So last month MELTUP came out with over 500,000 view's on YouTube and now the same people bring you MELTUP the update. So the stockmarket is going down and gold has held it's price above the $1200. So THE FED is going to start printing more money"THANKS BEN" below is the Youtube video.
The National Infation Association has released their new documentary about hyperinflation titled Meltup today, May 13th, 2010.
NIA believes Meltup is the most important economic documentary ever produced in world history. The Second American Revolution has begun! Please share this documentary with all of your friends and family members immediately!
The documentary runs 54 minutes and is an excellent account of the current state of our financial system, recent actions of the Fed, the US National Debt situation, endless wars for empire and the devaluation of the dollar related to gold and silver. I highly recommend you take an hour and watch this excellent documentary.
So who has the gold bug? Any of you out there!! Well some people are waiting, to see what's going to happen. You know the FED is printing up more money!! Some of you out there need to wake up and take a step back and see. Who knows how long the dollar is going to be around. It's also the first time in history that all the money in the world is fiat currency, and they are all printing up more money! " I think a lite is going off in your head now" Get any kind of precious metals you can get!!
"When paper money currency becomes too abundant, and loses value, man always turns back to the precious metals. During these events there is always an enormous wealth transfer, and it is within your power to transfer that wealth either away from you or toward you."
The natural right of self-defense is being unconstitutionally attacked by the California Assembly Bill 1934, also known as the open carry ban. Open carry is defined as the right to carry a non-concealed arm in public, provided it is unloaded.
It is first important to understand that the State and the Federal government have no authority to deny any citizen the right to bear arms. An understanding of the type of government that America is, which is a Constitutional Republic, and how the Constitution was framed will clarify any confusion.
After the 13 original colonies, which were the original States, gained their independence from Great Britain there was a loose set of rules on which the government rested called the Articles of the Confederation, which served the country's infancy until the ratification of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights in 1788. It is important to understand that the States at the time, and still are, the highest law of the land and may nullify Federal Law, meaning rendering Federal Law useless, as the States see fit. Remember, the states started the Federal Government, and may end it as they see fit, as We the People have contracted the States to have this power. However, the founding fathers saw that human rights, which are inalienable and cannot be infringed, must be protected as no State or Federal government has the right to take them away.
James Madison, also known as the "Father of the Constitution," saw that tyranny could find its way to the American people without the Bill of Rights in place. Out of the original 12 that were presented to Congress, 10 were adopted to bind the Federal and State governments to it, and one became inherently unique to America which protected all other rights; the Second Amendment right to bear arms. When researching how to interpret the Constitution, one should research the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, which are papers clarifying how amendments and parts of the Constitution were meant to be interpreted. The intent of what the Second Amendment embodies can be found in the Federalist Paper #46 written by Madison himself:
But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
This specifically shows that the intent of the Second Amendment is that all persons able to bear arms should form a citizen run militia. This would eliminate the possibility of tyranny from the government. The People are to be trusted with that right because the power of the Constitution is granted by the people and the people alone. Ultimately, the Constitution was created to provide a limited scope of power to be granted to the Federal Government. The Amendments and Bill of Rights are incorporated which legally binds them to the Federal Government and the States as that was the intent of its ratification. Therefore, State and Federal governments are legally obligated to equally enforce all amendments.
With the understanding that the right to bear arms is the right to prevent tyranny, it is also understood that it is a right to self defense. How is an individual able to enjoy life, liberty, and property if there is no right to defend themselves from harm? If there is no right to bear arms, then the government would have to provide an armed guard for every citizen's self-defense and that wouldn't be liberty. This would mean that the government would have to tax citizens to provide self-defense, thus making taxation the means of self-defense. Would this make sense for a country that had a REVOLUTION over taxes? The people reserve the right to decide whether to defend themselves or not.
