Montana Voters Nullify Obamacare Mandates

Tonight another state puts a firm boot on the neck of Washington D.C.

The “Montana Health Care Freedom Act” otherwise known as Referendum 122, prohibits the state and federal governments from requiring the purchase of health insurance or imposing any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance.

The prohibition does have some restrictions, but the good thing about this…these rules are being set by the state of Montana, not the the Federal Government .

Referendum 122  Passed 66% YES to 34% NO

This makes Montana the 3rd state to nullify Obamacare after the SCOTUS decision that called it “constitutional” this summer.

The interesting thing about Montana’s nullification measure is the wording…


Colorado and Washington State tell DC to Go to Hell

Imagine this hypothetical nightmare – the Federal Government passes an outright ban on the ownership of firearms. You know this violates your natural rights. You know this violates the Constitution. Someone gets the idea that this needs to go to court. It ends up in the Supreme Court. After some creative legal reasoning, 5 of the black-robed gods have determined that the 2nd Amendment means something completely different than it has always meant.

The court rules that the so-called federal “law” is constitutional after all.

Would you sit idly by and obey? Would you want your state politicians to step in and protect your rights from all-comers? Would you be in favor of joining in with other residents of your state to defy the federal ban?

For those who support liberty, it seems natural that people would stand up and say NO to this kind of immoral, unjust, and unconstitutional federal ban.

When the Sons Of Liberty boarded ships and refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain and threw it into Boston Harbor, the people told the empire “We don’t want your stinkin’ taxes”

This is the type of fortitude that created the American system – one that was to advance the cause of liberty.

And today, the people of Colorado and Washington State took that same kind of stand. By passing Amendment 64 and Initiative 502, they sent a message to Washington DC, and it’s loud and clear. “We don’t need your stinkin’ prohibition!”


Wyoming Voters Nullify Health Mandates

This summer, the Supreme Court ruled the Obama Administration’s health care mandates to be constitutional as a “tax.”  Today, the people of the state of Wyoming joined the state of Alabama in telling the Supreme Court to shove it!

With 46% reporting, 76% of votes were in favor.  The People of Wyoming passed Amendment A, which reads:

Article 1, Section 38 – Right of Health Care Access

(a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.

(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.

(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.

(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue govern-mental infringement.

Wyoming is the 12th state to have passed similar legislation.  They are the second state to pass nullification legislation since the SCOTUS decision.   Missouri and Arizona voters were first and second to initially pass such measures in 2010.  Alabama is the first to have passed it since the Supreme Court ruling this summer, and now Wyoming is the second.


Florida Voters Fail to Nullify Insurance Mandates

In Florida tonight, voters failed to pass a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban insurance mandates. Amendment 1 reads in part: “HEALTH CARE SERVICES.—Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to purchase, obtain, or otherwise provide for health care coverage; permit a person or…


Alabama Voters Nullify Obamacare Mandates

This summer the Supreme Court ruled that the Obama Administration’s health care mandates to be constitutional as a tax.  Today, the people of the state of Alabama told the Supreme Court to shove it!

In a Majority vote of 56%-44% (with 46% reported), the People of Alabama passed Amendment 6, which reads:

An amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system.

In the weeks leading up to the vote, there were overwhelming attempts by the media and the so-called political class to make the amendment seem irrelevant.


18 and Counting: Massachusetts Voters Nullify Federal Marijuana Laws

Marijuana. Pot. Weed. Medicine.

Whatever you call the plant, Washington DC considers it dangerous and illegal. Laws on the books in Congress – illegal. The executive branch – aggressive about enforcing those laws. The supreme court – in 2005 ruled against the idea of states legalizing for any purpose.

But yet, 17 states have been standing up and defying DC on this issue by legalizing marijuana for limited medicinal purposes. And while the feds may huff and puff (pun intended), each year and each subsequent state to get on board has made it more and more difficult for them to enforce their unconstitutional “laws” on the people of these states.

Today, Massachusetts voters made their state the 18th to nullify federal marijuana laws, by a landslide. With more than 30% reporting, Question 3 can be reported as being passed by a vote of 63-37%. The YES vote was in support of a proposed law “to eliminate state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.”


In the 1990s, the People of California voted to legalize consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich, who had a huge cancerous tumor in her brain was told by her doctor that using marijuana to relieve some of the pain was acceptable.

Marijuana, though, is “illegal” on a federal level in all circumstances, so the feds decided to make an example. Federal agents destroyed Angel’s homegrown marijuana plants without much resistance.


State and Local Elections Matter!

by Sheriff Richard Mack

There are many freedom-loving Americans out there who have decided to sit on the sielines this election cycle due to the lackluster presidential alternatives we are faced with. I completely understand and sympathize with them. But all hope is not lost. Let me give you four reasons why local and state elections matter and why you should get involved.

1. States and Local Officials Really Can Make a Difference!
The Constitution gives the states all other powers that are not EXPLICITY given to the federal government. Don’t underestimate what one state or local official who is faithful to their Constitutional oath can do to make a huge difference for this country!

2. The Federal Government Will Not Shrink Itself

Limiting federal power will NEVER come from the federal level; it will never shrink itself on its own accord. It is natural and inevitable that they will attempt to expand their powers. We’ve seen that throughout our history. Even presidents that claimed to oppose big government only served to expand its size, role and encroachments on our freedom. That role and duty of limiting federal powers was given to the states. 


Obama and Civil Liberties: The Prospect of Four More Years

originally published at The Beacon

Most voters prioritize the economy and far behind that comes foreign policy, where both major presidential candidates offer more of the same. One can make arguments that on these important issues, one side is worse than the other. But another important set of issues, those of civil liberties, has gotten much less attention than jobs, health care, or war. This is unfortunate because precedents set today on questions of law enforcement, presidential power, detention policy, surveillance, and the relationship between national-security approaches and due process will forever affect the character of American political culture and its governing institutions. In the very long term, civil liberties issues are as important as any, and in the very short term, they often mean life or death, torture or humane treatment, imprisonment or freedom, for flesh-and-blood individuals.

Focusing on civil liberties issues, one could make a strong case that a second Obama term would be even worse than a Romney presidency. This prospect hinges on two basic factors: what Obama has done so far in the areas of civil liberties, and, just as important, what Obama has done to national discourse.

In practice, Obama has for the most part solidified Bush’s extremist detention policies and in some respects gone further. He did officially repudiate torture, but with enough loopholes that the abuses have continued – the beatings and forced feedings at Guantánamo and limited use of renditioning and black sites. The ad hoc Bush policy of indefinite detention became formalized by Obama in May 2009 whe he unveiled his new doctrine of “prolonged detention,” and was codified, even for American citizens, in the NDAA he signed this last New Year’s eve.


Will Arizona Voters Take Their Land Back?

My neighbor is a great guy, and we are good friends.  I live in the same building as he does, and we co-exist pretty well.

I don’t have any complaints about him.

Well, maybe one.

My neighbor borrowed an old laptop of mine so he could get some much needed work done.  I wasn’t using it, and I was happy to help out a friend. I trusted him to give it back when he was finished.  But it’s been two years since I have seen my computer; my neighbor now uses it to keep records for his business.  I have come to accept that I won’t be seeing it again.

So, what does this have to do with Arizona Prop 120?

Well, the federal government is doing the same thing to Arizona.

In a report by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University, Prop 120 co-sponsor Senator Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake) wrote, “Western states are at a distinct disadvantage compared to the states east of the Mississippi because we don’t have control of all the land within our borders. The federal government controls (and mismanages) a major part of our land and interferes with mining, ranching, farming, grazing, water management, and many other aspects that are vital to our state economy, education, tourism, and our general prosperity.”