But give people an opportunity to choose for themselves communities that respect old-fashioned decency, honesty, integrity, limited government, true republicanism, etc., and see how many people would flee to these refreshing, modern-day Cities of Refuge. Instead of gun free zones, America needs “Washington, D.C., Free Zones.” After all, that’s what America was intended to be; that was the purpose of the Tenth Amendment, and rest of the Bill of Rights.

Read More

Comment (0)

First, Tom Davis’ bill in the SC Senate to nullify the NDAA indefinite detention passed by a vote of 25-15. This is a major victory for civil liberties and for the principle of state sovereignty. The federal government was not granted the right by the states to kidnap people at their whim, and the South Carolina Senate has instructed them explicitly that we will not comply. This fight isn’t over obviously, and we need to keep the pressure up so that the SC House follows suit, and the governor eventually signs the bill. We also need to strengthen this bill to ensure that the state interposes on behalf of the citizens should the federal government attempt any kidnappings.

Second, Bill Chumley’s bill in the SC House to nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  moved out of the Judiciary Sub-Committee with a favorable report, where it was expected to stall and never see the light of day. Noted economist Walter Williams gave an inspiring testimony about the role of the federal government and the duty of the states to nullify tyranny, and Kent Masterson Brown, one of the foremost legal experts on the act, gave expert testimony on the disastrous maze of regulations that will befall us if our state doesn’t act. H3101 was amended to remove the specific set of felonies that had been prescribed for the offense of enforcing PPACA in South Carolina, but the meat of the bill still remained with it declaring the act null and void and of no effect, and binding the legislature to come up with the appropriate penalties and actions in order to prevent federal agents from enforcing the act.

Read More

Comment (0)

COLUMBIA, S.C. (March 19, 2013) – On Tuesday, South Carolina moved a step closer to refusing cooperation with indefinite detention provisions without due process written in to the National Defense Authorization Act.

The Senate passed S.92 by a 25-15 vote. (See the roll call HERE.)

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Tom Davis, forbids any state compliance with NDAA detention provisions.

No agency of the State, officer or employee of this State, solely on official state duty, may engage in an activity that aids an agency of the armed forces of the United States in execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541, as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or any subsequent provision of this law in the detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Section 3, Article I, and Section 14, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution.”

“If states don’t act, the federal government will continue its march over basic individual rights like due process,” Davis said. “It’s the appropriate role of the states to stand against federal overreach, and act as a constitutional check on unlimited federal power.”

Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey praised the South Carolina Senate for passing the bill, noting the power of state non-compliance.

“The feds depend on state agencies and resources to do pretty much everything. Just look at the so-called ‘war on drugs.’ You rarely, if ever, see a report about a federal drug bust that doesn’t say something like, ‘The DEA, in cooperation with state and local authorities…’ If enough states step up and simply refuse to cooperate with federal kidnapping, it will definitely throw up significant impediments and obstacles in their way.”

The bill will now move on to the House for consideration. It has not yet been assigned to a committee.

Read More

Comment (0)

State Representative Mike Ritze, a doctor and surgeon, has been a fierce opponent of Obamacare since its inception. He made headlines last summer when he introduced Obamacare nullification legislation that would not only render Obamacare null and void, but also would criminalize any federal agent attempting to enforce Obamacare mandates and regulations inside the state of Oklahoma.

Now that the Oklahoma state house is back in session, the bill was voted on and passed by a vote of 72 to 20. Even though the bill differs from its original form in that it no longer imposes fines and jail times for those federal agents seeking to enforce the federal healthcare law in Oklahoma, it does still acknowledge that the law is unconstitutional and renders it null and void inside state borders.

Comment (0)

Christian Exodus was mentioned in connection with a local news report in South Carolina regarding the SPLC list of hate groups. Of course they did not actually attempt to contact anyone about it (as they say).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9jFFR7GQZA

It seems that "hate groups" are everywhere these days. Part of this characterization is the wild and crazy idea that the Federal Government is attempting to restrict gun ownership. (Where on earth would anyone get this idea?)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/us/splc-extremist-groups-report/index.html

I didn't actually see Christian Exodus listed on their website anywhere. Maybe I need to write to them, to get back on the official list?

Comment (0)

Fayette County Tennessee Commission Passes Second Amendment Preservation Resolution

FAYETTE COUNTY, Tenn. (Feb. 28, 2013) – The Fayette County, Tenn. County Commission passed its Second Amendment Enforcement Resolution on Tuesday.

The resolution condemns any violations of the Second Amendment, declares them unconstitutional, and therefore null and void. It also calls on the Sheriff  to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In addition, the county calls on the state legislature to adopt and enact any and all measures that would clarify the sheriff’s duty and responsibility to defend the citizens of the State of Tennessee against infringement by the federal government.

The resolution passed overwhelmingly by a 17-2 vote.

Read More

Comment (0)

Testimony from Steve Lefemine, Regarding Nullification of Obamacare in South Carolina

In the context of this public hearing, there was a dweeb from the University of South Carolina who had previously asserted that anything the Federal Government could dream up, was the Supreme Law of the Land, by virtue of the Supreme Court ruling it Constitutional; even if it was obviously, by any reasonable interpretation, completely repugnant to the Constitution; and that all public officers were duty-bound (by their oath to uphold the Constitution,) to violate the Constitution, in order act in accordance with any Supreme Court opinion, no matter how absurd.

Steve Lefemine touches on the relevant points. If only more Americans had the common (or not-so-common anymore) sense, to act in accordance with righteousness, justice, and human reason, to do what is right.

Listen Now

Comment (0)

As the President prepared to deliver the State of the Union address, he will have been aware that some in its second-largest state would rather leave the Union altogether. Last month, the Obama administration rejected a petition calling for the state’s secession from the US. Posted on the White House website in November by a student from Arlington, the petition drew 125,746 signatures in just eight weeks. Similar appeals emerged from all 50 states, but the Texan’s was by far the most-signed. In his response, the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, Jon Carson, claimed the US Constitution, “enshrined… the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot – a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it.”

The petition was rejected, but this week Texas got its first taste of international diplomacy – and its first ally – in the shape of the former Soviet state of Belarus, ruled by brutal dictator Alexander Lukashenko. Apparently fed up with constantly being criticised for abusing human rights, the Belarus Ministry of Foreign Affairs levelled the same accusation at Washington for rejecting Texas’s call. Whether Minsk’s intervention will help the secessionist cause is open to debate.

Texas was briefly a nation, between securing independence from Mexico in 1836 and annexation by the United States in 1845, during which time it had embassies in London and Paris. Alone, the state would boast the world’s 15th-largest economy. At a Tea Party rally in 2009, Governor Rick Perry gave hope to secessionists by suggesting, “When we came into the nation in 1845… we were a stand-alone nation. And one of the deals was, we can leave any time we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.” (Last year, Perry’s office informed the Dallas Morning News that the Governor, “believes in the greatness of our Union”.)

One person who could reasonably expect support from the TNM PAC is Larry Kilgore, a 48-year-old telecommunications consultant, who changed his middle name to “SECEDE” in December. Kilgore received 250,000 votes when he contested the Republican Senate primary in 2008, and has announced his intention to run for Perry’s job in 2014. His aim, he told The Independent, is to become Governor and then immediately hold a referendum on independence, before stepping down. “I don’t want people to think I’m just interested in power,” he explained. Kilgore’s reasons for advocating secession are partly economic. He resents paying social security and federal income tax. Also, “We’re not even allowed to execute people who molest children,” he said. “We don’t want the US coming in and saying, ‘You can’t perform this judicial punishment.’”

Read More

Comment (0)

Today I attended the Constitutional Laws subcommittee hearing on the "the South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act", which would effectively nullify Obamacare in the State of South Carolina.

The proposed bill is especially useful in its proscription for fines and imprisonment of Federal or State agents who might attempt to enforce the provisions of Obamacare.

The first person to be heard was a professor of constitutional law, which exuded the hubris of a Federal agent, in his assertion that only one interpretation could ever be allowed, in which the unlimited powers of the Federal Government trump State law in all respects. He asserted that the State of South Carolina had no authority whatsoever to interpret the Constitution for itself; and that if the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in favor of the United States, it was the Supreme Law of the Land, and any insubordination was comparable to treason. The members of the Subcommittee fawned over this weasel; while the large room, packed with members of the public (standing room only) were not buying it.

The other chief spokesman was a retired professor of philosophy of law, who correctly described the numerous ways in which Federal decrees might be annulled, both by other branches of the Federal government, or by the States- who created the Constitution with their own specifically delegated powers, when the Federal Government was not a party to the compact, and hence had no standing to arrogate powers to itself. Practically all other spokesmen were for the People, and refuted the idea that the Federal Government was due unlimited allegiance in powers it had usurped to itself. Members of the Legislature questioned them like prosecution attorneys, using loaded questions in the attempt to characterize them as selfish, racist, secessionist neanderthals.

Aside from various colorful allusions to the Late Unpleasantness (fresh in the memory of all South Carolinians), with South Carolina “firing the first shot”, and threats of potential action from the nearby occupying Third Army of the United States; it was obvious that there was a wide disconnect between the members of the Subcommittee, and constituents in attendance to whom they were paying lip service.

Unfortunately the Subcommittee showed no signs of allowing the bill to advance, despite a well-represented cross-section of the people, among them even young girls- schooled by their parents to have a better understanding of the separation of powers than even the duly elected members of the Legislature considering the bill.

Comment (0)

In response to current threats from the Federal Government on banning firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition, States are beginning to take action to hold the Federal Government to its constitutional limits under the 2nd Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Wyoming Rep. Kendell Kroeker has sponsored and introduced HB0104. the Firearms Protection Act. Representatives Baker, Burkhart, Jaggi, Miller, Piiparinen, Reeder and Winters and Senators Dockstader and Hicks have co-sponsered this bill.

Today, HB104 passed the full state house by a vote off 46-13.

Wyoming’s Firearms Protection Act, is “an act relating to firearms; providing that any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming; providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.” This act nullifies all federal laws made after Jan. 1, 2013.

“We need the second amendment because it is the protection for all of our other rights. Without it, those rights have no protection,” Kroeker said.

Beyond such statements, the bill backs things up with some teeth by providing for criminal charges for federal agents who attempt to violate the proposed state law:

“Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”

Read More

Comment (0)