mickeybritt@outlook.com
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
straighttalk2004
Who controls Facebook? Has controlling stock? Seems that stock doesn't
mind the shareholders don't control the voting stock.
JMO
Mickey
JohnCM
RXMD will turn a profit long before tesla will. They are negatuve
$5.72 a share and look where they are trading.
JMO
Mickey
CBD
It seems older people are buying the crap out of it. Seen on t.v.
they are big time consumers. Some saying it made them feel good and
some said they tried it when they were younger and glad to have it again.
It helped some with their pain so it appears the CBD sales should be
very strong.
JMO
Mickey
MORESEARCH
I was sayinng the CBD sales will be very good. they will generate new
customers from it also. I would say the profit margin on those sales
will be very good.
JMO
Mickey
straighttalk2004
It took me a while to figure out you are marshaldave he disappeared and
you showed right up.
JMO
Mickey
In due time all drugs will be legal!!!!
The drug laws are unconstitutional and a moral law, stating do what
i say or go to prison. Violation of your first amendment rights to
free thought and logic and reason to make a decision what to put in
your body. In a free country you can't have dictatorship telling free
people what they can possess. Your body is your temple and you are
responsible for it not the government till you harm someone else in
society. Drugs have been around since time immoral and we did just
fine till they decided to make private prisons rich and make us a police
state. If the war on drugs was successful then why do we have a drug
problem and since the declaration of war on drugs crime and drug use
has went up.
JMO
Mickey
straoghttalk2004
You are not here to help you hope you can influence people to sell so you
can buy back what you flipped. How many charities have you donated money
or time to?
JMO
Mickey
Fat-man
You should sell if you don't believe the company will be growing.
JMO
Mickey
Stocked55
I have been wrong many times in life fortunately they don't put me in
prison for being wrong. I will not be wrong on this investment. I bought it
for my wife to start selling some in 2024 where I think the stock will be
trading over a $1.00 a share as they will expand I think every year.
JMO
Mickey
BullMarket34
Thanks for the correction as I was of the impression it was fprx and was
trying to figure how we could acquire a company trading at basically
$11.50 a share.
JMO
Mickey
Sponsoring Thought
If you take the total shares of fprx and add total shares of rxmd
and divide the price of the 2 companies you should come up with
around .40 cents plus. I do not know exactly what the share count will
be when the buyout is complete but rxmd is way to cheap for sure,
JMO
Mickey
The Serb
Not knowing what the share structure will be after the acquisition but
I would say we drag their share price down and ours up. If shares
are equal it would be easier to see the value and if equal then
I would say that RXMD should be trading over $5.00 a share.
RXMD will increase FPRX store revenues and hopefully lower the monthly
expenses. The purchasing power has doubled so the purchase of goods
should decrease. Consolidation of storage and operations should make
RXMD be a power to reckon with over the next few years. Walgreen's
and CVS may be worried in 5 years from now.
I think the stock should be halted as buying at this price is like
stealing. If you are short you may be in a world of hurt. I see a
huge buying happening now.
JMO
Mickey
If you want to see a message i spoke about on you tube go to mickey britt
1940
You will see my comments on drug laws not the best job but my first
rodeo on a you tube.
JMO
Mickey
If you want to see a message i spoke about on you tube go to mickey britt
1940
You will see my comments on drug laws not the best job but my first
rodeo on a you tube.
JMO
Mickey
Turbomonkey
Hold on to the stock and you can pay for their college and buy them new
cars to go to school in.
JMO
Mickey
straighttalk2004
Who do you think you are to be calling people liars here? You are a
nobody here to save us. Yeah when pigs fly. This stock is a great
long term investment. If the market falls the big stocks get killed
and solid penny stocks will be the best investment. The acquisition
this year will be huge with more coming each year for years to come.
JMO
Mickey
It is only a matter of time now!!!!
You can buy now at the foundation year or wait until next year and be
chasing the stock which will be rocking and rolling as they double
stores next year. Getting funds to expand next year after this years
performance will be a piece of cake. After that every year we will see
magnificent growth and acceptance by more and more doctors and hospitals.
I don't own any but if I owned Walgreen's or CVS I would be selling them
and buying RXMD as neither will see a $100.00 any time soon and RXMD
will see a $1.00 way before they see a $100.00. Make 12 times your money
will not be a bad deal but when you sell you will look back and be sick
as this is going to be another Apple just in a different industry.
JMO
Mickey
JohnCM
How long did it take Apple to blow by new highs after a big sell off
a few years back? Fundamentals drive stock not chat board opinion's.
The future looks great and I expect doubling the stores in 2020.
This acquisition is just the beginning of I believe will be explosive
growth over the next few years. If they add 4 more stores in 2020 and
5 more each year thereafter we are looking at a big time stock.
There are 3 kind of people those that know what they are doing
those that think they know things will be bad and those who haven't
got a clue of what is going on. Based on your observation which one
do you think you are?
JMO
Mickey
My opinion!!!!
This year 2 new acquisitions, 2020 should see 4 more, and 2021, another
5 with 6 more in 2022, and then 8 minimum each year thereafter. This year
is the breakout year and from now on should be smooth sailing.
JMO
Mickey
How long has Eric had to get 1 just 1 winning anything?
He is a total failure and will never get a winning movie. You would
think that by accident he might have found 1 decent money making movie, or
book but nope not a 1.
JMO
Mickey
BullMarket34
Show me where I said the stock was going to $66.00. I simply said
if you had that many pennies what you would have. When I have a
gain of 6,600 I will be happy, never had one gain that much.
JMO
Mickey
ndww42
Lets see if you had 1,000 pennies how much would you have
wouldn't you have $10.00 and 6,600 you would have $66.00.
That is what 6,600 pennies would be worth.
JMO
Mickey
ndww42
Get your calculator and multiply 6,600 times .01 and see the price.
JMO
Mickey
hub2011
What price will you be paying if you wait till certain events happen?
Smart money buys in front of things happening and when it happens they
are happy they bought.When things explode here 3 times today's price will
be cheap. The future is unlimited for this company. They are doing things
right and needing medication and services will only grow over the years.
I bought at a lot higher prices and seen it go down and don't regret
having paid higher prices as I felt I wanted to be sure and own the stock.
Hindsight is great and I could have bought a lot more stock but one never
knows when a company will be bought out or make a new acquisition and
the stock just keeps on keeping on.
JMO
Mickey
hub2011
You don't really think you will be able to buy the stock at this price, later when they accomplish uplist and acquire more stores. If you think
the future is going to be better you love the current price. I assure
you those that paid .26 will make a lot of money. kind of funny to hear
people tell others why a price is t expensive not looking at what the
future will bring. Why Apple was supposed to be going out of business
I bet you didn't buy a single share. Stock market is always on tomorrow
not today. When a company makes a good forecast for the future bingo
the stock takes off and vice verse on bad results.
JMO
Mickey
jjff
Legalizing all drugs and taxing them and releasing all possession only
people would save the tax payers trillions on incarcerating them and
maintaining the prisons. The tax revenue would be huge and only the drug
users would pay the tax. We could save social security, entitlements,
and pay down the national debt and raise no ones taxes a penny.
The risk of dirty drugs entering the country killing millions is in no
way worth the risk. The drug law forces drug use to be bought in bad
neighborhoods and who knows what happens or what they actually get?
The police are subject to being shot by a drug dealer or even a scared
to death drug user. For what? We have been warned what the results
of drugs can be and yet we are stupid enough to do them.
