Tom Woods to headline Nullify Now NC conference

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., an historian and best-selling author of the book “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century,” will give the keynote speech at the Nullify Now! Conference in Raleigh October 19 at the Raleigh Convention Center.

The Tenth Amendment Center has been hosting events around the country to educate and activate people on the topic of Nullification since September 2012. At a Nullify Now! event, you learn nullification’s constitutional basis and when it has been used in history.

Continue reading

News & Observer non-endorsement

The News & Observer did not endorse any candidate in the 2nd Congressional district — but neither did they mention me at all in the editorial. Here is what I wrote them and posted as a comment online:

N&O editorial writers should do more thorough research, or at least read the N&Os own online voter guide, so they have complete information on the races before writing their editorial candidate endorsements. They apparently couldn’t find enough difference between two of the candidates in the 2nd Congressional District to endorse either.

Perhaps this was because they were unaware there’s a third candidate in the race, Libertarian Brian Irving. Either that or they deliberately ignored the fact because they would have had to let readers know there was candidate with significantly different, some would say radical, views. And that might have made their non-endorsement more difficult.

Or this oversight simply could be in keeping with the paper’s apparent policy to completely ignore Libertarian candidates altogether. In three full-page stories, the N&O has made an excruciating attempt to report on the supposed differences between the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates without evening mentioning Libertarian Barbara Howe.

Journalistic integrity demands, and North Carolina voters deserve, better, fairer and more complete reporting.

As a P.S. I know the N&O company knows I’m running because I received a solicitation to purchase advertising.

The Real Crime is Abuse of Power

“What kind of politicians complain about truthful revelations of unconstitutional behavior by the government, but not about death and destruction, and, let’s face it, criminal abuse of power by the president? Only cynical power-hungry politicians who have disdain for the Constitution they have sworn to uphold could do this with a straight face.”
– Judge Andrew Napolitano

Sadly, the answer to the judge’s question is simple most, if not all, Democratic and Republican politicians. Rather than investigating the “leaks,” Congress should be investigating President Obama’s “kill list” and his acts of war against other nations.

Read more.

CISPA Another Assault on the Constitution

Whenever a Congressional bill is praise for being “bipartisan” there’s one thing you can be sure of: it’s an assault on the U.S. Constitution and your freedom and liberty. You can also be certain that the more “bipartisan” the bill is, the greater the damage to your rights.

Such is the case with HR 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which just passed the House 248-168.

District 2 Rep. Renee Ellmers voted for the bill.

For the record, I would not have voted for the bill.

Continue reading

Republican, Tea Party congressman favor unPATRIOT act

by Brian Irving

The parliamentary palaver in the U.S. House of Representatives over the extension of provisions of the questionably named PATRIOT Act should put to rest any illusion that the new Republican majority, even with its Tea Party flavor, is really committed to limited government and protecting Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Even though the measure was technically defeated, it was only because the Republican leadership attempted to have the bill quickly and quietly approved in a so-called “expedited procedure,” which incidentally didn’t allow amendments and limited debate to 40 minutes. But the plan backfired, because the process required a two-thirds majority.

The vote was 277-148; the 210 Republicans who yes included several supported by the Tea Party movement. The vote gave new meaning to the cliché “politics make strange bedfellows.” Democrats Heath Shuler, Larry Kissell, Mike McIntyre and Brad Miller voted in favor, along with Howard Coble, Renee Ellmers, Virginia Foxx, Patrick McHenry, and Sue Myrick.

Both Coble and Myrick are listed as Tea Party Caucus members on Rep. Michelle Bachman’s website. Ellmers, who upset long-time incumbent Bob Etheridge, was elected with Tea Party support.

Opposing the bill were Republican Walter Jones and Democrats David Price and Mel Watt.

Continue reading

Rangel censure another incredible Congressional shame

The U.S. House of Representatives vote to censure Rep. Charles Rangel was a sham. After the members voted overwhelming, 333 to 79, for the resolution, they applauded the New York Democrat. Rangel told the House “I know in my heart I am not going to be judged by this Congress. I’ll be judged by my life in its entirety.”

The Harlem Democrat then went before the Washington DC press corps and engaged in a classic demonstration of what New Yorkers might call the “chutzpah defense. He denounced the two-year proceedings as “very, very, very, political” and claimed his actions did not rise to the level of corruption because “I did not curse out the speaker. I did not have sex with minors. I did not steal money.”

