Should pot be legal? NO: Voters should hold out for real reform, not fall for this narrow proposal

Washington voters are being told a big lie. New Approach Washington, the campaign behind Initiative 502, is advertising that it will “legalize” marijuana. It would not.

DOUGLAS HIATT • Published October 08, 2012

No Prohibition 

 

It creates a very narrow exception that defines the possession of one ounce by adults over 21, and the state’s rules for production, as “not a violation” of the law.

I-502 leaves every single law now making marijuana illegal on the books. Walk out of the state-sanctioned, licensed and taxed store and hand the marijuana to your significant other and it is a delivery of marijuana. This is not comprehensive, real reform.

What I-502 does change is our DUI law. Our current DUI laws are working just fine and result in conviction rates of over 90 percent. This initiative sets unneeded, unasked for and unscientific levels for impairment for adults (5 nanograms, rejected three times by the Colorado Legislature), while establishing a zero-tolerance provision for all drivers 16 to 21.

It also takes away your ability to defend yourself. If you meet the levels, you are guilty. No explaining that you are a patient, no arguing about the levels or tolerance, nothing. For drivers age 16 to 21, any detectable amount of marijuana will result in a DUI conviction and disastrous effects on their parents’ insurance.

This is not based on impairment; it is simply a new penalty for marijuana for kids. But it is a very impactful one for parents with teenage drivers. What parent wants to face the requirements for insurance and the expense of a DUI, all because of some youthful experimentation?

This initiative is also being sold as “pitting the citizens of Washington state against the federal government” and “carefully drafted” to withstand federal preemption. Not true. I-502 essentially wastes your vote to force federal change and will likely result in the federal courts construing this initiative to change the law to one ounce decriminalized, with nowhere legal to buy it and leaving the terrible changes to our DUI laws.

As U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan has stated, she knows of no attorney who thinks that this will survive federal preemption analyses. There are ways to avoid this drafting problem. See sensiblewashington.org for real cannabis reform.

Because the federal government will not allow the state to begin regulating and taxing a federally banned substance, these projections are moot. I-502 imposes taxes at three distinct levels and does not allow growers and sellers to be the same entity. This will produce taxes that will make the store-bought marijuana way too expensive to even begin to impact the current market.

I-502 will have absolutely no effect on criminal organizations in Mexico or anywhere else. To actually get the benefit of ending prohibition, as we did with alcohol, you have to actually legalize the substance in question, not play games and pander to fears. I-502 also fails to legalize hemp, which would open a $430 million domestic hemp market currently supplied primarily by China.

With regard to other criminal justice savings, because more than 90 percent of current marijuana possession charges are the result of traffic stops, the 10,000 possession arrests per year can easily be converted into 10,000 (or more) DUI arrests, thereby eliminating any savings in the criminal justice system stemming from reduced prosecutions. The zero-tolerance driving standard for drivers 16 to 21 will eliminate any savings on criminal justice costs and produce much misery for many families.

Just say no to I-520.

Douglas Hiatt is a Seattle-based criminal defense attorney and a co-founder of Sensible Washington, which opposes Initiative 502 and advocates for legalization of hemp and cannabis.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/10/07/2278108/should-pot-be-legal-no-voters.html?storylink=addthis#.UHMRJ5sAzPs.facebook#storylink=cpy

Judge Scalia On How “Easy” It Is to Deny You Your Rights

 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has again treated us to his “textualist” reading of the Constitution, telling an American Enterprise Institute audience that unfettered abortion access, “homosexual sodomy” and the retiring of the death penalty are all “easy” to decide against.

Reports Seattle Pi:

“The death penalty? It’s easy. Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy,” Scalia told the AEI faithful.

[…]

“Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” Scalia added. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”

Scalia’s mantra is that the Constitution is not to be treated as a living, breathing document whose promise of Liberty evolves with its people, but rather an iron-clad relic that should be read as it was set down, and in only that way.

This illuminating talk from Scalia comes as several marriage equality cases stand ready to be taken up by the Supreme Court, a number that will directly challenge the federal law that bans the government from recognizing same-sex marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Another case on the Supreme Court’s docket in the coming months, likely after the November elections it would now seem, will be the Proposition 8 case where a federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the voting majority of California violated state and federal guarantees of equal protection in 2008 by defining away the right to marry a same-sex partner.