If you think the big bust they had on fentanol will be the only attempt
to get it into this country you are wrong. How many lives will be lost
when they could if legal go to a Walgreen's get a cheaper and cleaner
drug. The people who want to enforce their moral values on others are
killing them and have blood on their hands all in the guise of being
a good citizen. If you think the risk versus the reward is worth it
then I am sorry and hope it isn't your loved one you find dead.
JMO
Mickey
FISH
Statistics don't lie, since the war on drugs commenced crime and drug
use has sky rocketed. The idea that legal drugs reduces crime and your
loved ones are assured they are getting clean drugs.
I don't say drugs get over subscribed but to think we can't buy them
legally and be subjected to fentanol coming in and your loved one buys
that instead of clean legal drugs you have a dead person. Tell me what we
are gaining putting people in prison who have harmed no one. They are
exercising their right to insert what they want in their body and who are
we to tell them no? If they kill themselves they just do but 1 thing
is for sure we have a serious drug problem and prisons full not curing
the problem.
The risk of bad drugs entering the country is not worth it to me. Let them
get clean drugs and hopefully realize they need help and with the savings
on incarcerating all these people and taxing the drugs the cash register
would be full to have health care and hopefully improve their lives prison ruins them forever no jobs and back to now selling drugs to make
a living and doing drugs.
Sometimes you have to put things in perspective and dirty killing drugs
will yes will get into the country and what if it does and kill 50 million would you then say the drug laws work?
Remember alcohol was going to ruin the country so they had prohibition
and it failed they repealed prohibition and now we have happy hour
buy 1 get 1 free and low and behold the country is doing just fine.
JMO
Mickey
BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!!!
The government is bragging about catching drugs at the border that could
kill 53 million people.
Here is why they have blood on their hands because legalizing drugs allows
safer drugs to be sold. Don't think this shipment will or has been the
only one.
We force our loved ones to buy from drug dealers and risk robbery, rape,
prison, or worse the morgue. We force our police to go make raids and
get shot like in Houston.
Which had you rather your loved one do go to Walgreen's buy cheap clean
drugs go home and get up the next day and go to work or go to a bad
neighborhood and never come back?
Common sense says we gain nothing putting people in prison for a addiction
and expect that to make you safer and them rehabilitated. I know of what
I am talking as 23 years of drugs and prison didn't cure my son.
What if a couple of loads of this fentanol makes it through and kills
millions. Is all these lives worth the risk?
JMO
Mickey
Pochemunyet
Thanks for the prayers. My time on earth has been good filled with many
mistakes. My ultimate goal is to remove the chains our government has
put on us unconstitutionally. Under the guise of saving us they have put
our loved ones in harms way as unfortunately people do drugs and our
government forces them to go to bad neighborhoods to get their drugs.
The stats prove drug laws increase crime, death, and drug use but the
government has made fools of all of you and took your tax dollars to
spend on prisons private or otherwise instead of health care.
When you can't even identify the crime other than possession and say you
live in a free country. Wrong 100% police state.
I am suing the hell out of the government to allow free people to be
free to make wrong decisions, but till they harm someone else in
society it is neither mine, or your business, and certainly not the
government's. If tomorrow they said it was against the law to have
hamburgers, or steak, or just red meat, what would you do?
If you have any loyalty to freedom you will go to the churches and
get the people to realize their worst enemy is not Russia, Iran,
North Korea but their very own government. I can not do this by myself
but God has kept me alive maybe long enough to get things done. We have
marches for everything but our freedom. Tell me where was you when you
surrendered your freedom?
JMO
Mickey
I WANT TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR YOUR PRAYERS!!!
That means a lot to me and I appreciate it. I hope God has kept
me alive to fight the government from taking our rights as free
people to make wrong decisions away from us. Our body belongs to
us not the government. No government official ever got elected to
pass their moral values on us or go to prison. They apparently don't
know why there was a American revolution to prevent just exactly what
has happened the lust for the ultimate drug called power will ruin
democracy. We have a right to make wrong decisions and not go to
prison till we harm someone else contrary to what the government thinks
my body belongs to me not them and they will never control me.
I am suing them for punitive damages of 125 million for we the people
to be put in a trust to buy 1,000 acres of land and build 2, 3, and 4
bedroom homes and let those who served time only for possession of
drugs and our veterans and after residing 3 years the homes will
be theirs free and clear. I hope to have maybe 500 homes and call it
Freedom village. All they did was exercise their right to do to their
body as they see fit or maybe wanted to feed their chickens the drugs
but harmed no one.
The government could pay this and free all possession only prisoners
and shut down 70% of the prisons saving billions and consolidating
the real criminals and those being released get jobs and be tax
payers. Right now the government is stealing your tax dollars to
put the money in private prison hands instead of saving all that money
and applying it to health care. They legalize all drugs and tax them
just like alcohol which was going to ruin the country till they
legalized it and now we have happy hour buy 1 get 1 free and the
country is doing fine. No one wants drugs but they are a fact of
life and if your child is doing them they are doing them which had
you rather have them do go to a drug dealer and risk robbery or death
and bad drugs or Walgreen's and get cheaper and clean drugs. No one
pays the taxes except the drug users.
The government is right we are idiots to pay to house people that
have done nothing to anyone else versus health care with those dollars.
Think about who is really stupid doing this and there has been drugs
since time immoral and we progressed from living in a cave, starting
fire with sticks, and hunting for food with stones to living in
fine homes, heated, air conditioning, electricity, stoves, washing
machines, dryers, cars, air planes, fine clothes, television, phones,
computers to name a few all before we had incarcerating people for
drugs simply amazing we could do that and then they declared war on
drugs destroyed your rights and seen drug use sky rocket and crime
sky rocket. Having decades of the same laws expecting different results
is the definition of a idiot.
God bless each and every one of you and fight for your rights or you
and your children will have none and live in a police state.
JMO
Mickey
jjff
I don't post here any more but still pulling for each and every one of
you. My health has been really bad and they wanted me to have hospice
and I said no way will die fighting.
By the way all know I am suing and fighting the government. Tell me how
many politicians have ever been elected to pass moral laws, answer none.
No politician or anyone can tell me a free person what I can possess or
consume till I harm someone, they can pass criminal laws but can't make
moral laws criminal. That was why there was a American revolution and
declaration of Independence, and a constitution limiting government
power and describing our rights. Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin
stated it eloquently if you are willing to sacrifice liberty for
a little safety you DESERVE NEITHER. The constitution failed to insert
the wording liberty except there are no exceptions can search except,
The drugs you paid for are your effects. The government has scammed'you in to supporting prisons with your tax dollars versus providing health
care and infrastructure, Closing 70% of the prisons and saving all
that money keeping families together, The government proved we are
indeed idiots and can't think for ourselves to allow this to happen.
I don't believe in reincarnation however if there is such a thing
then my name had to be Patrick Henry GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE NE DEATH.
I hope all of you make zillions on this investment. I bought the penny
stock for my wife to start selling in 2024 as it will make her rich
but she has made me rich with her love and care for me. By the way
she is drop dead gorgeous and she has a 49 year old sister that
is a beautiful lady and would love to marry a GOOD AMERICAN MAN AND
TRUST ME SHE WOULD MAKE A WONDERFUL WIFE,
Anyone want to call me you can 850-545-2636
or e mail me mickeybritt@outlook.com or just bring you ass to Florida
and stay a few days I have room.
