“To Win the Drug War: Follow the States” Branson hits homerun

Richard Branson’s article entitled “To Win the Drug War: Follow the States” is not only a catchy title, but adds to the arsenal of actions all of us can advocate at the State level.  To win, we need to fight the battle at the State level, if not each town, if not each county.

The Drug war is a farce, the federal government uses it to grow itself, impose itself on the people and the States and unless the States take action, this is but the tip of yet another federal take-over that must and needs to be stopped, if we want to Retake America, one State at a time.

Richard Branson makes a solid case,  in this Huffington Post  article,  that the Drug war has devastating impact on our country, that neither party during campaign has brought it up, then goes on to point out the terrible cost in $$$, lives, vast and extensive efforts to fight it, the growth of the prison system and more.  He then goes so far as to point out that public opinion is swinging in favor of basic drug decriminalization, a la marijuana, and that the States could more effectively do the job than the feds, are beginning to do so and—he does not say this—that the current Drug War overall is a bust, a total failure and does more damage to the people, economy and our prosperity, all based on a witch hunt mentality and a way to grow the federal government seemingly without limit.

All this is not only now self evident, from almost all studies done, but from policemen and others working in the field. “Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, corrections officials and others who, after witnessing the harms of the drug war firsthand, are now devoted to ending that war.” An article just this week by LEAP staff opens with

Details

Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents

At the close of 2011, Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for the year 2012. In it are what some constitutional experts consider to be some of the greatest constitutional violations in American history. At issue are sections 1021 and 1022 which, in essence, create a new power for the federal government to “indefinitely detain” – without due process – any person. Indefinitely. That’s little different than kidnapping.

In response, there’s been a bit of a firestorm from people across the political spectrum. Local communities in Colorado sent out the first warning shots, passing resolutions and ordinances rejecting such power earlier this year. Then, at the close of the 2012 state legislative session, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed House Bill 1160, making that state the first to paw a law not only rejecting the federal act, but fully banning any state agency from cooperating with the feds on it.

Currently, more than 15 local communities have done the same. Michigan is also considering a bill that is similar to Virginia’s. And today, Texas State Representative Lyle Larson introduced House Bill 149 (HB149), the Texas Liberty Preservation Act. This might be the strongest anti-NDAA bill introduced yet.

It states, in part:

Details

Obama’s Legacy of Constitutional Violations

by Shahid Buttar, via the People’s Blog for the Constitution

President Obama’s reelection has sparked an onslaught of analysis attempting to define the agenda for his second term. Will it reflect the vision of restoring liberty and security on which the president ran in 2008, or the disappointing passivity towards the national security state that characterized his first term?

More to the point, will President Obama’s legacy include emerging American authoritarianism, or instead the recovery of constitutional freedoms lost over the past decade? While machinations in Washington will of course influence the answer, We the People will play a crucial role, well beyond the 2012 election, in determining the outcome.

Obama’s legacy of constitutional violations

With the broad strokes that history affords the past, any president’s legacy usually shrinks within a decade to two or three elements. For instance, Clinton is remembered for presiding over the tech boom and resulting federal surplus, dismantling welfare and escalating mass incarceration, and surviving a partisan impeachment effort prompted by sophomoric sexual indiscretion.

George H. W. Bush’s legacy includes the first Iraq war, failing to energize the economy, and a premature pledge not to raise taxes. We remember Ronald Reagan for overcoming the Soviet Union and its satellites (even if his methods ensured the contemporary budget crisis, created al-Qaeda, and emboldened Iran), heralding “morning in America” to end a recession, and after surviving an assassination attempt, conveniently growing unable to recall more or less anything about compounding scandals that stained his second term.

In these broad strokes, President Obama’s legacy will likely include memories of the historic debate over healthcare policy in 2009, and the recurring budget crises that, combined with GOP intransigence, have periodically brought Washington to a standstill under his administration. The most enduring part of his legacy, however, will be the entrenchment of the national security state on his watch.

Beyond merely failing to reverse the trajectory of the Bush-Cheney administration, Obama’s first term extended it, pioneering new abuses while entrenching old ones.