Scalia, a Reagan appointee, has sat on the bench for much of the life of the gay rights struggle. He has consistently found cause to rule against gay rights. Most notably, Scalia dissented in Lawrence v. Texas, the case that would serve to eventually make unenforceable state level bans on sodomy.

In the dissent Scalia, while terming the sodomy ban “facially neutral” even though the Texas ban applied solely to homosexual acts, wrote:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct…. [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

While this may give us a rather face-slapping clue as to Scalia’s overall opinion of gay rights, the case may be of particular interest in that, with his dissent, Scalia found room to criticize the Court’s majority for its concern over the criminalization of sodomy leading to discrimination, citing that this ignored the will of the people:

So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.

Proposition 8′s defenders have harped, seemingly to play a tune to which a conservative judiciary might hum, that the voting people of California, through the democratic process, decided against gay marriage and therefore the will of the people should stand — this of course sidesteps the fact that minority rights will nearly always and by their nature find disfavor at a majority poll.

While Scalia’s approach to law, his “textualist” attitude, seems to give him easy answers on topics like abortion restriction and, to quote again “homosexual sodomy,” one can’t help but feel that a judge who knows how he will rule before he has heard the individual cases at hand might be going in with a level of bias that is, to say the least, concerning.

However, for those of us familiar with Scalia’s views on a variety of topics, none perhaps more eyebrow-raising than his refrain that sex discrimination is Constitutionally sound, Scalia’s latest volley against reason and equality, and his apparent admission that being a Supreme Court justice is “easy” when it comes to issues like these, will not be a surprise.

Equal rights proponents were never looking to Scalia for affirmation, but then Scalia’s celebrity has already been cemented among religious conservatives, legislators like Scott Brown, and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney who has said he would be looking to appoint similarly minded judges.

Scalia’s latest AEI talk serves, then, as a healthy reminder of what that would mean for America.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/judge-scalia-on-how-easy-it-is-to-deny-you-your-rights.html#ixzz291bcIFf0

I have listened and understood the words of the late Jack Herer,

 

 

Marijuana

Written by: 

ElectroPig Von Fökkengrüüven

I have listened and understood the words of the late Jack Herer, and I am amazed how few people who say they believe in what Jack was saying truly understand the real reasons why he so horrified at the idea of creating new cannabis taxes. Let me explain quickly: THEY ARE NOT NEEDED AT ALL! As a matter of fact, nothing could be further from the truth!

Now I’m sure that many of you don’t believe me. If that is the case, then you also didn’t understand what Jack meant, or perhaps you simply weren’t paying attention, choosing to hear what you agreed with and ignoring what you didn’t understand, or simply weren’t interested in.

The first “ignored fact” is that the vast majority of the “illicit market” for cannabis is underground, hence, completely untaxed. There is a small fallacy to this statement, however, as even those “underground economies” still purchase their supplies, tools and equipment from “legitimate businesses” and those businesses all pay taxes of one form or another. Cannabis growers order pizza, buy gas, hire electricians and plumbers, et cetera. In this admittedly roundabout way, cannabis already is taxed, albeit to a very small degreee in comparison to the total size of the market as it stands, and to the potential which is known to exist.

Let’s say that cannabis/hemp were re-legalized prohibition was repealed today, and it was done so without the creation of any new tax codes specifically for cannabis. Most think that this would be a bad thing, as it wouldn’t be “exploiting the market” without creating new tax codes, new agencies, new enforcement regimes. Unfortunately, the people who believe that have been lied to, and it’s time that they learned the truth.

In actual fact, if cannabis were re-legalized prohibition was repealed today and taxes weren’t considered in the equation in any way, it would still be beneficial to society in terms of savings alone. We’d save money on policing, of which estimates range that between 40-60% of all police costs are directly due to “drug prohibition.” Logic follows that with police not bogged down with grandmothers taking a puff to slow their glaucoma, they would then be able to concentrate their resources on combating real crimes. Things like rape, murder, fraud, home invasion and theft, assault and battery, arson, financial crimes, environmental crimes (of which cannabis/hemp prohibition is one of the leading causes, in fact), and many more REAL crimes with REAL victims.