JMO
Mickey
Just my opinion!!!
It seems last year the longs was looking forward to the future and we saw
the stock hit .26 cents. We thinking the future is good held tight. We
was wrong on the price but right on the future. The fundamentals appear
to be 3 times greater than last year. Meaning the shorts who was looking
at the past will be wrong and we should hit 3 times last years high or
.78 cents. Being conservative I think we easily will see .50 cents and
the next year should see even more expansion and growth. This is 10 year
buy and hold for real money. The short sellers will deny the price rise
and get hurt like they did last year till the decline happened and some
made good money but they will puke it back up this year as hard to believe
you are wrong and short more till you realize hello I am going or just
went broke. This is a growth stock and from last years growth till the
forward growth this year proves that being long will be very rewarding.
If they acquire 2 more locations and improve revenues in those locations
you can bet your bippy next year will see a minimum of 4 acquisitions.
By the way the population is getting older and the need for all hospital
beds, oxygen, walkers, medicine is going to explode over the next 10
years for sure. I being 78 have multiple needs for hospital care
unfortunately but like me there will be millions more needing the
services.
JMO
Mickey
Olddog
So you want have to post this I am going to meet today with a attorney
and state describe Freedom, and Liberty, and then show where there
are any exceptions to this and we still be free and have liberty.
No where in the constitution does exceptions for our freedom or
liberty is written. This definition alone should be enough said.
JMO
Mickey
Olddog
Just so you don't have to keep ,y court filings posted here is a copy
of my appeal.
The only thing more depressing than these stats is the fact they all seem to be getting worse.
By?
Evan Valletta
?
19 DEC 2017 - 11:28 AM? UPDATED?19?DEC?2017?-?11:28?AM
SBS VICELAND continues its recent spate of insightful special reports?with?Fixing the System: Crime and Punishment, a doco set on both sides of the walls of El Reno Federal Prison, just outside Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Featured in the episode is Barack Obama, who tours the facility and meets many of its inmates, most of whom were sentenced for drug-related crimes.
Before you tune in, here are some eye-opening statistics about America's prison system to set the scene.
?
There are over 2.3 million Americans currently in prison
The nation’s hefty inmate population is spread across 1,719 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 901 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,163 local jails, as well as military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centres and prisons in the US territories.?
The US houses almost a quarter of the world’s prison population
This is an often quoted statistic – made more daunting by the fact that the USA only contains roughly five percent of the world’s population. Hillary Clinton famously cited the stat during a 2015 speech, and that proportion of the world’s prison population has remained between 22-25 percent ever since.
?
Over 1 million arrests per year are for drug possession
This statistic is a little unsettling when you consider it’s approximately four times greater
than the amount of arrests for drug sales, and is one of the focuses of VICE’s special
report This graph shows clearly what strict enforcement of this unconstitutional law
has done to our prison population which shows it is not a determent to drug use
but has caused it and crime to explode and private prisons getting rich which
I believe was the soul purpose of the drug laws. Since the constitution
Was designed to protect we the people we see the results of drug
Enforcement has failed completely. The old saying of the definition
of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different
results. This unlawful act has increased the prison population
almost 5 times all other total crimes committed.
This is my appeal filing of case 4:18-cv-00021-RH-CAS
And the appeal court case 18-14492. Hopefully this document will
Suffice both courts requests for me to file.
First the courts well know I am not a lawyer and the Constitution was written for we the peoples
protection and having access to seek redress and or grievance. There be no electronic
filing when written should not be a requirement now. I not being a lawyer
and having no representation am doing the best I can to get my filing accepted
and my case heard.. A lay person should have a right to assert a grievance if
it is written on toilet paper. This
It saddens me that I feel that the court is doing its best to make it impossible for
a average we the people person to have a grievance heard. I have explained This is
exactly that this petition is for the abuse of the UNCLOSTITUTIONAL
DRUG POSSESSION LAW.? First there has been drugs since time immoral.
The constitution states we are to have limited powers by our government,
And explains in detail that no laws should be passed that had not’been
Enumerated by the constitution.
I specifically say the court can no where in
the constitution show me where congress has the right ever to deprive
people of freedom by passing a law that the government thinks for us
and can tell us what we being free people can possess or even consu.me
but go to prison even though no one in society has been harmed..
It would require a constitutional amendment to give this kind of
power to congress. I see no change in the constitution that
does allow congress to empower themselves to legislate
a law that not only takes away our freedom but imprisons
people for not following a dictatorship rule.
First the arresting officer has not one clue if I am ever going to
consume the drugs or? bought them to feed my chickens.
Then they exercise a illegal search in total violation of the
4th amendment which clearly says we have a right to be
secure in our effects and the moment we acquire the drugs
they have became our effects. They say probable cause
excuse me since when do we imprison people for what
the police believe they may probably do? The constitutional
rights of the 4th amendment is destroyed they call a k9 squad
not a judge or magistrate. And fFdo sniffs and the handler says
search, you pull out a gun and shoot Fido and kill him and they
charge you with killing a officer and if he is a officer he can
not give permission to a handler to search as it is illegal for
one officer to tell another go ahead and search. The drugs
happen to be the owners effects as he has bought and paid
for them, and they are protected by the 4th amendment along
with the illegal search. By the way the 5th amendment protects
us from self incrimination and anything the police force you
or threaten you to do by exhuming something from your body
is self inccreminating including a pee test, a breath alyzer,
or a blood test as all of it is taken from you just like your
words.
It is with sorrow that I have to request a jury trial since it will be impossible
for my case to be heard before any judge that has not convicted people
to prison for simple possession So the judges will be conflicted and it
would most likely be impossible to get a fair hearing if the judge is
already conflicted by aiding and abetting in the as I believe the
UNCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR CONGRESS TO PASS ANY LAW
THAT PROHIBITS FREEDOM UNLESS THE PARTY INVOLVED HAS
HARMED SOMEONE ELSE IN SOCIETY, ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT
TREASON, OR OVERTHROW OUR GOVERNMENT.
I therefore am requesting my petition be granted and if not use this request
as my petition for redress or grievance be heard by the Federal court
that we the peoples rights have been violated by putting people
in prison for possession only of drugs.
I am now adding my son Shelby Lee Britt and seeking 10 million dollars punitive
damages? for falsely arresting and imprisoning him for possession. I am also
seeking 10 million punitive damages for the harm imposed on me for over
10 years not allowed to have a father son relationship because of this
false imprisonment.
The American revolution was fought to have Liberty, and Freedom from
being ruled by Kings, or Queens, or dictators. They then wrote the
declaration of Independence which Americas is proud of and our
constitution was predicated on the language in the declaration of
independence which state we have certain inalienable rights
which no man can remove and they are LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT
OF HAPPINESS. You can't describe pursuit of happiness yet you
think the government has the right to deny people their God
given right to pursue their happiness.
Furthermore God gave us the right to think for our selves and
in so doing gave us the right to make wrong decisions and
hopefully learn from them. Remember only 1 person was
perfect. Hence we don't put people in prison for making
a wrong decision or every couple that got divorced would
be in prison as apparently they both made a wrong decision.
We don’t send FREE PEOPLE to prison for making wrong
decisions if we did every divorce both parties would be
in prison as apparently they made a wrong decision
absurd isn’t it?
Furthermore the 4th amendment states CLEARLY HOW A SEARCH
SHOULD BE OBTAINED AND THE PROBABLE CAUSE. Please
describe the probable cause of drug possession is it the
party having the drugs might harm someone in society?
We pledge allegiance to the flag and state one nation unto GOD with Liberty
and justice for all, then we salute the flag and say
land of the FREE. How can we have liberty and freedom
and the government tell free people what they can possess?
To the best of my knowledge free can never ever have a law
the incarcerates them for simple possession and still call
this a free country, instead it is a police state. The drugs since they were
paid for or grown just happens to be the effects of said
person protected also by the 4th amendment. The government
can not and must not pass laws that restrict freedom and right
to pursue happiness only they have the right to impose laws
that imprison people for harming someone else in society,
treason, or attempting to overthrow the government.
Ben Franklin said it best if you are willing to sacrifice
Liberty for a little safety in due time you will lose both.
To further challenge the government and the possession law
the Roe vs Wade decision that allows a woman to kill a baby
by abortion and neither she or the doctor performing the
killing go to prison because the court ruled it was her
body, please explain whose body we are living and
should not have control of what we do to our body.
The government by passing these unconstitutional
drug possession law have simply stated we the people
do not have the ability to think for our selves and the
government will think for us, and in the governments thinking
for us they decided if we don't think like them and want
to exercise our right to pursuit of happiness we
should be sent to prison.
The declaration of Independence and the constitution
was predicated on there being a supreme being who
gave us rights no man should remove.? These rights are
Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness yet the government
must be able to define pursuit of happiness an declared
they have a right to tell the free people they can't
pursue their opinion of pursuit of happiness.
?The pre amble to the constitution that our forefathers fought for clearly says
we are to have Liberty and Prosperity which means
liberty for every generation following them.Hence if the
government takes the position they can think for
us as we are incompetent to think for ourselves
and should be a ward of the state or they do
not believe there is a supreme being and are
atheist which they have a right to be but
if so not a right to rule against those who
do believe in there being a supreme being..
Since the politicians and the judges are part
of the we the people then those who write these
laws really don’t have the ability to think for
themselves so how can they possibly think for we the\
people?
Beside our pledge allegiance and saluting the flag we have on our money
in God we trust. In God we do trust it is our government and the
courts we don't trust. They have taken the peoples rights that God
gave them and so does the? declaration of Independence and
the constitution and destroyed them and in turn made us a 'polece
state.
Either we should deny we have a declaration of independence and even
a constitution? the pledge of allegiance and the saluting the flag
and that we are free thinking Americans but live in
a police state which I have provided the courts the definition of
a police state and it makes it clear we are living in a police state.
Let me further illustrate that while the officer has pulled over
a car that they determine there might be drugs in the car hey detain
the person and search the vehicle and if drugs are found
carry them to jail.. In the mean time cars are whizzing
by exceeding the speed limit willingly and a radar unit
up the road stops them and just give them a ticke
even though they deliberately broke the law they
don't go to prison and if they run a red light and
paralyze someone for life they just get a running
the red light ticket yet the person who has harmed no
one goes to prison. What is wrong with this picture?
One harms no one goes to jail and prison and the other
has paralyzed someone gets a running the red
light ticket.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the United States government the unqualified and unlimited power to raise and spend money, for example, to: provide healthcare for the elderly (or for everyone); provide old-age pension; build roads, bridges, train tracks, airports, electric grids, libraries, swimming pools, housing; educate our children, re-train the unemployed, provide pre-school and day care; fund public health projects; invest in and conduct basic research; provide subsidies for agriculture; save the auto industry; create internets (sic); and, yes, Tea Party Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), even provide emergency aid from natural disasters, and so forth. All subsumed under the authority to spend for the general welfare.
The term “general welfare” actually appears twice in the Constitution. We find it first in the preamble and then in the opening line of Article I Sec. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
These words create something of a dilemma. Either the founders didn’t really intend to create?a general government of limited powers, or the general welfare clause doesn’t really mean unlimited federal authority to do things beneficial to the nation as a whole.
The fact that the framers followed up the general welfare clause in Article I Sec. 8 with specific enumerated powers indicates the latter – a qualification on federal authority. If they had intended Congress should have the power to do virtually anything and everything to promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have bothered to include specific powers.
James Madison made this very point in a letter to James Robertson dated April, 20, 1831.
With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
Yes, promoting the general welfare falls among the responsibilities of the federal government, but it must do so within the scope of the specific powers delegated.
During the ratification debates, anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution, voiced fears that people like Abrams would come along and assert that the term “general welfare” granted unlimited power to the federal government. Supporters of the Constitution swore it would not. Even Alexander Hamilton, the framer most in favor of expansive federal power, conceded as much in?Federalist 83.
This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.
Madison specifically addressed the anti-federalist fears in?Federalist 41.
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
Madison further illuminated the intended meaning of the general welfare clause in a letter to Edmund Pendleton dated 1793, pointing out that the phrase was lifted from the Articles of Confederation and was intended to retain its meaning in the new Constitution.
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.
So the words general welfare must mean something other than a grant of power for Congress to do whatever it pleased. What exactly did the framers mean?
Two words in the clause hold the key.?General?and?common.?The phrase simply means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for partial or sectional (i.e. special) interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism.
General Welfare
The?concern?of?the?government?for?the?health,?peace,?morality,?and?safety?of?its?citizens.
Providing?for?the?welfare?of?the?general?public?is?a?basic?goal?of?government.?Thepreamble?to?the?U.S.?Constitution?cites?promotion?of?the?general?welfare?as?a?primaryreason?for?the?creation?of?the?Constitution.?Promotion?of?the?general?welfare?is?also?astated?purpose?in?state?constitutions?and?statutes.?The?concept?has?sparked?controversyonly?as?a?result?of?its?inclusion?in?the?body?of?the?U.S.?Constitution.
The?first?clause?of?Article?I,?Section?8,?reads,?"The?Congress?shall?have?Power?to?lay?andcollect?Taxes,?Duties,?Imposts?and?Excises,?to?pay?the?Debts?and?provide?for?the?commonDefence?and?general?Welfare?of?the?United?States."?This?clause,?called?the?GeneralWelfare?Clause?or?the?Spending?Power?Clause,?does?not?grant?Congress?the?power?tolegislate?for?the?general?welfare?of?the?country;?that?is?a?power?reserved?to?the?statesthrough?the?Tenth Amendment.?Rather,?it?merely?allows?Congress?to?spend?federalmoney?for?the?general?welfare.?The?principle?underlying?this?distinction—the?limitation?offederal?power—eventually?inspired?the?only?important?disagreement?over?the?meaning?ofthe?clause.
Dr. Carson has written and taught extensively, specializing in American intellectual history. He is the author of several books, his most recent being?Organized Against Whom? The Labor Union in America.?He is working at present on?A Basic History of the United States?to be published by Western Goals, Inc.
“I wish the Constitution was not so vague,” one of my daughters said. My first reaction to that was to deny that the document is particularly vague or, for that matter, obscure.
“Why,” she persisted, “does it contain a clause on the general welfare?” Actually, her question was a good one, and it gave point to her observation on the vagueness of the Constitution, if, as I think, I know where she was coming from, as they say. She is a college sophomore and is taking courses in American history and government, among others. Undoubtedly, she had hoped to find that the Constitution would be a bulwark against the claims of the welfare state. Yet, after studying it in her classes, she has been struck by its ambiguity and what appears to be the slipperiness of its phrases. It is my hope that what follows may throw some light on the troublesome phrase, both for sophomores and the rest of us as well.
The phrase “general welfare” occurs twice in the Constitution. It occurs first in the Preamble, which announces that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to “promote the general Welfare.” Since this is a statement of purpose, not a grant of power, it need not detain us beyond noting that it is there. The other use of the phrase, however, is much more significant. It is contained in the first sentence of Article I, Section 8, which lists the powers of Congress. Equally important, it is used in connection with the grant of the power of taxation, which, then as now, was reckoned to be an essential power of government. The relevant clause reads, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . .” Clearly, Congress is empowered to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare. Viewed from the present perspective, this gives color, at least, to the idea that the welfare state has some constitutional foundation.
But that is to look at the matter wrong-end-to. What counts, in the first place, is what the words meant when they were used. “Welfare” is commonly used today to refer to or denote government programs to provide for the poor, the disabled, those without work, and those reckoned to be without sufficient means to provide for their basic wants. It is so used in such phrases as, welfare state, welfare programs, welfare worker, and welfare recipient. Until quite recently it was used in that way in the name of a cabinet rank department, namely, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. This usage, however, was unknown to the makers of the Constitution. If they had intended to authorize what are nowadays called welfare programs, they would not have used the word, “welfare,” to express that intent. It is the other way around: welfare programs bear that name to give the color of constitutionality to them. But let that wait for a bit.
What Americans began calling welfare programs in the late 1930s, or thereabouts, the Founders would have known by the name of “poor relief,” so far as they were familiar with it at all. In England, tax supported relief of the poor was required under the poor laws, more specifically, the Elizabethan Poor Law, during the American colonial period. Poor laws were passed in the wake of the Reformation, the suppression of monasteries, and the confiscation of church lands. The destitute had received aid before that time from organizations within the church, but when much of the wealth of the church was taken away, the state took over last resort poor relief. Actually, Parliament simply required that local communities tax for and provide such relief.
A similar system took shape in the American colonies. In New England, relief for the poor was a charge upon the villages and towns, paid for from locally levied tax monies. Where the Anglican Church was established, poor relief was a duty of the parishes, and parishioners were taxed to pay for it.
Poor relief was hardly a sumptuous affair in the colonies, or, for that matter, in 19th-century America. Unless the person were totally incapacitated, more attention was given to reforming the poor, i.e., getting them to become productive and self-supporting, than helping them to fare well. For example, “The vestries in Virginia disposed of the able-bodied poor, destitute orphans, and the illegitimate children of indentured servants by binding them to masters as apprentices or servants.”[1]Workhouses were set up in some places for those who had no visible means of support. In New England, “The town provided materials and tools with which the inmates were required to earn a living.”[2]?The incapacitated were sometimes provided almshouses, or otherwise given some minimal aid.
No one at the time of the writing of the Constitution would have associated the life of the poor dependent upon public relief with the word welfare. “Welfare,” in common usage for centuries, stems from the roots “well” and “fare”, and means basically, according to my dictionary, a “state of faring well; well-being.” Synonyms are: “prosperity, success, happiness, weal.” No sensible person would have confused poor relief with prosperity, success, or even faring well. Indeed, it was in every respect the opposite.
So far as my researches have revealed, the word “welfare” began to take on a new connotation around the beginning of the 20th century. The phrase, “welfare-manager,” appeared in print in England in 1904. Some factories, it seems, were employing people to assist workers in improving their well-being. Thus, the?London Daily Express?declared in 1916 that “Welfare work tends to improve the condition of life for women and girls employed in factories.”[3]?However, the word still had no clear connection with relief for the poor.
That connection was made in the United States in the course of the routinization, regularization, and bureaucratization of government aid programs in the 1930s. The key piece of legislation for making this change was the Social Security Act, passed in 1935. There is reason to believe that the adoption of the word “welfare” in place of relief was a more or less deliberate action. It served a highly important political and constitutional purpose. Much of the early New Deal legislation was tied up in court tests by 1934. As it turned out, the central pieces of New Deal legislation were nullified in the next year or so. New Dealers were casting about frantically for ways to overcome the constitutional impasse.
Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins remarked to Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone, in 1934, that she was worried that the social security system they were devising might not pass the constitutionality test. “The taxing power of the Federal Government, my dear,” Stone replied; “the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need.” This pointed clearly toward the genera] welfare phrase in the clause of the Constitution authorizing taxation. In the same year Professor E. S. Corwin, a recognized constitutional authority, maintained that the taxing and spending authority of Congress was unchecked by the Constitution. Another law professor declared, after the Supreme Court nullified crucial portions of the NRA: “The waters dammed by judicial restriction on the commerce power may break out in unwelcome fields of taxing and spending. What seems a great victory against national regulation may prove to be a Pyrrhic one.”[4]
Indeed, it did. The Social Security Act leaned heavily upon the general welfare phrase in the Constitution. It opens with the claim that it is “An Act to provide for the?general welfare?by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws . . . .”[5]
?
Social Security Involves a Bundle of Programs
Since many people may not think of Social Security as a welfare measure, it may be well to emphasize that, however old age benefits—the phrase then used to describe Social Security payments to the retired—should be classified, there was a bundle of programs provided in the act which formed the core of the welfare programs. The bundle included such things as pensions to those who had not contributed to Social Security and aid to dependent children, among others.
Moreover, these programs were administered in the states by what generally became known as welfare departments in the 1940s and 1950s. Frequently, they were formally titled, Department of Public Welfare (DPW), and those who administered the programs were referred to as welfare workers. In 1953, an assortment of these programs were moved into the new cabinet ranked Department of Health, Education and?Welfare.?In this fashion, the shift from referring to these programs as poor relief to public welfare was completed, and the claim that such government activities were sanctioned by the reference in the Constitution to general welfare was linguistically ratified after the fact.
The main point, of course, is that the Founders could not have intended to include what they knew as poor relief in their reference to the general welfare. Poor relief was the last resort of local governments to provide minimal means for survival; it was at the opposite end of the scale from faring well. Beyond that, the evidence presented here points toward the conclusion that as late as the early 1930s it took a great deal of straining to make the beginnings of an identification between relief and welfare.
But there is much more involved in this claim that the federal government is constitutionally authorized to provide for the general welfare than such programs as have been identified, however spuriously, with welfare. The whole concatenation of redistributionist and interventionist programs which comprise the welfare state find their main justification under it. Thus, we are brought back to the consideration of the claim regardless of what meanings may be attached to the word welfare.
The crucial question then becomes whether or not there is a grant of power in the Constitution to provide for the general welfare. There are at least two approaches that can be taken to answering this question. One is to try to discern the meaning of the phrase, “general welfare,” in the clause in which it occurs. The other is to see the clause within the context of the whole Constitution.
?
The Taxing Power
First, then, let us look at the clause again, which reads: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . .” One thing is certain: Congress is authorized to levy taxes. Is it authorized to do anything else? My view is that it is not. What follows the word “Excises” is restrictive rather than being a grant of powers, restrictive of the taxing power. The operative words, in my reading of the relevant parts, would be that taxes are to be levied to “provide for the?common?Defence and?general?Welfare of the?United?States.”
What was being guarded against by these restrictions was the levying of taxes on the whole people to pay for some benefit to some locale, state, or region of the country. For example, by this reading, taxes could not be properly levied to pay for an undertaking such as the Tennessee Valley Authority. There was a definite interest in the Constitutional Convention to restrict such practices. At one point, Benjamin Franklin proposed that the general government be given “a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary.” Roger Sherman “objected. The expence in such cases will fall on the U. States, and the benefit accrue to the places where the canals may be cut.”[6]?Franklin’s motion was defeated by a vote of 8 states to 3.
But let me hasten to add that there is no way to make certain that my interpretation of the words as being restrictive is correct simply by reading the clause and selecting emphases within it. Furthermore, even if it were restrictive to the?generalwelfare, there might still remain a potentially broad power to provide for the general welfare. After all, in ordinary usage the granting of the power to pay for something tacitly authorizes the buying of it. For example, if I tell my daughter that she may write checks to pay for her college expenses, it is a logical inference that I am authorizing such expenses. The same might be expected to apply to statements in the Constitution. To see that they do not it is necessary to place the clause thus far examined in the context of the whole Constitution. Phrases and clauses that may appear to be vague and general when considered in isolation take on much-more precision when viewed from the angle of the whole.
?
A Limited Government
The Constitution of the United States is no ordinary set of statements or document. It is, if not unique, a very special case among documents. It describes the form for and grants power to a limited government. There are no omnibus grants of power in the Constitution; every power granted is limited in one or more and usually several ways (though not necessarily in the clause that grants it). It does not grant the powers of government generally to the United States government.
What makes the Constitution almost unique is that the government it authorizes has only such powers as are granted to it. Thus, what can be inferred from ordinary speech or, for that matter, the general run of legal documents, is no guide in construing the provisions of the Constitution. It is concerned with granting and limiting power in an arrangement for which there are few, if any, parallels in ordinary life situations.
It is contrary to the whole tenor of the Constitution that the power to provide for the general welfare should have been granted in the sentence authorizing taxation. The men who drew the Constitution did not assume that by granting the power to tax in order to pay debts that they had authorized indebtedness. On the contrary, the very next sentence authorizes Congress “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” Nor did they assume that by authorizing taxation to pay for the common defense that they had granted the power to bring into being a military establishment. On the contrary, again, there is a list of powers to accomplish this purpose granted to Congress:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas and Offences against the Law of Nations:
To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies . . . ;
To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces . . . .
If the power to provide for the common defense had been granted in the taxing power, each of these powers would have been implied by it. Such an enumeration of powers would have been redundant. Redundancies are commonplace, of course, in ordinary legal documents nowadays, but the Constitution is remarkably free of them. It is spare, lean, and once stated, repetition of a position is avoided.
Indeed, the powers which the Founders reckoned necessary to the general welfare of the United States are enumerated along with those mentioned above. Among them are the power of Congress to enact uniform laws on bankruptcies, to coin money, to fix standards of weights and measures, to establish post offices and post roads, to give authors and inventors exclusive right for a time to their writings and discoveries, and the like. Undoubtedly, they considered all the powers granted useful or necessary to the general welfare, including the powers of taxation and those for a military establishment. But my point is that the powers granted were enumerated, and those not so enumerated were reserved to the states or to the people.
That did not keep some from claiming or asserting that some object they wanted to achieve by government was provided for in the phrases of the taxation clause, even in the early years of the Republic. The issue came up for President Madison in 1817, when he was presented with a bill for making internal improvements such as roads and canals. He vetoed it on constitutional grounds.
?
Madison’s Interpretation of Enumerated Powers
Madison said, in part, “The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers . . . .” Regarding the general welfare phrase specifically, he said: “To refer the power in question to the clause ‘to provide for the common defense and general welfare’ would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them . . . ”[7]
President Monroe echoed Madison’s views, and added some of his own, in vetoing a bill for maintaining the Cumberland Road in 1822. He denied that Congress had the power to do this. “If the power exist,” he said, “it must be either because it has been specifically granted to the United States or that it is incidental to some power which has been granted. If we examine the specific grants of power we do not find it among them, nor is it incidental to any power which has been specifically granted.” Among those from which he could not trace the power, he declared, was the clause “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare.”[8]?In an addendum to his veto message, he included this thought: “Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not. The Government of the United States is a limited Government, instituted for great national purposes, and for those only.”[9]
In sum, then, it is most unlikely that the makers of the Constitution would have chosen the phrase, “general welfare,” to authorize the federal government to provide what they understood to be poor relief. It would have violated both their understanding of the meaning of words and the common practice as to what level of government should provide the relief. On the contrary, it appears that relief came to be called welfare to give it a semblance of constitutionality. Indeed, close analysis within the sentence and the context of the Constitution points to the conclusion that the reference “to provide for the general welfare” was the restriction of the taxing power rather than a separate grant of power.
In short, no powers were enumerated granting authority to the federal government either to enact relief measures or to erect what has come to be called a welfare state. Nor is the language of the Constitution especially vague or carelessly general when it is viewed within the context of the whole document. It only appears to be so when wrenched out of context and construed to cover purposes not intended.
Shape
1. ? Curtis P. Nettels,?The Roots of American Civilization?(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963), p. 463.
2. ??Ibid.,?p. 462.
3. ? This information comes from the?Oxford English Dictionary.
4. ? See Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.,?The Politics of Upheaval(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960), pp. 398-99.
5. ? Henry S. Commager,?Documents of American History,?vol. II (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1962), p. 326. Italics added.
6. ? Charles C. Tansill, ed.,?Formation of the Union of the American States?(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1927), p. 724.
7. ? James D. Richardson, ed.,?A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents,?vol. II (New York: Bureau of National Literature, 1897), pp. 569-70.
8. ??Ibid.,?p. 712.
9. ??Ibid.,?p. 736.
William O. Douglas,?Uphaus v. Wyman, 364 U.S. 388, 406 (1960), dissenting.
This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. Army surveillance, like Army regimentation, is at war with the principles of the First Amendment. Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage.?The Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the people.?The Bill of Rights was added to keep the precincts of belief and expression, of the press, of political and social activities free from surveillance. The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from assemblies of people.?The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government.?There can be no influence more paralyzing of that objective than Army surveillance. When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist's shoulder in the library, or walks invisibly by his side in a picket line, or infiltrates his club, the America once extolled as the voice of?liberty?heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which?Jefferson?and?Madison?designed, but more in the Russian image.
In conclusion I think I have provided you with enough violations of our rights
So now let ,me emphasize how stupid our government is. They complain about
Drugs coming across our southern borders, of course they come where will they sell
Them if drugs was legal hence since we have stupid drug laws they bring them here
And get top dollar and now they have drugs inn our neighborhoods and they need
to make money by selling them to you, your kids and grand kids and the neighbors.
Hence drug use goes up as well as crime.
Remember we had prohibition and we had crime and alcohol everywhere
And no revenue from it, hence they got smart and legalized and taxed
Alcohol and crime went down and tax revenue explodes and the
non drinkers never paid a penny of taxes. Now we have happy hour
2 for 1 drinks and yet our country is doing fine and we ride on better
roads go to better schools paid for by alcohol tax.
Now we can save social security, entitlements, and pay down the
National debt and raise no ones taxes a penny. We PARDON all
Prisoners who have not committed any crime other than drug possession.
We no longer have to pay to house them and they can get a job
and become tax payers and their family come off of welfare.
We reduce the drug agency to a skeleton crew and the savings
From releasing the prisoners and fewer drug agents to pay
would be trillions.
We legalize every drug known to ,man and tax it and only the
Drug users would pay the taxes and they are already doing drugs
and the government collects nothing. Drug use goes down as Walgreen’s
wouldn’t be getting your family or neighbors to do drugs. Crime goes
down and like with alcohol we will get along just fine and the country
will get along just fine and we will have saved the country as the
national debt will make us a 3rd world country if not paid.
Hence I am addressing the courts that this document written by
me be accepted as under the constitution amendment 1 my right
to petition the courts for redress and grievance.
Thank You
Mickey Britt
4407 Millwood Lane
Tallahassee, Fla
32312
olddog
Just so you want have to follow me here is what I will be filing
Monday the 22nd of October.
This is to apply for a appeal of Judge Hinkley's decision to not allow my case 4:18cv21-RH/CAS to be heard.
I filed in behalf of myself and we the people. I not being a lawyer know the Constitution was written for
we the people to use not only for lawyers and be filed like a lawyer. I have filed that the drug possession
law is unconstitutional and yes I have been harmed as my son Shelby Britt was sent to prison for years and
years for possession and I was deprived the right to be and have a father and son relationship and am
seeking 10 million in punitive damages because his arrest was against his constitutional rights
provided far in several instances in the Constitution which I will site in this appeal. His incarceration
deprived me from the relationship of a father and son besides legal expenses and having to
pay gouging fees for him to talk to me by Securus a phone company who kicks back money to
the prison or its warden.
Let me state that this is America and there was a war called the American revolution which was fought
for us to have LIBERTY, AND FREEDOM and to never be ruled again by Kings, Queens, Czars, or a Police
State which IS presently what we have, as when you deprive free people for their right to possess anything
that is not freedom and when that person has harmed no one in society what crime have they committed?
See the definition of Freedom and Liberty, and Police state all of which are attached along with a copy of
the Constitution. You and judge Hinkley took a oath to uphold the constitution and I believe the Constitution
limits the powers of government and when you can pass a law that has a person guilty till proven innocent
and they have harmed no one in society that by definition is a police state.
The government is corrupt to the bone and the drug law was passed not to save people but to make
private prisons rich by providing them with inmates which is also against the law. The stock in these
private prisons are held by private citizens including judges and elected officials and since the stock is
in mutual funds non traceable to who owns the stock.
Picture this congress has decided to pass a drug law even though the law incarcerates free people
who have harmed no one nor committed any treason, or attempted to overthrow the government.
Some congressmen say hold on what about the violation of the Constitution and the originator
of this law says don't worry about the Constitution as this law will make us rich as we will have
private prisons full, lawyers making billions, judges needed to keep up with the cases as they
will be loaded with possession cases and the public will be so stupid as to think we are fighting
drugs and reducing drug use. So don't worry about violation of the constitution as the judges
will support our laws and the lawyers will love it as they get rich.
You see sir that is a moral law that deprives free people from their lawful right to even consume drugs
and in a free country one has a right to make their own decisions and only after consumption and
you harm someone are you to be imprisoned, anything otherwise is A POLICE STATE.
Let me go farther lets say you pull me over for a tail light out and see lots of drugs in my car
you want to put me in prison, and while you are arresting me cars go by speeding and up the
road the radar unit stops them and gives them a speeding ticket, tell me which one is most likely
to harm someone in society? Lets go farther the speeder runs a red light and hits someone and
paralyzes them for life they get a running a red light ticket have a good day. Yet the person
who has harmed no one and has drugs is to go to prison. What is wrong with this picture?
A free country where free people have every right to possess anything should go to prison.
Our forefathers are spinning in their graves.
Lets see we pledge allegiance to the flag and say with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, And we salute
the flag and say land of the FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE. Then we have the statue of Liberty
and a little thing called the Declaration of Independence that says we have the RIGHT TO LIFE,
LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Lets rename the statue of Liberty to statue of a police
state, and tear up the declaration of Independence, and do away with the pledge of allegiance
and the national anthem as all of them say we are FREE OR HAVE LIBERTY, AND A FREE PERSON
CAN NOT EVER BE RULED BY A GOVERNMENT THAT PUTS A PERSON IN PRISON WHO HAS NEVER
HARMED ANYONE IN SOCIETY.
By the way how can you punish someone for what they may do? I might have bought those
drugs for my grandmother or to feed my chickens but one thing is for sure I have not harmed
a damn soul and I believe a person said it eloquently his name was Patrick Henry, and it
was give me LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH. I stand by what Patrick Henry stated as I don't
ever want to live in a police state.
You see the people that want a moral drug law passed are whores who are willing to sell
other peoples rights to FREEDOM for their moral values. How would they like it if the people who
want the drug law changed had the right to impose their moral values on these people
like no coffee, or sodas, or bread or you go to prison, they would be up in arms.
Here is what is in the Constitution protecting our rights as free people. The 4th amendment
states we have a RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN OUR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, OR EFFECTS AND
GOES ON FARTHER TO DESCRIBE HOW THEY ARE TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT. In case the
judge doesn't know the law has no right to search a vehicle since it is my effects and even
the drugs are my effects since I would have paid for them just like a loaf of bread. If one
dies the car would be part of my estate and effects. They state in the 4th amendment
the search would be for probable cause, describe what the probable cause of possession
is since in a free country one can have anything in their possession or we are not free.
With out due process of law The seizure of the drugs by the officer is not due process
as the drugs would be my PROPERTY.
The 9th amendment makes it clearly illegal to pass laws that would deprive people
from FREEDOM, LIBERTY, and they government shall have limited power and when one can
incarcerate someone for possession only and harmed no on that is not limited
power, but rather UNLIMITED POWER which they do not have. It clearly states
they do not have and the 9th amendment does not create them power to enforce
federal enforcement power.
The 14th amendment clearly states and is not confusing but clear that government
can make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States
Which means a free person makes the decisions of what to possess or even consume. The government
has no rights ever to be able to tell free people what they must do to their body or
even possess. That is beyond a doubt actions of a police state. If a woman can
have a abortion and kill a baby and neither her nor the doctor face any criminal
charges and you want to put someone in prison for possession when you don't
even know what they are going to do with it? The amendment goes on to
state that no state shall deprive anyone of LIFE, LIBERTY, or property without
due process of law and to take anything that is ones property is violation of law
as it is your property.
Let me inform you that even the despicable drug dealer is falsely charged as the drugs
are his effects and they should be charged with income tax evasion and operating a
business with out a license.
So with all due respect I want to overturn the judges decision to not hear my case as I have
a case and I want to exercise my Constitutional right to redress and grievance afforded me by
the 1st amendment. I fully expect the courts to honor their oath as a FREE person I don't
mind legal laws, but I am capable of reading and understanding the Constitution and expect the courts, the law officers,and the congress to abide by them also.
By God I am willing to fight for our rights as was Patrick Henry and I will so do
till the last breath in my body as Freedom is precious and not to be taken away by
government laws.
Thank You
Mickey Britt
Olddog
Nice to see you are still keeping track of me. The case is far from over as I am going to appeal and for all you that think simple possession should
call for imprisonment how would you like it if the people who are
for legal drug use imposed their moral values as law on you and you go to
prison for say coffee, or soda, or bread?
Let me enlighten you. about FREEDOM AND LIBERTY AND AMERICA. Ever hear of
the American revolution? What did they fight for but LIBERTY, AND FREEDOM
AND NOT TO EVER BE RULED BY KINGS, QUEENS, CZARS, OR LIVE IN A POLICE
STATE AS WE ARE DOING NOW.
Remember every lawyer, judge, and elected official TOOK A OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, and all are either to stupid to know what they swore
to do or crooks.
WHAT DOES LIBERTY MEAN? WHAT DOES FREEDOM MEAN?
Let me set your ass straight, you pledge allegiance to the flag and state LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. You salute the flag with land of the FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE. The statue of LIBERTY, the declaration of
Independence that says we have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT
OF HAPPINESS. Lets tear them all up rename the statue of LIBERTY THE
STATUE OF A POLICE STATE.
You are so smart tell me the cops stop me and I have a car load of drugs what crime have I committed if I have consumed none. I might have
bought them for my grandmother,, or to feed my chickens, I hate to
inform you of this but the government doesn't own my body nor do they have the right to imprison anyone who has not harmed anyone in society
but possession you are guilty until proven innocent. Guilty of what in
a free country?
Lets see a woman can abort a baby and neither she nor the doctor go to
prison but you go to prison for being a free man who is supposed to have
liberty to decide of themselves and their body is theirs. The drug
possession law is a unconstitutional law and passed to keep PRIVATE
PRISONS FULL AND PRIVATE CITIZENS HAVING THE POLICE DO THE WORK PROVIDING THEM INMATES. The government is corrupt to the bone and every lawyer that want uphold their oath is corrupt and want the dollar
to take from free people, every judge should be removed and every
politicians removed as everyone of them are liars and failing to do
what they swore to do.
LET ME INFORM YOU THAT FOR ALL WHO SAY DRUG LAWS ARE GREAT ARE WHORES
WHO ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM FOR THEIR
MORAL VALUES. PRETTY BAD THAT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT OUR RIGHTS ARE.
WHORES AND THINK THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING.
EVER HEAR OF PATRICK HENRY, WELL LIKE HIM GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME
DEATH. I am not willing to sacrifice our rights to freedom and right to
choose what anyone can possess as this sir is AMERICA, SUPPOSEDLY
HOME OF THE FREE, AND HAVE LIBERTY, AND I FOR ONE DO NOT EVER WANT TO
LIVE IN A POLICE STATE. GET READY TO READ A APPEAL TO THE JUDGES DECISION AS I WROTE HIM TO RECONSIDER BUT TRUST ME WHEN I APPEAL I WILL WRITE IT JUST LIKE THIS AND IT WILL CURL THE JUDGES TOE NAILS AS I WILL
WORD IT WHERE THEY TOOK A OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND TO SHOW ME WHERE IN A FREE COUNTRY YOU CAN EVER TELL A FREE PERSON WHAT THEY CAN
POSSESS OR CONSUME. HARM SOMEONE AFTER CONSUMPTION THEN GO TO PRISON.
IT IS A SHAME A SMART PERSON LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW OR EVEN APPRECIATE
LIBERTY, AND FREEDOM AND WILL WHORE YOUR MORAL VALUES TO VIOLATE
THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
Let me give you a example they have me pulled over for a tail light out and I got a car load of drugs and they want to imprison me for the
drugs even though I have harmed no one. While he is detaining me cars go by speeding and up the road the radar pulls them over and gives them
a ticket you tell me who is most likely to harm another person in society? Lets say they run a red light and hit someone and paralyzes
them for life and they get a running the red light ticket and the
person who has hurt no one should go to prison. How many deaths do
automobiles cause every year?
Let me enlighten you if you was a drug cartel where would you carry your drugs to sell a country that has legal drugs are a country that has
strict drug laws? You see when the drugs come here they go to drug
dealers that live in neighborhoods and they need you or you family
to buy or sell drugs so they can make money hence drug use and crime
goes up. Had drug laws for over 60 years and drug use is up. Definition
of a idiot is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.
How many bootleggers do you of being arrested lately and yet prohibition
proved it didn't work so they legalized it and taxed it and who paid
the taxes only the drinkers.
Let me also inform you the Constitution was written for me not for lawyers and that judge has no right to dismiss my case as the 1st amendment says I have a RIGHT YEP RIGHT TO REDRESS OR GRIEVANCE, and like
a pit bull I will look the judge dead in the eye and tell him he is
wrong and will fight till I have no breath in my body.
By the way I hate drugs with a passion but I am not a whore who is willing to forego freedom and liberty for my moral values.
JMO
Mickey
Tommyboy
You have to understand that competition is still alive and well.
Growth will come if they never franchise but a franchise would
definitely accelerate the growth and the franchisee's would be
bringing in money to have tons of new company owned stores.
Mcdonald's has company owned and franchise stores so do so many
other major chain stores. It is a fast way of growing you business
and name recognition I assure you 20 franchise stores would or
should see another 20 company stores in 2 years time and after
that they franchise if they want to grow faster but they can
grow slower but in my opinion trying to own every store takes
longer than sharing the wealth and selling franchise. If they
franchise 1 store the stock will blast off over a $1.00 quickly
as the street will see they are going to be franchising more.
Armen has the opportunity to become a billionaire quickly by
franchising or he can be just filthy rich in a lot longer time
trying to grow internally. Thinking big is the best thing he can do for him and his family and the shareholders. The opportunity
for many here to become multi millionaires in a few years is
very very good.
JMO
Mickey
How many stores did Walmart start out with, or Walgreen's., or CVS?
How many pizza stores did Dominoes start with, or Papa Johns, or how
many stores did Auto Zone start out with or Pep Boys, or Discount Tire?
You see you don't start out as a conglomerate you grow into one. RXMD
20 years will be a conglomerate. Bet you wished you had bought any of
the company's when they first opened for business.
All they have to do is earn a penny a share and you will see .20 cents
with expectations for bigger and better earnings and the stock goes higher
and higher as new stores bring in more and more earnings.
JMO
Mickey
The expansion will cause more expansion and like pop corn they will
soon be popping up everywhere.
Profits will breed more expansion and more expansion will breed more
profits. As the song says IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME.
You will see double your money and those that get out then will see
they should have held because ultimately this will multiply many times.
JMO
Mickey
Tommmyboy
The population of Florida is going to grow quickly as people in high
state taxes and high cost of living can sell their homes for huge
dollars there and move to Florida and buy in comparison a mansion
for a small cost compared to where they live.Florida has nice big
homes for sell from $150,000 to $500,000 that would bring a million
to 5 million in New York, or California. Have so much money after
they sell their home and buy a fine home in Florida it is a no brainer.
The ability for RXMD to expand is unlimited and Armen should exercise
the expansion by selling shares as collateral for loan money and have
a exercise price set at a lot higher price than the market is amd
borrow the money at a low interest and a fixed 7 year loan and once
the stock reaches the strike price they get the stock and the loan
is paid off. RXMD makes payments just like a regular loan till such
time the stock reaches the designated conversion price. The lender
will own the stock and can hold and see the net worth go higher or
they can sell and make way more money by using this type of financing,
they get a lower interest rate and a good deal is when both sides
wins and this is a win win for all concerned. We see dilution but
growth that makes the dilution well spent as you see no big corporations
started out with the amount of shares they have outstanding now. Using
shares for expansion when done right is a win win.
Tommy you said you might sell in 2021 if the stock hasn't gone up past your purchase price. I will make a prediction and it is only a
prediction and a lot depends on what Armen does but with a little
bit of smarts and using the stock for growth I would say by 2021
December the stock should be trading over a #1.00 a share and you
will be a buyer at that price as it will look cheap as the growth
going forward should be astronomical.
JMO
Mickey