While Rangel admitted he “brought it on myself” he claimed he didn’t enrich himself and asserted the financial improprieties he was accused of were mere “bookkeeping errors.”

Apparently in Rangel’s world a Congressman who doesn’t pay his income taxes for 17 years, fails to pay taxes on rental income on a Dominican Republic villa he owns, or buys four rent-controlled apartments in New York City for well below market value and uses one as an office in violation of rent-control laws, is not subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens.

Rangel even invoked his military service during the Korean War in his plea for mercy. In Rangel’s World, it seems anyone who serves in the military, gets wounded or gets a medal is exempt from some laws.

To no one’s surprise, Rep. G.K. Butterfield, not only defended Rangel but also tried to get the censure downgraded to a reprimand. The Wilson Democrat asked the House to consider “mitigating circumstances” including Rangel’s military service and 40 years in Congress. Butterfield was the only ethics committee member to vote against censuring Rangel, and he voted against the resolution on the House floor.

Butterfield is one of several House members under investigation by the very committee he sits on suspicion of improperly retaining foreign travel per diem payments. In addition, during the 2010 campaign, his Republican opponent challenged Butterfield to return $4,000 in campaign contributions from Rangel.

Rep. Zoe Lofgreen, chair of the House ethics committee, noted that Rangel and other Democrats had promised the American people they would run the most ethical Congress in history. “We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard,” the California Democrat said. Another ethics committee member, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, said “The credibility of the House of Representatives before the American people.”

It certainly was. And once again, the actions of the House were incredible. The only positive thing about this mock trial might be that the censure resolution itself was probably one of the few bills House members could easily read it its entirety. The one-paragraph bill reads:

Resolved, That (1) Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York be censured; (2) Representative Charles B. Rangel forthwith present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure; (3) Representative Charles B. Rangel be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker; and (4) Representative Rangel pay restitution to the appropriate taxing authorities or the U.S. Treasury for any unpaid estimated taxes outlined in Exhibit 066 on income received from his property in the Dominican Republic and provide proof of payment to the Committee.

Republicans waffling on pork, earmarks

That whooshing sound you hear coming from Washington DC is the sound of the newly elected “Tea Party” Republicans waffling on their pledges to reduce the size of government and cut spending. While the incoming Republican majority went through the motion of voting to ban earmarks, the lame duck legislators still in power aren’t bound by similar constraints.

The tax cut deal being brokered, naturally in secret and behind closed doors, will probably include enough pork grease to ease passage. Included in the compromise is a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits and subsidies for ethanol.

Democratic Rep. Brad Miller may have been right when he called the Republican earmark ban “a sound bite in search of substance.” Miller, the proud sponsor of more than $26.7 million in earmarks himself, said that one member’s pork is another member’s infrastructure project.

Rep.-elect Renee Ellmers seems to agree with Miller’s theory of pork relativity. Ellmers said she would look at each proposal closely, especially expenditures for transportation and defense which are both important issues to North Carolina. Even Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, the Mother Superior of Tea Party mamma grizzles, said that advocating for transportation projects in your district does not equate to an earmark.

If it’s going to be a good expenditure of taxpayer’s money, I will go to bat for it, ” the Tea Party backed Republican said. Ellmers upset long-time Democratic incumbent Bob Etheridge in a close Congressional District 2 race.

Note the use of the phrase “good expenditure of taxpayer money.” Apparently the theory of pork relativity does not take into account whether or not an expenditure is constitutional, whether or not it is for a program or activity that is within the proper role of government, or whether or not it is even necessary.

Defenders of earmarks and pork are also quick to point out that these expenditures represent only a small fraction, about one percent, of federal spending and that the money is already allocated and would be spent anyway. Again, there is no consideration of constitutionality, proper or needed.

Rep. David Price, a Democrat, said Congress would abdicate its responsibility if it gave the president power to make all spending decisions. “It’s a central congressional power, the power of the purse,” he said. Apparently Price is not as concerned about Congress abdicating its responsibility to the president or federal bureaucrats and agents in other areas, including declaring war, protecting civil liberties and coining money.

One local government official characterized his city’s lobbying for federal tax dollars as “the American way.” Kanapolis city manager Mike Legg said the city would revise it strategy and pressure federal agencies rather than Congress to steer money their way.

Legg invoked a peculiar interpretation of the First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances. “We should have the right to petition our government to bring back tax dollars for local efforts,” he said Mike Legg.