Who Watches The Watchers?

     It was posed to me this weekend by one of my dear liberal relatives, that the police killed Chris Dorner for tax payer purposes and/or police budgets. I cannot justify how he handled his situation, taking the lives of people, but they damn sure didn't kill him for financial reasons. 
     The police shot 3 other people during their search for him, claiming that they were mistaking the people's vehicles for Dorner's truck. Innocent mistake they say. Bullshit I call. 2 of the people were shot AFTER the police found Dorner's truck burned out and abandoned. The person who was shot (due to mistaken identity) before the police found Dorner's truck, was a 5'4'' Asian woman, a far cry from Chris Dorner, a 6'+ black man. They killed him to shut him up. Notice how the media has all but completely ignored Dorner's claims against the LAPD. I know, everyone thinks I'm Mr. Conspiracy, but in the press conference the San Bernadino police had the day after Dorner was executed, their spokes person said, and I quote, "We never intended to set the cabin on fire", a soundbite that was repeated constantly by a majority of mainstream media. Not but minutes later, as he was explaining what steps they took that led up to the cabin fire, he went on to say, "We used a cold canister tear gas bomb at first, which is not incendiary, but that didn't get the results we wanted so the decision to use the "burners" was put into place. ("burners", are a pyrotechnic type tear gas bomb, that, according to this same spokesperson, "puts out quite a bit of heat"). Police radio recordings confirmed that they deployed 7 burners, shortly after which they report the fire. 
     Now, if they did not intend to set the cabin on fire, that leaves only one explanation for their actions. Plain stupidity. What possible outcome could they have possibly expected to happen when they threw 7 pyrotechnic devices into a DRY WOOD CABIN?!!?
     So they were either set to kill him, no matter what, or they were just too stupid to know what would happen when they threw fire into a tinderbox. Neither scenario is a valid excuse in my eyes, nor is it valid according to the laws of the constitution. 
     Chris Dorner's crime has become secondary now, almost obsolete if the police break the laws to get him, when a more peaceful resolution was available. The police who orchestrated and conspired to burn the cabin must be prosecuted for their crimes. Dorner cannot answer for his crimes, nor can he be confronted by his accusers, you know, the family of his victims? The forgotten group who's constitutional right to confront the man who killed their family members was taken away by the San Bernadino police department. 
     They acted so callously, and negligently, rushing to hush up the bad publicity coming from Dorner, that they did not even consider the laws of the land and the constitutional rights of EVERY citizen. Being willfully incompetent, (a.k.a, stupid) is not grounds to dismiss any charges, especially when we are talking about police here, who are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Sorry for ranting, but this has really serious NATIONAL implications, and it needs to be pointed out that these men violated Dorner's constitutional rights, with no real legal precedence to. Remember, and you can call me a nut all you want, but Chris Dorner was never formally charged with a crime. He alluded to it in his manifesto, but never admitted to it, was never brought before a judge, or ever formally charged. I am not by any means claiming his innocence, for all I know he is as guilty as sin. But our justice system does have procedures in place that police are supposed to follow. And it seems here that NONE of the "officials" in the area even attempted to do so.
     We also need to be aware of the fact that this rant here is in NO WAY an indictment against police in general. The reports of racism and corruption in the LAPD have been around longer than I've been alive. There are great police officers in this country, and of the almost half million or so Americans that comprise local law enforcement in this country, the wicked represent a very small percentage. We can obviously take into account what positions these corrupt few hold as in what policies they allow to be set, and what offenses they turn a blind eye to. 
     It just makes zero sense to not expect those who are there to uphold the laws to abide by them as well. They cannot be allowed to violate the constitutional rights of ANYONE, and if this case is allowed, and no police are prosecuted for their actions, we leave it open to happen again, at total police discretion, with practically no laws restraining them, and every law restraining the American public. In other words my friends, police state;defined. LJP

Last Voice For Liberty on FaceBook
Last Voice For Liberty on YouTube
Last Voice For Liberty on Twitter
Last Voice For Liberty on worldtruth.org

And check out our partner pages as well!
Conscious Collective
#libertyNEVERsleeps
The New Generation
Alternative Journalism

Two Wrongs Never Make A Right

     The confused masses argue now over how they should view Chris Dorner. Should he be considered a villain, for killing 3 people, even though he was never taken to court and convicted? Should we see him as a hero, because he finally had the guts to stand up against the (well-known) corruption and racism in the LAPD? It has become quite obvious that the divisiveness over this issue may actually be the beginning of us all uniting?
     "You're fuckin' loopy," my good friend said to me when I proposed this earlier. But hear me out.
     Out of every conversation I've had, every post I've seen, the "official" story, seems to be in question. Which it should be. If this is a mass awakening, as I believe it may be, that would account for the differences in which part of the "story" should be in question. Was it really him who wrote the manifesto? Why were there two versions? Why did the police shoot other vehicles that resembled Dorner's after they found his burned up? Were the accusations Dorner made about racism and abuse in the LAPD true, or is this a case of a disgruntled former cop who lost his job and is out for revenge?
     It is my belief that a vast majority of people believe that racism exists in the LAPD. With the torrid past Los Angeles has had with racism, (Watts, Rodney King, etc.), it has been notoriously implicated in several racially motivated/biased occurrences. As much as they try to say they have eliminated the problems, they can never control what is truly in a man's mind. Police brutality, a product of unruly suspects, or stress, or pick a "psychological" disorder, is a problem in nearly every major city. Any time a police officer uses unnecessary force (a.k.a. striking a suspect after they have been handcuffed, or without physical provocation), they break the law, and violate the 8th Amendment (see below).
     So where does that leave us? What point is to be taken away from this?
     IF Chris Dorner killed those three people, (remember, never proven in a court of law), the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, guarantees him the right to a speedy and public trial (see below). Not only that, the 5th Amendment guarantees him not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (see below). That means, if the members of the LAPD took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, it was their duty to bring Dorner in to stand trial, and face the crimes for which he was accused in a court of law.
     As they had him trapped and surrounded in a cabin, a firefight ensued, resulting in two more officers being shot. Dorner was obviously not going to be taken peacefully, if at all. He was piling up the trouble he was already in, and he was laying it on thick. After hours of a standoff, San Bernadino police officials ordered the cabin to be burned, with Dorner inside. Justice for a cop killer, according to other cops, and supporters of law enforcement. But was justice really served?
     We have to look at this very logically, in order to draw the correct conclusion to this infamous event.
Chris Dorner, ACCUSED cop killer, has been discovered and surrounded by police. 2 officers are shot in the initial moments of the ensuing firefight. After a perimeter is established by authorities, they are 90% in control. Officers have been stationed in safe and effective positions to respond to the ever evolving situation. Several more gunfire exchanges continue off and on over the next couple of hours, with tensions obviously building on both sides. The only thing the police are not in control of, is Dorner himself. They control the perimeter, the ability of Dorner to get fresh supplies, his ammunition supply, (there was no hidden gun/ammo store under the cabin), the inevitable outcome would be one of only a few possibilities. Dorner would a) use all his ammo trying to keep police at bay, making a non lethal apprehension possible, b), starve or dehydrate to death without fresh supplies, or c), take his own life.
     They obviously had not thought of this.
     Or never intended to in the first place.
     The decision to purposefully burn the cabin down, with Dorner inside, was not only a rash, emotionally charged decision, it was in fact, criminal.
     Or, it would be if you or I did it.
     You see, by violating Mr. Dorner's 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights, the police violated their oaths they took to uphold them. Therefore, their actions would have set a "live" Chris Dorner free. If the same actions were committed by regular citizens, it would be called murder. When the order came across the radio to "send in the burners," it was accompanied by the words, "like we talked about before," meaning the idea to burn down the cabin was pre-determined. That phrase means that the officials in charge of the situation conspired beforehand to include a strategy that called for burning down the cabin if they found him in one.
The irresponsible handling of the entire situation by the police departments involved IS criminal. All officers involved should be brought up on charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. They violated their constraints as "public servants", and violated the Constitutional rights of an American citizen. Guilty or not, Chris Dorner still has the god given rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights.
     If we as a country take anything away from this situation it MUST be this; We cannot allow this crime of murder to punish murder to stand without consequences. They will claim it is legal via the NDAA, and that is where we must make our stand. Two wrongs do not make a right, and if we do not enforce the constitution when "officials" violate it, it only leaves it open for them to violate it more, taking each step even further in the advancement of the police state.
     This is not a country where "an eye for an eye" is the law. We have due process laws to protect the truly innocent, those who are not guilty of a crime, unjustly accused, and facing undue punishment. The second we don't apply the laws equally, we secede our rights little by little as well. We cannot be selective on who we enforce the law against. We cannot be selective on which cases we enforce the constitution in. Either we enforce the laws of the Constitution or we forsake it altogether. Either we apply the laws equally, or we do away with freedom altogether as well.

*Amendment V-- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or Naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

*Amendment VI-- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense

*Amendment VIII-- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Last Voice For Liberty on FaceBook

Last Voice For Liberty on YouTube

Last Voice For Liberty on Twitter

Check out our partner pages!

Alternative Journalism

The New Generation

Liberty Never Sleeps

Conscious Collective

Only A Pawn In Their Game

     So much has been made about the alleged tweet by former congressman Ron Paul concerning the death of former Navy sniper, Chris Kyle. People in the media, attacking Dr. Paul for his comment, "Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword'", and they continually "interpret" him as being disrespectful, driving a wedge right through the heart of the liberty movement. Just as we had with the Alex Jones/Piers Morgan brewhaha, it has boiled over in the public opinion courts, and all the "haters" focusing talk on how Mr. Jones acted, and not what he said, we now find ourselves repeating our mistakes with Dr. Paul's "tweet", focusing on what he said, instead of why he said it.
   

     The fact is, from all logical and realistic standpoints, what Ron Paul said is true. That's the thing about the truth; sometimes it hurts. Everyone keeps pissing and moaning about what he said, all the while failing to understand why he said it. Our government's foreign policy has led us down this road of tyranny and response, the latter being more accurately termed as "blowback". The idea that we can go around the globe and FORCE our ways upon the rest of the planet, claiming to be the supreme authority to police the world without any resistance from it, is to say the very least, naive. Our government's willingness to engage in preemptive war, and our willingness as a country to allow them to, casts a tyrannical shadow to the rest of the world, painting the American public to be just as evil as our government to many, or guilty of being too blinded by our own materialistic desires, and too willfully ignorant to see and stop our government's oppression. When our government sends good, patriotic young men to be their weapon of tyranny, by manufacturing a vastly encompassing enemy called "terror", telling these soldiers and the American people that our preemptive aggression is the only way to save their lives, invoking fear and anger in them to make them believe that what they are doing is right, not alluding to the obvious facts about blowback and the possibilities of it coming from their aggression.

The US government for years has lived by the principle that war makes money, and they treat it as a business. There are 2 MAJOR flaws in that line of thinking; 1) We are not AT war. War must be declared with 2/3 approval from Congress, and that has not happened since the 1940's. 2) The people who are running our government have not the slightest clue how to run a business, and the financial burden from this "war that really isn't a war" monumentally outweighs any "safety" attained by these invasions and drone bombings on sovereign countries and their citizens. In fact, it may even make us more vulnerable to blowback as a populous, as it drives further disdain toward America, coupled with the spreading of our military across the globe, making the people of our great land susceptible to violence.
     Our foreign policy crafts these Americans such as Chris Kyle, into believing their cause is just, and the common instinct as an American to be the very best at what you do, caused him to take pride in his accomplishments, again, remaining forcibly blinded to the threat of blowback, thanks to the re-education from our government. He, indeed, was living by the sword, acting as the force of the American government, brainwashed by globalists who have one agenda on their mind, and that is a one world government. Ron Paul's comment says, in plain English for those who are having trouble, Our foreign policy killed Chris Kyle.
       It is on this rare occasion, I actually disagree with Dr, Paul. I believe Mr. Kyle was murdered by DHS, as a two-pronged attack against the tea party and the liberty movement. Silencing Chris Kyle, his pro-second amendment stance, at a gun range, serves as a "convenient", not convincing, argument for anti-gun zealots. Second, knowing what type of "posterboy", for lack of a better term, he is to members of both the tea party and liberty movements, and the controversy with which his opinions and actions have been met with in the past, will serve the government by dividing us as a people even further.
     We are all pawns in the game, and Chris Kyle is no exception. It would serve everybody well to do 2 things:
     1). Remember that in chess, the pawns are used as disposable heroes, wasted at a moments notice to ensure the survival of the powers that be.
     2). They would kill us all, if the survival of one of us meant that they would lose one ounce of their power.
     Don't think for one second they wouldn't do it a little bit at a time, either.
     We must start looking at the real root causes of these problems we face as a nation, the consequences of allowing our government to do as it pleases, the consequences of our lack of involvement in holding our "elected" officials to their oaths, and our blatant disregard for enforcing the rules that bind the government as laid out in the Constitution. Arguing amongst ourselves, and getting all worked up over Ron Paul simply stating the truth, distracts us from what is really important, what Chris Kyle and our other soldiers really believe in, the utmost manifestation of love and respect for America, which is today, as it always has been; Resistance of Tyranny.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Last-Voice-For-Liberty/468758586477498
https://www.youtube.com/user/LastVoiceForLiberty
http://www.facebook.com/AlternativeJournalism
http://www.facebook.com/TheNewGenerationAwakening
http://www.facebook.com/LibertyNeverSleeps
http://www.facebook.com/ConsciousCollective1
http://www.worldtruth.org/lastvoiceforliberty/
https://twitter.com/lastvoiceforlib

Like Lambs to the Slaughter

     On Friday, January 25, 2013, a federal appeals court overturned Barack Obama's controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling that he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in recess.
     A three-judge panel handed down their ruling that the appointments the president made to the National Labor Relations Board were in fact, illegal, and the five person board did not have a quorum to operate.
     The ruling has an even broader constitutional significance, as the court ruled that the appointments were made as "intra-session" appointments, aka made while congress had left town for a few days or weeks.They said the president made a critical error when he said he could claim the power to determine when he can make appointments.

   
     The judges made a statement, saying, "Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers." The president's recess powers only apply after congress has adjourned permanently, which in modern times usually only means at the end of the year. The court also included in it's ruling that the only vacancies the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when the Senate is in one of those end-of-session breaks.

     Even in the light of this important ruling, there are still those out there who side with Obama. When I posted this to our page it was met with comments like, "BS", and "teabagger BS", and the one that absolutely blew my mind, "They're really grasping". This is pure proof, that there are still those in our society that blindly follow this president, claiming factual stories to be "BS", and calling everyone who doesn't agree with Obama a "teabagger". This article even included the White House response from Jay Carney, the White House Press secretary, who's job it is too make the president look good, and yet they still claim it to be BS.
     It's BS, even though Jay Carney made a statement about the ruling? It's grasping to site an unconstitutional overreach of power? Does this president have people so blinded that you cannot even admit he violated the Constitution, even when a Federal court rules that he did? I suppose they don't think Bush and Clinton were war criminals, either right?
     When is it going to be enough? At which "elected" dictator are we going to draw the line, and make our government abide by the constitution they swear to uphold? Carney's excuse is entirely invalid. The old "they did it, so why can't we?" excuse is childish at best. If we do not hold these men accountable for their actions, we condone their actions in the name of the American people. Whether it's Obama now or some other tyrant down the road, at some point, the realization that our government has turned against us will have to sink in. How many more Bushes should we make president before we stop them? How many more wars must we allow them involve us in before we wake up and realize-- they are playing us. Dividing us with Dem. vrs. Rep., gay vrs. straight, black vrs. white and so on, they keep folks like these entranced with what, I cannot fathom, while the old right wingers keep themselves convinced all liberals are evil, and it just keeps going?      
     Don't all of us as Americans want peace? Don't all of us as Americans want prosperity? Ask yourself if the "hatred" you have for those with opposing views, is a valid and personal dislike for them, a festering wound of hurt and anger that makes you feel as if their continued existence is a mortal threat to yours, or is it what you have been told? Is it the picture painted of those people by outside forces that makes you despise them so? Is it the TV, radio, internet, or newspaper that gives you this anger? I know what it is not. Communication. Actually sitting down and discussing and debating issues will almost always lead to an amicable solution for all parties. There is no difference between the parties anymore. They are only concerned with retaining their power. They don't care about you, me, or anyone but themselves. Once we stop letting them tell us how we should feel about one another, and start finding solutions together, we can rid ourselves of the criminals and return our liberties to ourselves.
     To put things as plainly as possible, if you thought Bill Clinton was a great president and George Bush(pick one, it's irrelevant) was a war criminal, you are one of these brainwashed people.
     If you think George Bush(again, take your pick) was a great president and Barack Obama is a war criminal, you are one of these brainwashed people.
     If you think as I do, and you know these men are ALL war criminals, treasonous to our Constitution, and to us as a country, you have just as much of a moral obligation as I do to continue to educate and enlighten our fellow Americans, until we awaken them from the nightmare they aren't even aware they're having.
                                                                                                            ---LJP

Check out all our partner pages!
Last Voice For Liberty on Facebook
Last Voice For Liberty on YouTube
The New Generation
Alternative Journalism
#libertyNeversleeps
Conscious Collective

How Many More Times...........

     How many more disillusioned lies are we going to swallow? How can my fellow Americans take this seriously? Will we continue to just let the mainstream media blatantly lie to us without us calling them on it? I would have hoped that after 2+ weeks time, more folks would have looked into Piers Morgan's astonishing gun violence numbers, but yet, they continue to regurgitate them as if they are gospel.   

     The facts on the UK are so misconstrued it's ridiculous. Fact 1- the year in question, was in fact 2011, where that corporate stooge Piers Morgan mistakenly poisoned the public with the "34" gun deaths. The number in fact was 59, not a large number, but as I've stated before, a vast number of gun deaths go unreported. The major points most TV shows leave out is the European Union has declared the UK with the 2nd highest overall crime rate in the EU. Their violent deaths per-capita are nearly 4 times that of the US. The United States not even in the top ten in the world in violent crimes per 100,000 persons at 466. the UK is 1st with around 2,000 per 100,000. We actually rank 28th in the world in actual gun murders at 2.97 per 100,000. More Americans were shot and killed by police in 2011 than were killed by "crazy" people with guns in 2011 and 2012.

     The problem in Chicago is evident. The less armed the public is, the higher the crime rate. When criminals know all they have to face is a handgun, (not as accurate shooting in the dark, smaller clips = more time taken to load, etc.), they can calculate their efforts. If the legal chance exists that the house or person they rob may have a semi, or fully automatic with a good size clip, their ability to randomly attack is significantly diminished.
 
     "If guns were the same as they were in 1787......"

 
     A large amount of fire arms were developed during the founding of our country, and to think that the fore fathers, with their wisdom so vast and perceptual, enough so as to establish the greatest document and testament to the experiment that is America, would not have thought that gun technology would advance beyond their time is absolutely ridiculous, and an insult to the authors of the Constitution.
     The reason we have the 2nd Amendment is plain and simple. National Defense. We, the People, are the militia. The only reason we have not had a full scale invasion by a foreign military is because of our armed populous. The Commander of the Japanese forces in WW2 said the very words " in America, there is a rifle behind every blade of grass", and this remains the biggest safety net we have against actual terrorism. Our military is spread halfway across the world, involved in wars we have no business in, so how, pray tell, would they be effective to defend us when it takes them 17 hours to get home? If we are disarmed as a public, we leave our lands open to attack from abroad.

Marijuana Legalization Legislation in 2013

     The push for marijuana legalization in America continues on in the wake of the votes cast in Washington and Colorado this past November, as more and more states are considering legalizing or decriminalizing the plant altogether.

          States such as Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, and 3 others have pending legislation for medical marijuana laws, and if passed, they would join the 18 other states in the union that have legalized cannabis for medical use. Indiana, Maine, and for the decriminalization or tax and regulation of the plant.New Hampshire have pending legislation  The growing consensus among a now majority of Americans is that most laws against cannabis only add to the violence caused by it's incrimination. Let's take a look at these states to give everyone a better idea what legislation is actually being proposed.

             States with pending Medical Marijuana Legislation
     1. Alabama---- The Alabama Medical Marijuana Patients rights Act-- This bill would authorize the medical use of marijuana only for certain qualifying patients who have been diagnosed by a physician as having a serious medical condition-- It was pre-filed by Rep. Patricia Todd (D) on Dec. 8, 2012 and will be read and referred to the Committee on Health on Feb. 5, 2013. http://www.ammjc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Alabama-Medical-Marijuana-Patients-Rights-Act-2013.pdf 

     2. Illinois ---- The Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act -- An Act concerning alternative treatment for serious diseases causing chronic pain and debilitating conditions, was pre-filed by Rep. Lou Lang (D) on Jan. 6, 2013; its first reading and referral to the rules committee was Jan. 9, 2013.

     3. Iowa----- H.F. 22- An Act providing for the creation of a Medical Marijuana Act-- This also includes the creation of non-profit dispensaries, and providing for civil and criminal penalties and fees-- A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest... provided the marijuana possessed by the qualifying patient is (a), not more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana, and (b), If the qualifying patient has not designated a primary caregiver to cultivate for the qualifying patient, does not exceed 6 marijuana plants.

    4. Kansas----- An Act enacting the Cannabis Compassion and Care Act-- Providing for the legal use of cannabis for certain debilitating medical conditions; providing for the registration and functions of compassion centers; authorizing the issuance of identification cards; establishing the compassion board; provind for the administration of the act by the Department of Health and the Environment.

     5. Kentucky----- Gatewood Gailbraith Medical Marijuana Memorial Act-- An Act relating to medical marijuana; to establish a comprehensive system for medical marijuana in Kentucky, including provisions for medical verification of need, persons allowed to cultivate, use, and possess the plant, organizations allowed to assist in providing medical cannabis, and regulation by the State Department for Public Health.

     6. New York----- S.B.1682-2013-- legalizes the possession, manufacture, sale, administration, delivery, dispensing, and distribution of up to 8 oz. of of marijuana in connection with the medical use thereof for certified patients... permits registered to organizations to sell, administer, deliver, etc.,marijuana to certified patients, or the caregiver of a certified patient for certified medical use.

          Other states with pending Cannabis legislation:

     1. Indiana----- Two separate pieces of legislation are to be debated in the 2013 session that would significantly reduce penalties for marijuana possession-- State Senator Karen Tallian, (D-Portage) announced that she will reintroduce legislation to reduce penalties for the adult possession of up to 3 ounces of marijuana to a fine only; a non-criminal violation.
        Separately, Sen. Brent Steele, (R-Bedford), has announced he intends to introduce legislation that would make the possession of 10 grams or less of marijuana by adults a non-criminal offense. Sen. Steele, who chairs the Senate Committee on Corrections, criminal and civil manners, told the Associated Press that he intends to include the marijuana provision in a bill that revamps the Indiana criminal code to align charges and sentencing in proportion to the offenses.

     2. Maine----- Tax and Regulate-- Legislation that seeks to make Maine the third state in the country to legalize and regulate the adult use of cannabis is pending before state lawmakers. Rep. Diane Russell, (D-Portland), pre-filed legislation to be debated by lawmakers this spring. Her proposed measure would legalize the sale of as much as 2.5 ounces of marijuana per week to adults 21 and over at licensed retail locations. The law would also allow for the cultivation of the plant in private settings.

     3. New Hampshire----- Legislation that seeks to significantly reduce criminal penalties for possession of marijuana is once again before state lawmakers. Rep. Kyle Tasker (R), has pre-filed legislation to amend marijuana possession penalties for up to one ounce of cannabis.
         Under present law, the possession of one ounce or less of cannabis is a criminal misdemeanor and punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine. This proposal seeks to make minor marijuana offenses a fine only, non-criminal infraction. Doing so would significantly reduce state prosecution costs and allow law enforcement to be more focused on other, more serious criminal offenses.

     4. Rhode Island----- Legislation that seeks to make Rhode Island the third state to legalize and regulate the adult use of cannabis is up for debate this session. House Judiciary Chairperson Edith Ajello has pre-filed legislation to be debated by lawmakers this spring. States Rep. Ajello: "I want to see the criminal element out of this. I think that legalizing and taxing it just as we did with alcohol prohibition is the way to do it."

     5. Texas----- Legislation that seeks to significantly reduce marijuana possession penalties is again before lawmakers in 2013. State Representative Harold Sutton (D-Houston) has pre-filed legislation. House Bill 184, to amend minor marijuana possession penalties to a fine-only, Class C misdemeanor.

      
     If, for the sake of argument, all of these states adopt the legalization of cannabis, that would bring the total number of state in America to legalize the plant in some way, either medical or recreational to 29. Over half of the country.What recourse would the federal government take, if any? Being these laws enacted by the states technically violate federal drug laws, we must acknowledge what grounds the government thinks it has to enact a law against the use of cannabis for any reason. 
     There is no part of the constitution, (written on hemp paper, by the way), that state the government has the authority to outlaw marijuana. Since it was not made illegal until the 1930's, when it was discovered it could be processed into a form of plastic,( a cleaner, safer, biodegradable plastic), the DuPont Corporation, who had a monopoly on the chemical production of plastic at that time, poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into lobbying for it's outlaw. After all, a plant that grows so easily and abundantly could easily be used to create competition in the plastics industry, and the DuPont Corp. wasn't about to have that happen.
     Since it is not a granted power by the Constitution to the government, we must refer to the Tenth Amendment, in the Bill Of Rights; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Therefore, these states are in fact, exercising their Constitutional right to decide what the laws on cannabis should be. They are letting the Federal government know exactly what their role should be in this decision, and are effectively in the process of nullifying the unjust laws against marijuana that fill our prisons with non-violent offenders at the cost to the already over-burdened taxpayer.
     The time for removal of the dangerous drug war laws, especially against marijuana, has been a long time coming. Contact your state senators and representatives today, and demand they take a serious look at the benefits of ending failed drug policies against something that isn't even a damned drug to begin with. It's just a plant. A plant that has incredible medical, ecological, and manufacturing benefits, unjustly demonized to selfishly protect big business and big pharma profits. -- LJP

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Last-Voice-For-Liberty/468758586477498

https://www.youtube.com/user/LastVoiceForLiberty

Fake Girlfriends and Doped Up Cyclists Take Precedence Over The Constitution

      This country truly amazes me at times. Almost to the point of disbelief. In the light of the 23 executive actions the president had the audacity to sign yesterday, as I sit and read the news, (with the TV on mute in the background), every time I look up, they are showing more pictures of this foolish Notre Dame "scandal". Is this really deserving of any coverage at all?
     In a time in our nation's history when the people in the government are ignoring, disrespecting, and blatantly violating the Constitution, how in good conscience can any "journalist" even devote one second to this non-issue, is a complete mystery to me. Let's look at this like we have a half ounce of common sense for one minute;
     This football player supposedly had a girlfriend who died, and that was cause for national attention, apparently. I didn't realize we as a nation were starting to pick and choose who we feel sorry for these days. How many other people had a girlfriend or loved one die in an accident that day? Where was the national tears shed for them? I wish to take nothing away from this young man's athletic ability, who he is as a person, or anything else like that. I am just wondering why he deserves the national attention of every major television network, dedicating at least 2 hours of coverage, (just since I woke up). And then there's the truth of the matter. He had no girlfriend. No one died. It was all a hoax. Why? Is it really relevant?
     The mainstream media uses these "flavor of the week" stories as a distraction technique, a way to get your attention off one wretched subject to another, and this is a prime example of such. With the threat of indefinite detention from the government, the perpetual wars we are continuing across the globe, (Coming Soon: AFRICA), and the impending and almost certain economic collapse on the horizon, spending any time covering non-issue stories like this are purely meant to "calm" you down enough through confusion, (why in the world would someone of college age perpetrate such a hoax, or who would do it to them?), and distraction, to make you passively accept what criminal actions against our constitutional rights are being committed.
    Even now, as I look up from writing this, the stories have now gone from the football player to the bike rider. So now, in the last hour alone, I have seen 45 minutes worth of coverage on these 2 stories. How can we expect to unify the citizens and make the necessary repairs to heal our ailing nation, when the real issues are being ignored in favor of stories that have no bearing on our national predicament? How can these "news" sources expect any of us to take them seriously, when they devote this much time distracting us from the real issues?
     One can only now hope, (a grossly over used term these days), that we can counter this type of time wasting, largely inaccurate, and biased reporting with the sharing of information amongst ourselves. Even as the internet garners criticism for "false stories", (which there are a lot of), one can still find more information in one hour of internet searching as opposed to watching any TV "news" channel, all day long. Social media has allowed for the forming of groups and pages dedicated to researching and posting of actual information, and the ease of checking the facts out for one's self increases every day.
     In the world of information, ignorance is a choice, and I personally find it high time for my fellow citizens and I to demand these "news" agencies cut out the sensationalist, partisan, non-issue stories, and start getting behind the American people with useful information, and not this pseudo-celebrity B.S. No war will end, no economic recovery will happen, and no tyranny will fail if we are more concerned with a girlfriend dying that didn't exist, or if some bicycle rider took dope in a race in France.