Details

Jerry Brown Tells Obama Administration to Back Off

Gov Jerry Brown on states’ rights on drug legalization “Justice Dept ought to respect the will of these separate states”

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said Sunday the federal government should respect states’ rights to decide how to regulate marijuana use, in light of votes Tuesday to approve legal use of the drug in Colorado and Washington.

Details

Missouri Statehouse Fails Voters

The Missouri Health Care Exchange Question was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Missouri. The measure prohibits the establishment, creation, or operation of a health insurance exchange unless it is created by a legislative act, a ballot initiative, or veto referendum.

The ballot summary of the measure has been under scrutiny, with legislative figures who support the measure stating that the summary, provided by the Missouri Secretary of State, was misleading to voters.

State Senator Rob Schaaf commented…

“It’s totally playing politics, and it’s lying to the voters.”

Missouri Secretary of State spokesman Ryan Hobart countered,

“This office has always followed our legal obligation to provide Missourians with fair and sufficient summaries of ballot initiatives, and this summary is no different.”

Senator Schaaf, is a Doctor, and a director of the Missouri Doctors Mutual Insurance Co. which stands to benefit from the government subsidies of a national healthcare plan.

So now who’s playing politics?

Details

Governor Brownback: No Exchange From Kansas!

Last Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback refused to have his state to implement a health care exchange as part of  the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  His office released the following statement:

Kansans feel Obamacare is an overreach by Washington and have rejected the state’s participation in this federal program. My administration will not partner with the federal government to create a state-federal partnership insurance exchange because we will not benefit from it and implementing it could costs Kansas taxpayers millions of dollars.

States have until Nov. 16 to inform the Federal Government of their intent of creating an exchange or leaving the creations and maintaining the exchanges by the federal government.  Currently, 15 states and the District of Columbia have stated they will create exchanges.

Details

A Proper Movement

“All men have an instinct for conflict at least, all healthy men.” – Hillaire Beloc

No doubt Mr. Belloc would have enjoyed the skirmishes ever-present on Facebook in the months leading to the November 6th election. In fits of ideological purity, usually accompanied by that quite unnecessary third glass of wine, I found myself enjoying the role of judge, jury and censor, exiling unrepentant liberals from my Facebook real estate.

As many of our readers can personally attest, these conflicts were not limited to Democrat-Republican or conservative-liberal. Conservatives took shots at RINOs. Libertarians flayed conservatives. Even libertarians sparred amongst themselves, passionately trading blows over lesser evils and greater goods.

Conflict is healthy; it keeps our wits sharp and our ideas sound. And compromise, capitulation and bipartisanship – in the context of subordinating our Constitution to the whims and wants of democracy – are unhealthy, fatal actually, to the future of our Republic.

Details

Four More Years of this?

by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Only in America can a president who inherits a deep recession and whose policies have actually made the effects of that recession worse get re-elected. Only in America can a president who wants the bureaucrats who can’t run the Post Office to micromanage the administration of every American’s health care get re-elected. Only in America can a president who kills Americans overseas who have never been charged or convicted of a crime get re-elected. And only in America can a president who borrowed and spent more than $5 trillion in fewer than four years, plans to repay none of it and promises to borrow another $5 trillion in his second term get re-elected.

What’s going on here?

What is going on is the present-day proof of the truism observed by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, who rarely agreed on anything in public: When the voters recognize that the public treasury has become a public trough, they will send to Washington not persons who will promote self-reliance and foster an atmosphere of prosperity, but rather those who will give away the most cash and thereby create dependency. This is an attitude that, though present in some localities in the colonial era, was created at the federal level by Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, magnified by FDR, enhanced by LBJ, and eventually joined in by all modern-day Democrats and most contemporary Republicans.

Mitt Romney is one of those Republicans. He is no opponent of federal entitlements, and he basically promised to keep them where they are. Where they are is a cost to taxpayers of about $1.7 trillion a year. Under President Obama, however, the costs have actually increased, and so have the numbers of those who now receive them. Half of the country knows this, and so it has gleefully sent Obama back to office so he can send them more federal cash taken from the other half.

Details