Taken a step further, lawyers would then be freed up to work on real crimes as well. So would prosecutors. So would judges, court stenographers, prison staff and more. WIthout locking away non-violent “criminals” who have harmed noone else–and this is the scary part for corporations–the “warehousing of otherwise productive humans for profit” would suddenly become far less profitable for the prison-industrial complex to continue, and prohibitionary statute development might begin to fade. With less “legal reasons” to imprison people for essentially minding their own business, more people would not have the lives and futures destroyed.

So let’s say that there were no new taxes created upon re-legalization of cannabis/hemp, and we ONLY consider the tens or hundreds of billions SAVED by no longer wasting time attacking people in their homes for posession or for growing a few plants for their own consumption. Are not those billions of dollars saved a tremendous enough benefit to justify the immediate repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition? Could saving those billions of dollars not be immediately transferred into lower taxes, or public debt reduction? Would those savings alone not be of tremendous, immediate and long-term social value?

Now let’s consider the tax idea on it’s own merit.

With re-legalization repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition, there would immediately follow the creation of new businesses to exploit what is widely known to be a global market for cannaibs and hemp products. Each of those businesses would be subject to business income taxes that currently do not exist. WIthout a single character added to business tax statutes, the net result would be the establishment of “new revenue” from those “new businesses.”

Of course, those businesses would need people to man storefronts, deliver products, develop products, design packaging, grow the raw materials, process the raw materials, et cetera. These jobs would all be legitimate jobs in the real job market. Each of those jobs would be subject to existing income tax statutes. It’s not hard to see how those “new jobs” would in turn be utilized as “new tax revenue sources” which previously did not exist. Again, without a single line of new codes written, a brand new revenue stream has been obtained.

Each of those new employees and businesses would need supplies, equipment, computers, energy sources, and services. All of those businesses and individuals would then use their incomes to purchase those items or services they needed, either to operate or enhance their businesses, or simply to make their lives at home a little better. All of those products would be purchased at existing retailers and/or wholesalers that exist in the current “legitimate marketplace.” All (or the vast majority) of those purchases would be subject to sales taxes at state/provincial and federal levels. Again, not a single comma added to the existing statutes required, but “new revenue” has effectively been attained.

Now let’s take the cannabis market ITSELF.

All of those newly created and legitimate businesses would provide products that people either wanted or needed, be they for medical purposes or for recreational uses. All of those products would then be subject to state/provincial and federal sales taxes. With each sale would then come “new revenues” which do not exist today. Again–are you starting to notice a pattern yet?–without the addition of a single line of code to any existing tax codes.

The Fallacy of “New Government Regulatory Jobs”

People keep being told that “new jobs” will be created in the “new regulatory framework” that “will be needed”, but they haven’t thought this through. Some have partly thought it through, thinking that since a percentage of those worker’s incomes will be clawed back by income taxes–say 25%–that means that those jobs are “cheaper” than “real jobs”. That’s actually not quite right.

When you look the “real economy”, or in other words, the economy from which all government income is derived via the millions of tax codes which exist to take our incomes from us all, any position in this “real economy” is one which is subject to taxation, and therefore, is generally to be considered a contributing position.

On the other hand, when you look at “government jobs” which are wholly funded by “real people” with “real jobs” in the “real economy”, every government position which exists–no matter what country or what level of government–is a drain on society, and must be so, as “we hired them to work for us.”

Now let’s take a simple example that we’ve all heard a million times: “Joe The Plumber.”

If Joe was working in his own shop, or for someone else in their business, he would be a contributing factor in the “real economy” in the amount of taxation on his income, we’ll use 25% for illustration purposes. This means that 25% of his income is diverted to “public employees and projects” needed for society to function as it currently exists.

Now let’s take Joe’s situation if he were a government employee…let’s say he’s employed by the local Public Utilities Comission. Now Joe’s income is wholly funded by tax dollars, and thus, is a drain on society. We’ve established an income tax rate of 25%, so we can now say that Joe is “cheaper” because now his services now only costs us 75% of what they would, had he remained in his private sector job.

