A recent article on MSN is headlined: “10 Myths About the U.S. Constitution Most Americans Believe.” Here are the ten myths:
The Constitution is on hemp paper.
The Constitution has 39 signatures.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams signed the Constitution.
The same signatures are on both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The Constitution established an American democracy.
All 13 states participated in writing the Constitution.
The President can veto a proposed amendment to the Constitution.
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
The Constitution explicitly states there is a separation of Church and State.
The Constitution ensures your right to vote.
Each of these myths is adequately corrected by the author in the article.
There is no question that Americans are ignorant of the Constitution. But there are members of one elite group of Americans that I want to single out who are some of the worst offenders.
The ignorance that Americans have of the Constitution is exceeded by the ignorance of the Constitution that most congressmen have. Members of Congress swear to uphold the Constitution. Article VI, clause 3, of the Constitution requires that senators and representatives “be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.” U.S. law requires that members of Congress be sworn in before they can take their seats. The language of the congressional oath has changed (it is set by statute) several times since it was first administered in 1789. It now reads:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Regardless of any flaws or problems that the Constitution has, it is the supreme law of the land. One would think that members of Congress—most of whom have at least a bachelor’s degree and many of whom are lawyers—would have a good grasp of what the Constitution says. Yet, their constitutional ignorance is appalling.
Here are 10 myths about the U.S. Constitution that most congressmen believe.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to have a DEA, destroy marijuana plants, and wage war on drugs.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to have a retirement and disability program.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to take money from Americans and give it to foreigners, foreign governments, and NGOs in the form of foreign aid or disaster relief.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to have a Department of Education, issue student loans and grants, make bilingual-education mandates, accredit schools, have school breakfast and lunch programs, have math and science initiatives, and give states money to help operate their public schools.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to have welfare programs like food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to issue gun regulations, license gun dealers, have a National Instant Criminal Background Check System and a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and make gun-control laws.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to have a Department of Labor, job training programs, minimum-wage laws, overtime pay requirements, an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and a National Labor Relations Board.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to have a Department of Housing and Urban Development and a Federal Housing Administration, issue Section 8 housing vouchers, and insure mortgages.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to have a Department of Agriculture, give away cheese, subsidize farmers, and issue dietary guidelines.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to pay for the health care of some Americans, issue grants for medical research, have federal laboratories, have HIV/AIDS-prevention initiatives, regulate medical schools, regulate organ donations, issue medical-records mandates, and have a Department of Health and Human Services.
Americans are certainly ignorant of the Constitution. But members of Congress, who should know better, are just as ignorant. America could be “made great again” if the members of Congress simply followed the Constitution when it came to spending the taxpayers’ money.
BATON ROUGE, La. (Aug. 9, 2019) – Last week, a bill that expands a Louisiana law to facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government regulatory schemes went into effect.
Sen. Gerald Long sponsored Senate Bill 127 (SB127). The new law expands direct primary care to include dental practices. Under the law, direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors and patients from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code. SB127 creates a direct primary care framework for dental practices, expanding the state’s current law for primary care physicians enacted in 2014.
The Senate passed SB127 by a 38-0 vote. The House approved the measure 101-0. With Gov. John Bel Edwards’ signature in June, the new law went into effect Aug. 1.
According to Michigan Capitol Confidential, by removing a third party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer writes:
“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”
This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. In 2015, Tom Woods interviewed a Kansas doctor who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.
Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.
A SECOND STEP
The passage of SB127 illustrates an important strategic point. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Once the door is open, the way is cleared for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.
Even while controlling both houses of Congress, the Republicans never did repeal Obamacare. And if they had passed one of their bills, the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. Even with the penalty for not buying health insurance repealed by the Republican tax plan, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. Regardless, state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act, or any national healthcare plan the Congress comes up with in the future.
Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct health care agreements offer one.
These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set price for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.
A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble.
Enactment of SB127 takes another step toward healthcare freedom in Louisiana and create a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. With this new law in place, the people of Louisiana could take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE
Fast Friday edition of the Path to Liberty. Sponsored by the Tenth Amendment Center.
