Kansas One-Ups Texas by Adopting Concealed Carry without Classes, Fees, or a Surveillance Database

Many people perceive Texas as a bastion of rugged individualism and minimal government. Kansas not so much so. This month both states’ governments are moving toward implementing laws removing some restrictions on people carrying handguns. Yet only Kansas is doing so without requiring an individual to take a course, pay a fee, and put his personal information into a government database — perfect for facilitating surveillance — before being able to legally carry a handgun.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

VA Sending Veterans’ Mental Health Information to the FBI to Aid Gun Restrictions

A February 2012 memorandum of understanding between the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) lays out a process pursuant to which the VA has been regularly sending to the FBI mental health information about VA patients. So reports Patrick Howley at the Daily Caller on Tuesday. The mental health information transferred is intended to aid the FBI in adding individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) list of individuals restricted from owning or possessing guns.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Don’t Take Our Raisins! An Introduction to American Takings Law

With the United States Supreme Court hearing oral arguments Wednesday in Horne v. Department of Agriculture — a case concerning the application of the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment Takings Clause to raisin farmers, it seems an appropriate time to review some of the basics of American takings, or eminent domain, law.

The Horne case concerns a US raisins regulatory system created in 1940s and authorized by the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The Horne family, which grows grapes to produce raisins in California, owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for failing to hand over a portion of its crop each year to the Department of Agriculture (USDA)-overseen Raisin Administrative Committee. The Horne case decision will very like have ramifications for similar government regulatory systems related to various other American agricultural products. Depending on what the court decides, the case’s effects could be even broader.

James Bovard delved into the workings of the Raisin Administrative Committee and similar government-created marketing boards in his book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty. In a chapter appropriately titled “The Proliferation of Petty Dictatorships,” Bovard writes:

Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, USDA appoints farmers to government marketing boards that impose “marketing orders.” These boards restrict the sale of specific fruits and vegetables and can severely punish farmers who sell more of their crop than the boards permit. USDA has granted vast discretionary power to these marketing boards.

For a short introduction to concepts in American takings law, below are introductory comments I presented in 2013 to Universidad Francisco Marroquín professors to kick off a discussion regarding property rights and related issues. In this presentation at the university’s Guatemala City campus, I provide a quick overview of some key American takings law concepts. The presentation starts with consideration of the respect for property rights demonstrated in the US Constitution and concludes with discussion of the Dolan v. City of Tigard US Supreme Court decision, a decision that will likely play an important role in the court’s consideration of the Horne case.

Watch the presentation here:

Reprinted with permission from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Ron Paul: ‘NATO’s an Entangling Alliance We’d Be Better Off Without’

Speaking Monday on the Alan Colmes Show, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Chairman Ron Paul discussed the danger the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) poses to peace.

Paul explains his reasoning for shutting down NATO in response to a query from Colmes:

Colmes: You also believe NATO should be shut down at this point, correct?

Paul: Yeah, NATO for me is one of those entangling alliances that our Founders suggested we not get involved in. And, you know, Robert Taft was from the Old Right, which was more libertarian. Under the circumstances following World War II, he advised us not to get into NATO because it would invite more problems. And I think NATO is part of the reason we go into Libya, into Syria, now in Ukraine. And that’s all under NATO, It’s really not checking in with the American people whether it’s a good idea or not. I think that NATO’s an entangling alliance that we would be better off without.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Congressional Leaders Subverting Regular Procedure to Rush Through Fast Track Authority?

Is fast track being fast tracked? George Zornick at the Nation today suggests that the fast track authority for President Barack Obama to enter the United States into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive, wide-scope international agreement, may soon be rushed through Congress without adequate opportunity for Congress members and the American people to consider the matter. This circumvention of regular process in Congress and of public scrutiny should not be a surprise given that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) support the granting of this presidential power that Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), a Ron Paul Institute Advisory Board member, calls “absolutely a threat on our Constitution, on our sovereignty.”

Read here Zornick’s article detailing the subversion of regular process, including through holding a Senate committee hearing on the fast track bill before the bill is even available to read, in order to obtain quick Senate approval of the fast track authority.

Michael McAuliff provides in the Huffington Post additional details regarding Senate chicanery that appeared suddenly today concerning the fast track legislation.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Ending Vaccination Mandate Exemptions in Australia and the US

Under a new government policy announced by Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott, many Australian families are respectively facing the denial of thousands of dollars in welfare and tax benefits over a year’s time because their children have not received all the vaccinations listed on a government schedule. Meanwhile, in America, recently developed pro-mandate momentum threatens to end the most commonly used exemptions families claim to exempt children from mandatory vaccinations.

The new Australian policy cuts welfare and tax benefits if parents rely on a conscientious objection — often referred to as a philosophical objection in America — to deviate from the government’s vaccination schedule. While the conscientious objection option has been available to parents generally, the religious and medical exemptions that may still be asserted under the new policy are only available to a subset of families. Indeed, CBC News quotes the Australia social services minister predicting that very few families will be able to obtain an exemption under the new policy:

Social Services Minister Scott Morrison said he only expected a very small number of families to be exempted from the new policy.

Morrison said parents seeking a religious exception would need to be registered with their church or similar organization.

‘That’s the only basis upon which you can have a religious exception, and there are no mainstream religions that have such objections registered so this would apply to a very, very small proportion of people,’ he said.

‘It’d be lucky to be in the thousands, if that.’

The new Australia policy is an example of the danger of “do-good” government programs, such as welfare, morphing into a means for punishing and prohibiting the exercise of individual rights. John Odermatt passionately addresses this concern about the new Australia policy at the Lions of Liberty, stating:

The law blatantly targets the poorest in society and gives the rich a pass. I don’t see how any rational person could see this as anything else than an attack on the poor. The law is immoral because it uses coercion to influence behavior. Lawmakers and the people who support this travesty believe that individuals do not own their bodies. To endorse this law is to endorse outright tyranny.

Once the new policy has been implemented for a while to limit some families’ welfare and tax benefits, the concerns Odermatt expresses about the disparity of the program’s impact will likely be used by mandate advocates to argue that mandatory vaccinations be made the policy for everyone.

In America that would be termed “closing a loophole” or “expanding a successful pilot program.”

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Gov. Charlie Baker Applauds US Government Circumventing State Law to Execute Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Massachusetts does not have a death penalty. It has not had one for over thirty years — since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 1984 that the state’s death penalty violated the state constitution. Yet, we have the spectacle of Charlie Baker, the state’s Republican governor, proclaiming on Wednesday that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who a United States district court trial jury had that day found guilty of counts related to the Boston Marathon bombing, should be executed in contravention of Massachusetts law.

Executing Tsarnaev is an option only because the United States Department of Justice decided to prosecute him in the US court system. Had that decision to intervene not been made, prosecution would have surely been pursued in the Massachusetts state court system where Tsarnaev would face incarceration upon a guilty verdict, but not execution.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

How the War on Drugs Facilitated the Global War on Terrorism

When President George W. Bush announced the Global War on Terrorism in 2001 he did not have to start his war from scratch. Instead, the development of the United States government’s war on drugs that President Richard Nixon announced forty years earlier facilitated much of Bush’s new war. Two revelations this week provide new examples of the linkage between the two wars.

First, Brad Heath reported Wednesday at USA Today that from 1992 through 2013 the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) collected calling records of “virtually all” phone calls from America to a long list of countries. At the list’s peak size, bulk collection was undertaken on calls between the US and over 100 countries. Countries that the article notes were on the list at “one time or another” include most countries in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, as well as Canada, Mexico, Italy, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and other countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Heath describes the DEA program as “a model for the massive phone surveillance system the NSA launched to identify terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.”

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Lawrence Wilkerson: Iran ‘Win-Win’ Announced but Many Congressional Republicans Still Want War

Speaking Friday on MSNBC with host Ed Schultz, Lawrence Wilkerson described the announced framework for a nuclear agreement with Iran as setting up a “win-win” agreement for the parties with importance on the level of the opening of relations between China and the United States during the Nixon administration. But, Wilkerson, a Ron Paul Institute advisor who served as chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, cautions that many congressional Republicans are still seeking war on Iran. If the agreement unravels, Wilkerson predicts the region around Iran will become much more dangerous.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Reps. McGovern and Jones to Force House Vote on War in Iraq and Syria

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), in an interview Tuesday with the Daily Hampshire Gazette, revealed his plan to introduce, along with Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), a privileged resolution in the US House of Representatives that will require a prompt vote regarding the war on the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria. While Congress has voted to spend some funds on part of the war, there has been no floor vote in the House or Senate regarding authorization of the war since President Barack Obama started bombings in August. The resolution would be introduced after the April 13 return of House members from recess to Washington, DC.

Gazette writer Laurie Loisel reports on McGovern’s plans disclosed in the interview:

‘We ought to have a full debate and we ought to have a full discussion before we enter another war,’ he said. ‘The authorization to go to war in Afghanistan was in 2001 and in Iraq shortly thereafter. It’s time to get a new authorization.’

McGovern said he intends to work with U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina, to introduce a so-called ‘privileged resolution,’ a mechanism that allows members of congress to force an issue to the floor of the House in an expedited fashion, taking precedence over other matters. This, McGovern hopes, would force a discussion on the issue of U.S. military escalation in Iraq.

‘It would be saying that our rights collectively as a House are being denied,’ he said. ‘I want Congress to do its job.’

Loisel’s full article is definitely worth a read for McGovern’s insightful comments regarding the ongoing war. McGovern says he believes that the US, in the ISIS War, is “getting sucked deeper and deeper into a quagmire where there’s no end.” He also suggests that the US is fighting the war in a manner that indicates it has not learned the lesson from history, “that we’ve got to be careful about going after bad guys by putting bad guys in power to replace them.” Further, McGovern notes how the US military action in Iraq and Syria is actually benefiting ISIS and even desired by ISIS: “I think ISIS desperately wants us to get more involved because then they can turn this into a battle against the West.”

McGovern explains in the interview that the reason he and Jones need to introduce the privileged resolution is because Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has failed to schedule an ISIS War vote on the House floor. The Gazette article reports:

McGovern said when he tried to bring the matter out for discussion on the House floor last fall, congressional leadership, including House Speaker John Boehner, said the debate should wait until a new Congress convened in the new year.

Well, the new Congress convened nearly three months ago. What’s the holdup?

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.