Here is the “minor error” in that logic: Joe has moved from the “real economy” to the “government economy”. In making that move, the “real economy” has lost 100% of a “real job”, while the government has gained an employee “at a discount of only 75% of their private sector wages.” When you add that up, you see quite clearly that Joe’s “new job” is effectively now a 175% loss to society as a whole.

Joe’s still making the same amount of money. We’re still paying him the same amount of money when he does his work…but now he is NOT contributing to the “real economy” at all, while he is draining 75% of his wages from unnaportioned taxation of the people who are forced to pay his salary, whether they partake of his services or not.

Unfortunately, this also applies to every “equivalent government position” that exists in the world. Accountants cost 175% of what they would cost in the “real economy.” So do welders, secretaries, cafeteria cooks, lawyers…ALL of them! If they work for the government, they are at a much higher cost than their equivalent “real world” positions in the real economy.

We need to keep this in mind whenever we hear talk of ” new regulations” because that almost always means “new regulatory bodies”, and that DEFINITELY always means “new government employees” which are going to cost us dearly if we allow such things to occur.

If we are forced to accept some form of taxation in order to move closer to the full repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition, so be it…let’s move a little closer…but the second we have a positive change under our belts, we must NOT become complacent! We must continue to fight for the full repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition until the batttle is decisively won.

Once we have some “half-assed reasonable legislation” in place, we can guage what are the worst parts of those enacted bills and target them one by one until they’re all gone, and then, we will have our ofn freedom, and freedom for what is arguably the most important plant known on this planet.

At the Hempstalk Festival, during Jack Herer’s final public speech, he said (among other things):

“I don’t want to fucking give this United States government one fucking dollar of taxes…”

Obviously, he understood my thinking…or perhaps, I simply learned enough to come to an understanding of his.

What about you?

EDIT:  I have since come up with the complete solution to the perils of prohibition in THREE WORDS:

1) DESCHEDULE.
2) REPEAL.
3) DONE!!!

If you remember only three words in your lifetime, THOSE are the ones that WILL end cannabis/hemp prohibition.

If we continue to be led by propagandists and prohibitionists into accepting ever-longer-names for prohibition, while believing we are “moving closer to freedom”, we’ll never get there…it’ll just keep getting more complex, more costly, and more damaging to society as a whole…as it has for decades already.

If we allow our politicians to “reschedule” cannabis, this COULD mean an outright statutory BAN on ALL cannabis use, medicinal or otherwise, for the length of time it would take “to conduct safety studies.”  We already know that if they keep finding proof cannabis is non-toxic, anti-oxidant, neuroprotectant, et cetera, we also already know that these “safety studies” will be completed in an absolute minimum of 4-6 years, to an absolute maximum of…NEVER!

“Decriminalization” is NOT repeal.  It’s still illegal.

“Legalization” simply tells the politicians and courts that we believe the fix to bad legislation conveived of in fraud can only be fixed not by deleting it from the recored entirely, but by making it more complex…but keeping it all on the books for future “quick-n-easy” readoption when prison investors want higher revenues to do their profit-taking from.

“Re-legalization” is just two letters prepended to the above.

“Tax and regulate” tells OUR EMPLOYEES that “we owe them new taxes for not wasting our money attacking us.”  If we keep buying into the scam, they’ll get it, too!

“Regulate like [insert commodity of the hour here]” is just another way to justify the creation of a new regulatory body, hire new “government employees”, raise taxes, lower rights and freedoms, all while telling the wilfully ignorant population that “they are free.”  They ain’t.  They won’t be.

“REPEAL” means:  The statutes are GONE.  Deleted.  History.  Erased.  Terminated.  Removed from the “law” journals.  NEVER TO RETURN.

The ridiculous proposition that “if we want it legal again, we have to create new taxes” is also a prime example of idiotic propaganda foisted upon a wilfully ignorant population.  Only two seconds of thought tells you the truth of the situation…we do NOT need to “appease our employees” when we finally force them to stop wasting our money.  Not wasting all those billions of dollars every year should be, and IS, reward enough to everyone all on it’s own!

When we find out we’ve got a crooked mechanic who’s bee charging us for spark plug changes on every visit that we didn’t really need, and were nothing more than a waste of OUR money…we don’t praise them and give them permanent bonuses, do we?  So where did the idea come from, that in order for our employees to simply do their job with a litle more brainpower behind their actions, that we need to give them more money and hire more people?  Reality has to sink in eventually, folks!  Even through the infinitely thick skulls of “politicians.”  They might be as dense as the core of a neutron star, but they still have ear holes!  SO START SPEAKING UP!!!

Either we DEMAND the full repeal of prohibition, or we will continue on with it forever, just with a different name, and higher taxes…and let’s face it, folks:  OUR EMPLOYEES will be completely happy to rename what they’re doing to us and call it whatever we want to call it, if we’re dumb enough to allow it to continue.  Are we really so blind as to STILL not see the truth for what it is?

Want it over?  MAKE it over!

1) DESCHEDULE.
2) REPEAL.
3) DONE!!!

It really is just as simple as that.

TO ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT TOTAL REPEAL OF PROHIBITION IS IMPOSSIBLE… I SAY

By:  Rev. Mary Thomas-Spears

 

 

 

APPARENTLY YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND LAW OR YOUR CONSTITUTION

NOR DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, NOTHING IS AS IT APPEARS TO BE

MOST THOUGHT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE… FOR ME TO BEAT 6 FELONIES FOR TRAFFICKING IN A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, WHEN I NEVER DENIED MY GUILT. THOUGH I WAS CONVICTED OF ONE FELONY IN THAT CASE… I MADE U.S. LEGAL HISTORY FOR BEING THE ONLY DRUG TRAFFICKING FELON TO NEVER SERVE ANY SIGNIFICANT TIME ON A SENTENCE, WHILE I FLUNKED EVERY DRUG TEST GIVEN BY THE COURTS FOR THC.

MOST THOUGHT IT IMPOSSIBLE…  FOR ME OR ANY ONE TO SET OUT TO DECRIM THIS PLANT HERE IN KENTUCKY 20 YRS AGO…

YET, TODAY, IT IS A TICKET-ABLE OFFENSE UP TO 8 OZ’S OR 4 PLANTS AND THEY NOW OFFER A TAX STAMP FOR ANY QUANTITY OVER THAT AMOUNT {NOT THAT I SEE THE TAX AS A GOOD THING, YET, THEY MUST FIRST RECOGNIZE SOMETHING AS LEGAL TO REGULATE IN ORDER TO TAX IT.}

STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN IT COMES TO MY PERSONAL RIGHT TO UTILIZE OR GROW

MOST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE… FOR ME OR US {EVEN THOSE FEW OF US WHO TOOK ON THE TASK, KNEW THE ODDS WEREN’T IN OUR FAVOR} TO GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT THE "LEGALIZE = LEGAL LIES" AND HOW THEY USE IT TO GAIN CONTROL OVER THE PLANT TO GMO… THAT WE’D BEEN BASICALLY LEAD BY THE NOSE… AND FEEDING THE MONSTER… HELL THEY NEVER THOUGHT WE’D GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT GMO HEMP/CANNABIS/MARIJUANA [.]

TODAY THERE ARE ENTIRE ORGANIZATIONS SET UP IN OTHER AREAS IN THE COUNTRY TO WATCH FOR GMO CANNABIS/MARIJUANA/HEMP AND TO CERTIFY PRODUCTS GMO FREE…

HELL I THOUGHT I WAS FIGHTING A LOOSING BATTLE FOR A MINUTE WHEN… I TRIED TO SHOW THIS SAME INFORMATION TO  GATEWOOD GALBRAITH FREEDOM FIGHTER AND DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PEOPLE HERE IN KENTUCKY… AND HE SCREAMED AT ME, WHEN I CAME TO HIM WITH THIS ISSUE, RESEARCH AND INFO. NEARLY 7 YRS AGO, AT WHICH POINT HE TOLD ME, "LEAVE IT ALONE MARY!!! LEAVE THAT ISSUE IN CALI!!!…"

SO I DID, AND SO I SUGGESTED TO RON K., WE SHOULD TAKE THE INFO TO JACK HERER WHO WE BOTH KNEW… SO THEN RON KICZENSKI AND MYSELF, TOOK THE INFO WE HAD GATHERED TO JACK HERER {RON LIVING NEAR HIM, WHILE I ONLY SPOKE WITH HIM BY PHONE AND E-MAILS..} AND ASKED HIM TO EXAMINE IT AND NOT TO BELIEVE US, BUT TO DO HIS OWN RESEARCH AND IF HE AGREED WITH US TO REWRITE CALI’S LAWS, WITH A NEW INITIATIVE, THAT WOULD END PROHIBITION THROUGH REPEAL AND PROTECT THE PLANT FROM GMO MUTATION AND SO HE DID. AFTER WHICH, HE WROTE THE JACK HERER INITIATIVE NOW DUBBED CCHHI2012, WHICH WE {RON AND MYSELF} HELPED HIM TO WORD AND WHICH IS CURRENTLY GATHERING SIGNATURES FOR THE BALLOT IN CALI TODAY.

AN INITIATIVE WHICH WE HAD PLANNED ALL ALONG TO PIT, AGAINST ANY OTHER LEGALIZATION LEGISLATION AND THEN CAME PROP. 19, SO WE DID WHAT WE HAD PLANNED… AND AGAIN, WHAT MOST EVERYONE SAID WAS IMPOSSIBLE… AND WE STOPPED PROP. 19 {WHICH WOULD HAVE LEGALIZED CANNABIS FOR EVERYONE AND HAD MUCH SUPPORT THERE IN CALI… } FROM PASSING JUST IN THE NICK OF TIME IN MY OPINION TO SAVE THE PLANT AND THE PEOPLE FROM THE CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENTS COMPLETE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL.

AT WHICH POINT MY HERO, MY ATTORNEY, MY MENTOR, MY FRIEND,… GATEWOOD GALBRAITH, WHO COULD NOT HEAR ME WHEN I SAID IT TO HIM… AND SCREAMED AT ME TO LET IT GO THEN WROTE ON ANOTHER WEBSITE ON THIS ISSUE,

Gatewood said…

I am an out-of-state observer who may have a hand in writing the future marijuana laws of Kentucky.

I immediately felt great hope when I first heard about the "legalization" forthcoming in Nov. in

California but when I heard that my good friends Jack Herer and Dennis Peron opposed its

passage, I was greatly intrigued. Now I thoroughly understand their positions. Thanks for your

exhaustive effort. I can sympathize with having such a burden lifted. Gatewood Galbraith

July 15, 2010 7:06 AM

IN RESPONSE TO, "WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW"

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html

HELL THE DOCTORS HAVE BEEN TELLING ME I AM FIGHTING A LOOSING BATTLE FOR MANY YRS… YET, I AM STILL HERE AND WALKING, WHEN THEY SAID, I WOULDN’T BE.

SO………

I KNOW THAT NOTHING IS, AS IT APPEARS TO BE…

AND THAT DESPITE HOW THINGS MIGHT APPEAR… NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS ISSUE OR MOVEMENT.

AND IT ONLY TAKES A FEW OF COMMITTED PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH.

"PROTECT THE PLANT THAT PROTECTS THE PEOPLE"

CHANGE YOUR LEGISLATION TO READ "NO GMO’S" AND RETURN IT UNTAXED TO OUR GARDENS TODAY!

SO I WILL CONTINUE IN MY EXHAUSTIVE EFFORTS, FOR ALL THOSE WHO WRITE TO ASK ME? WHY I HAVEN’T STUCK A GUN IN MY MOUTH YET OR WHY I HAVEN’T REALIZED THAT I AM FIGHTING A LOOSING BATTLE THAT GOES AGAINST THE TIDE.

