Home

Minnesota Legislature Bans Warrantless Cellphone Tracking

Leave a comment

strip banner

tac-logo-231

ST. PAUL, Min., – May 14, 2014. A bipartisan bill that bans Minnesota law enforcement from obtaining cellphone location tracking information without a warrant passed final hurdles in the state House and Senate today. The House vote was 130-0 and the Senate vote was 63-1.

SF2466 was introduced by Sen. Brandon Petersen (R-Andover) and cosponsored by two democrat and two republican senators. It reads, in part:

A government entity may not obtain the location information of an electronic device without a court order. A court order granting access to location information must be issued only if the government entity shows that there is probable cause the person who possesses an electronic device is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime.

SF2466 would not only protect people in Minnesota from warrantless data gathering by state and local law enforcement, it will also end some practical effects of unconstitutional data gathering by the federal government.

NSA collects, stores, and analyzes data on countless millions of people without a warrant, and without even the mere suspicion of criminal activity. The NSA tracks the physical location of people through their cellphones. In late 2013, the Washington Post reported that NSA is “gathering nearly 5 billion records a day on the whereabouts of cellphones around the world.” This includes location data on “tens of millions” of Americans each year – without a warrant. More

Do Elections Still Matter?

2 Comments

strip banner new-logo25 by Don Jans www.mygrandchildrensamerica.com ____________________________________________________________________

Election season is upon us.

Local and state elections are taking place and will continue through November 4th with the all-important mid-terms.  Do these elections really matter?  I would suggest perhaps more than ever.  These elections could determine if we ever have another election that even resembles fairness.  All have witnessed the effort to limit free speech and control the press in such a way as to affect the outcome of elections.  We have seen the term “voting intimidation” redefined so it applies for some but not for others based on the whims of the Attorney General.  We have seen efforts to enhance voter irregularities so as to benefit the 1016328_420444734736266_378341861_nMarxist/Progressives.  This election will determine the future control the Marxist/Progressives have to continue to further their agenda to complete the fundamental transformation to a classless Marxist society that was promised in November of 2008.  Not only are the congressional elections critical to stop this course of action, but so are all local and state elections. Many people will be assisting with campaigns, working phone banks and walking precincts.  We learned about private citizens being attacked by the directive of powerful people in Washington.  An example is Catherine Engelbrecht of “True the Vote” who has had the full power of the federal government attack her by a directive of Elijah Cummings.  Freedom Loving Americans advocate that only citizens should be allowed to vote and to prove citizenship is reasonable.  The Marxist/Progressives advocate that anybody should be able to vote including non-citizens, people who died, and pets.  They tell their supporters they should vote early and often.  We recently saw the Marxist/Progressives who advocate voting early and often believe so firmly in this concept that they honor those who admit to breaking the law with multiple votes.  North Carolina is learning many people have voted not only in North Carolina but also in different states. More

Southern Poverty Law Center: A threat to our Constitutional Republic

4 Comments

strip banner

new-logo25Marti Oakley

______________________________________________________________________

The Intelligence Report published by the Southern Poverty Law Lie Center is out!  On these lists of 21150explosionsupposed threats to the government are the Oathkeepers, Democrats Against Agenda 21 (I am a member!) Post Sustainability Institute,  The Tenth Amendment Center, We Are Change, We The People and many other pro-American and Constitutionally based organizations originating from multiple political philosophies.  SPLC has decided that patriot groups who support the Constitution and are pro-American, are a threat to the nation.  So much so that they compiled these lists of people and groups who scare them really, really bad…..and they send these lists over to any of the federal agencies who spy on us, compile dossiers on all of us and who want to put drones in our skies to watch all of us, I suppose with the thinking that if they keep tattling on others no one will be watching them.

According to SPLC , its magazine the Intelligence Report is the nation’s preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S.  The only problem is…….there are just as many on the left and in the middle who are determined to preserve our liberty and our republic and who find the activities of the likes of SPLC to be a cancer on the nation.  This mixing of political ideals seems to pass by those big thinkers at SPLC.

It is our constitutional right!

Who ever thought we would see the day in this country, that advocating for the Constitution, for fundamental freedoms and liberty would be deemed a threat…to the government.  And why would SPLC decide that pro-liberty, anti United Nations interference in our country, and the refusal of law officers and military personal to violate our rights, to possibly use lethal force against us…… as something that represents a threat?  A threat to whom?

We have fundamental liberties that include the right to freely assemble, to freely associate, to travel freely between the states and the freedom of speech, among many others.  The lists SPLC has compiled is viciously opposed to the exercise of these freedoms unless it is in correlation with their philosophy……..whatever that actually is.

An Uber wealthy “non-profit”

The Southern Poverty Law Lie Center had an illustrious history at one time.  Founded primarily to fight for civil rights, the SPLC has devolved into a modern day electronic propaganda machine that peddles disinformation for the government and makes a truckload of money doing it.  This so-called “non-profit” corporation now has net assets as of 2012 ending, of $256,554,758.

From SPLC pages:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is the country’s most effective nonprofit organization fighting dangerous extremist groups. We’ve documented a staggering 1,007 hate groups operating in our country — a nearly 70% increase since 2000.

Actually the SPLC is the country’s most lucrative non-profit dedicated to creating fictional threats out of thin air and, it is by far one of the most dangerous extremist groups operating at this time.  SPLC exists today as a clear and present danger to our Constitutional Republic and advocates ferociously for an end to it.  That is what is staggering.

In truth, the Southern Poverty Law Lie Center has documented very few actual so-called [hate groups].  There are the usual suspects, i.e., the Aryan Brotherhood, etcetera, and instead have focused on those who support the Constitution and who object to the infringement of rights secured by that document. More

“…” – Obama’s Answer To Everything.

14 Comments

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

I’m sure glad I’m not an Attorney working for this Administration. True they are kept busy attempting to dig up validation for circumventing The Constitution, but oh my – they sure should have tried a different one for raising the Debt Limit.

Obscure clause may help US avert default

Some legal experts believe he could, citing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1868.

With the country still wrestling with post-war divisions, section four of the amendment was written after politicians from the defeated south sought to block the north’s commitment to repay large debts arising from its victorious campaign.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned,” it reads.

I’m always curious what those funny little “…”s stand for, so I led myself down the path of actually reviewing what Section Four of the 14th Amendment actually says. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that of the 84 words contained, the Administration chose only 17 words to support their “obscure clause claim”. What could those other 67 words pertain to? More

Utah Considers Legislation Supporting 4th Amendment

7 Comments

“With numbing regularity, good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe”

-Stanley Milgram

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2011 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Uh Oh.

Utah Representative Carl Wimmer might be getting ready for a “Milgram-isaztion” from the TSA over that pesky 4th Amendment. According to his facebook page from Wednesday: More

The Libyan War Sets Deadly Precedents

15 Comments

John Boering (c)copyright 2011 All rights Reserved

________________________________________________

“These abominable acts set the stage for more criminal activity and tyranny: UN authorized wars for oil and resources, expansion of presidential power caused by the impotency of Congress, the death of the Constitution, runaway “defense” spending that bankrupts taxpayers, and the outright theft of nations’ assets for use against them.”

________________________________________________

Obama’s military action (war) against Libya sets dangerous precedent with each passing day that increases tyranny in America and abroad.

•  A United Nations resolution was the justification for US military action in Libya. More

H.J.res. 62. Amending the Constitution to end states rights?

32 Comments

 

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011 All Rights reserved

____________________________________________

H. J. Res. 62, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States

_______________________

Sounds like a great deal..right?  Wrong!  The states already have the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations.  It is called nullification under the 10th Amendment. 

Or, states can refuse to contract with the Federal government or any of its privately owned corporate agencies thereby refusing the contract and any of its provisions (regulations or laws).

Secondary to this action, is the refusal to accept any federal funding offered to implement what is usually a series of laws or regulations, (these being written by unelected bureaucrats, lobbyists and other interested stakeholders), meant to deprive you of your rights, intrude on your privacy, interfere with your right to engage in business and otherwise reduce and abrogate your constitutionally protected freedoms. 

