AR-15 Green Tip Ammunition Now Banned in New ATF Regs

3/6/2015 – On Friday February 13 at 4:00 pm, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms released a proposal to ban commonly used M855 “green tip” AR-15 ammunition under the guise of law enforcement safety. The same day the proposal was released, on a Friday of a three day holiday weekend, ATF opened up a shortened 30-day period for the public to submit comments about the new regulation.

But it turns out, ATF has been working on a ban of AR-15 “green-tip” ammunition for quite some time and has already issued the ban in its new, 2014 Regulation Guide. For reference, ATF Regulation Guides come out approximately every ten years.

When you take a look at the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide, you’ll see an exemption for AR-15 “green-tip” ammunition, which means it exempted from the definition of “armor piercing” and therefore is legal on the federal level.

When you look at the last page of the new, most recent ATF 2014 Regulation Guide, which was published in January, there is no longer an exemption for AR-15 “green-tip” ammunition….

Katie Pavlich – Townhall.com –

FCC & Net Neutrality: Net Censorship Chinese Style

Now that the split vote on the FCC commission has decided to accept their secret plan to turn the internet into a public utility, prepare for all the same rubber stamp decisions that your state run Public Service Commission’s operate in the utility sector. As anyone who ever interacted with PSC type regulators can attest, the corporatist legal teams that shepherd their clients’ monopolist proposals, almost invariably get their way. So much for a crony system, that seldom protects the interests of the rate payer.

When it comes to government regulation of the internet, the stake dramatically escalates far beyond simply the cost of service. The essay, When Net Neutrality Becomes Programmed Censorship argues the case that inevitably the web will eventually be assimilated into a Chinese styled content restrictive enforcement system.

The video NET NEUTRALITY: THIS IS WHAT CHINESE STYLE NET CENSORSHIP LOOKS LIKE complements the fate in store for surfers who tackle taboo waves going in directions that conflict with the mega corporatism and globalist governmental technocrats. For the business community who poopoos concern about free speech, gate keeping and suppression of political dissent, the Zacks article FCC Adopts Net Neutrality with Title II, Hard Time for ISPs makes several valid points against this federal takeover. “The major argument, however, stands that the ISPs have to expend several billion dollars to install and upgrade a high-speed mobile/fixed broadband network. Disallowing discriminatory pricing policy will significantly reduce their revenues and margins, which will in turn result in lower investments in the high-speed broadband sector. Consequently, broadband equipment service providers will suffer (due to lesser investment by ISPs) and lots of jobs will be eliminated from this sector. Telecom behemoths Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ – Analyst Report) and AT&T Inc. (T – Analyst Report) have decided to challenge the new regulation in court. In Jan 2014, Verizon won a federal court case against the FCC’s previous set of net neutrality rules. Major cable multi-service operators, namely Comcast Corp. (CMCSA – Analyst Report), Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC – Analyst Report) and Charter Communications Inc. (CHTR – Analyst Report) also strongly opposed the FCC’s decision and may file legal suits. This group made clear that though they have no objection to the open Internet concept, enforcement of stricter regulations by the government is not acceptable.” For the millions of addicted internet users who confine their online habits to Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and Twitter, the promise of higher speed connection is so attractive that sacrificing their independence and free speech rights becomes immaterial to their narrow minds. Look; any fundamental imposition of government regulation on the free flow of information, prohibits the very existence of the miracle that connects the world instantaneously that took off some twenty years ago. With the introduction of MS Windows 95, the PC community, which included most business computers at the time, experienced a true productivity revolution. Reflecting on the strides achieved from worldwide connectability, the essential functions of the internet is not presently broken. So what is the basic reason to accept Federal management of the most defused and individual liberating tool that has ever been invented? The answer according to Zacks is: “Telecommunications is a necessary utility.” Well is the internet really a utility or is it a DAPRA project that Al Gore invented? Proponents of more government regulation want the people to accept that the public will benefit under FCC altruistic guidance, which will be superior to the commutative collection of billions of content contributors. Content is king and the mere threat of consenting to a government filter on political speech is the true risk that is being imposed upon internet users, who overwhelming oppose censorship. The Electronic Freedom Foundation urges that “Internet blacklist legislation—known as PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House—invites Internet security risks, threatens online speech, and hampers Internet innovation”, should be opposed. Note that such enactments are proposed as actual laws, while the FCC decision to inflict utility status upon the interconnection system is both arbitrary and capricious in the legal jargon of future court litigation, which is sure to come. Utility designation is not just the preverbal slippery slope; it is the predictable introduction of specious authority to mirror the Chinese model for future command and control over the internet….

By Sartre – Breaking All The Rules –

FCC Vote: Regulate Internet as Public Utility

The US Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to regulate the Internet as a public utility. Proponents applaud the move, arguing that it will create a more open web, while opponents say the decision could result in over regulation.

Passing with a vote of 3-2, the FCC has approved net neutrality. The plan will prohibit service providers from prioritizing certain sites in exchange for payments, blocking content access, and from purposefully adjusting Internet speed.

Internet providers, for instance, would not be allowed to provide preferential treatment to websites which pay a fee. Under net neutrality, subscribers would have the same degree of access to a site like Amazon as it would to a smaller, mom-and-pop retailer. The idea is that all web traffic should be treated equal.

“If we’re going to open and free Internet, there has to be some counterweight to the power of the big Internet service providers,” former FCC chairman Michael Copps told Sputnik. “You can’t have both monopoly power and no regulation – that’s just an invitation to total monopoly and total undermining of the public interest so that this most powerful technology in all of history, the internet, becomes not the province of all of us for the common good, but it becomes the playground of the favored few.”

According to former US Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Copps, net neutrality rules set to be approved by the FCC on Thursday morning protect the open Internet by taming the power of big telecommunications companies….

The vote went through despite requests for delay until the 332-page proposal could be made public and reviewed by the American people. A poll conducted by Hart Research Associates found that 79% of Americans preferred to know the precise wording of the poll before the FCC voted.

Two FCC commissioners, Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly, had requested such a delay.

“President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab, Pai said in a statement earlier this month. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes…The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds.”

FCC Chairman Wheeler had previously proposed a kind of middle ground legislation, which would have allowed limited pay-for-priority deals. This proposal was met with a wave of outrage from net neutrality advocates. Over 4 million people wrote or called in to the FCC, arguing against any kind of preferential web “fast lanes.”

President Obama also….

From Sputnik News –

Alaska Legalizes Marijuana

Alaska becomes third state with legal marijuana today.

Several provisions of Measure 2, Alaska’s marijuana legalization initiative, take effect today, allowing possession, noncommercial transfers, and home cultivation. Thanks to a 1975 Alaska Supreme Court ruling, it was already legal to possess small amounts of marijuana in the privacy of one’s home. Measure 2 expands that right to other settings (for up to an ounce) while explicitly protecting the right to grow your own pot (up to six plants, three of them flowering), and share it with others (up to an ounce at a time, “without remuneration”).

By Jacob Sullum – Reason.com –

Speaking Freely About Politics Can Cost You Your Job

HERE’S a quiz for the coming campaign season. Which one of these actions could get you disciplined or fired?

A) Hanging political cartoons on your office door.

B) Sending emails to your colleagues soliciting support for a controversial cause.

C) Writing a blog at home stating your opinions about a local campaign and posting it on Facebook.

D) All of the above.

The answer is D. Now, that’s not an absolute. It depends on whether you are a private or public employee. It also depends on where you live.

But if you’re a nonunion private employee, your boss has great latitude to control your political actions. As Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, put it, “You don’t have the right to speak freely in the workplace.” Or even outside it.

It’s an issue that bubbles up around every major election, said Paula Brantner, executive director of Workplace Fairness, an informational site for employees. But the combination of intense political polarization, the Internet’s power to spread and magnify seemingly innocuous or private statements and technology’s growing ability to blur the line between workplace and home, make it a conundrum for employers and employees.

So it’s crucial that workers and their bosses understand their rights and responsibilities.

Here are the two most important points:

For private employees, who account for about 85 percent of the work force, the First Amendment’s guarantee offers no protection from being fired for something you’ve said, either in the workplace or outside of it, as on social media. That’s because the amendment addresses actions by the government to impede free speech, not by the private sector.

And while federal laws bar employers from firing workers because of such variables as their race, religion and gender, there is no such protection for political affiliation or activity.

A handful of states and localities address this issue, among them New York, California, Colorado, North Dakota and the District of Columbia. The broadest-based laws, such as those in California and New York, make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of an employees’ political activity or beliefs in or out of work, Ms. Brantner said, unless such activity interferes with the functioning of the business….

By Alina Tugend – The New York Times –

You’ll Need A $300 License To Start A Blog in Philadelphia!

The American Dream represents hard work and success of free individuals pursuing their own economic gains. It is often expressed in “rags to riches” stories of impoverished citizens obtaining great feats through their free will. Today, people question whether that dream still exists. Politicians want to impose more regulations to “restore the American Dream”. In reality, we need less regulation and more economic freedom. People can lift themselves from poverty, but it has to be easier to start lifting.

Licensing regulations reduce economic freedom by creating barriers to market entry. For example, in my current home of Philadelphia, bloggers are required to obtain a $300 permit from the city. Blogging is by no means a lucrative business. In fact, an estimated 80% of bloggers will never make more than $100 from their work. A city official ironically says Philadelphia “loves the self-employed”. These permit-happy bureaucrats fail to grasp basic economics: occupational licensing can be detrimental to the economy.

Today, nearly 500 different occupations require some form of licensing. Economically speaking, this translates in to a reduction and constraint on supply. From hair braiding to lemonade stands, government has increasingly targeted different occupations for licensing. Licenses are now required by 30% of occupations in the workforce, which is up from 5% in the 1950s. This does not mean that more occupations require exceptional training. It does indicate that more occupations are prohibited without such a license….

By Grant Phillips – The Libertarian Republic –

Feds considering internet regulation and taxes

The control freaks that run our government always seem to want to “regulate” things that they do not like. And so it should be no surprise that there is a renewed push to regulate independent news websites. Sites like [OnlyWay.com]….

The Federal Election Commission is an example of a federal rule making body that has gotten wildly out of control. Since just about anything that anyone says or does could potentially “influence an election”, it is not difficult for them to come up with excuses to regulate things that they do not like.

And on Wednesday, the FEC held a hearing on whether or not they should regulate political speech on blogs, websites and YouTube videos…

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing today to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos and even websites like the Drudge Report.

If you do not think that this could ever happen, you should consider what almost happened at the FEC last October…

In October, then FEC Vice Chairwoman Ann M. Ravel promised that she would renew a push to regulate online political speech following a deadlocked commission vote that would have subjected political videos and blog posts to the reporting and disclosure requirements placed on political advertisers who broadcast on television. On Wednesday, she will begin to make good on that promise.

“Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone,” Ravel said in an October statement. “As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense.”

“In the past, the Commission has specifically exempted certain types of Internet communications from campaign finance regulations,” she lamented. “In doing so, the Commission turned a blind eye to the Internet’s growing force in the political arena.”

As our nation continues to drift toward totalitarianism, it is only a matter of time before political speech on the Internet is regulated. It is already happening in other countries all around the globe, and control freak politicians such as Ravel will just keep pushing until they get what they want….

And it isn’t just a few control freak Democrats that want these changes.

The Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen were all expected to testify in favor of more government regulation on the Internet at the hearing.

Fortunately, other organizations are doing what they can to warn the general population. For example, the following comes from the Electronic Frontier Foundation…

Increased regulation of online speech is not only likely to chill participation in the public debate, but it may also threaten individual speakers’ privacy and right to post anonymously. In so doing, it may undermine two goals of campaign finance reform: protecting freedom of political speech and expanding political participation.

As we stated in our joint comments to the FEC back in 2005 [pdf], “the Internet provides a counter-balance to the undue dominance that ‘big money’ has increasingly wielded over the political process in the past half-century.” We believe that heightened regulation of online political speech will hamper the Internet’s ability to level the playing field.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama and the FCC are using net neutrality as an excuse to impose lots of new regulations on Internet activity.

Ajit Pai is an FCC commissioner who is opposed to this plan.He tweeted a picture of himself holding the 332-page plan just below a picture of a smiling Barack Obama with a comment, “I wish the public could see what’s inside.” The implication depicted Obama as George Orwell’s “Big Brother.”

Pai also released a statement: “President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works,” he said. “The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.”

By Michael Snyder – The Economic Collapse –

Congress must stop the FCC taxation of internet

The FCC is going to ignore the facts, law, and economics in order to reverse two decades of successful free-market Internet policy.

Why? Because Obama told them to.

It doesn’t matter to the FCC that over 800,000 of us urged them not to do it.

It doesn’t matter to the FCC that Republicans in Congress offered a compromise that gave Obama everything he said he wanted.

Three unelected Democrats at the FCC will issue an order on February 26 to reduce the Internet to a heavily-taxed, heavily-regulated public utility.

This is the same group whose founder once explained: “The ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

This will be challenged in court. But that will take years and it’s impossible to predict how it will turn out….

From AmericanCommitment.org –

UN Is Confiscating American Homes & Controlling All Food & Energy

In times of crises, the government has proven, time and time again, that it cannot be counted on to adequately protect the American people. As the American people have not prepared for the coming dark days, they will be vulnerable to starvation, dehydration, cholera, pandemics and attacks from resource-deficient looters. Will the government be there to save them? History has already answered this question in the negative. Events such as Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, L.A. riots and the Ferguson riots have repeatedly demonstrated that when trouble comes, the American people will be on their own.

When disaster strikes, it will take less than 24 hours until grocery stores are empty, the utilities are down and neighbors begin to prey upon neighbors.

Obama Criminalizes Independence

Certainly, no government can be all things to all people. Subsequently, the government should be in the business of encouraging its citizens to be independent. However, the Obama administration has taken the opposite approach. Instead of the government empowering the people to be self-sufficient, this administration is punishing independence and self sufficiency.

DHS actually published a “Right Wing Extremism Manual which demonizes and targets normal citizens with labels such as “preppers” and have further defined the act of becoming self-sufficient as being the actions of a domestic terrorist. It is ironic that DHS is the one who has ordered millions of FEMA caskets, 2700 armored personnel carriers and 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition. Yet, it is only the wholly independent people, only desiring to be left alone by their government, are labeled as domestic terrorists.

America Is Witnessing the Manifestation of Agenda 21.

Any aware person knows that Agenda 21 is predicated on eliminating private property ownership and keeping all people within the “system”. Drinking raw milk, engaging in off the grid living and heating your home with a wood stove is forbidden. All of these prohibitions and more are presently encircling America as the Agenda 21 noose is tightening around collective necks.

Many unaware Americans still mistakenly believe that they have dominion over their lives and personal choices. These same people mistakenly believe that the government does not care if you want to live independently of their corporate cronies who own the utilities. They want you in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting toilets and his own self-sufficient water supply. If one commits these acts in Florida, that person could go to jail.

Speronis lived off the grid, independent of Cape Coral’s (Florida) water and electric utilities. Not to be denied the revenue to them owed the subjects of Florida, the utilities took Speronis to court and the judge ruled this off-the-grid living was illegal last week. The judge labeled the Speronis home as being “unsanitary” and cited the International Property Maintenance Code in the ruling. Wikipedia further exposes the fact that the International Property Maintenance Code derives its authority from Agenda 21 and ICLEI and that this “regulation” bootstraps its authority into the following domains.

•International Building Code
•International Residential Code
•International Fire Code
•International Plumbing Code
•International Mechanical Code
•International Wildland Urban Interface Code
•International Existing Building Code
•International Property Maintenance Code
•International Private Sewage Disposal Code
•International Zoning Code
•International Green Construction Code…

Subsequently, we have an American judge, in Florida, citing UN mandate to forcibly evict an American citizen of their property and nullify their Fifth Amendment Rights….

Why is the Obama administration embracing international mandates which criminalizes independent behavior and choices in violation of our Fifth Amendment rights?

By Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show –

Taming the Endangered Species Act

The increasing use of the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) places that agency on track to regulate a massive amount of the nation’s land as a habitat for one or more of the listed species and the ones that will be considered in the next few years.

Until now, FWS has been virtually unstoppable in its bid to become land manager of the nation. Recent actions however, have sought to push back on that power play, including a provision in the recent legislation to fund the federal government for 2015 that would prohibit funding for further rules to place sage-grouse on the Endangered Species List. Another attempt comes directly from the local citizens being affected by FWS listings; it is an event that pits man vs. dog.

This story begins with the Utah prairie dog. It lives only in the southwestern corner of Utah, a sparsely populated desert area, a four hour drive from Salt Lake City and consisting mostly of federal lands and two national parks (Zion and Bryce Canyon). The animal is 12 – 14 inches long and weighs up to three pounds. It constantly burrows, leaving parks, backyards, fields, and other public spaces pockmarked with holes and tunnels. There are even tales of it digging in cemeteries during funerals.

As an endangered species, its habitat, including areas that it might someday move to, is protected by the FWS, no matter how much it impacts communities. The population is stable, averaging 35,000. As a concession to farmers, FWS allows them to remove 5000 of these animals from agricultural lands for safety reasons. Everyone else must live with these diggers and must manage their property around them, no matter what the cost or impact, including not being able to develop private property.

Tired of having the little amount of private property available for use in Southwest Utah subject to federal regulatory restrictions, a group of citizens organized a coalition called “People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners” (“PETPO”) to take on the entire machinery of the federal government that protects the Utah prairie dog so it can continue to destroy their property.

PETPO challenged the constitutional authority of the federal government to protect the Utah prairie dog on private land. It argued that the prairie dog does not substantially affect interstate commerce, which is the only constitutional support for federal regulation of these animals. The government countered that even if the prairie dog has no value and no effect on commerce, it can still be regulated because federal regulation of all species has a substantial effect on commerce. In short, the government argues all regulation is constitutional because the purpose of regulation is to affect commerce.

Most of the time courts give deference to agency decisions, but in this case, the court ruled that the proper constitutional focus must be on the regulated activity not the fact that the government’s regulation impacts commerce. It reasoned that if the regulated activity impacts national markets, the federal government has the power to regulate. But if the regulated activity (in this case the Utah prairie dog) has no impact on national markets, the federal government does not have the power to regulate.

In applying the law to the facts, the court found in favor of PETPO because the Utah prairie dog lives only in southwestern Utah and its diminution would not significantly alter the supply or quantity of animals for which there is a national market.

What is most significant about this case is that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect ecosystems and on this point the court found that just the protection of an ecosystem may not be sufficient impact on commerce to be constitutional under the commerce clause….

By William Kovacs – Fox News –

FCC poised to impose Internet taxes

The Federal Communications Commission is in the middle of a high-stakes decision that could raise taxes for close to 90 percent of Americans. The commission is considering whether to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and, in doing so, Washington would trigger new taxes and fees at the state and local level.

The agency would like to make Internet service a public utility, placing broadband under Title II regulation of the Communications Act of 1934. This move would make broadband subject to New Deal-era regulation, and have significant consequences for U.S. taxpayers.

Under this decision to reclassify broadband, Americans would face a host of new state and local taxes and fees that apply to public utilities. These new levies, according to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), would total $15 billion annually. On average, consumers would pay an additional $67 for landline broadband, and $72 for mobile broadband each year, according to PPI’s calculations, with charges varying from state to state.

Proponents of broadband reclassification, including the left-of-center organization Free Press, claim that it would not result in higher taxes or fees. The recently extended Internet Tax Freedom Act, they assert, prohibits state and local taxation of Internet service. This is incorrect, however. The act does not apply to telecom-related fees.

Free Press and other broadband reclassification proponents also say the new taxes and fees can be prevented if the FCC designates broadband as an interstate service. A Progressive Policy Institute report explains why this also is incorrect:

“When the Commission previously considered the jurisdiction of Internet traffic, it determined that such traffic was ‘largely interstate,’ but ‘jurisdictionally mixed.’ States routinely tax jurisdictionally mixed services that are classified as ‘interstate’ for purposes of regulation. For example, wireless services may not be regulated by state public utility commissions, but they are subject to a host of state and local taxes and fees. In several states, interstate wireless revenues are subject to taxation.”

Late last year, President Barack Obama waded into this contentious debate. He called for the Internet to be treated like a public utility. Critics of Obama’s position point out….

By Grover G. Norquist and Patrick Gleason – Reuters –

BATFE Ruling Creates New Hurdle For Gun Makers

It only took two days before the anti-gun American bureaucracy began chipping away at the Second Amendment in areas where Congress and the President, despite being backed by billion dollar NGOs and Foundations, have so far been unsuccessful.

On January 2, 2015, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) issued its ruling regarding “whether Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL), or unlicensed machine shops, may engage in the business of completing, or assisting in the completion of, the manufacture of firearm frames or receivers for unlicensed individuals without being licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.”

The ruling that was made in order to address the issue that ATF Ruling 2015-1 has called into question – whether or not the ability of American citizens to produce their own weapons, pass them down, and modify those weapons in specific capacities will remain a viable option.

Thankfully, the BATFE is not attempting to entirely eliminate the ability of individuals to manufacture their own weapons, but the agency is attempting to limit that ability.

So far, the policy of the BATFE’s Firearms Technology Branch (now called the Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch) as it was enumerated in 2010 remains the same. The BATFE states that “For your information, per the provisions of the GCA, an unlicensed individual may make a ‘firearm’ as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.” The FTB continued by stating “Also, based on the GCA, manufacturers’ marks of identification are not required on firearms that are produced by individuals for personal use.

Prince Law Offices analyzed the policy statement and concluded that “it is completely lawful, as acknowledged by ATF, for one to manufacture his/her/its own firearm, provided there is no intent to sell or distribute it.” However, the lawyers’ blog also asked another pertinent question, “but what about when that individual is incapable of turning a block of metal or 80% lower into a functioning firearm?

By Brandon Turbeville – Activist Post –

Homeschooling Update : Regulations Relaxed

FREEPORT, Pa. — Until recently, Pennsylvania had one of the strictest home-school laws in the nation.

Families keeping their children out of traditional classrooms were required to register each year with their local school district, outlining study plans and certifying that adults in the home did not have a criminal record. At the end of the year, they submitted portfolios of student work to private evaluators for review. The portfolio and evaluator’s report then went to a school district superintendent to approve.

But in October, after years of campaigning by home-schooling families in the state as well as the Home School Legal Defense Association, a national advocacy group, Pennsylvania relaxed some of its requirements.

More than 40 families participate in a home-schooling cooperative at Andrews Air Force Base.

Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma has not decided whether to sign a bill that would withdraw her state from the Common Core standards. Similar legislation is on governors’ desks in Missouri and South Carolina.

“We believe that because parents who make this commitment to teach their children at home are dedicated and self-motivated, there’s just not a real need for the state to be involved in overseeing education,” said Dewitt T. Black III, senior counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, which has close ties to local Christian home-school associations. Mr. Black wrote an early version of the bill that eventually passed here.

Unlike so much of education in this country, teaching at home is broadly unregulated. Along with steady growth in home schooling has come a spirited debate and lobbying war over how much oversight such education requires.

Eleven states do not require families to register with any school district or state agency that they are teaching their children at home, according to the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, a nonprofit group that is pushing for more accountability in home schooling. Fourteen states do not specify any subjects that families must teach, and only nine states require that parents have at least a high school diploma or equivalent in order to teach their children. In half the states, children who are taught at home never have to take a standardized test or be subject to any sort of formal outside assessment.

And the movement is growing. Once mainly concentrated among religious families as well as parents who wanted to release their children from the strictures of traditional classrooms, home schooling is now attracting parents who want to escape the testing and curriculums that have come along with the Common Core, new academic standards that have been adopted by more than 40 states.

By Motoko Rich – New York Times –

Great Moments in Taxing

When people ask me why I mock government for being a slovenly, bloated, and malicious entity, I’m sometimes not sure what to say.

Do I give them examples of corrupt corporate welfare?

Do I share instances of government thuggery?

Do I direct them to preposterous examples of waste?

Do I show them details about an insanely complex tax code?

Do I enlighten them about sleazy insider behavior by the political elite?

The short answer is that I’m never sure what to say, which is why I oftentimes resort instead to utilitarian arguments in which I show that nations with smaller public sectors out-perform countries with larger levels of taxation, spending, regulation, and intervention.

By Daniel J. Mitchell – Townhall.com –

Feds Prep Next Attack on Bundy Ranch

By Gary Franchi – World Television Service –

The FEDs are on the offensive once again – the target – BUNDY RANCH. We knew it wouldn’t be long after the Bureau of Land Management’s embarrassing retreat for them to regroup and return with a new strategy. The new battlefield, Instead armed troopers, they’re coming at Bundy with pen and paper. Administrative tactics, intended to pry the land away from the people of Nevada.

Before we get deeper into that, here’s the backstory. In April we brought you the story about on the Bundy Ranch Federal Seige in Southern Nevada – a battle that had been raging for decades – a battle between the Federal government, and ranch owner Cliven Bundy.

It all started years ago, when the Bureau of Land Management was established. Before that, cowboys and ranch hands were free to graze their cattle all over private property. Once the BLM came along, they decided to start imposing a tax for private ranches to be able to graze on open lands. Because the Bundy family had been feeding their cattle on those lands for years without a tax, they disputed the demands, calling it unnecessary.

To be clear, the Bundy’s don’t OWN the land, it’s actually owned by the STATE. But when the Feds came in and encroached on the land, it raised debates about the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There it is, right in the Constitution, clear language saying the State OR the People have the power to govern and control anything not assigned to the Federal Government in the Constitution. But when the Feds showed up, they not only demanded the land, they also killed thousands of dollars worth of Bundy’s cattle, burying them in mass graves. Outraged by the encroachment and forced takeover, Bundy and hundreds of other locals showed up and blocked their path. After a long standoff, the Feds went home defeated.

Now, they’re back, with a new strategy. This time, calling 33 parcels of land, that contain nearly 2 million acres of Nevada of land “Areas of Critical Concern.” Bundy’s calling it a move of retaliation, several months after the Feds retreated..

But don’t count the Bundy family out just yet. When they learned of this new subtle attack by the Feds, they released this statement:

“We are not intimidated by the past action of the federal government, nor will we yield to their future attempt to subdue the State or the people. We refuse to submit to unconstitutional codes and regulation that dismantle Statehood and deprived our American neighbors and ourselves of the unalienable right so many of our kinsmen suffered and died for.”

Obama To Americans: You Don’t Deserve To Be Free

By Harry Binswanger – Forbes.com –

President Obama’s Kansas speech is a remarkable document. In calling for more government controls, more taxation, more collectivism, he has two paragraphs that give the show away. Take a look at them.

“there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Though not in Washington, I’m in that “certain crowd” that has been saying for decades that the market will take care of everything. It’s not really a crowd, it’s a tiny group of radicals–radicals for capitalism, in Ayn Rand’s well-turned phrase.

The only thing that the market doesn’t take care of is anti-market acts: acts that initiate physical force. That’s why we need government: to wield retaliatory force to defend individual rights.

Radicals for capitalism would, as the Declaration of Independence says, use government only “to secure these rights”–the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. (Yes, I added “property” in there–property rights are inseparable from the other three.)

That’s the political philosophy on which Obama is trying to hang the blame for the recent financial crisis and every other social ill. But ask yourself, are we few radical capitalists in charge? Have radical capitalists been in charge at any time in the last, oh, say 100 years?

I pick 100 years deliberately, because it was exactly 100 years ago that a gigantic anti-capitalist measure was put into effect: the Federal Reserve System. For 100 years, government, not the free market, has controlled money and banking. How’s that worked out? How’s the value of the dollar held up since 1913? Is it worth one-fiftieth of its value then or only one-one-hundredth? You be the judge. How did the dollar hold up over the 100 years before this government take-over of money and banking? It actually gained slightly in value.

Laissez-faire hasn’t existed since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. That was the first of a plethora of government crimes against the free market.

Radical capitalists are just beginning to have a slight effect on the Right wing. The overwhelming majority on the Right are eclectic. Which is a nice way of saying inconsistent.

The typical Republican would never, ever say “the market will take care of everything.” He’d say, “the market will take care of most things, and for the other things, we need the regulatory-welfare state.”

They are for individualism–except when they are against it. They are against free markets and individualism not only when they agree with the Left that we must have antitrust laws and the Federal Reserve, but also when they demand immigration controls, government schools, regulatory agencies, Medicare, laws prohibiting abortion, Social Security, “public works” projects, the “social safety net,” laws against insider trading, banking regulation, and the whole system of fiat money.

Obama blames economic woes, some real some manufactured (“inequality”) on a philosophy and policy that was abandoned a century ago. What doesn’t exist is what he says didn’t work.

 
Continue Reading