The 4th Reich in America: How Obama’s “Rich” Replaced Hitler’s “Jews”

The 4th Reich in America: How Obama’s “Rich” Replaced Hitler’s “Jews”

by National Nullification of Unconstitutional Federal Actions on Saturday, April 14, 2012 at 3:51pm ·

The parallels between Hitler’s NAZI Germany and the fall of the Wiemar Republic and Barack Hussein Obama’s Fundamental Change of America are too eerie to ignore. The economics and politics of then and now are scary. Oh the players are different (sort of) but the Rhetoric and the economics are pretty much the same. The plan to collapse the American economy by increasing energy prices; decreasing employment; explode an already out-of-control tax spending congress with distribution of wealth schemes disguised as “stimulus” both domestically and abroad; oppressive regulations and legislation lead by Obamacare as the crown jewel of a totalitarian infrastructure created to replace a Constitutional structure. The Obama totalitarian czars replaced the constitutional process of checks and balances with these 50 or so strange and radical behind the scenes individuals writing burdensome and oppressive regulations designed to suffocate the economy. All under being done under the umbrella of “Fundamentally Changing America!” Does not something need to be removed or destroyed before it can be replaced with another thing?

The Obama administration are the point men for ending America as we know it. Though George Soros is a key financier for orchestrating the collapse of the American economic system, even he is but the tip of the iceberg. The true irony is the American Taxpayer is funding the overthrow of our Constitutional system of government. The money Soros and all the other so-called tax exempt entities are siphoning tax dollars into this radical coup d’état. When a majority of the world’s population are Communists, Socialists and other forms of Totalitarianism, why do so many in this country deny they are here in America and very much in control of local, state and federal governments?

I live in East Texas and the local government here is as liberal and socialist as it gets. Texas of all places! Texas has a super majority of RINO Republicans who have passed radical left wing agendas where even the courts has to step in with the illegal gerrymandering of political districts. Anyway, the taxpayers are funding George Soros, Union thugs and literally thousands of tax-free organizations backing the radical left spearheaded by the Obama administration. Is any listening to this madman? He’s dividing America by spinning class warfare against the Rich and political warfare against the TEA Party Patriots. The Unions are being armed for violence against American citizens who align themselves with the TEA Party movement for which they will be blamed for. The NAZI playbook suits the democrats nicely for just as Hitler blamed the Jews living in the Wiemar Republic of Germany so goes the Obama regime’s attacks against the wealthy and the TEA Party movement. While the collapse of Germany was not orchestrated, the collapse of America is. I know these are words that are hard to hear, but an HONEST examination of the facts can only come to one conclusion, America is Under Siege by radical left wing socialists and communists!

The willing players of the fundamental transformation of America will spin their way into oblivion proclaiming every mindless excuse imaginable (and even those unimaginable) to hide their reality from those suffering from the Titanic Effect. The Titanic Effect goes like this: the greater the enormity of the disaster, the less likely people will be to acknowledge its reality. It manifests with some being more concerned with arranging the lounge chairs on the promenade deck while denying the ship is sinking. (Sigh) Let the Band Play On.

Hitler’s Jews are Obama’s Rich; The Hitler Storm Troopers are now the Obama Union Thugs; The NAZI propaganda machine of Yosef Goebbels is nothing compared to the media machine willing and eager to see the greatness of America slip into oblivion. Even Fox Cable and Fox Business can no longer be trusted to carry the mantel for truth and investigative reporting. This cause for restoration, truth and American values lost a great champion and Patriot when Andrew Breitbart died last month. He will not easily be replaced and is already sorely missed.

The transformational surge began in earnest with the emergence of the Perfect Storm in 2008: A statist-progressive led filibuster-proof Senate; a super-majority of extreme leftists in the House of Representatives; with an angry, anti-American, Statist-Progressive President set the stage for the checkmate of America. It began with transforming an economic recession into a global catastrophe that began the devaluation of the dollar by flooding foreign and some US capital markets with trillions (yes, trillions) of dollars. A level 3 crisis morphed into a global level 10 economic meltdown overnight. This happening during the lame-duck Bush Presidency was no mishap … who better to blame?

Congress worked at a feverish pace to enact a surge of laws and regulations for a new communist style infrastructure guaranteed to prolong our economic woe. After all, there’s still George Bush to blame. What Congress put in place during the first term of Obama is the death knell of America. The poison is now flowing through he veins. Even if the Supreme Court decides the healthcare mandate to be unconstitutional, my greatest fear is it will dampen the urgency and mandate to repeal healthcare and all other Obama laws and regulations passed. That is the structure that will rise from the ashes created when the constitutional structure collapses under its own weight. The enormity of the damage to this nation during that first term is unconscionable!

It must all come down unless you are quite comfortable with totalitarian rule emerging from the ashes of what was one the Greatness of America. The evil of cap-n-trade, the tyrannical anti-gun laws, porous borders, the murdering of our future via abortion, and the rest are all critical pieces of the emergence of the new order. We now sit upon the precipice of disaster … and yet half this nation still supports Barack Hussein Obama for a second term?

Will this nation go placidly into destruction like the Jews of NAZI Germany did?

Not on my watch! Its time to rise again fellow patriots. We will not silently walk into the darkness nor shall we go placidly into the midst of destruction. Rise Up! … Speak Up! … and cast your Ballot this November. The very survival of our Nation depends upon you.

Ron Paul wins if Supreme Court strikes Obamacare

Saturday, 31 March 2012 21:09

BY MURRAY SABRIN
COMMENTARY

How did it get this far?  Even a naturalized citizen like me and tens of millions of others who took an oath to uphold the Constitution can clearly see that the United States is no longer a constitutional republic with limited powers

Article I Section 8, which enumerates the federal government’s powers, has been ignored by Congress and the Supreme Court for nearly two centuries. Congress has passed laws that presidents from both major parties have signed that egregiously expanded federal power.

Cleverly, big government advocates have hung their hat on the Commerce Clause instead, which gives the federal government the power to “regulate” interstate commerce.  By invoking the Commerce Clause, statists have created America’s unsustainable welfare state–Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.

An accurate historical reading of the Commerce Clause turns this interpretation on its head.  As Judge Napolitano has pointed out, the Founders wanted to make commerce “regular” in the fledgling republic by removing trade restrictions and other burdens so commerce could flow seamlessly between the states.  In other words, the Commerce Clause was not intended to give the federal government open-ended power to interfere with business activity.

Moreover, a free society requires freedom. The ability of the people to invent, produce, trade, consume, save and enjoy the fruits of their labor is supposed to be the essence of America.  In other words, a limited government, free enterprise republic needs the government to secure the borders and protect liberty, not order people how to live their lives.

If all the Supreme Court justices who heard the challenge to Obamacare this past week were faithful to their oaths to uphold the constitution, they would have excoriated the Solicitor General who was defending Obamacare, and castigated the President and the Congress for creating a law that was an affront to the Constitution—and an assault on the American people’s liberties.  In addition, the Supremes should have taken one giant step for liberty by stating that they will strike down all laws that have been enacted that are inconsistent with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.  Maybe they will do so in their ruling about Obamacare that is due in June.  However, I would not hold my breath that all nine justices will “see the light,” namely, that Obamacare is the latest statist piece of unconstitutional legislation that must be struck down.

If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, root and branch, the march to liberty could accelerate.

That would mean that Ron Paul has won, even if he is not elected president this year.  The Ron Paul Revolution, the movement to restore the Constitution, is gaining strength day by day. 

We have a long way to go to recreate a free society, but like all great journeys, we must agitate for what is right and honorable, a limited government republic, and not give up the fight worth fighting.

Murray Sabrin is a professor of finance at Ramapo College and blogs at www.MurrarySabrin.com.

RECENT COLUMNS BY MURRAY SABRIN

Tyler Clementi’s roommate Dharun Ravi did not commit a hate crime

Ron Paul should be more aggressive in his quest to restore America

Efforts to derail Ron Paul in Republican primaries are dirty politics

Key to N.J. tax relief: Revamp urban education, abolish state income tax

Gov. Christie should abolish income and corporate taxes for economic freedom

Liberalizing N.J.’s concealed firearm laws would help reduce crime

Christie supports more war by endorsing Mitt Romney

Herman Cain pays lip service to government spending cuts

Ron Paul hit piece is revealing

Back to Top

CONTINUE READING…..