With the idea of a federal “red flag” law passing gaining support in Washington D.C., we’re told that this would only be for the most “dangerous” people. But, from the income tax to the “PATRIOT” Act, what we’re told they’ll use a new power for always starts small – eventually being used against everyone. John Dickinson, the “Penman of the American Revolution,” warned us to “Oppose a disease at its beginning.”
When it comes to power, you should treat the feds like your ex-spouse.
I did a radio interview recently on Loving Liberty with Bryan Hyde. It was a back to Tenther Basics kind of discussion. You can listen HERE.
We talked about constitutional originalism, decentralized government, the principles of nullification, James Madison’s blueprint for dealing with federal overreach and the anti-commandeering doctrine. I really enjoyed kind of getting back to my roots.
In the course of our conversation, Bryan asked me an interesting question: why do I think so many people only worry about constitutional issues when their party is out of power?
The answer is pretty simple. Most people are more wrapped up in party, policies and personalities than they are in principles. So, when their guy or gal is in power, they don’t worry about things like limited government or constitutional restraints. They enjoy the fact that their guy can get stuff done and implement policies they like.
There’s a huge problem with this approach to politics.
Your guy or gal isn’t going to be in charge forever. At some point, the bad guys and gals are going to win an election. And when that happens, every little bit of power you let your guy have will be in their hands.
A friend of mine said something once that was pretty funny and really wise.
Don’t ever give a politician any power you wouldn’t want your ex-spouse to have.
The problem isn’t who’s in charge. The problem is that the power exists to begin with. Never forget, every power you give government will eventually be in the hands of people you don’t like.
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE
DOVER, Del. (Aug 8, 2019) – Last week, Delaware Governor John Carney signed a bill to decriminalize marijuana possession by minors in the state despite federal prohibition.
Sen. Trey Paradee (D-Dover), sponsored Senate Bill 45 (SB45) along with 16 fellow Democrats. Delaware decriminalized the possession or consumption of a “personal-use quantity” of marijuana for adults 21 or over in 2015, making it a civil violation subject to a fine. But under that law, possession of a personal-use quantity of cannabis remains a criminal offense for people under the age of 21. Enactment of SB45 expands decriminalize of personal use consumption or possession of marijuana to include individuals under 21.
Enactment of SB45 will not only loosen marijuana laws and keep minors from ending up with criminal records for the possession of a small amount of marijuana; it will also further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. As marijuana becomes more accepted and more states simply ignore the feds, the federal government is less able to enforce its unconstitutional laws.
EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION
Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.
Decriminalization, along with Delaware’s medical marijuana program, removed a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of cannabis in the state, but federal prohibition remains in place. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.
Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.
SB45 further undermines prohibition and will make it that much more difficult for the federal government to enforce it in Delaware.
A GROWING MOVEMENT
Enactment of SB45 would further ignore federal prohibition and continue the process of nullifying it in practice in Delaware.
Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when voters legalized cannabis for general use in 2018. Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. Illinois followed suit this year.
With 33 states including Delaware allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.
“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.
Passage of SB45 demonstrates another important strategic reality. Once a legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE
Amazon and Google are using secret police agreements and free giveaways to spy on everyone.
Last week Vice Newsrevealed how police departments across the country are secretly working with Amazon to create mini-neighborhood surveillance zones using Ring doorbells.
Amazon and law enforcement are enticing residents to join Amazon’s “Neighbors” network by giving out corporate freebies.
Ring doorbell cameras will be provided to the public free of charge, according to a published agreement between the Lakeland Police Department in Florida and Amazon.
As Vice News warned, American law enforcement has become a corporate shill.
Law enforcement’s relationship with Amazon is so close, they have agreed to work with Ring to coordinate on all public communications.
“The parties shall agree to a joint press release to be mutually agreed upon by the parties,” the memorandum of understanding says.
Gizmodo revealed that Ring pre-writes almost all of the messages shared by police across social media, and attempts to legally obligate police to give the company final say on all statements about its products, even those shared with the press. They also revealed that all police announcements called, “Press Packets,” “Press Release Templates,” “Social Media Templates,” and “Key Talking Points” are scripted by Ring.
Want to find out if your neighbors are using Ring to spy on people of color or create a secret watchlist? Don’t ask the police because they will have nothing bad to say about Ring doorbell cameras.
A recent CNET article revealed that at least 50 police departments have given away Ring doorbells or used taxpayer dollars to purchase them.