Article 5 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Any amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by the legislatures of three/fourths of the states.  Congress, neither House nor Senate, has the authority to alter or amend anything in the Constitution in and of their respective bodies. 

So what are they after? More

10th Amendment Alive In Utah

Leave a comment

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Last week I wrote a little blog about HB 365. Thankfully PPJ was contacted by Conner who commented:

I am the state coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center and drafted this bill. It is currently under legislative review with Mr. Asplund. The text should hopefully be released this week.

We created the website http://www.utahintrastatecommerce.org to highlight the efforts around this and future bills of this nature.

According to the UTAC site, last year Utah took up Gun Rights as well:

In 2010, the Utah legislature passed, and the Governor signed, SB-11 (as did many other states). This law exempts firearms that are manufactured and sold within Utah from any federal regulation. A key paragraph reads:

A personal firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

If you reside in Utah, or would like more information concerning 10th Amendment Freedoms, I encourage you to visit their blog for timely updates.

Our thanks to Conner

HB 365 Utah : NIB or Not?

7 Comments

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

I received a tip this morning with a curious request “Can you make an anti-NIB of Utah’s HB 365”.  I tried, I really did. The Title of this Bill looked very promising:

Federal Regulation of Local Agricultural Products


As one can see from the PDF there is no text, although apparently an Attorney (Peter Asplund) was paid to draft HB 365.


1      FEDERAL REGULATION OF LOCAL AGRICULTURAL
2       PRODUCTS
3      2011 GENERAL SESSION
4      STATE OF UTAH
5      Chief Sponsor: Bill Wright
6      Senate Sponsor: ____________

 

Not content with a title only, I did a bit of looking about and discovered this little snippet from Lexology: More

No Longer Will We Stand Idly By

Leave a comment

Bookmark and Share  

by Andrew Nappi, Florida Tenth Amendment Center 

The following is based off a speech given at Nullify Now! Orlando on 10-10-10

Isn’t it incredible that, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, that anyone can still believe that the founders would’ve fought a long, cruel, bloody war just to exchange one central, overpowering government for another? And yet, these guys sitting on the courts want to define the limits of our freedom for the extension of greater government control. That is not the founders’ legacy. That’s not why we’re here today.

For these out of touch elitists, the Bill of Rights is just a historical curiosity – it’s quaint and doesn’t mean anything. But we know that the Bill of Rights is the very essence of state sovereignty. That’s why it was created, and that wasn’t lost on the founders.

In fact, at the North Carolina ratifying convention Samuel Spencer said, “It appears to me that the state governments are not sufficiently secured and that they may be swallowed up by the great mass of powers given to congress.” Was that prophetic? Just look what we have today… More

when the federal government “assumes undelegated powers…” nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.

1 Comment

For more than a century, We the People have been marching on D.C. in the hopes that federal politicians would see the light and limit federal power. We have been suing in federal courts in the hopes that federal judges would limit federal power. We keep “voting the bums out.” But every federal election cycle we end up with new bums that expand federal power! 

Asking, demanding, hoping – that the federal government will limit its own power – just doesn’t work. So why not try something new? Nullify Now!

Thomas Jefferson wrote that when the federal government “assumes undelegated powers…” a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.

NULLIFICATION – has a long history in the American tradition. It is happening across the country RIGHT NOW. And YOU can help this growing movement go mainstream. More

Has anyone ever refused to answer a question from a federal inquisitor on Tenth Amendment grounds

Leave a comment

www.DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “All substances are poisons: there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.” — Paracelsus (1493-1541)

The baseball pitcher, Roger Clemens, is in the news. He has been charged with the supposed crime of lying to the politicians in Congress about his use of steroids.

* How should we think about this?
* What are the Constitutional issues involved?

To answer these questions we offer you some imaginary testimony — things Roger Clemens could have said to Congress, instead of what he did say.

* You’ve heard of people “pleading the 5th” — invoking the 5th Amendment’s protection against self incrimination, but . . .
* James Wilson argues that Clemens should have “plead the 10th” — invoking the 10th Amendment’s limitation of federal power.
* You’ll see why when you read the imaginary testimony below.

An earlier version of this was published on Thursday, January 10, 2008, when Clemens was first called to testify before Congress. This slightly edited version makes points that are just as relevant now.

—–

Has anyone ever refused to answer a question from a federal inquisitor on Tenth Amendment grounds? I don’t know, but I’d love to hear it from Roger Clemens when he testifies at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee next month:

“Mr. Chairman, I have read the Constitution and it does not grant you authority to hold a hearing on steroid use. Therefore, I will exercise my rights as an American citizen under the Tenth Amendment, and my natural rights as a human being, by refusing to answer your questions.

“But let me clarify one thing: I do see under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. It’s possible that this includes anything that relates to the selling of goods across state lines. I will therefore affirm that . . . More

REPORT ON THE 10TH AMENDMENT RALLY IN ALBANY NY

1 Comment

John Wallace
Liberty News Online
American Politics/blogtalk radio
______________________________________________________________
It was a beautiful, rain free day on August 7th at the Capitol Steps in Albany where freedom loving New Yorkers gathered in support of the United States Constitution, focusing on the Amendment. The rally began as patriotic music, including songs by local bands the Ameros and American Spirit Unbroken, played while tables were set up by the speakers and candidates. Organizers, driven by the desire to spread the message of the importance of State’s Rights in restoring our Republic and individual liberty, coordinated this event in six weeks with minimal experience and funding.
 
John Wallace Comments at the Rally (Video):
Part I (4 minutes)
Part II (7 minutes)
 
 
The rally was mainly promoted via internet and some radio announcements from Hudson, NY where many of the organizers originate. Traditionally, New York is a left-wing state, but this is a spark that will set afire many more people in the state toward stopping the Federal Government’s intrusion on our liberties. More

THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT IS COMING TO NEW YORK STATE ON AUGUST 7TH

Leave a comment

PRESS RELEASE
 
For Immediate Release
Chatham, New York
 
THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT IS COMING TO NEW YORK STATE ON AUGUST 7TH
 
There has been a movement growing in America over the past two years as the people have come to realize that the ever growing Federal Government is becoming more and more intrusive into their daily private lives and that their personal Liberty and individual Freedoms are in danger of being severely limited or lost all together. Because of this, state legislatures in a growing number of states have recently passed State Sovereignty bills designed to reaffirm their constitutional guaranteed rights of sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 
 
The 10th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states: More

Arizona concealed weapons bill expected to become law

2 Comments

by Michael Webster: Syndicated Investigative Reporter. April 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM PDT
  

Within the next week, Arizona could become the first state with a large urban population to allow U.S. citizens to carry a concealed firearm without a permit throughout the state of Arizona. Only Alaska and Vermont have similar laws.

The Arizona House voted Thursday to make the state the third in the nation to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, sending the governor a bill that would allow Arizonans to forego background checks and classes that are now required.

Currently, in Arizona carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Senate Bill 1108, crafted by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, passed in the House of Representatives on Thursday with a vote of 36-19 and no comments from either side.

“This is a big day,” National Rifle Association lobbyist Matt Dogali said. “This is a major restoration of a principal right.” More

The Answer is No. The Time is Now

5 Comments

 

by: Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2o10 ALL RIGHTS RSERVED

________________________________________

                                   

If I had the opportunity to sit in each living room of America, this would be the conversation I would have with each individual who believe they have no power.

America – why are we making this so difficult? The endless discussion, the banter back and forth, the reconciliation game being played in Washington, D.C., Republican, Democrats, Constitutionality?

The answer, though simple, is quite clear once the muck is removed from the discussion. No. Polite, firm and insistent. “No Thank you Mr. Republicrat. The answer to Health Care Reform is No. The answer to an increase in Taxes? No.”  Not a qualified maybe, not a “wait and see”, the answer is No.

Can one not see the return of the Republican’s to the discussion is no more than their attempt to grab what little power and money not already jingling in the pockets of the Democrats? The call sweeping the Nation now  is – “The Vote in 2010 is going to wipe out the corruption in Washington, by replacing the Democrats with Republicans.” Do you really believe that?

