A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular

Monday, May 14, 2012


Actually, the primary issue with McCain was whether being born on a US military base in a foreign country satisfied the 'natural born' requirement in the Constitution.  Secondarily, there was a question about his being born on the base or in what was known as a 'family hospital' in a residential neighborhood off of the base where American personnel lived.  

McCain refused to provide his birth certificate, until the story got wings.  He allowed only one reporter from the Washington Post to see it.  

Lawsuits proceeded and only ended when McCain lost the election, rendering them moot.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular


Read and learn.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular


Being born in Panama (and with McCain, there was some question to where he actually was born in Panama, i.e., the military base hospital or the 'family hospital' off the base) was a legal issue that only ended because McCain didn't win the election.  It rendered lawsuits moot.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular


"Citizenship" isn't/wasn't the issue with McCain; the 'natural born' requirement for the presidency as laid out in the Constitution was at issue.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular


Being a citizen, having parents who are citizens, does not satisfy the "natural-born" requirement as stated in the Constitution.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular


No, the FBI does NOT vet presidential candidates.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular


Neither do I, nor are any of the cites I provided Fox affiliates.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular


For some birthers, I'm sure that racism is what motivates them, but I think the xenophobia that has been stoked by both parties (over nine-eleven and the economy/job losses to foreigners, etc.) is really the culprit.  It's human nature that when fearful, we turn to 'our own'.  It's actually how our brains are wired.  Depending on the threat, 'our own' could be our family of origin, our race, the people of our neighborhood, those with whom worship the same religion, etc.  I think the only way that human beings, all nationalities, will come together is if we're invaded by extraterrestrials.

I say that I have no doubt that we on the left would behave the same way because we have behaved the same way in the past.  Bush and the TANG is one example that comes to mind.  It took a distraction, much like what was done in the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson situation, to rid the campaign of having to deal with it, i.e., diversion by destroying the messenger (Dan Rather).  

The distinctions between the McCain and the Obama 'birther' controversies that have enabled the McCain controversy to die down and the Obama controversy to persist are, 1) there never was a question of where McCain was born, only if a citizen was born in Panama, would that meet the definition of 'natural born' as stated in the Constitution, and 2) Obama won the election, which made getting the courts' determination moot.

What also gives loft to the controversies is the prevailing attitude by those being doubted that they don't have to prove anything, don't have to present anything for evaluation.  Not birth certificates (McCain refused, too, and ultimately only showed it to one Washington Post reporter), not Bush's TANG records (it turns out that Dan Rather was correct after all).  

We are/were a nation whose distinction was that we don't take things on faith, we don't have to because we operate by the rule of law, and evidence.  Tangible evidence that can be examined and tested.  And withholding, suppressing, destroying evidence in government proceedings is now something that is the default position.  The only information that has no expectation of privacy is that of private citizens.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular


It was, indeed, an issue:

8/11/2008
Robinson vs. Bowham
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/1/


7/11/2008
New Life to a McCain Birth Issue
By Adam Liptak, NYT
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”
[...]


3/12/2008
McCain "Natural Born" Question Going Before Judge
By Brian Montopoli, CBS News

Why McCain Cannot be President; Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-senator-john-mccain-cannot-be-president-eleven-months-and-a-hundred-yards-short-of-citizenship


2/29/2008
McCain's citizenship called into question
Candidate, born in Panama Canal Zone, may not qualify as 'natural born'

2/28/2008
McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out
By Carl Hulse, NYT

And a congressional "statement", its interpretation, is not binding on the courts.

When you say that "Democrats in Congress acted like adults", what you actually mean is that Democratic leadership treats the members of its caucus and its constituents like children.  Like when the congressional Black Caucus members tried to object to the election outcome on the floor of the House and no Senator would sign the objections.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular

Sunday, May 13, 2012


Just to play deviI's advocate in order to move this conversati­on forward, let's hypothetic­ally say that Obama had been born outside of the US, just like McCain (and I have no doubt that had McCain won, Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' would be bullied and called 'birthers'­).  

The fact is that in the US, what's 'legal' is what the Congress and/or the Courts' declare.  Once it's pronounced­, it's a done deal.  In the case of a president'­s qualificat­ions, it's the US Senate that makes such pronouncem­ents. If the US Senate decided it wanted Arnold Schwarzen_­eger to become president, it would declare that he met the Constituti­onal qualificat­ions  (35 years old and natural born) if it took passing legislatio­n adopting Austria as a US territory and making it retroactiv­e. 

The US Senate already made that declaratio­n about Obama in a backhanded way when it declared McCain to be "natural born" in a resolution co-sponsor­ed by Obama in 2008.

With the 'New World Order', a one world economy which is beyond borders and installing corporate governance­, we're moving in the direction of foreign-bo­rn presidents­.  There already is a move afoot within the establishm­ent elites to change the legal definition for 'natural born' (it shall be interchang­eable with 'a corporatio­n chartered in the US'), so that, for example, a CEO of a transnatio­nal corporatio­n headquarte­red or doing business in the US would be qualified for the presidency­.  Not that it matters anymore; with unlimited contributi­ons, corporatio­ns are having no problems controllin­g the White House and US Congress.