“Police departments across the country, from major cities like Houston to towns with fewer than 30,000 people, have offered free or discounted Ring doorbells to citizens, sometimes using taxpayer funds to pay for Amazon’s products.”
Vice News claims that at least 200 police departments have partnered with Amazon.
An article in last year’s Business Wire did a fantastic job of revealing what Ring’s mission really is.
“Ring, a company on a mission to reduce crime in neighborhoods, today launched the Neighbors app on iOS and Android to provide every neighbor with real-time, local crime and safety information. Police and sheriff’s departments throughout the U.S. are also joining the network as a new way to share real-time crime and safety alerts with their communities.”
Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction as the New York Times revealed.
“Amazon said that it was working with Realogy, the nation’s largest residential real estate brokerage company and owner of Century 21, Coldwell Banker and other brands, to create TurnKey, a service that will help prospective home buyers find real estate agents. To entice customers, Amazon will give buyers up to $5,000 in-home services and smart-home gear when they close.”
Amazon is essentially offering first-time homebuyers $5,000 worth of surveillance devices so they can monitor everything they do.
A recent blog post revealed Google’s plan to put 100,000 spying Home-Minis into paraplegics homes for free!
“This changed when the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation and Google Nest started a project to understand how technology can benefit people living with paralysis. Google Nest is providing up to 100,000 Google Home Minis to help them.”
Google’s blog post reads like a benevolent company interested in “helping” people who are paralyzed; do everyday things like listen to music, make a grocery list or turn on the A/C using a NEST thermostat.
It does such a good job at masking the reality of what Google listening devices do, you almost want to thank Google for being so nice.
Corporations act as though they care about public safety or handicapped people while secretly using their products to build a massive database on everyone.
Amazon, Google and Apple are all spying on what goes on inside people’s homes and perhaps nothing says that better than a recent story in the UK Guardian that revealed how private contractors use Siri to spy on people having sex.
“There have been countless instances of recordings featuring private discussions between doctors and patients, business deals, seemingly criminal dealings, sexual encounters and so on. These recordings are accompanied by user data showing location, contact details, and app data.”
These devices should be re-named corporate law enforcement surveillance devices to reflect what they really are. Sometimes corporation’s come up with clever ways to hide the fact that their products are designed to spy on everyone, and sometimes they almost seem to care about the public.
Unfortunately, this is not one of those times.
Editors Note: Some of the information collected through these private companies almost certainly ends up in federal databases. The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE.
Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a bipartisan congressional report to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”
Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.
With a national debt approaching $23 trillion and a trillion dollar deficit for this year alone, Congress last week decided to double down on suicidal spending, passing a two year budget that has the United States careening toward catastrophe. While we cannot say precisely when the economic crash will occur, we do know that it is coming. And last week Congress pounded down on the accelerator.
We are told that the US economy is experiencing unprecedented growth, while at the same time the Fed is behaving as it does when we are in recession by cutting rates…and dodging insults from the President because it’s not cutting fast enough. This is not economic policy – it’s schizophrenia!
But that’s only the beginning.
Take what they call “national defense” spending. This is the misnomer they use to try and convince us that pumping trillions into the military-industrial complex will make us safe and free. Nothing could be further from the truth: probably ninety percent of the “defense” budget is aggressive militarism and welfare for the rich.
Under this budget deal the military budget would increase to nearly $1.4 trillion for two years. Of course that’s only a fraction of real military spending, which is, all told, well over one trillion dollars per year.
What do we get for this money? Are we safer? Not at all. We are more vulnerable than ever. We spend billions fighting “terrorism” in Africa while terrorism has actually increased since the creation of the US Africa Command – “AFRICOM” – in 2007. Meanwhile we continue to spend to maintain our illegal military occupation of a large section of Syria – which benefits terrorist groups seeking to overthrow Assad.
We’re sending thousands more troops to the Middle East including basing US troops in Saudi Arabia for the first time since 2003. Back then, even neocon Paul Wolfowitz praised our departure from Saudi Arabia because, as he rightly stated, US troops on Saudi soil was a great recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.
Now we’ve pulled out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty so that we can deploy once-forbidden missiles on China’s front door. A new arms race with China will mean a new boon for our new Defense Secretary’s former colleagues at Raytheon!
