Will Mississippi Defy Feds, Legalize Medical Marijuana?

Senator Deborah Jeanne Dawkins (D) has introduced a bill to allow medical use of marijuana by seriously ill patients under doctor’s supervision.

Senate Bill 2252 “an act to authorize the medical use of marihuana by seriously ill patients under a physician’s supervision; to define certain terms; to provide an exemption from criminal and civil penalties for the medical use of marihuana; to provide limitations on the medical use of marihuana; to provide a legal defense for patients and primary caregivers; to amend sections … of Mississippi code to transfer marihuana from schedule I to schedule II under the controlled substances law; to amend section … Mississippi code of 1972, to exempt the medical use of marihuana from criminal penalties under the controlled substances law; and for related purposes.”

The bill also states: “Although federal law expressly prohibits the use of marihuana, the laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington permit the medical use and cultivation of marihuana. The Legislature intends to join in this effort for the health and welfare of the citizens of Mississippi.  However, the Legislature does not intend to make marijuana legally available for other than medical purposes.”

If passed, this bill it would put the state in conflict with federal law declaring itl illegal to use, buy and sell marijuana. As the bill authors point out, 99 out of 100 arrests for marijuana are by the states, but this bill still will not protect the states citizens from federal prosecution. The state is legally within its rights to decide this issue based on the 10th Amendment which declares; “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.”  Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the federal government given the authority to regulate what plants we grow or consume. This remains purely a state power.


Forced Vaccinations = Medical Tyranny

Supporters of forced vaccinations argue that the greater good is served by forcing vaccinations in situations where the threat of an outbreak is great. Individual rights are brushed aside in the interest of the greater good. This should send chills up our spines as similar logic has been used to provide moral cover for crimes throughout human history.

The UN already claims to have this power over 194 countries:

The International Health Regulations (IHR) pursuant to Article 21 of the Constitution of WHO came into force in June 2007 and allow the General-Director of WHO to declare an international health emergency. In such a case, the Director-General can impose regulations, including “sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease”, also travel restrictions. In the event of WHO declaring a pandemic, WHO has the authority to order forced vaccinations around the world.

All 194 signatory countries to IHR must comply. A list of countries which have signed the WHO Constitution can be found under this link. http://www.who.int/countries/en/

In the US, the public is being conditioned to believe that:


Will You Vote for a Tyrant?

“Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?”

That quote by Mel Gibson’s character in The Patriot stuck with me ever since the first time I saw the movie. Again and again I ask myself, “is that what we have done, really?”

I am sad to say that is exactly what we have done.  Whether Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat, on the left or on the right, we have traded one tyrant for thousands of democratically elected tyrants, but tyrants still.  Various political groups ( you pick a political party) tell us to vote their chosen candidates into office, and they will protect us from (pick the opposing political party), you know those people , the ones who want to control what you do, what you say, what you eat, drink, smoke, where you work and decide whether or not you receive medical care.  So, you volunteer your time, energy, and money to help elect “their candidate.”  Once that’s accomplished, we (good people) will be safe from them (bad people), and, in fact, we (good people) will be able to turn the tide in our favor and make them (bad people) do what we (good people) know is the right thing, whatever it may be.

Really, is that it?  Is that all there is to saving our country, throwing out their group and electing our group because our group holds the moral high ground?


Alaska Bill Would Criminalize Invasive TSA Pat Downs

by Paul Joseph Watson, InfoWars

A bill introduced by Alaska lawmaker and TSA grope victim Rep. Sharon Cissna would criminalize both invasive pat downs and body scans that produce naked images conducted by the federal agency, setting the stage for another states’ rights battle with the government.

When Texas lawmakers tried to pass a similar law last year, the federal government threatened to enforce a no fly zone over the Lone Star State, and the measure was eventually defeated after a lengthy legislative struggle.

Cissna was barred from flying by the TSA after an incident at SEA-TAC International Airport last yearduring which she refused to undergo an intrusive pat down after she had already passed through a naked body scanner. The scan results showed scars from her breast cancer surgery, prompting TSA officials to insist she undergo secondary screening.

“Facing the agent I began to remember what my husband and I’d decided after the previous intensive physical search. That I never had to submit to that horror again!” she said. “It would be difficult, we agreed, but I had the choice to say no, this twisted policy did not have to be the price of flying to Juneau.”

The bill introduced by Cissna, HB 262, states;


Talking Nullification to Sheriffs

I had a chance last month to speak to the convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. I talked about nullification, the book and the concept. Not much new here for longtime readers; I gave my basic overview because I assumed the audience was relatively new to the subject. The main significance is that over…


No Child Left Behind: Federal Funds vs State Sovereignty

States suffering from the nightmare that is “No Child Left Behind,” President G. W. Bush’s 2001 federal education legislation intended to boost productivity and performance of America’s public school students, have been offered a “waiver” from President Obama; unfortunately, there are strings attached. According to Lindsey Burke with The Foundry:

“The waivers actually fail to provide genuine relief to states, instead handing control of local school policy over to the Department of Education. The conditions-based waivers circumvent Congress and represent a significant new executive overreach… One of the most concerning conditions attached to the waivers is the requirement for states to adopt common standards and tests or have their state university approve their standards. None of the states have opted for the latter, as the Obama Administration’s many previous carrots and sticks ($4.35 billion in Race to the Top grants and potential Title I dollars) have already pushed them to begin implementing the Common Core national standards and tests…. Having national organizations and the Department of Education dictating standards and tests will effectively centralize control of the content taught in local schools. It’s an unprecedented and dangerous federal overreach. Circumventing Congress by granting strings-attached waivers from the White House shows a disregard for the legislative process and a not-so-veiled effort to further grow federal control over education.”

With unconstitutional regulations either way, many state legislators are proposing nullification. While state Representatives like Michael Weeden from New Hampshire began with bold statements such as, “I was in fifth grade when this bill was passed and I saw first-hand the ineffectiveness of this bill to lay standards of education, at a high cost to the cities and towns of the state, because they don’t provide adequate funding for their requests… More and more schools are falling into the failed category, and it’s because of the testing, not necessarily the education.”


Obama’s Proposed Cuts and the Scope of Government

The president’s fiscal 2013 budget includes a 213 page document that contains 210 proposed cuts, consolidations, and other savings. That sounds like a lot until one finds out that the alleged savings would only amount to $24 billion in a $3.8 trillion budget. Not only would the cuts do little to reduce the size of government, they would…


A little interaction with a mainstream journalist

As the saying goes, you often catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Activists often complain about the media and inaccuracies in stories, often implying or outright asserting that the reporter wields some kind of axe to grind and intentionally misrepresents facts to forward an agenda. And while this may prove true on occasion, I can tell you after working several years in mainstream media that most reporters really do take their work seriously and want to write accurate stories.

Oftentimes, errors of fact stem from simple ignorance rather than any nefarious intent.

Recently, a major newspaper ran a story on state nullification legislation. The reporter gave a short explanation of nullification. Unsurprisingly, the description fell right into common misconceptions and fallacies.


II files unique Supreme Court brief in Obamacare case

We have just filed an amicus curiae (”friend of the court”) brief with the Supreme Court arguing that (1) under current Supreme Court rulings, Obamacare’s individual mandate, if it can be justified at all, must be justified under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, and (2) scholarly research into the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause…