This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Lat Pulldowns: States Flex Their Muscles

Michael Victory's picture





 

via TVR:

While supporters of the Constitution might be upset about another 4 years of Obama, strong Tenthers have been upset by every president in the last century. The Constitution isn’t going to be saved by federal politicians the ones who are attacking it daily.

Yesterday, Barack Obama won the presidential election. But, the people of six states voted to take their freedom without federal “permission.”

 

by Michael Boldin

tenthamendmentcenter.com:

In ten states – Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts and Alabama – voters had a chance to resist DC and approve ballot initiatives which would nullify unconstitutional federal acts. Six of them passed. And here’s a brief rundown of each:

 

1.  Montana, Referendum 122

LR-122 is an act “prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance.”  It also prohibits the imposition of “penalties for decisions related to the purchase of health insurance coverage.”

The measure passed overwhelmingly, 65%-34%

Full report HERE

 

2.  Colorado, Amendment 64

Section 3 allows the “personal use and regulation of marijuana” for adults 21 and over. Section 4 addresses legal commercial cultivation, manufacture, and sale. The intent is that marijuana be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol.

Colorado, after Washington State (info below), is the 2nd state in the country to have passed full legalization, and one of only a handful in the entire world.

The measure passed by 54%-46%

Full report HERE

 

3.  Alabama, Amendment 6

This legislatively-referred amendment frees Alabama citizens from any requirement to participate in Obamacare, or any other compulsory health care program. The ballot language reads as follows:

Proposing 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.

It passed, 59%-41%.

Full report HERE

 

4.  Washington State, Initiative 502

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, 18 states have been standing up and defying DC on this issue by legalizing marijuana for limited medicinal purposes. Washington’s I-502 takes it a step further. It ends marijuana prohibition and treats pot in the same manner as alcohol. People are allowed to grow, produce, sell, buy and consume the plant – in direct defiance to all three branches of the federal government.

The Initiative passed, 55%-45%

Full report HERE

 

5.  Wyoming, Amendment A

Wyoming voters passed a health care freedom amendment to the Declaration of Rights in the state constitution.

The Wyoming Constitution now guarantees citizens of the state the right to make their own healthcare decisions with minimal governmental interference.

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.

It passed by a huge margin, 76%-24%

Full report HERE

 

6.  Massachusetts, Question 3

A YES VOTE  on Question 3 enacted “the law eliminating 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.”

The 18th state to nullify federal laws on weed did it in a landslide. The final tally was 64%-36%

Full report HERE.

 

The only chance for liberty is for activists to focus their time, energy, money and resources on a state and local level, rejecting and nullifying every unconstitutional federal “law.”

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 11/08/2012 - 10:04 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

Too bad Colorado is such an ugly place with really strict gun laws. 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:48 | Link to Comment Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

Interesting thing about Wyoming is part (b).  

I interpret that as a green light to barter or trade for health services, fuck the money racket and fraud-fiat cartel in NYC.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 08:01 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

It's all just baby steps until the main battle between the 9th/10th Ammendments and the Supremacy Clause is openly waged.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:12 | Link to Comment covert
covert's picture

rebellion is the best of the american way and has been sorely lacking lately.

http://covert.ias3.com/expose/

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 07:20 | Link to Comment Stud Duck
Stud Duck's picture

Good job people of Colorado! Very good job!

I grew up in Colorado, will be moving years back soon out on the old ranch, firing up the old irrigation well and growing what should of been legal 50 years ago.

250 lbs @ $3,000 lb is $750,000, I have a new retirement program! I can do it in a old cattle shed 62 ft long and 37 ft deep!

So long east coast! I am now retired in Colorado!

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 08:37 | Link to Comment shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

250 lb.'s is a LOT of 1k lamps.

Better off to use the sun and bury a few home made claymore 'deterrents' on the perimeter.

Rippers understand incongruously placed high explosives signs posted near a grow patch and will avoid it.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 08:11 | Link to Comment IrritableBowels
IrritableBowels's picture

I'm sure you're the only person in the country that has thought about this brilliant scheme, so prices should remain stable.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 08:58 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

as long as its illegal in 40 other states, prices should remain comparable. of course locally prices will drop unless you got that mad shit everyones gotta have

 

which is why growers in cali fought to keep it illegal except medicinally

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 05:00 | Link to Comment RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

McCain was elgible - there was a law on the books at the time he was born covering birth in the American controlled zone in Panama.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 08:18 | Link to Comment MickV
MickV's picture

McCain may have been eligible by the Vattel "Law of Nations" exception for "children born to armies of the state", but Vattel is not US law, SCOTUS and the Constitution are, and SCOTUS defined natural born Citizen as "one born of US Citizen parents in the US". The law you refer to is US Code 8 s. 1403 ("US citizenship of children born to American Citizens in the PCZ"). That is a naturalization statute, and McCain was naturalized at birth by it. Natural born Citizens need no statute to be US Citizens, since they are born to US Citizens on US soil--- what else would they be (law of nature)? In fact 7FAM says specifically that military bases ARE NOT US soil.

McCain could have sought Declaratory Judgment, but that would have exposed Obama, so he participated in the Obama sponsored Resolution 511, which has no force in law, and sought to cover the fact of Obama's ineligibility by focusing on McCain. At the hearings, Constitutional scholars Tribe and Olsen defined natural born Citizens as those born "within the allegiance and territory of a nation". One certainly cannot be born "within the allegiance", if born with foreign allegiance. If simple birth on the soil was all that was necessary then they would not have said "within the allegiance".

Also in McCain's favor was the fact that Panama did not grant citizenship by simple birth on the soil, and had changed its Constitution in 1932 prior to McCain's birth to that effect, so technically he was not born with Panamanian citizenship, although he needed US Code 8 s. 1403 to cover the citizenship hole of birth in the PCZ, and as such cannot be considered natural born.

McCain who views himself as an American hero, and has been presented as such, is a TRAITOR.

 

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:43 | Link to Comment MickV
MickV's picture

The Obama Presidency itself is Unconstitutional. He was born British of a British subject Kenyan father, therfore he is not a natural born Citizen, and not eligible. There is no Constitution and no law when the POTUS, who is the executor of the law, is ineligible. America is over. Only the blood of tyrants and patriots will restore it. We are at the "Venezuela tipping point".

 

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." 88 US 162, 167 (1874)

No one born after 1787 of foreign parentage is eligible for the Presidency. Obama and all of Congress knows he is ineligible.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 01:03 | Link to Comment OpenThePodBayDoorHAL
OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

McCain wasn't eligible either he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. So what.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 01:35 | Link to Comment MickV
MickV's picture

Both sides are complicit, which is why the issue is buried. McCain allowed Obama to take power-- it was planned that way. The questions about McCain's eligibility obscurred Obama's ineligibility. McCain could have sought a Declaratory Judgment, and could have had a favorable result, since law of nations makes an exception for children born of "armies of the state" while abroad, to be natural born Citizens. As it stands he diid not fit the Minor v Happersett definition of "born in the US to US Citizen parents". Of course that would have exposed the attempted Usurpation, so Obama himself sponsored Resolution 511 instead, which said that McCain WAS natural born BECAUSE HE WAS BORN TO US CITIZEN PARENTS. Hiding in plain sight was the fact of Obama's foreign father.

McCain paved the way for the Usurper, and is a traitor and criminal. Hillary got a plum SOS position out of the deal. The Rs are paving the way for non eligible Rubio and Jindal (both born of non US Citizen resident alien parents, thus not natural born). It is a matter of power. The NWO wants to void the Constitution and US Citizen sovereignty, and has effectively done so by infiltrating the WH with a foreigner. Obama is likely British to this day, and likely travelled to Pakistan in 1982, at the age of najority, on a British passport, pledging allegiance to Britain, the allegiance of his birth, to a British subject father.. We are not allowed to see that passport, and the last one that did was murdered.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 04:38 | Link to Comment Augustus
Augustus's picture

Interesting theory.  However, Obama could solve the citizenship problem by confirming that his actual father is Frank Marshall Davis, US citizen living in Hawaii and prominent Communist.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 07:59 | Link to Comment MickV
MickV's picture

The story Obama has told is that he was the son of a Kenyan British subject exchange student whom was married to his mother. Obama Sr. was never a permenet legal resident, and was in Hawaii on a student Visa. Just as children of American citizen parents, born abroad, are US Citizens by operation of US naturalization law, British subjects who give birth abroad also pass along British citizenship (subjects). Barack H. Obama was born a British subject of a British subject father by operation of the British Nationality Act 1948, Part 1 Sect. 1. He has admitted this at his former campaign site "Fight the Smears" (now scrubbed). That site also said that Obama's Kenyan citizenship, gained AFTER his birth, upon Kenyan Independence in 1963, expired, but it never says his BRITISH Citizenship expired.

Obama has never uttered or posted the words "I am a natural born Citizen", and his new campaign website, "Attack Watch" only claims that he was "born a US Citizen" (He was born a US Citizen through his mother, if birth actually occured in Hi., which is still not proven--- a pic on a website is proof of nothing and is not evidence in any court of law, and also a British subject through his father--- dual allegiance voids natural born Citizenship and Art. 2 POTUS eligibility, especially since A2S1C4 has the purpose of blocking foreign influence to the WH.)

If the story he has told is false, then he has a new set of problems

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 21:02 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear arguments on this issue, deciding that the arguments had no merit.  President Obama has no problems with regard to this issue.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:03 | Link to Comment MickV
MickV's picture

The SCOTUS is evading the issue. Citing their refusal to hear it only highlights the fact that the judiciary is selling out the Republic. Look at Obama "care".

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 07:47 | Link to Comment Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

FMD. I thought FMD was just his first homosexual sugar daddy, before Obama took to living with rich Pakistani gays.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 01:53 | Link to Comment willwork4food
willwork4food's picture

No shit? Any proof to all that?

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:54 | Link to Comment prains
prains's picture

mick aren't we all just foreigners? really it's getting tired, the indians have been saying the same thing about you for over three hundred years but you never listened, what's your point really?

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 03:28 | Link to Comment WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

No! We are not. And quit being an asshole about this subject.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 01:02 | Link to Comment MickV
MickV's picture

The point is that your comment is ridiculous. Do you deny that the United States exists (or existed)? It exists (existed) within the Confines of a Constitution (rule of law) based on the law of nature (law of nations (see A1S8C10). The Constitution is Suprema Lex, and says that the President SHALL be a natural born Citizen, a self executing Constitutional provision that needs no statute or law to enforce, and leaves no room for discretion.

Natural born Citizen is a term of art, i.e it cannot be broken down into its constituent words in order to define it

(FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994).

Thus "born a Citizen" does not mean "natural born Citizen". By the adoption of a term of art (natural born Citizen) Congress adopted the entire body of law from which that term of art is contained (Morisette v. US, 342 US 246, 263 (1952).

Thus Congress adopted the law of nature (law of nations-- see A1S8C10, "Congress shall punish violations against the law of nations"), and has done so implicitly and explicitely (see Declaration of Independence, "the law of nature and nature's god"). See also Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Hrbor(1830) pgs. 122-126, (Right of Election replaced Perpetual allegiance on 4/7/1776)

The point is that Obama lacks the allegiance and attachment to America necessary to lead it, and is a national security threat. Seen any rule of law lately? When the POTUS is illegal then there is no law and no constitution, but I guess you prefer anarchy.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 10:53 | Link to Comment hangemhigh
hangemhigh's picture

@MickV

The point is that Obama lacks the allegiance and attachment to America necessary to lead it, and is a national security threat.

Your missing something here…..the ethnic demographics of the usa aren’t the only thing that’s changing….so are the ‘loyalties and citizenship’ of the romulan plunderbund: the  elite  looting class……..in the ‘new nomal’ the only real allegiance of these global privateers is to the offshore tax havens where their swag is stashed

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:03 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

The point is that your comment is ridiculous. Do you deny that the United States exists (or existed)? It exists (existed) within the Confines of a Constitution (rule of law) based on the law of nature (law of nations (see A1S8C10

 

if you apply the same parameters to this land as the jews do to the area presently called isreal, then , NO

it belongs to the american indians

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:19 | Link to Comment MickV
MickV's picture

The American Indians existed not as a nation, but as an amalgamation of separate nations who were constantly at war with each other. They were supplanted, just as every nation on earth supplanted another, that is the law of nature. Law of nations is ancient law, and that a nation be ruled by one of its own is as old as the bible. (See Deuteronomy 17:15). Obama was born to a foreigner, and as such is not an eligible natural born Citizen. He does not possess the allegiance and attachment necessary to lead America.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 10:14 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

RE the American Indians - you are misinformed.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 10:02 | Link to Comment CommunityStandard
CommunityStandard's picture

Obama shouldn't be president simply because he is a terrible president.  I don't care if someone is born on Mars.  If he promises to end the Fed, prosecute the banksters, and limit government, I'll vote for him.  "Allegiance" and "attachment" come from the heart, not from birth.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 22:53 | Link to Comment MickV
MickV's picture

The law of nations (law of nature) says that if born in a country of a non citizen father then that shall only be the place of the child's birth, not his country. (See Vattel, "Law of Nations", Book 1 Ch. 212).

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 07:40 | Link to Comment Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

We have anarchy now. Albeit, slow. There's no telling what local, state, fed gov or their agents are going to enforce yo to do or not do, or undo, or do over. It is impossible to now know what is leagal, lawful, permitted, unpermitted, possibly or possibly not permitted or might be given or not give a variance at some later date, after appeal, depending upon interpretation of course.

We are all crimals now. Ignorance of the hundreds of thousands of onionskin pages, any single paragraph, line, word, phrase is sufficient.

Naturally the Soviet court administration sees and immense cost to you that there is, if you want and can afford, trials. Agents of the court, at great expense will gladly assist you.

Of course if this ever metastasizing racket is unpalatable, the you are a agent of Al-qeada and propose turning Disneyland into Mogadishu.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:00 | Link to Comment MikeMcGspot
MikeMcGspot's picture

Based on Fed Tax $ contributed per state citicizen in my state we pay way more than we get back.

Why we keep on paying is a mystery to me.

Most of our fed tax goes to Floridia, they don't even need to heat their houses in the winter time.

It's not fair!

Wah, wah..

Excellent article, time for states to take back rights, and responsibilities.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 10:10 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Why we keep on paying is a mystery to me, you say. Maybe it's because 'they' have more guns and are willing to use them.

...Florida, they don't even need to heat their houses in the winter time. Living in Florida, I can assure you that once the temperature goes below 75 degrees many of the residents around Ft. Lauderdale break out their coats and boots. Seems kind of dumb to me, but then I spent decades working in computer rooms with low humidity and low temperatures. I find summer oppressive, so I guess it was an occupational hazard. 75 degrees, to me, is a perfect summer day. In Florida, December-January is my kind of summertime.

It's not fair!? Jimmy Carter said one thing I agreed with. One. "Life's not fair." Waaaaahhhhhh! You sound like the typical liberal, although your last sentence refutes that. If there were truly a political party dedicated to supporting the Constitution, we'd perhaps meet at a convention.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 02:50 | Link to Comment HarryHaller
Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:51 | Link to Comment booboo
booboo's picture

"Dear masters, allow me to consume a substance that I judge to be an acceptable risk in consideration of the benefits for my condition" Please, pretty please. Beg sheep, beg.

Has anyone ever wondered why the founders never saw fit to address these issues, drugs, booze, abortion, gays when they had the chance? Well, although many if not most had firm beliefs in "the Almighty" they also knew it was none of the governments god damn business to micro manage the affairs of a FREE INDIVIDUAL AS LONG AS HE OR SHE DID NOT INFRINGE ON THE "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS" OF ANOTHER FREE MAN. 

Get stoned and ram you horse into my tavern and its a civil issue, hurt someone and it's a criminal issue maybe, IF AND ONLY IF HE REFUSES TO REIMBURSE AND SKIPS TOWN.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:07 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

what gets me riles is three presidents in a row admitted to cocaine and marijuana use, but its still illegal for the masses

 

imo, three in a row and its defacto legal

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:35 | Link to Comment Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

It almost makes me start wondering if there's a double standard for kings vs peasants.

 

Naaaaah.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 23:00 | Link to Comment The Malamute Kid
The Malamute Kid's picture

RON PAUL

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:51 | Link to Comment Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Great to see US States flexing a bit of muscle but i wonder if things like legalising weed is more about taxing it than freedom?

Great to see the Health Insurance monopoly/extortion racket rescinded too

When's a State going to stand up against their citizens being shot or detained at the Presidents pleasure? 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 08:02 | Link to Comment OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

"Shot or detained" is 'so passe',

Please, as a civilized man, reference such adjustments simply as 'DRONED'.

Thank you for your comment, we now have your physical coordinates.

We recommend you call your next of kin and greet them good-bye.

If'in y'alls not with us, yahs againnus!

Good people tell their neighbors to take their children about a mile down the road (clearer targeting), for safety.  Better spread the word, quick!

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:49 | Link to Comment booboo
booboo's picture

"Dear masters, allow me to consume a substance that I judge to be an acceptable risk in consideration of the benefits for my condition" Please, pretty please. Beg sheep, beg.

Has anyone ever wondered why the founders never saw fit to address these issues, drugs, booze, abortion, gays when they had the chance? Well, although many if not most had firm beliefs in "the Almighty" they also knew it was none of the governments god damn business to micro manage the affairs of a FREE INDIVIDUAL AS LONG AS HE OR SHE DID NOT INFRINGE ON THE "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS" OF ANOTHER FREE MAN. 

Get stoned and ram you horse into my tavern and its a civil issue, hurt someone and it's a criminal issue maybe, IF AND ONLY IF HE REFUSES TO REIMBURSE AND SKIPS TOWN.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:29 | Link to Comment BeansBulletsBandaids
BeansBulletsBandaids's picture

I've been tobacco free since 2006 but still get the craving every now and then. Was in the store the other fay and priced a pack of red man for the heck of it. One pouch was over $8! I was/am shocked. I guess I'll have to grow my own if i ever pick up the habit again, 'cause Lord knows i can't afford a 8 dollar pack of chew...

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 07:55 | Link to Comment OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

My wife, Nutcracker, and I took our first vacation ever in 33 years in July.  We traveled to Flawed-duh and then went North throught every State along the Atlantic, then north more to Montral, down to Toronto, then to Chicago where we flew back.

What we tracked was the price of smokes...cigarettes, in particular.  California price was an 'outrageous' $4.99 a pack.  In Flawed-Duh! they were running $6.50 a pack.  Alabama...about the same $6.50 a pack.  Didn't get to buy any going North (train) until we got to DC, $8.50 a pack, Philadephia....$8.00 a pack...New York City....HOLY FUCK!!...$12.50 a pack...Massachusetts, $9.00 a pack...Montreal, $8.00 a pack (smokes hidden behind cardboard so they wouldn't offend (I guess)), Toronto, $8.00 a pack, Niagara Falls, $8.00 a pack, Chicago $9.00 a pack.

The difference between what Californifuckya prices and what these other locations charge is pure tax.  New York is making $80 off a carton of smokes over and above the licensing fees.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:48 | Link to Comment BeansBulletsBandaids
BeansBulletsBandaids's picture

im a big, dumb animal

my ZH fu is weaksauce

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:57 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

"the taxing authority is the power to destroy." THAT is the sole issue at hand right now...NOT smoking pot. Not that Congress probably shouldn't smoke some after "concluding negotiations with El Jeffe" otherwise known as the President of the United States. Simply put "what price we pay for our excesses" for while it may rhyme with success...simply put it is not. The "power has already been taken"...the American people have voted down fiscal sanity. OKAY! These are not unfamiliar characters who will now be "negotiating on behalf of the American people." There is much riding on the outcome of said discussions that are starting RIGHT NOW. Clearly if using the past as a guide we must assume that the preferred "avenue of approach" is for there not to be ANY AGREEMENT WHATSOEVER. I would argue this is not doing "the people's business." Part of keeping the American people safe is putting it on a path of financial sanity. The clock is ticking...and we shall soon see if this is a view shared by our leaders. I would argue the best place to start said "negotiations" is to simply point the obvious fact "sacrifices have already been made"...which to date have been EASY...RELATIVELY speaking. (Control P as we say here.) Perhaps in that venue...the venue of REALITY the beginnings of a discussion can unfold. A SERIOUS discussion....defined as "the exact opposite of what Disabledvet has been doing three years running now"...which strikes me as a profoundly low bar actually. Thank you for input in this article however...a may there be "someone unlike disabledvet who truly has pissed everyone off" left in Government such that...and you may "take these words to the bank"...something nice be said at the end. Clearly if anything like this can happen...and the date is late now..."more discussions will be in order."

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 22:30 | Link to Comment HurricaneSeason
HurricaneSeason's picture

Pretty hard to tell what you're talking about. Better lay off the pain medication. They are only cutting $80-$100 billion off the deficit of $1300 Billion.  If they don't cut the first $100 billion perfectly, big deal, they still need to do it at least 12 more times.

Colorado will make some tax revenue from their new law and empty some prisons and courts. The important thing is maybe they will feel the tide turning toward being a little more free. Maybe New York will follow suit and make 20 ounce sodas legal or will have a choice whether to wear our seatbelt. We can't be saved all the time because it's too damn expensive.

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:54 | Link to Comment A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Now we need States to protect us from tyranny through Federal taxation. I see no reason I should pay Federal taxes based on my in state wages and then watch my state beg and plead for some of that money in order to provide basic services such as roads and bridges. I would gladly pay my state the whole of my current tax burden (state and Fed) and let them give a small percentage to the Federal Government. It's time for the Federal government to relinquish it's hold on the purse strings, as they have been tried and found severely wanting.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 11:57 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

A Lunatic:

Municipalities should keep 75% of what's collected, send 10% to state, 5% to feds, and hold the rest for emergencies in their STATE BANK.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 07:40 | Link to Comment OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

I would to, except my State is fuckin' California, you can't trust these assholes to draw a line against a line, they'd make some sort of LSD circle shit going around a flower in Sacramento, to LA , SF, Montreal and DC...proclaiming all within as taxable jurisdiction.

I've waited for ove rtwo fuckin' years for prepaid fuel tax refunds to come back, and they're coming, maybe, over the next couple of weeks...sans interest, because the State feels that they can assess 7% but only pay .5% as if they were a god damned bank...and our $110k refunds are too small to matter.

And it seems that every other year this ass-fucked state runs out of money just as refunds are due.

This year I took an idiot strategy, I shared it some other post, I declared 99 dependents for both state an federal W-4.  Minimized my regular withholdings then tacked on something like 300,400, or $600 extra to the feds.  (I forget what it is, probably more like 700)  My money is at no risk of bank theft, nor is it at risk of State theft, nor is it at risk of wife theft (well, not theft, just pissing it away).  I am assured that my refund will be in whatever currency is in fashion at the moment and I will be filing my return in January (when you're the Corporate Controller you have access to information).

Bernanke will run his press about .0000023 seconds and I'll have what's considered money to the masses somewhere about two weeks later.  According to my calculations, I should have a lump sum of roughly $10k, after CA tax, available for food/water/toilet paper/gold/silver/full-metal-jacket-lead.

That will be a nice addition...if we make it to January.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 01:49 | Link to Comment willwork4food
willwork4food's picture

+10. The only problem is that many on the state level are bought out by the fed with aspirations for glory.

 

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 07:20 | Link to Comment Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

Low level locals kick up to state thugs, who Koch up swag, taxes, etc to federal thugs. In return if local thugs need muscle ( State Police, various other security organs, public or secret ) the can call on state administration, and if state wise the state call call on federals.

Its mutilated aid. Same as the Mafia, Nazi, Communist.

The key for the racket to work is for there not to be sheeple revolt everywhere, at the same time. If that happens then each local security unit will be on their own, and unsupported. These units are really built for day to day enforcement, and had always planned on reinforcement.
The wealth extraction racketeers see enforcement as a cost center and have and don't like to support them with their benjamins.

So the successful revolt is a coordination problem. Everyone must act at once, everywhere.
But how do you know the struggle is ready?
It seems that a long series over a long period , a campaign

Wed, 11/07/2012 - 21:38 | Link to Comment vic and blood
vic and blood's picture

Thank you for this article, Mr. Victory. I am also grateful to the original author, Michael Boldin. I intend to investigate the link that you provided.

I was delighted to vote for Wyoming's Amendment A, yesterday. I am very proud of my adopted state. I could support marijuana legalization here, although I will never have any use for the stuff. I doubt if it will pass in my lifetime. We are a pretty traditional bunch. It is time for so-called freedom loving Republicans to start being about freedom. Ron Paul led us to the water, but we didn't drink.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!