The attack on the right to bear arms openly was introduced in California by Assemblywoman Lori Saldana from San Diego's 76th District. Saldana's reason for introducing this legislation was,
Their [referring to Legal open carriers] threatening and confrontational conduct intimidates the public, wastes law enforcement resources and needlessly increases the risk of firearm-related deaths and injuries.
The situation involved 60 law abiding open-carry activists coming together cherishing their right to bear arms in a free country and concerned law abiding locals on the beach. The concerned locals called the police in fear of the firearms. They weren't threatened, all of the owners of the firearms were legal, and no arrests were made.
Just because a person has a firearm in their possession, does not make them evil, nor does it instantly possess them to treat others with ill-intent. The locals were in fear of a threat that didn't exist with the firearms. This is called hoplophobia, which is a fear of firearms. The Constitution only protects natural rights and does not guarantee a protection of fears. Protection of fears may be obtained through a licensed psychologist outside of the realm of taxpayer dollars.
The facts are, that no threats or intimidating movements, were made to the people on the beach, which effectively dispels the notion that the people were intimidated purposely. The locals who were in fear of the firearms, were the ones who called the police, thus being the ones responsible for the waste of law enforcement resources, not the law abiding open carriers. The biggest misconception in Saldana's reasoning for the introduction of the open carry ban is that it somehow it will decrease crime. She believes that open carry needlessly increases the risk of firearm related deaths and injuries.
Telling citizens that banning open carry will decrease crime is statistically incorrect. Open carry states have nearly 50% less overall crime index per capital (p. 5) than states with aggressively restricted open carry laws like the proposed open carry ban. Therefore, statistically, keeping open carry would increase the probability that crime will not go up.
The United States Bureau of Justice Statistics determined that over 70% of crimes committed against citizens happen when they are NOT at home (p.69-70), which comes from their National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Therefore, open carry bans would not allow a citizen to bear arms, when in fact 70% of crimes would be committed when they are not armed for self-defense.
In the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, one piece of data submitted to the Supreme Court was a survey done on convicted criminals and how they would respond to an armed victim by James Wright and Peter Rossi. Their shocking survey used in Supreme Court testimony (p. 32), covering 11 prisons in 10 States discovered the following:
• 34% of the felons reported personally having been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.” • 8% said the experience had occurred “many times.” • 69% reported that the experience had happened to another criminal whom they knew personally. • 39% had personally decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun. • 56% said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. • 74% agreed with the statement that “One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot.”
Saldana also states that it will reduce firearm injuries and that she is very concerned for the public safety. According to the California Department of Public Health 2007 death statistical tables, a Californian is 10 times more likely to die in a car accident than from a firearm, and a Californian is 80 times more likely to die from circulatory disease than a firearm. It seems hypocritical that open carry activists who were obeying the law, had the police called on them, by Saldana's supporters, and were accused of wasting law enforcement resources, which ultimately are tax payer resources. Why the demonization of firearms when there are much more pressing issues such as heart disease and car accidents? That would be less wasteful than attacking the right of citizens to bear arms.
The open carry ban is troubling given the state of financial crisis in California. The bill is a state-mandated program and will somehow have to provide money for grants to the counties for enforcement. More regulation will equate to more taxes. A state 100 billion in debt cannot afford any further expenditures.
The bill does not apply to the following:
(a) An officer or employee of the United States of America, or of this state or a political subdivision thereof (b) A person engaged exclusively in the business of obtaining and furnishing information as to the financial rating of persons. (f) A collection agency or an employee thereof (g) Admitted insurers and agents and insurance brokers (h) Any bank subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (n) Any secured creditor engaged in the repossession of the creditor's collateral and any lessor (1) The possession of a firearm by an authorized participant in a motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event when the participant lawfully uses the firearm as part of that production or event or while going directly to, or coming directly from, that production or event.
The citizens may not be armed, however a person is subject to armed intimidation throughout 70% of their day from Federal Agents, anyone involved with knowing a person's financial history, a collection agency, insurance agents, banks, creditors in repossession, and someone filming movies. A person making a movie has more rights in defending themselves than a law abiding citizen. Do not forget that criminals don't follow the law anyways, therefore they will be armed too.
The term loaded is being redefined as follows:
(j) For purposes of Section 12023, a firearm shall be deemed to be "loaded" whenever both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person.
And that crime of having an unloaded firearm and ammunition not attached carries this punishment:
(7) In all cases other than those specified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) both that imprisonment and fine.
This bill is a direct attack to dismantle everything that holds the Constitutional Republic together which is the right to self-defense and the right to a free society absent of tyranny. The Open-Carry Ban, AB1934, is a draconian measure that forces good law abiding citizens to be disarmed during the times when 70% of crimes occur, forces good people to be subject to imprisonment for exerting a right that the Federal Government and State governments have no right to take away, and forces a socialist redistribution of wealth from taxation to protect a small group of people from their misguided fears. A citizen simply needs to look to the Constitution for the answers that will clarify what limitations are put in place on the State and Federal government. In closing, the words of Cesare the Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana, who literally devised the basis for all modern penal codes adopted by the Constitutional Republic of the United States said:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
Poll: How well did the author cover the examination of the topic of AB1934?
On April 19th, the monthly Orange County (CA) Republican Central Committee meeting was held at the usual Hyatt Hotel conference room at the usual time; however, on this particular evening, it was not to be business as usual.
In attendance that night was a grass roots coalition led by Campaign for Liberty's own David Smithey. Their purpose there was to facilitate a demand on the leadership of the committee from the people by way of their individual assembly district representatives with a "letter of demand" to produce the Central Committees financial records in accordance with the by-laws.
I am encouraged to post this here, for this is a fine example of how We The People once politically involved, can learn the rules of the game and then begin to affect real change within their respective party.
I leave you with David Smithey's gavel-to-gavel account of the evening's extraordinary exchange. This is truly some dramatic stuff:
The GOP meeting ran late this evening, ending about 10:30pm. I noticed that so many members of the Central Committee had left the room that there was no longer an apparent quorum. The last fifteen minutes of the meeting was spent over a debate between Adam Probolksy from the floor and Mark Bucher, the Treasurer. They discussed the details of following the organization's by-laws and specifically a single issue that they were contesting. After the Chairman adjourned the meeting I approached him while he remained on the stage. I climbed the steps up to the stage with the letters of Demand from his constituents, for which I was authorized by proxy to deliver to him. I walked across the stage to give them to him. Rick McCarthy and Lori Bethel also came up onto the stage to deliver their letters of demand to Kermit Marsh and remained a few feet away to hear elements of the discussion that I had with Scott Baugh and subsequently Mark Bucher and Matt Holder.
I introduced myself to Scott Baugh and upon hearing my name he acknowledged me as the resident dissident while I handed him the letters of Demand. He had a very engaging and affable personality but I drew his attention to the documents and he asked me to explain what it was that we were asking for in the demand letters. I said that we were making demands on our Assembly District Representatives to produce the Central Committees books and records in accordance with the by-laws. He said the books were always available for review and that they were even on line. I told Scott that it wasn't possible for the books to be online by the definition of the by-laws and he appeared not to understand what I meant by my statement.
I explained to him that by definition the books and records were required to be reviewed by a CPA every two years. I asked Scott if the books had been reviewed by a CPA within the past two years and he said no. He said that they had been reviewed by a CPA only once since he became Chairman, he further said that was about five years ago, but he seemed to be trying to calculate the time. I told Scott that "by your own admission the books and records were not in compliance with the by-laws and therefore no legitimate presentation of the books and records could be produced to any Central Committee member". I told Scott that I had talked with several Central Committee members and executive committee members and I had not found a single member who had seen the books. He said that no one had ever been refused the ability to see the books and that I could not name a single person who had been denied access to the books. I told him that Jim Cover had asked to see the books and that Jim told me that Scott Baugh stated the books were online, but he never provided any link.
Scott said that I was welcome to come to the office and he would let me see the books, that he didn't want to establish any precedent with me as I was not a Central Committee member but if I wanted to see the books and it didn't take too long that I was welcome. I told him I thought it would take about an hour or two and that I would come with an A.D. Representative so that the by-laws were effectively in place. Scott said sure and repeated that no one had ever asked to see the books that could not see them. I said "well lets change that right now, how is 10:30am tomorrow morning and where should I go to review the books." Scott repeated "tomorrow" and then said that the time and date would have to be set and that would have to be done with the Treasurer. (I had told a friend that before I talked with Scott that he would ultimately have to place the responsibility on Mark Bucher). I said "okay Scott, since Mark is right here let's talk to him and set up a meeting for tomorrow". I then asked him what he thought about the by-laws not being followed. I said that "people can not expect their national representatives in Congress and the Senate to obey the U.S. Constitution if their County leaders could not even comply with their own by-laws".
At this point Scott said that by-laws are arcane and are often an archaic form of rules that could be set aside as their usefulness diminished. He started to give some examples but I said "let me bring this back full circle, even if by-laws become outdated you would agree that there is still a process to amend the by-laws in order to phase them out?" Scott agreed and so I said that people are concerned that if this by-law has been violated then what other by-laws are being violated? He asked me what I thought was so important about the books and how many books did I think existed? I said that there may be alter-egos, subsidiaries, and he said "no, there is only one set of books". He referenced my email and said "why did you ask if the party was broke, of course it's broke, that's why I have to raise money all of the time, that's why I took over from Tom Fuentes because he couldn't raise money any more". Scott went on to explain that he had to pay expenses from the party with his credit card and out of his own pocket and then he would reimburse these expenses from the party or some operating fund.
I asked Scott if the party did not have a credit card of its own and he said he thought that they may have had one at one time. I asked if he wasn't concerned about co-mingling of funds or at least creating a conflict of interest by causing the party to be in debt to him personally. He said that there was a time when he was supposed to be reimbursed by federal funds but that the funds came in to the state and he had to wait to get reimbursed. I was thinking that this co-mingling of his funds into the party account(s) could not be creating an accurate reflection of the financial condition of the company.
I told Scott that "it would actually be a relief to find out that the books were in order and the demand letter process was a way of making a record that the books be produced, that you should welcome the opportunity to respond and be transparent". He asked what I thought was in the books and I said that I didn't know what to expect but that there were allegations and we were conducting a form of due diligence to separate the facts from the rumors. He said that he had purchased a building and I told him "I have seen the deed of trust and your signature appears on it as the grantor". He seemed to be unsure about this as he tilted his head upwards and looked up in thought. I told him "you signed as grantor, Iron Stone Bank was the lender/beneficiary and Neuse, Inc. is the trustee". I asked "do you know who Ironstone Bank is?" he said "yes" and explained that he had received a low interest rate loan from them. I asked him "do you know who the trustee is?" he said "no". I asked him "do you know who First Citizen bank is?" he replied "no". I told him that Iron Stone Bank, First Citizen Bank and Neuse, Inc. were all owned by Frank Holding, and then I asked if he knew who that was. Scott said that he didn't know about these other entities or Frank Holding. I told him that Holding was a contributor to the Democratic Party for the Presidential campaign and asked whether he had a problem with Republican contributions ending up purchasing a building that financed the opposition? He said that he just had gotten a low interest rate loan and that he didn't look any further into it beyond that.
I then asked Scott "what do you think about the clear violation of the by-laws as evidenced by the lack of properly reviewed books that requires a CPA review every two years. The language is clear as it says shall and not may or perhaps". Scott then told me "the Treasurer is not doing his job right". I immediately agreed with Scott as that was the answer I was waiting for, as it was the only reasonable one he could conclude, and when I heard it I then said "okay let's talk with Mark" (Mark Bucher is the Treasurer). We walked over to Mark where I introduced myself and said I was delivering the Constituent Demand Letters.
Mark Bucher, in stark contrast to Scott Baugh, became defensive right away and said he was just looking at the letter and didn't understand what it was we were asking for and who was asking for it? Scott said that we were asking for the books and creating a record. Mark critiqued the language and said that it wasn't a record, that the constituent was asking the A.D. Representative to make the demand. As I attempted to explain to Mark the intention of the process, which was to provide a vehicle of power to the people, as the founding father's intended when writing the Constitution, he continued to interrupt me. He was abrasive and argumentative and said "the Constitution has nothing to do with this". I had to finally stop his interruptions by telling him that I would take two minutes to speak without him interrupting me again and that Scott could time my comments. Scott quipped something about how did he end up being the one now acting as the person watching over the time. I began to explain to Mark again, but he interrupted within thirty seconds. I made it clear that I had listened to him and that now he would not interrupt me further and admonished him not to answer until he had heard the matter, and then I continued to explain what the demand letter was about. I said that it was a demand from the constituent of the A.D. Representative who was making further demand of him as the Treasurer to produce the books by delivering the letter of demand to him. Mark argued that it wasn't right because that is not what the letter said. He said that the representative had to make a separate request of him and I said it was sufficient for him to receive the letter from the A.D. Representative and I handed him a stack of demand letters from eight of the nine assembly districts and its constituents. He continued to argue that it was not being done according to the letter and I told him "I am not interested in splitting infinitives with you; this constitutes a record of a demand to see the books". He said "I don't even know what that means". I replied that I wasn't going to split hairs with him and it was obvious that the books were to be produced according to the organizations by-laws.
Mark said "you can not see the books because they are only available for review by Central Committee members". Scott said that he had told me that it would be okay to review the books if I were so interested. I said again that I would come along with a representative and I would like to make an appointment for tomorrow. Scott said that Mark may not be available until next week and I said that if the books were always available than they should be ready tomorrow. I then said "it is impossible for the books to be available for review in accordance with the by-laws". Mark asked me what I meant by that? I then asked "when is the last time the books were reviewed by a CPA?" He didn't answer me so I narrowed my question and asked if they had been reviewed by a CPA within the past three years or two years? He said "no and you already know the answer to that question." I said "of course I do and that is what I mean when I say the books are not capable of being produced for review, because they are out of compliance". The books are improper and out of order, not valid or capable of being seen or reviewed under the definition of the by-laws. It is misleading to offer a review of these books and records which are in violation of the organizations by-laws.
Mark said "so what's your point?" I told him "the by-laws have been violated, what do you think about that Mark, as the Treasurer of the Orange County GOP?" I further asked him "how could this have happened?" Mark said "I don't think about it, I don't think about the by-laws". Scott quipped in jest that Mark wasn't like Tim Whitaker who slept with the by-laws (referring to Tim Whitaker's earlier comment from the floor). I told Mark what Scott had told me earlier, that Mark had not been doing his job right. Scott attempted to make an excuse but I said again, "Scott you were standing right over there" and I pointed my finger to where we had been standing just five feet to the left of the stage, and I said "you told me these exact words that the Treasurer is not doing his job right". Mark Bucher said "so what, I'm not doing my job right, so what do you want?" I said "but you are violating the by-laws!" and Mark said "okay, I am not following the by-laws, what do you want? There aren't any consequences in the by-laws".
I told Mark that first I didn't want a cavalier attitude and second that the by-laws did in fact have remedies and consequences but it was up to the subcommittees like the rules committee or ethics committee and the assembly at large to determine what should be done. Then I said "so Mark you know what the by-laws say since you admit being in violation of them so let me ask you when was the last review of the books conducted by a CPA?" He said "I don't know" and Scott attempted to recalculate the years from the last CPA review of the books. I said "clearly the books have not been reviewed by a CPA in more than two years and likely three or more years, so let me ask you Mark, what is the name of the CPA firm that did the last review?" Mark thought for a moment and said "I don't know". I immediately asked Scott Baugh the same question and he too said that he did not know who the CPA that last reviewed the books was by name. And then they started to talk about how someone in central committee may have done the books for a while but they could not give a single name of an individual, a Certified Public Accountant or a Certified Public Accounting firm who had last reviewed the books.
Matt Holder, a Central Committee member, interrupted our conversation from the floor and said that the books were always offered as available for review at every meeting. I asked Matt how long he had been serving on the Central Committee and he said three years. I asked him if he had ever seen the books and he said no. I stated that any company's shareholders would demand to see the audited financials every year at a minimum. Scott said that the Party was not a public company and the conversation became side tracked. Matt spoke up again and said that everyone was always assured that the books were available to the Central Committee members at any time.
I turned my attention back to Mark and Scott and said "gentlemen this is at least a clear example of incompetence, but more likely it is negligence and probably gross negligence". Again Mark asked "what do you want?" I replied this time by saying that if he worked for my company I would fire him tomorrow. Scott said, "so now you are firing volunteers?" The conversation had extended for almost thirty minutes and it was nearing 11:00pm. I walked off of the stage with Rick McCarthy and Lori Bethel and we made our way for the exit. At some point along the way Scott walked up to me by my right side as we walked down the hallway, he was carrying an awkwardly shaped box, and we began talking about other matters. I told him that the Republican Party in Orange County under his watch had deteriorated and I asked him if he had done the best that he could as the Chairman of the Party. He said that yes he had. Irrespective of my thoughts that Scott is a bright, witty and very personable and talented individual, the results of his efforts speak for themselves. He has not been successful in fostering an attitude of trust and transparency within the GOP. It is an aging entity with a membership of largely over forty and fifty year old (to be generous) die-cast bureaucrats that comprise the political machine. As an analyst I see the Orange County Republican Central Committee as a political entity whose structure is publicly moderated but privately manipulated. As a businessman I see the results of failed process and poor performance from the leadership.
My concern is that Orange County once represented the bastion of Republican conservatism and was one of the wealthiest counties in the country. And now it is going to the Democrats and we can't even get a straight answer about the condition of the books and records of our party. Is it any wonder that this current management team has led the Party into political and probably financial bankruptcy? It is my opinion that no one who honors the United States Constitution and respects the individual citizens of our Republic would create such a virtual wall of confusion around the financial books and records of the Republican Party. By their own admission these leaders, Scott Baugh and Mark Bucher, the Chairman and Treasurer of the GOP have stated the books are always available. If this is true, than why not now and why not today?
Is there malfeasance? Are the rumors of loans made to the Party by Bucher unfounded? Are the allegations true that Baugh has mismanaged the funds and unilaterally made decisions that have placed the Party's finances in imminent danger? Has there been co-mingling of funds or financial impropriety? Or are all of these claims baseless? We can not know without a Treasurer and a Chairman who will abide by and maintain a proper respect for the by-laws of the very organization they are supposed to uphold and promote in Orange County, California.
I urge you to vote yes on an initiative that is consistent with the Campaign for Liberty's belief that local control is better and expands liberties by allowing California to have the smallest restrictions of cannabis use in the world.
Starting with local control
Right now the federal government has asserted authority over cannabis in direct disregard to the 10th amendment of our Constitution. This bill is a state initiative which asserts that not only does the federal government not have the power to regulate cannabis, but that regulations should come from the local level and not the state.
So what is an ideal law regarding taxes for cannabis for the Campaign for Liberty? We would not want the power of taxation and regulation to be in the hands of the federal government. Furthermore the state government would be equally unresponsive to our concerns. However local governments represent the arena where our representatives are most responsive to us because many of them have been elected with less that 5,000 votes. This is where we should want the power to be; when medical marijuana passed, there was no discussion of where the taxation power would be in the bill and as a result the state asserted the authority to tax a medicine across the state. This initiative tells the state to back off on taxes.
The Campaign for Liberty's Statement of principles states, "We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution." This initiative does EXACTLY that. Section 11301(k) of the initiative puts the decision to allow stores or taxation squarely in the hands of the local governments. We should not be afraid of local government's ability to tax (its proximity to us makes it much less a threat than the state or federal governments' ability to tax). Right now only one county has offered an additional tax on medical marijuana (in addition to the statewide sales tax) and that is Oakland which instituted a tax of 1.8%. And while we may personally oppose any taxation in our local government on marijuana, why should we impose that mandate on other local governments? Isn't that the antithesis of local control? If Oakland and some other localities want to tax it, let them. We don't have to in our locality because the initiative puts the decision for stores and taxation in our hands, not the state or feds.
The Minimum Guidelines
This bill requires that every locality in California allow their residents AT LEAST one ounce of marijuana (along with anything you've grown which exceeds the ounce limit) and AT LEAST a 25 square foot growing space in Section 11300(a) but mandates that every local government has the power to expand the amount to be possessed or grown to whatever they want in 11301(L). This is similar to California's medical marijuana laws which require each county allow AT LEAST six mature plants but counties such as Santa Cruz have expanded that limit to as high as 99 plants. So while minimum guidelines mandated by the state are generally unwanted for most issues, these minimum guidelines expand liberty which the California government has unjustly taken (the California government made marijuana illegal two decades before the Feds) from us and then allows the local governments to go further but requires they allow AT LEAST some legal marijuana in their locality.
The unfortunate 21 and over part of the initiative
This is the one part of the initiative that can only be defended from a practical standpoint. I completely agree that marijuana should be available to people 18 and over (and alcohol for that matter) but the sad fact is that the majority of people see 21 as the magic age for these substances. This initiative quite simply did not have a chance of passing if it put the age at 18 (as a result of the Tax Cannabis' polling) and as a result it expands the definition of a minor to those under 21 in regards to marijuana just as the law does for alcohol (which unfortunately means that you can get up to 6 months in jail for giving a joint to a 18-20 year old just like you can get up to a year in jail for giving a beer to a 18-20 yr old in Section 25658 of the CA Business and Professions Code). However is the fact that it expands cannabis use to only those over 21 (like alcohol) enough of a reason to oppose it? Would you oppose medical marijuana because you think it shouldn't be limited to the sick? Would you oppose Massachusetts' initiative to reduce marijuana penalties from a misdemeanor to an infraction because you don't think it should be a crime at all? Would you have opposed the repeal of alcohol prohibition if it was limited only to those over 21? I answered no to those three questions and as result feel I must support this initiative which gives back liberties to everyone over 21. Sure it doesn't help 18, 19, and 20 year olds if it passes...but these individuals are no better off if it doesn't pass either. The net effect of this initiative is to expand liberty to a large group (just like medical marijuana which has shifted attitudes towards full legalization after its passage) and show the world legal marijuana isn't the end of the world. After it has been legal for awhile and people see that all the horror stories of legalization aren't true (just like there were for medical marijuana) they will see that cannabis is much safer than alcohol (or tobacco for that matter). In the meantime we can fight for 18+ year olds to get cannabis in our counties and cities (or even statewide) but nothing will help those causes more than to show the world that legal cannabis for 21+ year olds is a good thing by voting for this initiative and allowing that world to exist. California will literally be the only place in the world where cannabis is legal to sell, buy, grow, use and make stores for recreational use (even in Amsterdam there's no legal way to produce marijuana; they only have selling and using decriminalized).
Mistaken Claims about this initiative
"there's a 25 square foot limit and an ounce limit" FALSE!!!! -These are minimum amounts every county must abide by but local governments are allowed to increase it and the state is allowed to increase the minimum amount. See the "Minimum Guidelines" section above
"It will make cannabis more expensive"- FALSE!!!- This bill removes the opportunity cost of growing cannabis. Right now people turn to the black market to buy their cannabis because of various fears (it is a felony to grow cannabis, you can lose your right to vote as a result of imprisonment, your property can be seized, etc) but by allowing everyone over 21 to grow it, we remove the opportunity cost and production of cannabis will expand past people that hike up the cost to pay for their risky lifestyle of working in the black market.
"It expands regulatory power"- FALSE!!!- Right now the regulatory power is in the hands of the feds and the State of California. This bill asserts that these governments do not have the authority to regulate cannabis. Instead local governments will get to test different systems of regulation and we can compare them to see what is working and what is not. Some will allow stores, others wont, but the decision is a local one.
"This bill changes the medical marijuana law's possession limits" -FALSE!!! Under Section 2(B)(7) and Section 2(B)(8) the initiative states that it is not to overrule the amount of marijuana to be bought and sold as authorized under our Medical Marijuana law. The initiative states the several parts of California law that it does change but never makes reference to the medical marijuana for changes. Furthermore the legislature has the authority to expand upon (but not reduce) the minimum amounts of marijuana that can be possessed, grown and sold in Section 5(b). So EVEN IF the bill was SOMEHOW interpreted to change possession limits for patients, the legislature could just pass SB 420 again (the State Senate bill that defined minimum amount of plants patients can grow and minimum amount of cannabis patients can posses statewide). However there is nothing to indicate that this would happen, PLUS all of the local guidelines (such as Santa Cruz allowing 99 plants) would still apply regardless of the legislature's decision (because this initiative defers to local guidelines in 11301(L)).
"This bill makes it illegal to smoke cannabis in front of children."- FALSE!!!! In 11300(c) the bill says that it does not expressly legalize smoking cannabis in a place where minors are present. This just means that this is a local government decision; just as localities can choose to make drinking alcohol in front of minors illegal, they can do the same with cannabis. BUT no penalties are described and the bill DOES NOT make this an illegal act.
Ultimately just ask yourself this. Does this initiative expand liberty or reduce it? I think you'll find that while it may not expand liberty as much as you want, it is certainly an important step in the right direction just as the medical marijuana bill was. I hope you will support Tax Cannabis 2010.
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
James Madison, also known as the "Father of the Constitution," saw that tyranny could find its way to the American people without the Bill of Rights in place. Out of the original 12 that were presented to Congress, 10 were adopted to bind the Federal and State governments to it, and one became inherently unique to America which protected all other rights; the Second Amendment right to bear arms. When researching how to interpret the Constitution, one should research the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, which are papers clarifying how amendments and parts of the Constitution were meant to be interpreted. The intent of what the Second Amendment embodies can be found in the 
Telling citizens that banning open carry will decrease crime is statistically incorrect. Open carry states have nearly 
The open carry ban is troubling given the state of financial crisis in California. The 
This bill is a direct attack to dismantle everything that holds the Constitutional Republic together which is the right to self-defense and the right to a free society absent of tyranny. The Open-Carry Ban, AB1934, is a draconian measure that forces good law abiding citizens to be disarmed during the times when 70% of crimes occur, forces good people to be subject to imprisonment for exerting a right that the Federal Government and State governments have no right to take away, and forces a socialist redistribution of wealth from taxation to protect a small group of people from their misguided fears. A citizen simply needs to look to the Constitution for the answers that will clarify what limitations are put in place on the State and Federal government. In closing, the words of Cesare the Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana, who literally devised the basis for all modern penal codes adopted by the Constitutional Republic of the United States said:
County Coordinator
Local Coordinator