I say the answer is No.   No incumbents.   Each and every one of them has contributed to the conflagration that currently abides in this Nation. If you truly believe that through the election process a single one is going to carry through for your wants or needs, take the blinders off and open your eyes.

The only path to the return to simple Government of the People By the People is the People.

Not promises, additional Regulatory Practices, endless debate or bargaining. More

Health Care Nullification and Interposition

Leave a comment

by Michael Boldin

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law or regulation, it is passing legally-binding legislation that makes the federal act in question void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Current nullification efforts around the U.S. have states passing laws that effectively defy federal laws and regulations on firearms, marijuana, identification cards and more. In 2010, we expect to see similar legislation in response to Health Care, No Child Left Behind, Federalization of the Guard and more.

The most asked question is – once such a law is passed, what next?

STANDING BETWEEN

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state. More

Wyoming Joins Phony “Sovereignty Movement”

6 Comments

According to an article on the Tenth Amendment Center website, Wyoming’s governor Dave Freudenthal has just signed Wyoming’s Joint Resolution 2 (HJ0002), claiming “sovereignty on behalf of the State of Wyoming and for its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to the people by the Constitution of the United States.”

The problem with this, as well as with identical resolutions from several other states, as I have pointed out before (see “Sovereignty Hypocrisy,” “Sovereignty Hypocrisy – Part II,” and “Sovereignty Hypocrisy – Part III”), is that Wyoming, like all the other states “declaring sovereignty” is simply blowing a smoke screen to conceal its involvement in the New World Order police state that is slowly coalescing right before our eyes.

As with most of the other states “declaring sovereignty,” Wyoming also has FEMA camps within its borders, More

Nullification: It’s Official.

Leave a comment

LIVE LINK HERE:

by Derek Sherif 

I would like to start with two observations.

 

Before I explain why “official” nullification has already happened, let me briefly give some examples of what nullification is NOT.

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?

(click here to read the article now)

Are Federal Health Insurance Mandates Constitutional?

Leave a comment

Link

by Rob Natelson

There have been some on-line discussions recently of whether a federal mandate that individuals obtain health insurance would violate the U.S. Constitution. This issue is distinct from the issue of whether other sorts of government health programs – such as single-payer – would be constitutional.

It is also distinct from whether states can impose insurance mandates. They can: States have general governmental powers. But the federal government has only the powers enumerated (listed) by the Constitution.

Let us be clear at the outset that federal involvement in health care (except in a few isolated instances, such as federal employee benefits) certainly violates the Constitution as that document was originally understood.

I have now spent nearly twenty-years of my life researching and publishing scholarly studies on the Founding-Era record, and I have found no significant evidence that those who wrote and ratified the Constitution thought federal power would extend to health care. Quite the contrary: When the Constitution was being promoted to the public, one of the big selling points was that regulation of all such matters would remain exclusively with the statesContinue Reading 

Getting the Supremacy Clause Wrong

Leave a comment

                                                                                    Tell a Friend 

Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

by Michael Boldin              

A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session. More

The Missing Patent and the Health Care Debate

1 Comment

120x240

The Missing Patent and the Health Care Debate

Posted on 01 November 2009

Bookmark and Share

by Paul Ballonoff

Posted on 01 November 2009

The interest of the current administration in creating a federal national health care program, has provoked discussion of whether the federal government has sufficient power to do so. Often, the discussion is phrased as whether “the government” has sufficient power. Others have asked if the federal government has the power to compel individuals to purchase health insurance.

My article (“Limits to Regulation due to the Interaction of the Patent and Commerce Clause”, in CATO Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, Winter 2001, pages 401 – 423), gives an insight into both questions, by answering this one: why does the so-called “patent clause” of the federal constitution, not use the word “patent”?

If the word “patent” meant what we currently mean by that term, then the clause could have simply stated the relevant power by saying the federal government can issue patents. Instead, the “patent clause” carefully states that the Congress has the power to issue exclusive rights for a limited time to authors or inventors. It does not use the word “patent” at all. More

%d bloggers like this: