Tenth Amendment Center: Pop Goes the Federal Reserve’s Auto Bubble

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

It looks like the Federal Reserve-induced auto bubble just popped. 

Yesterday, GM announced plant closures and layoffs due to sluggish sales. The big automaker said it plans to shutter five North American factories and slash around 14,000 jobs. 

The move follows on the heels of an announcement by Ford in October that it will cut an unspecified number of salaried employees. Morgan Stanley speculated Ford may pare more than 20,000 jobs from its global workforce.

According to the New York Times, slowing sales served as a prime driver in GM’s decision to slash its operations.

Part of the retrenchment is a response to a slowdown in new-car sales that has prompted automakers to slim their operations and shed jobs.”

Most people give the sitting president the credit or the blame for what’s going on in the economy. In this case, the current administration does shoulder some of the responsibility for the problems in the auto industry. The NYT also cited the impact of tariffs, particularly the increased cost of steel, as a factor in automaker’s tanking revenues.

But while policies coming out of Washington D.C.do have an impact, by-and-large, Federal Reserve monetary policy drives the economy. And we’re beginning to see the impact of nearly a decade of easy money and credit-driven malinvestment. We already see signs of this as housing bubble 2.0 leaks air.

As the Fed seeks to reverse course and “normalize” interest rates, the auto industry faces a significant problem — the same problem confronting the housing industry. As the New York Times noted, “Rising interest rates are also generating headwinds.”

Real estate and autos are the two sectors in the economy most sensitive to rising interest rates. Most Americans have to borrow money to buy a home or a vehicle. As the cost of borrowing rises, sales will naturally fall.

For nearly a decade, the Federal Reserve held interest rates artificially low. This helped blow up bubbles in both sectors. Easy money did exactly what was intended – it stimulated buying. Now that the Fed is attempting to reverse its policy and “normalize” interest rates, the air has started leaking out of these bubbles.

Signs of problems in the auto sector popped up last spring. At the time,  I wrote a report for SchiffGold noting that the air was leaking out of the subprime auto loan bubble. In April, auto loan delinquency rates had already hit levels not seen since 2010 — the height of the Great Recession.  I wrote:

The common denominator here: rising interest rates. Easy money pumped up both the housing and auto loan bubble. When the Fed takes away the punchbowl, bubbles burst … In another bad sign for the auto market, subprime borrowers have gone missing from auto showrooms. According to Bloomberg, rising interest rates and rapidly increasing vehicle prices are squeezing consumers with shaky credit and tight budgets out of the market. Even the most creditworthy consumers aren’t showing up to dealerships”

It should come as no shock that seven months later, we’re seeing big auto manufacturers shuttering factories and laying off workers.

The housing and auto industries serve as the proverbial canaries in the coal mine for economies built on credit. The recent downturn in these sectors may well foreshadow an impending recession. We’re seeing rumblings in the stock markets as well. Peter Schiff has been saying we’ve already entered into a bear market.  While most of the mainstream pundits continue to view what’s going on as a healthy correction. Schiff said there is nothing healthy about what’s going on.

This is a bubble deflating. This is exactly how it started in 2008, only this is a bigger bubble and it’s going to produce a bigger crisis.”

The Federal Reserve wields a tremendous amount of power. It not only drives the economy, it also backstops all of the unconstitutional federal spending. Without the Fed buying up Treasury bonds using money created out of thin air, the federal government would find it virtually impossible to fund all of its programs and wars.

This is why it’s imperative to support state efforts to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money. You can read more about that HERE.

Mike Maharrey
November 27, 2018 at 01:37PM

Tenth Amendment Center: New Book Shatters Our Misplaced Faith in the Federal Vaccine Narrative

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

Vaccine mandates generally have their basis in federal recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Most Americans believe that the CDC’s guidelines are carefully crafted, based upon unbiased and thorough scientific research, and that they will keep us safe. This narrative isn’t necessarily true.

Because of their misplaced faith in this federal agency, most people assume there is no need to push back against federal narratives on vaccines or against anticipated federal vaccine mandates. In his important new book, Vaccines – A Reappraisal, Richard Moskowitz, M.D., provides information which should thoroughly refute these assumptions.

Dr. Moskowitz is a family physician who received his BA from Harvard, Phi Beta Kappa, his M.D. from New York University, and a U.S. Steel Fellowship in philosophy at the University of Colorado. He has been in private practice since 1967 and, with over fifty years of experience, he is intimately familiar with the potential impact of vaccines upon patients. In his easily digestible book, he examines vaccines and current policy regarding them and provides extensive scientific information which should cast doubt upon the assumptions that they are safe, necessary and effective.

Dr. Moskowitz explains that, in 1986, as a result of Congress’ passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, liability was removed from vaccine manufacturers for harm caused by vaccines. As he explains, a special process known as the “Vaccine Court” was established, with rules uniquely applicable to the vaccine industry, making it extremely difficult for claimants to prevail and receive an award of damages. Any damages awarded are paid by the public, through tax dollars. Dr. Moskowitz also explains that the number of vaccines recommended by the vaccine industry, and the CDC, has continued to escalate following the removal of liability from manufacturers. In light of being shielded from liability, something not afforded to other industries, there is simply no downside to the vaccine industry pressing for more vaccinations

If you find the lack of vaccine manufacturer liability surprising, you may be even more surprised by Dr. Moskowitz’s discussion concerning vaccine safety testing. He explains that vaccine safety trials are generally conducted without something we have all come to expect — a control group of untreated individuals for comparison.

Generally, researchers do not use unvaccinated “controls” receiving inert placebos in vaccine testing. Dr. Moskowitz provides a multitude of examples of vaccine safety trails for specific vaccines in which one set of subjects received the vaccine and the control set received other vaccines. In other examples, the control set received aluminum, a known neurotoxin used as an adjuvant in vaccines. Dr. Moskowitz also highlights the extremely brief observation periods – often 14 days or less – for monitoring adverse effects in vaccine trials. Additionally, he discusses the discretion those conducting the testing have in deciding which adverse conditions experienced by the subjects are deemed to be vaccine-related and included in the reporting, resulting in many adverse effects not being included in the study results.

Dr. Moskowitz also provides ample evidence of harm and potential harm caused by vaccines. He points to epidemiological research which indicates that vaccines may interfere with the normal development of a healthy immune system. As he explains, contracting and recovering from many of the acute childhood illnesses currently being vaccinated for matures the immune system, priming it to respond to future infections and potentially providing significant protection against chronic diseases later in life, such as certain autoimmune diseases and cancers. He also reminds us that many of the diseases which have been added to the CDC vaccine schedule are rarely a serious health risk in the developed world, such as chickenpox and rotavirus.

The book also discusses little-known information concerning the role that vaccines can play in causing infectious disease outbreaks. Dr. Moskowitz discusses the viral and bacterial shedding that can occur after receiving certain types of vaccines, such as those with attenuated live viruses. This shedding causes potential exposure to others. The book also highlights the role of vaccines in promoting and accelerating the evolution of new strains of bacteria and viruses, similar to the increase in resistant forms of bacteria from the overuse of antibiotics. As the strains being vaccinated against are diminished, others grow stronger or new ones emerge. Dr. Moskowitz cites to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine as an example of this, discussing the increase in pertussis and pertussis-like infections in recent years, with strains the vaccine is not effective against growing stronger.

Dr. Moskowitz provides information on the effectiveness levels of vaccines that will surprise many.

Many vaccines have demonstrated low levels of effectiveness. Dr. Moskowitz provides research information on the flu vaccine as an example. As another example, he discusses outbreaks of measles among those already vaccinated for it. He also provides historical information showing that many of the common beliefs about the role vaccines have played in eradicating disease is mere mythology. For example, he discusses the fact that the rate of “paralytic polio” decreased the year that Salk’s injectable polio vaccine was introduced, in part, because the CDC redefined the diagnosis criteria for the condition the same year, significantly narrowing it to apply to only the most severe cases. Once the new diagnostic criteria were issued, many of the cases which would have previously been included in the polio statistics were no longer included. He also discusses the fact that many of the most serious diseases currently being vaccinated against were already in steep decline prior to vaccines being administered for them.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of the book is Dr. Moskowitz’ painstaking review of specific vaccines, detailing their types and ingredients and presenting scientific evidence of harm and potential harm caused by them. This includes information about brain injury, seizure disorders, autoimmune disorders and many other catastrophic, life-altering health consequences. His work clearly dispels the notion that vaccines are almost entirely beneficial with only an infinitesimal risk. Vaccines – A Reappraisal is a tremendous work and should be read by Americans, who have already faced mandatory vaccine legislation in many states and will likely face proposed federal mandates in the near future.

Davis Taylor
November 27, 2018 at 01:28PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Permission not Required: “Constitutional Carry” Bill Prefiled in Texas

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

AUSTIN, Texas (Nov. 26, 2018) – A “Constitutional Carry” bill prefiled for the 2019 legislative session would make it legal for Texans to carry a concealed firearm without a license, and foster an environment hostile to federal gun control.

Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford) prefiled House Bill 357 (HB357) on Nov. 14. If passed into law, it would end Texas’concealed carry licensing requirements and remove the need for government permission to carry a concealed firearm in the state. The new law reads in part:

Except as otherwise provided by this chapter or other law, a person 21 years of age or older who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Section 46.04 or other law is not prohibited from carrying:
(1) a concealed handgun; or
(2) a partially or wholly visible handgun in a holster.

The legislation also provides legal protection from unreasonable police interference for those carrying a concealed weapon.

“A peace officer may not disarm or detain a person … solely because the person is carrying a handgun.”

Under HB357, Texas residents would still be able to obtain a license so they can carry in states that have concealed-carry reciprocity with the Lone Star State.

While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway. The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”

Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.

State actions such as passing HB357 would lower barriers for those wanting to the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.

“Constitutional carry is a big step toward being able to exercise a natural right that has been infringed at all levels for far too long,” ShallNot.org campaign lead Scott Landreth said.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB357 will be officially introduced when the 2019 regular session begins on Jan. 8. It will receive a committee assignment at that time.

Mike Maharrey
November 26, 2018 at 03:42PM

Tenth Amendment Center: The Stealth Tax Increase Buried in Your Trump Tax Cut

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

Your Trump tax cut isn’t going to be quite as big as you might have thought.

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, a new inflation measurement included in the GOP plan and recently implemented by the IRS will cut into your tax cut savings in 2019.

Ron Paul warned you about this during the debate over the tax cuts. 

The WSJ cited Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation estimates projecting that a new inflation measure included in the GOP plan will result in a slower rise in the annual standard deduction than would have occurred under the old tax system. According to the Tax Foundation, also cited in the WSJ article, a married couple’s standard deduction in 2019 will come in about $150 lower than it would have been under the old inflation-adjustment model.

While this won’t significantly raise your tax bill this year, over time, the inflation calculation will erode away the benefit of the tax cuts. According to the Tax Foundation, about 9 percent of taxpayers will actually end up paying more by 2025 than they would have under the old tax scheme. Nearly every taxpayer will see a decrease in tax savings from the cuts over time.

In simple terms, the new inflation adjuster allows Congress to raise your taxes every year without having to pass any kind of tax increase. It’s a stealthy tax increase most people won’t notice.

“It is a broad change to the definition of what is taxable and the change is very subtle,” Kyle Pomerleau, director of the Tax Foundation’s Center for Quantitative Analysis, told the WSJ. “It will take years before it really kicks in and tax bills are noticeably different. However, even then it will be hard to tell because everyone’s economic situation will have changed.”

During the debate over the Republican tax plan, Ron Paul warned that it was going to increase “the most insidious of all taxes” — the inflation tax. The tax reform adopted what is known as the chained consumer price index (chained CPI) to determine future adjustments of tax brackets. Ron explained it this way:

Chained CPI is a way of measuring CPI that understates inflation’s effects on our standard of living. It does this by assuming inflation has not reduced Americans’ standard of living if, for example, people can buy hamburgers when they can no longer afford steak. This so-called full substitution ignores the fact that if individuals viewed hamburgers as a full substitute for steak they would have bought hamburgers before Fed-created inflation made steak unaffordable.

“Chained CPI increases the inflation tax. The inflation tax may be the worst of all taxes because it is hidden and regressive. The inflation tax is not even a tax on real wages. Instead, it is a tax on the illusionary gains in income caused by inflation. The use of chained CPI to adjust tax brackets pushes individuals into higher tax brackets over time.”

Using chained CPI allows politicians to effectively increase taxes without adjusting rates. In other words, taxes go up while politicians are shielded from having to vote on a tax increase. Instead, the Federal Reserve does the dirty work. Fed monetary policy drives up inflation – on purpose. The central bank’s stated goal is to boost inflation at a target of 2 percent per year. That doesn’t sound like much, but when you multiply that over time, it represents a significant devaluation of your money.

And eventually, you find yourself in a higher tax bracket even though your purchasing power hasn’t risen one iota. In fact, it’s fallen.

This article was originally published at SchiffGold.

Mike Maharrey
November 26, 2018 at 03:38PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Federal Court Got Female Genital Mutilation Case Right

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

Despite the procedure’s moral repugnance and our emotional reaction to it, a federal court got a female genital mutilation case right when it struck down a federal law banning the practice. The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to pass such a law.

In what has been criticized as a “major blow to the government,” U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down a federal law prohibiting female genital mutilation (FGM). When I first read the headlines, my initial thought was that he did so on grounds of “religious freedom.” I was pleasantly surprised to see that he based his opinion on the correct reasoning that Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to pass such a law in the first place.

Two Michigan doctors and six others were charged last year when they arranged to have the procedure performed on nine girls. Four were brought to Michigan from Illinois and Minnesota. According to the New York Times, the families involved belong to the Shiite Muslim sect known as Dawoodi Bohra, originally from western India. The resulting prosecution is the first time the procedure has been challenged in a criminal court of law in the United States. The court of public opinion issued a verdict of “guilty,” regardless of the lack of constitutional authority for the federal court system to even hear the case.

When it comes to criminal acts, the states delegated the general government the authority to punish three crimes: piracy on the high seas, counterfeiting and treason. Those powers not delegated to the general government were reserved to the states. The Tenth Amendment reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

What surprised me was the negative reaction to this correct ruling by so many folks who, on a normal day, have shown themselves to be staunch defenders of limited government and state sovereignty. I’m not saying that FGM is anything but a barbaric and repugnant procedure, nor am I ignoring the intent behind the procedure, which is to keep females from enjoying in sex, or, according to a caller when I was discussing this issue on a radio show, to “keep women from running around acting like animals.”

I am writing about this issue because it is a perfect example of the importance of objectivity and consistency when discussing such issues and whether or not it is constitutional for the federal judiciary to address them. Again, according to the Constitution as ratified, this matter, regardless of how it makes us feel, is properly left to the states. And the states have the complete ability to deal with the situation as they see fit within their jurisdictions.

By taking this issue to the federal judiciary, and ultimately the United States Supreme Court, we run the risk of taking away the states’ lawful authority to criminalize it in the long-run. Imagine a SCOTUS decision striking down not only federal but all state laws criminalizing female genital mutilation as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment “right” to practice one’s religion without fear of government reprisal. This is an entirely plausible outcome. The result would be a nationwide ban on criminalizing FGM.

Think that’s impossible? States are already banned from criminalizing human abortion, regardless of what their citizens think; the matter has been co-opted by politically-connected lawyers in black robes.

By turning to the federal judiciary to deal with issues that have not been delegated to it, states and their citizens are surrendering the very sovereignty the Constitution’s framers and ratifiers did their best to ensure would endure. The Constitution was created to prevent a top-down tyrannical system of government from subverting the rights of the sovereign and independent states; in fact, they went to war to escape that very system of government. Allowing nine lawyers to determine social policies intended to be decided by the states is in direct contravention to our founding principles. Ultimately, this is a loss of liberty even when the outcome appears to be positive. If we wish to keep these founding principles of limited federal power, consistent thought must never be trumped by emotionalism. To do so will be to surrender our revolutionary legacy.

Suzanne Sherman
November 26, 2018 at 03:31PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Surveillance by “Stingray” Devices and What to do About it: Good Morning Liberty 11-26-18

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

Cell-site simulators, also known as Stingrays or IMSI catchers, are devices that masquerade as legitimate cell-phone towers, tricking phones within a certain radius into connecting to the device rather than a tower. On today’s Good Morning Liberty, Michael Boldin (follow) discusses these devices and steps to push back against their use in warrantless surveillance.

PODCAST VERSION

Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | RSS

ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES
Watch on Bitchute

Watch on Brighteon

Watch on Keyport.tv

SHOW LINKS:
Cell-Site Simulators/IMSI Catchers EFF Guide

Harris Corp Letter

Texas Bills Would Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying, Help Hinder Federal Surveillance

State of the Nullification Movement Report pages 36-38

Quote of the Day

FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:

Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest
Brave: Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter
Twitter: http://twitter.com/tenthamendment
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/
Minds: https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter

Michael Boldin
November 26, 2018 at 12:44PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Fact: Rights are not Gifts from Government.

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

This blog is featured in the latest Tenther newsletter, which everyone in the nullification movement gets daily or weekly. Be one of them – and Become a member here to support the TAC.

A lot of people misunderstand the nature of their rights. The source.

To the Founders, an understanding of NATURAL RIGHTS was essential. These rights pre-exist any government or document or decree.

They knew that when the people view and understand their rights as a birthright rather than a gift from government, they’re much more likely to ignore government attempts to restrict or end them.

Thomas Jefferson put it this way:

“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

In other words, we the people need to learn how to exercise our rights whether the government wants us to or not.

At the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Theophilus Parsons reinforced this view:

“No power was given to Congress to infringe on any one of the natural rights of the people by this Constitution, and, should they attempt it without constitutional authority, the act would be a nullity, and could not be enforced.”

Today, unfortunately, most Americans see it the other way around. They believe that rights only exist when government gives them a permission slip. Or, when the Supreme Court says they exist…until the judges change their mind.

Their view is totally wrong.

That’s why we believe it’s so important to share the truth with as many people as possible. Short videos like the one below help us share this important message, with your help spreading the word, of course!

Watch on Brighteon | Watch on Bitchute

We work to educate people on the proper role of government under the Constitution, and activate them to reject, resist and nullify all unconstitutional acts.

Nothing helps us get this work done more than the support of our members.

Our memberships start as little as 2 bucks a month. Seriously – we make 2 bucks go a long way.

**Here’s a link for you to sign up, you know what to do!
https://shop.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

Thank you for reading and for your support!

Michael Boldin
November 24, 2018 at 06:38PM

The Threat of Free Thought in a Post Constitutional Society

Free thought extinguished in the classroom, public forum, and courtrooms. Look at these examples and learn how to take a stand. Mercy Otis Warren gives us a very sobering warning for the day. Jordan Page Ballad: http://bit.ly/JordanPageBallad Get your NEW Forgotten Founder Tshirts at : Liberty First Gear Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE! so you […]

The post The Threat of Free Thought in a Post Constitutional Society appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.

Read the full article at krisannehall.com November 27, 2018 at 12:10PM

Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789

    George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 as published on the Mount Vernon Website:       Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 – President George Washington: By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation. Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his […]

The post Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.

Read the full article at krisannehall.com November 26, 2018 at 03:00PM

Novak: Look Seriously at How the Media Acts As an Enemy of the People

I hope you enjoy this guest article by our friend and professional journalist, Jake Novak.  I wanted #LibertyFirst to have the perspective of a journalist on the issue of “fake news” and I wanted to support a good guy standing up against the deception and misinformation of his industry.  I wish other journalists and other […]

The post Novak: Look Seriously at How the Media Acts As an Enemy of the People appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.

Read the full article at krisannehall.com November 26, 2018 at 02:29PM

Do YOU Want To Make America Liberty Again?

Do YOU want to be part of the solution instead of just complaining about the problems? I know this isn’t a bash Hillary – love Trump show, but it ought to be the most important thing you listen to this week. We need to stop expecting the politicians to fix our problems… WE must BE […]

The post Do YOU Want To Make America Liberty Again? appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.

Read the full article at krisannehall.com November 26, 2018 at 02:13PM

Tenth Amendment Center: 7 Lies They Want You to Believe About the Constitution and the Founders

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

This blog is featured in the latest Tenther newsletter, which everyone in the nullification movement gets daily or weekly. Be one of them – and Become a member here to support the TAC.

7 lies. I came up with these in just a few minutes. So that means there are a LOT more.

But these are some that came to mind first:

(1) The “necessary and proper” clause means the feds can do just about anything

(2) Nullification is code word for “supporting slavery.”

(3) The “general Welfare” clause means Congress can pass whatever it wants to supposedly “help” people around the country.

(4) The government can conduct surveillance on anyone as long as they are doing so to protect “national security.”

(5) The “interstate commerce clause” empowers the feds to regulate or even prohibit things that are non-commercial activity and never cross state lines.

(6) James Madison opposed nullification, in every situation.

(7) A President is authorized to get involved in a foreign war without authorization from Congress, as long as it’s for no more than 60 days.

I’m pretty sure that you can probably give a strong answer to most of these, if not all of them.

And if you can, I’m sure you know someone else who can’t.

Either way, we’ve published over TEN THOUSAND articles, blogs, news reports, podcasts and videos to smash these kinds of lies to bits.

That’s a ton of information that we’ve shared over the last 12+ years. We’re reaching new people with the TRUTH every single day.

We work to educate people on the proper role of government under the Constitution, and activate them to reject, resist and nullify all unconstitutional acts.

Nothing helps us get this work done more than the support of our members.

Our memberships start as little as 2 bucks a month. Seriously – we make 2 bucks go a long way.

**Here’s a link for you to sign up, you know what to do!
https://shop.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

We’ve got a LOT of work yet to do, but with your help, we can build a strong foundation for the Constitution and Liberty.

THANK YOU!
-Michael Boldin, TAC
213.935.0553

P.S. If you prefer a one-time donation, that helps a lot too – you can do that at this link. You can mail us a check at:

Tenth Amendment Center
PO Box 13458
Los Angeles, CA 90013

Michael Boldin
November 23, 2018 at 11:48AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Texas Bills Would Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying, Help Hinder Federal Surveillance

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

AUSTIN, Texas (Nov. 23, 2018) – Two bills prefiled in the Texas House for the 2019 legislative session would ban warrantless location tracking and the use of stingray devices to sweep up electronic communications in most situations. The proposed laws would not only protect privacy in Texas, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Rep. Cesar Blanco (D-El Paso) prefiled House Bill 352 (HB352) on Nov. 15. The legislation would help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.

HB353 would require police to get a search warrant before deploying a stingray with only a few exceptions. Under the proposed law, police could use a cell site simulator without a warrant if the owner or possessor reports the target device stolen, or if there exists an immediate life-threatening situation. In that case, police would have to apply for a warrant “as soon as practicable.” If the judge finds no life-threatening situation existed, any information obtained by the cell site simulator would be inadmissible in court.

HB352 also features a provision that would prohibit state and local police from obtaining or using cell site information to assist with, participate in, provide material support or resources for, or enable or facilitate an investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency of the federal government or of another state without a warrant in most cases. This would also bar local police from using cell site simulator information collected by federal agencies in their investigations without a warrant, and block the sharing of warrantless data between state and federal agencies.

Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement agencies would be required to implement a written policy for deleting any data collected from devices not specified in the warrant.

Blanco also prefiled House Bill 353 (HB353) at the same time. Under this proposed law, police would have to get a warrant before obtaining location data from a cell phone provider.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.

Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.

“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.

“Yes,” Cabreja said.

As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”

The experience of a Pinellas County, Florida, man further highlights the shroud of secrecy around the use of stingray devices, along with the potential for abuse of power inherent in America’s law enforcement community.

The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.

Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

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.

The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access. The provision in HB352 barring police from “obtaining” warrantless stingray data would also prevent local police from tapping into warrantless information gathered by federal agencies like the FBI and NSA.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of HB352 and 353 would strike a major blow to the surveillance state and would be a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB352 and HB353 will be officially introduced when the 2019 regular session begins on Jan. 8. It will receive a committee assignment at that time.

Mike Maharrey
November 23, 2018 at 06:40AM

The Establishing of American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism is real. It is not arrogance, it is a fact rooted in our history and those who sacrificed to make Liberty a reality in America. It is not their fault we do not live up to their expectations and the potential they established for us. Join us as we give Thanks to those […]

The post The Establishing of American Exceptionalism appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.

Read the full article at krisannehall.com November 24, 2018 at 09:30AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Stop Asking Permission Where None Is Required

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

I recently appeared on the Robert Scott Bell Show to talk about nullification. We start with state nullification and work our way all the way to individual nullification.

Robert and I kick off the interview talking about some of the recent articles about nullification that came out in the mainstream media after it was revealed Acting Attorney General  Matthew Whitaker supports *gasp* nullification. We get into some of the history, including proving once again the principle has nothing to do with racism by discussing nullification of the fugitive slave laws by northern abolitionists. We also get into some specific nullification issues, including marijuana, raw milk and more generally, food freedom. At the end of the show, we talk a little about the importance of being nullifiers in our own lives.

Mike Maharrey
November 21, 2018 at 04:20PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Warning: These People have a Dangerous Approach to the Constitution

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

This blog is featured in the latest Tenther newsletter, which everyone in the nullification movement gets daily or weekly. Be one of them – and Become a member here to support the TAC.

Here’s something we hear all the time from liberals/Democrats, “I support what you guys do on privacy (or hemp farming, for example), the states should block the feds on this. But, you really need to drop the gun nut approach on the 2nd Amendment.”

Jeff in Seattle said it like this, “I hate to admit it, but I’m with Trump on banning bump stocks”

Tom in California told me, “The 2nd AM. isn’t a SUICIDE PACT GUYS! Reasonable restrictions are a life or death matter!”

In short, they support the Constitution as long as it fits their own political goals.

But they’re not alone.

On the right, it goes the other direction. For example, Stephen in Maryland – a self-described federal “policeman” told us this one:

“I believe in the Constitution and States rights but this federal law banning cannabis is very much right and correct.”

It’s sad how common this view really is.  We hear so often from people on the left they support us on the constitution, “except for guns.” And on the right, they support us on the constitution, “except for cannabis.”

What they’re really telling us is, “I only like the Constitution when it favors things I support.”

That’s a dangerous view. If you attack one part of the Constitution, you attack it all. Here, we stand for the Constitution on EVERY issue.

As James Madison put it in Federalist #45, “The powers delegated … to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”

In today’s featured article, Mike Maharrey digs even further on this essential pillar of the Constitution and covers the views of a little-known founder on state vs federal power.

READ IT HERE:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/federalpower/

With an unconstitutional government-run school system dominating education in this country for so many decades, we’ve got a really long uphill battle ahead of us. But this kind of constitutional education is something we do every day.

TAC memberships will help us do more – much more – in the years to come. As little as 2 bucks a month makes a difference. Would you please join us today?

Here’s the link, you know what to do:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

If you prefer a one-time donation, that helps a lot too – you can do that at this link.

Thank you for reading, we are extremely grateful for your support!

The Constitution. Every issue, every time.
No exceptions, no excuses.

Michael Boldin
November 21, 2018 at 01:46PM