CONCORD, N.H.—New Hampshire could become the fourth state in the country to do away with gun permits and allow adults to carry concealed and loaded weapons at will if a bill debated Thursday passes the Republican-dominated Legislature.
Rep. Jennifer Coffey, an Andover Republican, said her bill combats increasing government control over basic rights. Only Vermont, Arizona and Alaska require no permit to carry concealed and loaded weapons.
Gun rights advocates lauded the bill during a public hearing before the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, but the bill had its share of opponents.
A clinical social worker said suicides would spike if guns were easily at hand.
Fish and Game officials expressed concern that loaded long guns bouncing around inside vehicles would result in more accidental shootings and prompt “road hunters” to fire at game through open car windows.
And the chief of police in Salem, Paul Donovan, said he fears it will only increase gang and drug violence in the state’s southern cities.
“I’m not worried about our own people,” Donovan said. “I’m worried about what’s coming over our border.”
Tom Woods notes that “People in Montana have adopted unconventional views about how to reverse federal encroachments. We are supposed to be concerned about this, instead of about the encroachments themselves.” His critique of the Associated Press article is both humorous and informative.
And here is the excellent article on the history of the Supremacy Clause and how it relates to “nullification” that Tom Woods references in his video. This article is highly recommended reading for anyone to understand the nature of the compact and what the division of powers was supposed to be between the states and the national government:
When Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the “national” news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed. The lead AP reporter on the story, John Miller, quoted constitutional “scholar” David Freeman Engstrom of Stanford Law School as stating that the Idaho law would be irrelevant because of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution.
In his words, “That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this.” Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the “supremacy clause” may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.
Engstrom’s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law “scholars,” but he is far from correct, and Idaho and the thirty seven other States considering similar legislation have a strong case based on the original intent of the powers of the federal government vis-à-vis the States.
The so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, found in Article 6, states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding [emphasis added].”
The key, of course, is the italicized phrase. All laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, or those clearly enumerated in the document, were supreme, State laws notwithstanding. In other words, the federal government was supreme in all items clearly listed in the document.
A quick reading of the Constitution illustrates that national healthcare is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, so obviously Engstrom’s blanket and simplistic statement is blatantly incorrect, but his distortion of the supremacy clause goes further.
The inclusion of such a clause in the Constitution was first debated at the Constitutional Convention on 31 May 1787. In Edmund Randolph’s initial proposal, called the Virginia Plan, the “national” legislature had the ability to “legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent…” and “to negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the Articles of Union….” John Rutledge, Pierce Butler, and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina challenged the word “incompetent” and demanded that Randolph define the term. Butler thought that the delegates “were running into an extreme, in taking away the powers of the states…” through such language.
Randolph replied that he “disclaimed any intention to give indefinite powers to the national legislature, declaring that he was entirely opposed to such an inroad on the state jurisdictions, and that he did not think any considerations whatever could ever change his determination [emphasis added].” James Madison, the author of the Virginia Plan, was not as forthcoming as to his sentiment. Ultimately, Madison preferred a negative over State law and wished the national legislature to be supreme in call cases. But he was not in the majority.
I’m Randy Swanson, acting Rhode Island Oath Keepers Chapter President. I’m also a former member of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union and Rhode Island Council 94, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. These videos are not meant to foster ill will towards any group of people or unions as a whole. We are not anti-union. But we are anti-thug. We will continue to stand up for the truth, free speech, the Constitution and the rule of law. Violence, threats, and attempts at intimidation have no place in a civil society.
On February 22, 2011 at 3:45 p.m. I arrived at the Rhode Island Statehouse to document a rally that was taking place at our state capitol. Things were going pretty well until I saw one of the “alleged” union members (”perpetrator number one,” in red) moving swiftly through the crowd pushing people out of his way to purposely block one gentleman from filming with his video camera. (My first video shows him talking to his boss first and getting a pat on the back) This went on for a few minutes, I kept one eye on this intentional altercation while continuing to film the speaker at the podium. During this time there was more commotion behind me and a number of other “alleged” union members were repositioning themselves at the back of another individual with a video camera. They were continuously bumping and shoving the individual until at one point the “alleged” union member with the brown coat (perpetrator number two) stuck his fingers in the face of the innocent cameraman. Some words were exchanged. The camera was nowhere near the perpetrators face as the video clearly shows. The “alleged” union member with the brown jacket (”perpetrator two”) said: “I’ll F-ck your mother” “I’ll F-ck your mother” “How is that?” “How is that?” “I’ll F-ck you up the ass you fagot” “You better get away from here” “You better get away from here” He violently lashed out, leaning forward and at full arm’s-length struck the camera and said:”Get that camera out of my face,” “Get that camera out of my F-cking face,” “F-ck you too” “F-ck you too” and “You’re barking up the wrong tree.”
Then the crowd whipped themselves up into a frenzy chanting “hey hey ho ho union busters got to go” over and over again.
In a private phone call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, almost two weeks after the unrest began, President Barack Obama finally called for Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi to step down. While the President’s inertia may have been mitigated by the need to get Americans out of the country so Qadhafi could not take any hostages, the incident demonstrates again that the wave of revolution currently sweeping North Africa and the Middle East took the Obama Administration completely by surprise. And for good reason: President Obama’s “engagement” strategy toward the “Islamic world” is thoroughly outdated and irrelevant.
The first wave of revolutions in the region came in the middle of the last century and was made up of nationalist revolts against European colonialism. The next wave, the Islamist revolt, came a generation later, upending corrupt monarchies and nationalist regimes set up after the colonial era. Each of these movements—nationalist and Islamist—pretended to be “pan” movements of some kind. But they never caught on for very long because their universal claims were myths, undermined by tribal, religious, and nationalist divisions. The third wave we are witnessing today is completely different. Heritage Foundation Vice President and former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes explains:
At AFSCME’s “solidarity” rally in Providence, Rhode Island on Tuesday, a cameraman was accosted by a fuming pro-union protester. The cameraman had his back to the goon, who appears to accost him unprovoked. The goon screams:
“I’ll f**k you in the ass, you fa**ot!” *
His shouting escalates and other union supporters try to intervene as he threatened the cameraman, but he continues to foam at the mouth.
The “solidarity” mob finally starts chanting “Hey, hey, ho, ho, union-busting’s got to go” to drown out the goon’s snit fit. He yells that he will “follow you out of here.”
A former Libyan army officer and head of a leading opposition group says he knows of growing defections among Libya’s military not just by individuals, but in some cases, entire units. Ibrahim Abdulaziz Sahad is the Secretary-General of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, or NFSL, which was organized in in October 1981 by a group of former military officers, diplomats and businessmen with one goal – to end the regime of Colonel Moammar Gadhafi. He spoke to VOA’s Cecily Hilleary from his base in the United States.
I am a senior citizen, a Veteran, a college graduate with some Law training, a security background, a founding member of the Oath Keepers and a Concealed Weapons Instructor. Many years ago I swore an Oath to My Country, my God, my Flag and My Constitution. I have tried for 75 years to live up to that Oath. It is a shame that our elected officials do not honor the Oath that they have taken.
If called on today, I would give my life to protect the President and his family, but I do not respect him and what he is doing to our Country. In closing I can only say God Bless the United States of America.
East German Army Officer (and now American Oath Keeper!) Tells How the East German Military Refused Unlawful Orders to Crush Protests, Stood Down, and Led to the Fall of the Berlin Wall.
In this remarkable interview, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes speaks with Gunter Spens, now a member of Texas Oath Keepers, who was a Lieutenant Colonel in the East German Army when communism collapsed and the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. LTC Spens tells how the East German military refused unlawful orders given by the Communist Party to crush peaceful mass protests and simply stood down, staying on the base….
Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes interviews Wisconsin Oath Keepers Chapter President, Larry Gamble, about the current controversy and union protests in Wisconsin over Governor Walker’s proposed bill to balance the state budget by cutting back on some benefits for state workers.
They discuss rumors and exaggerated hyperbole by the leftist media that the Governor intends to use the National Guard to “intimidate” the protesters. They also discuss the sad state of the economy in Wisconsin that has brought that state to a budget crisis, how this is a reflection of what is going on across the nation, and how the Tea Party movement in Wisconsin is reacting to the situation, including a counter-demonstration in support of the bill.
They also discuss the likelihood of more social disruption across the nation as our economy implodes. The interview lasts one hour total.
JUNEAU — Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said he will not implement the federal health care overhaul because a judge in Florida struck down the law as unconstitutional.
It’s not immediately clear what practical impact the unusual move would have on Alaskans, an estimated 14 percent of whom are uninsured year-round. A major expansion of the federal law is still pending, and a legal expert and health care consumer advocate say any refusal by the states to participate in the law is an invitation to the federal government to step in and implement it for them.
Parnell, who sought the advice of his attorney general amid concerns implementing the law would violate his oath of office, told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce the state would pursue lawful, market-based solutions to making insurance affordable and accessible to Alaskans.
In an historic vote in the Idaho House of Representatives, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act (originally authored by the Tenth Amendment Center) passed by a vote of 49-20.
House Bill 117 (H117) states, in part:
The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of [...]
The new US budget was revealed by President Obama calling for America to re-balance the global economy, stressing that the US cannot rely on foreign governments to finance domestic consumption. However, many point to Obama’s inability to rein in spending, including Gerald Celente. He says the future will be more of the same; it’s going to be more debt and placing the burden on the American people.
Schweitzer also told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he is encouraging livestock owners north of Interstate 90 to shoot wolves that harass their animals. He says state game wardens would stop investigating wolf shootings in that part of the state.
Livestock owners in southern Montana already have authority to shoot wolves that harass their animals.
The Democratic governor says he is fed up with years of litigation that have kept wolves on the endangered species list even as their population has grown to more than 1,700 across the Northern Rockies.
The exact contours of the forthcoming proposal are unclear—the White House, the Justice Department and various agencies are apparently still internally haggling over what the Administration’s position is. However, the FBI’s wish list as reported in the New York Times is dangerously expansive:
Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.
Hopefully, the FBI’s top lawyer Valerie Caproni—the primary source for the Times’ reporting—will give more specifics about the forthcoming proposal in tomorrow morning’s Congressional hearing, as she is one of two law enforcement representatives there to plead the government’s case. Thankfully, the third witness will be renowned security and surveillance expert Dr. Susan Landau, who will be sounding alarms about the security risks posed by building wiretap-ability into our communications services.
Just as the Egyptian government recently forced the Internet to go dark, U.S. officials could flip the switch if the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset legislation becomes law, say its critics.
Proponents of the bill, which is expected to be reintroduced in the current session of Congress, dismiss the detractors as ill-informed — even naive.
The ominously nicknamed Kill Switch bill is sure to be a flashpoint of discussion at the RSA Conference, the nation’s largest gathering of computer-security experts that takes place here this week.
The bill — crafted by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; and Tom Carper, D-Del. — aims to defend the economic infrastructure from a cyberterrorist attack. But it has free-speech advocates and privacy experts howling over the prospect of a government agency quelling the communication of hundreds of millions of people.
This may be a highly distasteful proposition, but just for a moment, I want you to sit back, and imagine that you are a member of the corporate banking elite. You are a walking talking disease ridden power mad pustule who naively believes himself intellectually superior to the vast majority of humanity and above the inherent laws of conscience, honor, and general good taste. You are a villain in the purest sense, in that you not only do great harm to the world, you actually SEEK to do great harm to the world, if only to benefit yourself and your exclusive circle of “friends”; a clan of degenerate blood thirsty sociopaths with delusions of omnipotence that stalk the night like Armani wearing Chupacabra exsanguinating the joy from poor unsuspecting cultures. You are capable of anything, and sadly, you take “pride” in this fact…
You aren’t “rich” in the traditional sense. You aren’t a “Bill Gates” or a “Donald Trump” (I’m beginning to wonder if Donald Trump is even solvent, or if his entire fortune is a special-effect courtesy of NBC). No, you don’t “make” money, you MAKE the money. You are a global financier. You are a central banker. You create the fiat that the rest of the country uses to sustain its fantasy economy. You dominate trade through monopoly and corporate fraud. You control the flow of currency through an economic system using fractional reserve banking, artificially pegged interest rates, and your ever trusty printing press. You put your substantial monetary clout behind BOTH major political parties, and groom presidential candidates to your globalist standards. Any politician who desires to climb the ladder of power turns to you for assistance, not the voting public. You have a tremendous financial stake in every corporate news provider in the country, if not own them outright. You invite their top reporters to posh banquets, give them unlimited access to prominent social figures and high rollers, and fly them to private alcohol addled orgies in the middle of the California Redwoods (I wish this was all made up). Forget responsible journalism, they love hanging out with you, and would probably write whatever you tell them to.
Based on his recent public comments, Fed Chairman Bernanke seems determined to give the U.S. dollar the reputation of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak: an unwanted relic of the past that everyone agrees must go, but stubbornly clings to a privileged position. The dollar is currently the world’s ruling currency, but, as with Mubarak, I believe that growing public discontent will spur regime change quicker than most pundits expect.
Clearly, the most significant problem facing central bankers around the world is the recent eruption of inflation, which is sparking unrest in Asia and the Middle East. With respect to this issue, Bernanke is alternating his responses through two different personas.
Sometimes he chooses to act like Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Information Minister who, in the opening days of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, continued to deny the presence of American troops even as U.S. tanks rumbled behind him. The parallel to Bernanke’s testimony to Congress today is striking.
When Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the “national” news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed. The lead AP reporter on the 
