Over five hundred thousand people have signed onto the Stop Watching Us campaign, a nonpartisan, grassroots campaign opposing the dragnet surveillance programs of the National Security Agency (NSA). Galvanized by newly surfaced evidence confirming the NSA’s surveillance of the phone records and Internet activity of individuals in the United States and abroad, the Stop Watching Us coalition is seeking public accountability and tangible reform to rein in unconstitutional surveillance.
Click below for the full story and an opportunity to support Stop Watching Us.
Missed that this came out a few months ago, but below is the trailer for Judge Andrew P. Napolitano’s new book “Theodore and Woodrow.”
A harsh and revealing political exposé of two beloved presidents.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano reveals how Teddy Roosevelt, a bully, and Woodrow Wilson, a constitutional scholar, each pushed aside the Constitution’s restrictions on the federal government and used it as an instrument to redistribute wealth, regulate personal behavior, and enrich the government. These two men and the Progressives who supported them have brought us, among other things: -the income tax -the Federal Reserve -compulsory, state-prescribed education -the destruction of state sovereignty -the rise of Jim Crow and military conscription -prohibition and war
The Progressive Era witnessed the most dramatic peaceful shift of power from persons and from the states to a new and permanent federal bureaucracy in all of American history.
THEODORE AND WOODROW exposes two of our nation’s most beloved presidents and how they helped speed the Progressive cause on its merry way.
David French, Senior Vice President of the National Retail Federation, the major industry group lobbying for the so-called “Marketplace Fairness Act,” (more aptly named the “National Internet Tax Mandate”) recently commented that “….the law [governing Internet sales] today is a 20th-century interpretation of an 18th-century document….” Mr. French’s comments are typical of those wishing to expand government power beyond the limits established by the United States Constitution.
Those of us who insist the federal government remain within the confines prescribed by the Constitution are used to condescending lectures about how the Constitution is a “living document” whose principles evolve over time. I was even once informed by the then-Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, who was widely considered one of Congress’ leading constitutional authorities, that the constitutional requirement for a declaration of war was an anachronism!
While Mr. French may not go that far, he is arguing that Congress turn the Commerce Clause on its head by passing the Internet Tax Mandate. The Commerce Clause was intended to facilitate free trade by giving the federal government limited power to ensure state governments did not impose taxes and regulations on out-of-state business. Contrary to modern belief, the Commerce Clause was not intended to give Congress power to regulate every sector of the economy. And the Commerce Clause was certainly not intended to allow Congress to help state governments collect taxes on purchases from out-of-state merchants.
The National Internet Tax Mandate overturns the Supreme Court’s 1992 Quill v. North Dakota decision that states can only force businesses to collect sales tax if the business has a “physical presence” in the state. Quill represented a rare instance where the Supreme Court properly interpreted the Commerce Clause. Thanks to the Quill decision, the Internet has remained a tax-free zone, though some states require consumers to later pay taxes on products they purchased online. This freedom has helped turn the Internet into a thriving and dynamic sector of the economy, to the benefit of entrepreneurs and consumers.
Now that status is threatened by an alliance of big business and tax-hungry state governments seeking new powers to force out-of-state business to collect state sales taxes. Far from updating the Constitution to fit the needs of the 21st century, the National Internet Tax Mandate is a throwback to 18th century mercantilism.
The National Internet Tax Mandate will raise the costs of doing business over the Internet. Large, established Internet companies, such as Amazon, can absorb these costs, whereas their smaller competitors cannot. More importantly, the Mandate’s increased costs and regulations could prevent the creation and growth of the next Amazon.
Raising prices on goods purchased over the Internet will also impose an additional hardship on American consumers, many of whom are already struggling because of the troubled economy. And giving ravenous state governments new authority to tax sales made by out-of-state businesses practically guarantees future sales tax hikes, as the arguments will be made that most of the increases will fall on out-of-state businesses. These businesses will lack effective ability to oppose the tax increases — a form of taxation without representation.
Contrary to Mr. French, it is the proponents of the National Internet Tax Mandate who are embracing outdated principles, such as higher taxes on prosperity, piling more regulations on already over-burdened workers, and legislation designed to help entrenched businesses at the expense of their smaller competitors and consumers. Opponents of the Internet Tax Mandate recognize that the principles of limited government and free markets represented by a true reading of the Commerce Clause provide a timeless guide to economic growth and prosperity.
Click below to read the article on Business Insider’s website by Dr. Ron Paul, former Texas Congressmen and current Chairman of the Campaign for Liberty.
Below are youtube videos of former Texas Congressman and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul and current Michigan Congressman Justin Amash giving their thoughts on CISPA.
Judge Napolitano seems to understand the Constitution better than today’s Republicans and Democrats. It will be very interesting to hear his thoughts on CISPA especially the way it was passed and the timing of it.
The government has been chipping away at the 4th Amendment since the start of the War on (some) Drugs. The stop-and-frisk policy in New York is just one of the latest steps in destroying privacy in this country.
Now the DHS has decided that the freedom from suspicionless searches doesn’t apply near the nation’s borders.
“We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” the executive summary said.
The President George W. Bush administration first announced the suspicionless, electronics search rules in 2008. The President Barack Obama administration followed up with virtually the same rules a year later. Between 2008 and 2010, 6,500 persons had their electronic devices searched along the U.S. border, according to DHS data. According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation’s actual border.
Did you catch that? 100 miles inland. That includes shipping ports. That means that around 2/3rd of the nation’s population, around 190 million, lives in these areas that are free of the 4th Amendment restrictions.
The DHS has already set up 33 “internal checkpoints” deeper in the country.
The expansion of the police state in America would be mindboggling to anyone living as recently as the 1980’s or 1990’s. It doesn’t seem to matter which political party is in power.
Click below for the full article.
Click below for some views and opinions on the Republican Mike Rogers bill that just passed a closed door vote.
The Young Turks……
The man that the GOP Establishment, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of MSM tried to silence gives us his take on the CISPA issue as well as the NDAA, Patriot Act, and the TSA.