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) pronounced the Tea Party dead with the adoption of this budget. He’s right of course, but only when it comes to Congress. Given the opportunity, I still believe a good part of the American people will vote for candidates who promise to rein in the national credit card. President Trump himself ran on a platform of ending deficit spending and even paying off the national debt!
So the Tea Party may be dead in Washington, but I am not convinced it was ever really alive in Washington. With a few exceptions, most politicians saw the Tea Party as just the flavor of the month. Spending is what keeps Washington alive and keeps the DC suburbs rich. They’re not about to cut back on their own.
But the spending will end. The trillions thrown down the drain on militarism will end. The only question is whether it will end when we are completely bankrupt and at the mercy of countries we’ve kicked around for decades or whether Americans will demand an end to bipartisan addiction to war and spending in Washington!
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”—H.L. Mencken
We’ve been down this road many times before.
If the government is consistent about any one thing, it is this: it has an unnerving tendency to exploit crises and use them as opportunities for power grabs under the guise of national security.
As David C. Unger, a foreign affairs editorial writer for the New York Times, explains, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have given way to permanent crisis management: to policing the planet and fighting preventative wars of ideological containment, usually on terrain chosen by, and favorable to, our enemies. Limited government and constitutional accountability have been shouldered aside by the kind of imperial presidency our constitutional system was explicitly designed to prevent.”
Cue the Emergency State, the government’s Machiavellian version of crisis management that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.
These tactics have been employed before, here in the U.S. and elsewhere, by other totalitarian regimes, with devastating results.
It’s a simple enough formula: first, you create fear, then you capitalize on it by seizing power.
For instance, in his remarks on the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, President Trump promised to give the FBI “whatever they need” to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism.
Let that sink in a moment.
In a post-9/11 America, Trump’s promise bodes ill for whatever remnants of freedom we have left. With that promise, flippantly delivered without any apparent thought for the Constitution’s prohibitions on such overreach, the president has given the FBI the green light to violate Americans’ civil liberties in every which way.
So what does the government’s carefully calibrated response to this current crisis mean for freedom as we know it? Compliance and control.
For starters, consider Trump’s embrace of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats, will only add to the government’s power.
As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.”
Be warned: these laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.
Seventeen states, plus the District of Columbia, now have red flag laws on their books. That number is growing.
In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings, these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.
Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.
Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.
With these red flag gun laws, the intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats.
However, consider what happened in Maryland after a police officer attempted to “enforce” the state’s new red flag law, which went into effect in Oct. 2018.
According to the Anne Arundel County police chief, the shooting was a sign that the red flag law is needed. What the police can’t say with any certainty is what they prevented by shooting and killing Willis.
Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally, especially when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.
After all, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is the same government that, in 2009, issued a series of Department of Homeland Security reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism,” which broadly define extremists as individuals, military veterans and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”
This is the same government that, as first reported by the Wall Street Journal, tracks military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and characterizes them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”
This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.
This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
In other words, if you dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s, you may well be suspected of being a domestic terrorist and treated accordingly.
Where many Americans go wrong is in assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or challenging the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal.
That is not the case.
All you really need to do is question government authority.
With the help of artificial intelligence, a growing arsenal of high-tech software, hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior sensing software, government agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potentialenemies of the state.
It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.
What’s more, the technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you communicate. Computers guided by artificial intelligence now do the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks—all of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used against you someday at a time and place of the government’s choosing.
This is the world that science fiction author Philip K. Dick envisioned for Minority Report in which the government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams will crack a few skulls in order to bring the populace under control.
In Dick’s dystopian police state, the police combine widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining and precognitive technology to capture would-be criminals before they can do any damage: precrime.
In the film Minority Report, the technology that John Anderton, Chief of the Department of Pre-Crime in Washington, DC, relies on for his predictive policing proves to be fallible, identifying him as the next would-be criminal and targeting him for preemptive measures. Consequently, Anderton finds himself not only attempting to prove his innocence but forced to take drastic measures in order to avoid capture in a surveillance state that uses biometric data and sophisticated computer networks to track its citizens.
With every passing day, the American police state moves that much closer to mirroring the fictional pre-crime prevention world of Minority Report.
In other words, the burden of proof is reversed: you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.
Dig beneath the surface of this kind of surveillance/police state, however, and you will find that the real purpose of pre-crime is not safety but control.
Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.
Again, where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.
In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.
In much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect, the government’s anti-extremism program renders otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.
Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.
You will be tracked wherever you go.
You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.
This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.
The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the corporate sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
If you’re not scared yet, you should be.
Connect the dots.
Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.
To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones and balloons that are beginning to blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify so-called criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.
Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.
There’s always a price to pay for standing up to the powers-that-be.
Editor’s note: State and local activism are at the heart of the Tenth Amendment Center’s work. The following outlines the efforts of a TAC activist working on two specific issues in Illinois.
I founded the IL Tenthers in 2019. Our focus is on protecting privacy rights and reforming civil asset forfeiture in Illinois. While we have not yet had our model legislation introduced, we have been in contact with our district officials and over 30 legislators in the region.
The process of coalition-building has been a slow one, but we recognize that people will listen only when you talk to them in terms they can understand. In other words, breaking down an issue like surveillance and explaining why it is so dangerous serves to wake others up to the challenges we face.
So far, we have generated interest among some groups in Illinois and have received guidance from the Tenth Amendment Center and The Institute for Justice.
Having a realistic goal is important. Getting model legislation to state legislators, meeting with them and generating support for the bills make it an actionable strategy. For activism to work, it takes consistent involvement and follow-up. It is also important to not do it alone; build a network of contacts that you can rely on and work towards a common solution. Having allies will be a big part of the success of your endeavors. Finding even just a few groups that you can work with will make an impact because the message has a farther reach. Coalitions take form in endorsements from groups, petitions, declarations and legislator outreach. Every change that happens starts with a small group that takes action. Remember that the Sons of Liberty was a small group that manifested distrust of government power into the fight for independence.
Surveillance is about liberty and sovereignty. We notice that surveillance is being normalized to the point that you no longer expect a sense of privacy. We must not accept surveillance as an unchanging fact of life. I’m fighting surveillance for two reasons: to learn more about it and to restrict its use through local oversight.
Every American has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. We’ve been sold a bill of goods – convinced that to be safe we need to be less free.
But are we any safer with surveillance than without?
No data supports that premise. It is really about control and coercion. Police have been turned into domestic spy agencies.
State noncompliance is the way forward. This strategy is already being effectively used by many states and cities. This article is based on a talk I gave to the Chicago Libertarian Party in April of this year.
STRATEGY
We recognize that a successful strategy continues after step one, with each step building upon the last. When we get model legislation introduced, there is always room to improve it. Who will enforce it? Only we can enforce the contract of the constitution. Will the law enforcement and intelligence agencies give us this incredible surveillance power willingly?
No chance.
But I think I see a way out.
In Illinois, we need to resist, refuse to comply and nullify surveillance and civil asset forfeiture. Starting with a resolution or a referendum at the county level can build the foundation to generate more support at the state level with model legislation. Resolutions are also important to outline the principles we stand for.
Coalition building or true grassroots activism means agreeing on something and working towards a common solution, together. Even if we disagree on other things, we can work together toward a common goal. Party lines and different philosophies don’t matter you focus on a single issue. The crux of activism is getting people involved and tailoring your information to the audience you are talking to. The more groups that work together the better chance it has of moving forward.
We recommend building a network of contacts to send out alerts, putting on talks and attending community events to generate awareness. As a starting point, gain soft endorsements from groups that would be concerned if they knew of the issue. Reach out to other district legislators to ask them if they would introduce the model legislation to protect your liberties. Follow up often and make phone calls, try to arrange a meeting over tea and speak to them in person. We are also concerned that many Americans are willing to trade liberty for security. Here is how you can help: follow the Tenth Amendment Center for state nullification efforts, join our email list for alerts, reach out to the ACLU, visit the Electronic Frontier Alliance to find groups in your area and visit our website for detailed activist instructions.
“The constitution does not enforce itself and the federal government will not limit itself. Something outside the system has to do the limiting. In the American system, the people have the ultimate authority. As such, we need to focus the power of state and local governments to stop federal overreach. “
“States need to take steps to place restrictions on the use of surveillance before it is used by law enforcement, instead of navigating a complex process of creating oversight after its secret deployment and use. Legislators and the community don’t know what surveillance the police are using because there is little accountability and surveillance happens in secret. Non-disclosure agreements signed by law enforcement for the use of surveillance helps keep these programs hidden. Their ability to access high technology surveillance equipment without local oversight or approval is bound to be abused. Government grants and asset forfeitures fund the surveillance state. Incentives matter.”
Months ago, I spoke to a senior drafting attorney for the Illinois state Senate Democrats who received my legislative request. We talked several times and I presented my supporting information. Essentially, he wanted me to prove that the Illinois police were using warrantless information from the NSA and explain why that is wrong. This person has no problem with surveillance and says that the federal government is supreme, always. Effectively, the attorney served to roadblock my efforts saying that he couldn’t ask my legislator to introduce a bill unless I can prove what harm has been done. I take it that the attorney does not want to have a genuine discussion and I have decided to work around him. He asked me some questions I want to share, along with my answers.
The Illinois police will say they aren’t getting information from the NSA
“Police oppose any restrictions on surveillance, militarization or asset forfeiture. They always say the same things, if we reveal our surveillance capabilities we won’t be able to keep the public safe and officers will be endangered. We need to build the fences now to ensure law enforcement knows the lines not to cross. We know that through information sharing data gathered locally ends up in federal databases and vice versa.”
If the bill won’t change anything why introduce it?
“This question arises from the news that section 215 PATRIOT expires this year and Trump may not renew it. Never mind that the FREEDOM ACT replaced 215 in 2015 and that these are small parts of surveillance. Let’s pretend the NSA is not sharing information with Illinois police, federal funding and asset forfeiture is not supplying the resources for surveillance equipment, license plate readers, facial recognition, drones and stingrays are not being used by IL police or being shared by intelligence agencies with them. Even if that is true, it doesn’t mean they can’t start tomorrow. We need to take precautions for the future. I lock my door at night not because I think somebody is going to break in but in case somebody tries to.”
Why do I feel it is necessary to introduce the bill?
“Illinois passed SB2343 limiting the use of stingray cell phone data collection, SB2808 freedom from location surveillance act, SB1587 freedom from drone surveillance act. Why was it necessary to introduce the strongest bill limiting stingrays in the country if there was nothing wrong with surveillance? Why did a bipartisan group of legislators in Illinois work together to advance these privacy rights protections if nothing was wrong? The surveillance technology is ahead of the law, and we need to catch up. Right now, the status quo is that IL police can work with the federal government on whatever it wants. It’s important to create parameters so it knows which lines not to cross. In Kentucky, the Lexington Police Department were ordered to disclose an open records request on the use of cameras in a city park by the Attorney General after first denying the request. They sued Mike Maharrey rather than disclose their surveillance technologies. What do they have to hide?”
The 4th Amendment Protection Act prohibits state cooperation with federal surveillance, such that state and local law enforcement would not be able to participate in task forces on warrantless surveillance. It cuts off the use of warrantless surveillance in state court. In other words, we know the intelligence agencies are conducting warrantless surveillance, and we need a state policy in place to ensure our state officers are not violating our civil liberties. We know the federal government is conducting warrantless surveillance and the state shouldn’t have to help (nor is it required to under the Anti Commandeering Doctrine). The Electronic Data Privacy Act affects what state and local police can do by establishing warrant requirements to procure electronic data from service providers- cell phone metadata. We want to establish the same warrant requirements for persons, houses, papers and effects in the 4th Amendment to access electronic metadata. The privacy localism ordinance would require local police to have to get approval before getting surveillance gear.
Even if you are for surveillance, how far does it go? Why shouldn’t we weigh the benefits against the risks? In truth, to be free we must earn our liberty and fight to keep it. Governments are in the business of controlling people, it would be prudent for us to be in the business of fighting for our liberty, however we can.
Founder of IL Tenthers working on privacy rights protections in illinois
Advocating declarations not petitions. Its important to have allies, but more important to have actionable goals.
Place one foot in front of the other and never lose sight of your principles. Liberty is never given it is earned, please contact me with ideas or debate.http://iltenthers.com
The ATF ramped up enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun laws again last year according to the latest report released by the agency. This follows on the heels of increased enforcement actions during Trump’s first year in office.
Last year, the ATF investigated 35,839 firearms cases. That compares to 2017 when the agency initiated 35,302 firearms cases. That’s 537 more cases in 2018 – a 1.5 percent increase year-on-year.
This modest jump in firearms investigations comes after the ATF significantly increased the number of cases it pursued during President Donald Trump’s first year in office. In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, the ATF investigated 31,853 firearms cases. During Trump’s first year, the agency investigated 35,302. That was 3,349 more firearms cases than under Obama, a 10.81 percent increase. (See Footnote 1)
We also saw increases in other enforcement categories last year. There were 1,100 more cases recommended for prosecution and 493 more indictments. The only drop came in the number of convictions, which fell by 583 between 2017 and 2018. (See Footnote 2)
It appears the ATF tried harder in 2018 but wasn’t quite as effective as 2017.
Cases recommended for prosecution:
2018 – 10,691
2017 – 9,591
2016 – 8,805
2015 – 7,516
2014 – 7,577
Indicted cases
2018 – 7,630
2017 – 7,137
2016 – 6,357
2015 – 5,503
2014 – 5,310
Convicted cases
2018 – 5,485
2017 – 6,068
2016 – 5,517
2015 – 4,031
2014 – 4,482
The ATF also investigates arson, cases involving explosives, and alcohol and tobacco cases, but these make up a small percentage of the total. Under Trump, 92 percent of the cases investigated by the ATF have involved firearms. It was slightly less under Obama – 90 percent.
ATF enforcement of federal gun laws under Trump in year one increased at roughly the same trajectory as it did during the last three years of Obama’s second term. And while the increase wasn’t as dramatic, the Trump ATF increased enforcement again last year. In other words, the NRA-backed, GOP protector of the Second Amendment has been no better than the Democratic Party gun-grabber.
And Trump did something even Obama didn’t do. He instituted new federal gun control with the implementation of a “bump-stock” ban. He has also suggested he might impose a similar ban on firearm “silencers.”
Some might argue it would have been worse if Hillary Clinton had won. Perhaps. But if you support the Second Amendment, isn’t it a problem that the president who’s supposed to be the good guy continues to ratchet up enforcement of existing unconstitutional federal laws?
A true supporter of the right to keep and bear arms would do better.
And make no mistake; all federal gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Even among the strongest supporters of “gun rights,” most hold the view that the Second Amendment allows for “reasonable” federal regulation of firearms. But as originally understood, the Second Amendment includes no such exceptions. Constitutionally speaking, the federal government should not regulate the manufacture or private ownership of firearms.
At all.
There wasn’t an asterisk after “shall not be infringed.” No terms and conditions apply.
The bottom line is we can’t trust Republicans in Washington D.C. to uphold the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, it appears we have the same problem with Republicans in state legislatures as well.
When Barack Obama was president, Republicans in state legislatures introduced dozens of bills to nullify federal gun control by refusing to help with federal enforcement. After Trump won the White House, those efforts virtually stopped, even though not one single federal gun control law has been repealed.
During the last two years of the Obama administration, there were more than 50 bills directly pushing back against federal gun control introduced in 22 states. During the three state legislative sessions since the Trump administration took over, the number of bills dropped by more than half and the number of states nearly did too.
Not only that, the bills that were filed after Trump took office didn’t go anywhere. Governors signed five bills into law directly taking on federal gun control during the last two Obama years. Since then – zero.
If you didn’t know better, you’d think there weren’t any more threats the right to keep and bear arms. And yet the federal gun control acts of 1934, 1968 and 1986, along with other various laws violating the Second Amendment, remain on the books. And they’re still being enforced by the feds just as aggressively as they were when Obama was president.
By and large, Republicans use the Second Amendment as a campaign prop, but they do very little to actually stop the federal government from infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. They barely hold the line on new gun control and they don’t do anything to challenge the unconstitutional laws already on the books.
Footnote 1
All enforcement statistics were taken from the following ATF Fact Sheets
These numbers include all cases investigated by the ATF, including arson, explosives, and alcohol and tobacco. In 2017 and 2018, 92 percent of the ATF cases investigated involved firearms. In 2016, 90 percent of the cases were firearms-related.
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE
