Debate on drug policy completely misses the point

The other day, I ran across an article on Reason.com headlined Marijuana and States’ Rights: A Reason Debate. Intrigued, I clicked the link and perused the article.

How disappointing.

Kevin A. Sabet, PhD, director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida and a former senior advisor in the Obama Administration’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, and Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, debated the following question:

Should states be free to chart their own course with regard to marijuana policy (both medical and recreational)?

Predictably, the former federal drug adviser said, “Nope. Not outside of  federal ‘law.’”

Details

Don’t Comply, Nullify!

How do you know when the government is out of control?  When you are controlled by the government.   Easy right?

I  saw an image recently with the words  “Caution: Tyranny Ahead!”   I thought, that must be an old one because it’s already here.  It’s all around us.  The people submit to despicable TSA violations and are now stopping dead in their tracks when ordered to “Freeze” by TSA agents.  Yes, it is a sick game of obedience training.  Unfortunately, people today are very easy to train.  The government doesn’t need to reward the people with a treat like dog trainers do.  The “fear factor” has worked wonders for the police state.  Those among us who don’t comply or who speak out for liberty are harassed, threatened and detained by the ‘authorities’.

Tyranny is slipping through every door and window of our home.  I could take up the rest of the day listing each instrument, so here’s just a few:  Obamacare, UN Agenda 21, the Federal Reserve, TSA, FDA, EPA, ATF, FBI, NSA, DHS, Patriot Act, NDAA, gun control measures, militarization of the police, etc, etc.  For now I’d like to focus on just two:  Obamacare and the NDAA.

First, we should not expect the solution to come from Washington, DC.   All three branches of the federal government are engaged in destroying the US Constitution, and have been for a long time.   Regardless of  who wins the presidential election (from the 2 party system) the same liberty destroying policies will continue.

We are the solution.  The only way to take control back from a tyrannical government is nullification on state and local levels.

Details

A Republic, if you can keep it.

We are fast approaching Election Day and with that, the responsibility of every voter to determine which local, state and national candidates will best preserve and defend North Carolina and US Constitutions. Following and preserving these Constitutions or “employee handbooks” ensures our and our children’s freedom and liberties — failure to do so will bring financial collapse and tyranny.

The group organizer should at every function that a candidates for office attends give them a pocket Constitution to remind them that when elected they will swear an Oath to protect and defend that Constitution. It is imperative that they understand what powers they are given and which belong to the states or to the people.

State officials have not only an Oath to the US Constitution but also to our State Constitution and with their Oaths comes the extra responsibility to monitor the federal government, making sure that they have not stepped outside the bonds of the Constitution and are infringing on the citizens’ rights.

Details

A Modest Proposal

by Walter E Williams

California was once the land of opportunity, but it is going down the tubes. Several of California’s prominent cities have declared bankruptcy, such as Vallejo, Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino. Others are on the precipice, and that includes Los Angeles, California’s largest city. California’s 2012 budget deficit is expected to top $28 billion, and its state debt is $618 billion. That’s more than twice the size of New York’s state debt, which itself is the second-highest in the nation.

Democrats control California’s Legislature, and its governor, Jerry Brown, is a Democrat. California is home to some of America’s richest people and companies. It would then appear that the liberals’ solution to deficit and debt would be easy. They need only to raise taxes on California’s rich to balance the budget and pay down the debt — or, as President Barack Obama would say, make the rich pay their fair share.

The downside to such a tax strategy is the fact that people are already leaving California in great numbers. According to a Manhattan Institute study, “The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look,” by Thomas Gray and Robert Scardamalia (October 2012), roughly 225,000 residents leave California each year — and have done so for the past 10 years. They take their money with them. Using census and Internal Revenue Service data, Gray and Scardamalia estimate that California’s out-migration results in large shares of income going to other states, mostly to Nevada ($5.67 billion), Arizona ($4.96 billion), Texas ($4.07 billion) and Oregon ($3.85 billion). That’s the problem. California politicians can fleece people in 2012, but there’s no guarantee that they can do the same in 2013 and later years; people can leave. Also, keep in mind that rich people didn’t become rich by being stupid. They have ingenious ways to hide their money.

Details

Tenther Radio Episode #68: NDAA Nullification, Marijuana Nullification, and BONUS post-show action!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download Add to iTunes Episode 68 of Tenther Radio is hosted this week by Michael Boldin, Lesley Swann – along with the return of John Bush. They report on some of the latest Tenther News – A nullification initiative in Washington State has a HUGE lead in the polls…

Details

Remembering the past

When I start talking about the fact that the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to do things like fund public television or monitor a cell phones without a warrant, somebody will inevitably counter with the following statement:

“The founders never anticipated things like television and cell phones, or any of the other technological advances of the last 200-plus years. We have to give the federal government the flexibility to deal with these things.”

But these folks ignore that fact that the framers created a mechanism to allow the Constitution to evolve with the changing times – the amendment process. When lawmakers feel the advancement of technology necessitates additional powers, they should first go to the people, let them decide, and if they deem it necessary, amend the Constitution to delegate the requisite power.

Of course, it’s true that the framers could never have imagined all of the technological and societal advances that would occur in the United States over the course of time. And the amendment process makes it pretty clear that they recognized the Constitution would not, and should not, remain static. But the framers did understand some things do  not change – among them, basic human nature. They understood that, as Lord Acton eloquently put it, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” For that reason, the framers created, and the people of the states approved, a government of limited powers and included numerous checks on the few powers that were delegated.

While technology and society might evolve, it is imperative we keep in place those basic checks on power.

Details

Massachusetts Nullification Initiative Set to Win in a Landslide

Seventeen states already have medical marijuana laws on the books, but now Colorado, Oregon and Washington want to expand that to recreational use. Massachusetts and two other states are voting on medical marijuana this November. If the measure passes in any of those states, it could serve as a bellwether, helping expand the already de-facto…

Details

Lies of Omission

After the first debate between the Undynamic Duo, many conservatives are basking on what appears as the total domination of President Obama by Mitt Romney.   Initially, many liberals hanged their head in shame as their messiah was totally humiliated by his opponent.  This isn’t just my opinion, Chris Mathews said the same on MSNBC after the debate.  I seriously thought about buying poor Chris a box of Chamomile Tea and mailing it to him.

However, liberals recovered and started providing liberal biased sources proving that Romney lied on many occasions during the debate.   I have two responses of these statements:

One, again many of their sources (including many fact checking sites) have a liberal bias.  Facts are facts, but often it depends on the CONTEXT of how the facts are being expressed.  Often times, the distinction is subjective to the individual observer.

Two,  liberal claims of Romney is lying.  Of course he is lying!  He’s a politician!

I suspect you thinking, “John, what are you saying?  Your first point, you’re stating that Romney might have not been lying based on the perspective of the observer, and then you come right out and call Romney a liar anyway?”    EXACTLY!

Details

Two Failures

by Judge Andrew Napolitano

President Obama is a failure as a president, and Gov. Romney is a failure as a candidate.

When he took office, Obama told the press that if he couldn’t cure the economic mess he inherited from President George W. Bush in four years, he wouldn’t deserve a second term. I guess he didn’t anticipate making the mess worse.

When he took office, the federal government owed $11 trillion to its creditors; today it owes $16 trillion. When he took office, gasoline was running about $1.85 a gallon and today costs about $3.85 a gallon. This is price inflation that he directly caused by flooding the markets with cash, and that directly harms the middle class and the poor. Unemployment has remained north of 8 percent throughout his presidency for those still looking for a job, and about 16 percent if you count all able-bodied out-of-work adults, half of whom have stopped looking for work on his watch.

He supported radical fanatics in their takeovers of the governments of Libya and Egypt, even going so far as to help them kill Col. Gadhafi, the former Libyan strongman who was once our ally. In the process, they opened jails in Libya, and out came some of the same folks the U.S. government has been fighting against in the Middle East since 2001. Obama pushed from power Hosni Mubarak, the strongman in Cairo, and he was replaced by the head of a criminal organization that Obama’s own State Department has prohibited Americans from engaging with. (Query: If the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, how can the government help a foreign group and at the same time prohibit Americans from doing the same?)

Details

Supreme Court Allows NSA’s Warrantless Wiretapping to Continue

On October 9, the Supreme Court denied review of an appeal court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Federal Information Securities Amendments Act (FISA).

The FISA Amendments Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 10, 2008 after being overwhelmingly passed 293 to 129 in the House and 69-28 in the Senate. Just a couple of days prior to its being enacted, Representative Ron Paul and a coalition of Internet activists united to create a political action committee, Accountability Now, and conduct a money bomb in order to raise money to purchase ad buys to alert voters to the names of those congressmen (Republican and Democratic) who voted in favor of the act.

George W. Bush’s signature was but the public pronouncement of the ersatz legality of the wiretapping that was otherwise revealed to the public in a New York Times article published on December 16, 2005. That article, entitled “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,” described the brief history of the “anti-terrorist” program:

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible “dirty numbers” linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency (NSA), whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

At issue in the case the Supreme Court refused to hear, Hepting, et al v. AT&T, et al, was the government’s use of provisions of FISA to grant retroactive protection from prosecution to several telecommunications giants including AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint. These companies aided the government in wiretapping the phones of subscribers without obtaining a warrant.

Details