 3, 2012 in Big Brother, Big Government, Constitution, Nullification, Politicians

As mentioned in Friday’s feature article about the Feinstein-Lee Amendment by Tenth Amendment Center Legal Analyst Blake Filippi, it did absolutely nothing to rectify the loss of rights Americans faced from the indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 NDAA that we are working to nullify throughout the country. However, Senator Mike Lee disagrees about the effectiveness of the amendment and is using quite a bizarre rationale to defend it.

Lee released a press release on Friday in an attempt to clarify concerns with the Feinstein-Lee Amendment (http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=142f4fe6-3446-4d1a-b82b-df9503db1952). He stated that the 2012 NDAA did not actually authorize indefinite detention of American citizens. If this is the case, then why even pass the amendment in the first place? If the 2012 NDAA was so hunky dory and didn’t authorize indefinite detention of Americans, why propose an amendment to supposedly ensure that Americans wouldn’t be indefinitely detained (which was assumed by everyone to be a response to last year’s Act)?

Lee could not deny that last year’s NDAA would be the ‘Act of Congress’ needed to allow for indefinite detention of Americans. In his press release, he did not quote the provisions of the NDAA which are cause to alarm and we are working to nullify. He omitted this information while assuring us that since a sentence within the Act said that the government would never use the powers that they usurped against citizens that we are supposed to have no fears and feel protected thanks to his work. I’m not buying that the same gang that extra-judicially kills American citizens is going to have restraint in their interpretation of the 2012 NDAA, as Mike Lee apparently does.

Libertarian Republican Congressman Justin Amash agrees with the Tenth Amendment Center interpretation of Lee’s amendment saying, “The Feinstein amendment to the 2013 NDAA does NOT protect you from indefinite detention without charge or trial. In fact, it explicitly permits such detention so long as the detention is approved by an Act of Congress . . . such as the 2012 NDAA.”

This just goes to show you that even people who do a good job of talking the talk might not always walk the walk. Whether he’s simply misguided in an attempt to protect the Constitution for Americans or he’s working to push something he knows will have no effect to quell push-back against federal power grabs, tea party Senator Mike Lee is doing no favors for liberty working with Senator Feinstein and releasing misleading press releases about it. It’s become more obvious than ever that federal bureaucrats aren’t going to protect our liberty, and we’re going to have to work at the state and local level to circumvent the D.C.vers through nullification to protect our sacred rights.

Comments { 12 }

Do the Secessionists Have As Much Courage As the Nullifiers?

By on November 13, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Commentary, Delegated Powers, Elections, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Health Care, History, Nullification, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

By now, anybody who even casually follows the Tenther movement and the liberty movement in general has likely heard about the secession petitions circulating.  Yesterday, I had personally gone from only hearing about Louisiana, to hearing my State of New Jersey had one too, to hearing the count was up to twenty States.  That could be an old number by the time this makes it into the Tenth Amendment Center blog.

The language of these petitions is interesting, as they “ask” the federal government to let said States peaceably withdraw from the United States.  Although I confess to having signed, originally for Louisiana upon first finding out, and then for New Jersey, it was more out of curiosity than anything else.

Apparently, any State circulating these petitions requires a minimum of 25,000 signatures within thirty days in order to receive a White House response.  Texas has nearly double the required signatures, and Louisiana is likely a day away from hitting the threshold.  Several states are beyond halfway there.  Check to see if your State is on the list.  While you’re at it, go ahead and sign, so you can get your response.  The most likely response from the White House is a familiar word to anybody in the nullification movement, “No.” Continue Reading →

Comments { 9 }

Hold His Feet to the Fire? Please

By on September 25, 2012 in Politicians

Republicans have all but acknowledged that Mitt Romney is not a conservative, and that he is no different in substance than Barack Obama, and they have settled. Some, those still in denial, steadfastly hold on to his rhetoric, but most have accepted that their nominee is so zealous for political power that he has no qualms about playing either a progressive or conservative, so long as he wins an election. It seems then, that Romney will change his rhetorical tone just as quickly as he’ll spray tan for Univision on Wednesday, and scrub it all off for 60 Minutes on Sunday.

In a near-textbook case of denial, many on the Right have acknowledged all of this, but insist that voting for him is still the “lesser of two evils,” and what’s really important is “defeating Obama.” Their answer is to simply hold “Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire” once Obama’s gone.

But what is “holding his feet to the fire,” what does it look like (aside from the obvious connotation with torture, repression, and despotism)?

More to the point, how do activists hold a president’s feet to the fire? After all, he has the power to drone us all to death with the stroke of pen, and make us buy stuff, even if we don’t want to. I’ve given this some thought and have concluded that it can’t be done; you’d have to be living in some bizarro-world to think otherwise.

For instance, if they (the Republicans, Tea Partiers, and anyone else planning to vote Empty Suit 2012) think they’re going to hold his feet to the fire, why don’t they hold Obama’s feet to the fire now, what’s stopping them?

Oh, but you see, Obama’s too much of an ideologue, he’s too immersed in his Marxist-Socialist-Leninist ways, he can’t be persuaded to change his ways, they’d reply.

OK. Continue Reading →

Comments { 3 }

Farm Bill in Limbo, So is the Commerce Clause

By on August 1, 2012 in Congress, Politicians

Before Congress vacays for most of August, the 2008 Farm Bill will either be extended or replaced by a new 2012 version. One of the great debates to rise from this issue centers around Congressman Steve King’s (R-IA) amendment which nullifies state laws restricting trade with other states on issues of agriculture and food safety. Get this: some progressives are upset about a conservative citing the “power to regulate”! How does that work?

Typically, when a federal legislator invokes the Commerce Clause, some level of chicanery is afoot. Here, however, Steve King may actually have gotten it right. In 2008, California voters passed an initiative that in 2014 begins stricter regulations on egg production within the state as well as demanding the same level of animal protection from the other 49. The second half of that authority is what King recognizes as a violation of the Commerce Clause.

From steveking.house.gov: Continue Reading →

Comments { 1 }

Will Texas Nullify Obamacare?

By on July 11, 2012 in Federalism, Health Care, Nullification, Politicians, State Sovereignty

Last Monday, Texas Governor Rick Perry sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius stating that Texas will not participate with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, also referred to as Obamacare).  He states that Texas will not implement the health benefit exchange or expand Medicaid

In his letter, he made the following statement:

Neither a “state” exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under the Orwellian-named PPACA would result in a better “patient protection” or in more “affordable care.”  What they would do is make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to healthcare.

During an interview with Fox News, Perry also stated the following:

I can assure you that Texas and other states would find more effective, efficient ways to deliver healthcare to their citizens and do it in a way that preserves those individual freedoms.

During the same interview, when asked about the high number of Texas Residents without insurance even with a strong economy in Texas, Perry responded:

The idea that this federal government, which doesn’t like Texas to begin with – to pick and choose and come up with some data that says somehow Texas has the worst healthcare system in the world is just fake and false on its face,” he said. “Every Texan has healthcare in this state, from the standpoint of being able to have access to healthcare – every Texan has that. How we pay for it, and how we deliver it, should be our decision – not some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. that may have never been to Texas a day in their life.

Perry joins a list of eighteen other governors vowing stopping the implementation of the PPACA.  Among this list are Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Florida Gov. Rick Scot and Democrat Governor from New Hampshire, John Lynch. Continue Reading →

Comments { 1 }

Presidential Election 2012: Spitting into the Wind

By on June 6, 2012 in Education, Government, Politicians, The Opposition

To those of you who believe the Republican Party will save you from the evil mechanizations of the Democrats…sorry. It ain’t going to happen in November 2012. And that’s even if their poster-boy Mitt Romney steals the show. Why? Well, Missouri Tenth has made it pretty darn clear in the past, but we’ll say it once more: The Executive Branch of the Fed is wildly out-of-control (see Federal Government Made Simple to see how it has grown over the years), and the people of the States have pretty much come to accept what’s become a King-like ruler over them.

Now, because the President has become such a terrifyingly powerful agency, with so many Americans grumbling (but not doing anything) about the lack of choice for their supreme leader, we thought we’d take a moment to share our thoughts on why you should expect business as usual from our two saviors of the union: Money-bags Mitt and Overlord Obama. But you already know what to expect from Obama, so let’s focus on Romney – an individual many “conservatives” believe might just be the guy to turn things around.

State of Republican Party

But first, let’s review the state of the Republican Party in general, by taking a look at the article entitled GOP stands down on social issues, focuses on jobs, by Laurie Kellman of the Associated Press. In it, she writes, “Republicans stung by culture wars that dominated the nation’s political discourse this year are standing down on social issues…” Kellman notes that while the GOP plays around with abortion and family issues with little serious intentions to do anything about it, House Speaker John Boehner reminds folks that he’s focused on jobs – and not much else. As for someone in our own backyard, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri was quoted as saying “I truly believe that those things will shake out in a more positive way if we can just deal with the issues that we really need to deal with, on the economy and fiscal side, and shame on us if we don’t do it.”

So it should really come as no surprise that Establishment Republicans have, for the most part, settled on yet another fat-cat businessman with just enough “religion” to hopefully dupe Americans into voting for him. Let’s proceed, shall we? Continue Reading →

Comments { 0 }

Are Tenther Governors on the Horizon?

By on December 7, 2011 in Politicians, Tenthers

Your Governor took an oath to the Constitution of the United States- one which they have not followed.

Each of the 50 governors have enormous potential to lead the process of breaking apart the power centralized in DC and return it to We the People. Despite this potential we have yet to see even one strong willed example, willing not only to talk the talk but also do what America’s founders said must be done in the face of Federal tyranny. This has been true for decades.

At least two States now have a chance to vote for Gubernatorial candidates who promise to do just that. Continue Reading →

Comments { 4 }

South Carolina reps see the light on Commerce Clause

By on March 7, 2011 in Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Founding Principles, Government, Originalism, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

Two state representatives in South Carolina are pushing back against a federal ban of incandescent light bulbs set to begin in January of 2012. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to impose such a ban on the citizens of the several states, and it’s nice that South Carolina noticed.

From NetRightDaily:

“State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis are taking the lead in protecting the rights of South Carolina consumers, who don’t want the federal government telling them which light bulbs they must use,” Bill Wilson the President of Americans for Limited Government said.

“The basic concept of the bill is to allow the citizens of South Carolina to be able to continue to buy incandescent light bulbs,” said State Representative Bill Sandifer, Chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee.

“It is my strong belief that the feds have overstepped the Tenth Amendment, and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lighting we can have in our homes,” Sandifer added.

Their bill (H. 3735) is essentially a version of the Firearms Freedom Acts and Intrastate Commerce Acts that have been popping up all over the country. Essentially, any light bulb manufactured and sold exclusively in South Carolina would not be subject to federal regulation.

Which is already the case, but it never hurts to repeat the obvious for emphasis when dealing with a government as corrupt and insular as the one in Washington, D.C.

Comments { 1 }