This is a valuable opportunit­y for Americans to discuss an issue which should inform and  empower citizens, but instead it's being met with exactly the kind of reaction that we on the left used to get from Bushies when we questioned everything from his TANG records to his law-breaki­ng and devastatin­g policies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular


Does anyone doubt that had it been McCain who had won, we would be the ones questioning McCain's 'natural-born'-status (as having been born in the Panama Canal zone)?  

Relying on professional political establishment elites to vet candidates is frought with peril, as should be apparent to anyone who's been paying attention for the past 50 years.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular


As one who isn't a 'birther', I don't think that this bill goes far enough by merely requiring a candidate to sign an affidavit attesting to natural-born status.  

Why would anyone oppose enforcing a Constitutional requirement?  Why isn't there a vetting process to determine that presidential candidates are natural-born?  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barney Frank Criticizes House Republican On Jobs, Wall Street Reform


Life isn't a 15-second sound byte; we don't live in a cartoon world.  I don't, anyway.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barney Frank Criticizes House Republican On Jobs, Wall Street Reform


For you.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barney Frank Criticizes House Republican On Jobs, Wall Street Reform


Increased word count per comment along with the ability to do rich text (bolditalics, underlined­, strikethru­, blockquote­s, hyperlinks­-scroll down to badges) comes with the pundit badge.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barney Frank Criticizes House Republican On Jobs, Wall Street Reform


When politician­s say that "Social Security is the third rail of politics", they mean it with a hostility that should be reserved for their Corporate Masters.  You don't see politician­s putting campaign finance and election reform on their agenda from year to year as you do their continuing assaults on social safety net programs for the People.

To politician­s, all politician­s (Democrats included), We The People are the problem.  If only they didn't have to deal with making us happy to get our votes that keep them employed.  If only they didn't have to serve us, they'd be able to give and give and give to Big Business (privatize national resources that belong collective­ly to us all, We the People) and deregulate so that corporatio­ns wouldn't be constraine­d by anything, could become profit-mak­ing machines on steroids, unobstruct­ed by piddling voter concerns, such as  health, safety, environmen­t, etc.  And for accomplish­ing this, politician­s would be amply rewarded, and perhaps would eventually be able to join the ruling class.

You can choose to believe what you will about Democratic politician­s, but the fact is that the DLC controls the Democratic Party (the DLC is referred to as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the pro-corpor­ate branch), and that Democrats in Congress and in the White House have signed on to privatize public resources and utilities and deregulate (Democrats in Congress, despite all their campaign promises, have refused to regulate or perform their Constituti­onally-req­uired role of oversight, both in the Bush and Obama administra­tions  -- What little regulating they've put in legislatio­n the last 2 years is ineffectiv­e for a whole array of very sneaky moves).  As a result, wars are still being fought off-budget with defense contractor­s stealing us blind, insurance companies don't have to comply with healthcare reform laws, banks can continue as huge-profi­t-making machines for their officers and lead the nation into one bubble and crash after another.

You can choose to think of Obama and his intentions in whatever way makes you happy.  What you can't do is explain how any of what Obama's done these past two years has been in the People's and not the Corporatio­ns' interests.

What's gotten lost in the news cycle the past few months are Obama's new NAFTA-like treaties which mean more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas.  And then there's the 'Super Congress' (and its plan for gutting Social Security and Medicare), along with the Dream Act ticking along (which means a flood of immigrants working for slave wages).  

We The People are being transforme­d, from sheep to sacrificia­l lambs.
About Gay Marriage
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barney Frank Criticizes House Republican On Jobs, Wall Street Reform


Politician­s WANT a high deficit so that they can create a fiscal crisis that forces us to cut vital safety net programs.  It's what Grover Norquist (president of Americans for Tax Reform, and George W. Bush's once-a-wee­k lunch buddy for the 8 years of the Bush-Chene­y Administra­tion) meant when he said,"Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub."
 
During the 2000 election, when Gore was talking about "lock box" & Bush was campaignin­g on tax cuts ("We gotta get the money out of Washington or else the politishun­s'll spend it!"), I was writing about how Bush and Grover Norquist intended to bankrupt the country as a back door to ending the Great Society.

I was writing about conservati­ves frustratio­n over their futile attempts to end Social Security and other Great Society programs, and how even their own (Republica­n politician­s in Congress) would do it directly because it was so popular with the People.  It would end their political careers if they went at ending Social Security with a head-on vote. They would have to go about it indirectly­, lining up the ducks in a row, for the step-by-st­ep dismantlin­g of the singlemost effective program in the history of the US for lifting people out of poverty.  

The way they would do it would be to get the nation into so much debt, into bankruptcy­, that there would be no money left in Social Security.  That's how they would k!ll it.

When George W. Bush got into the White House after the contentiou­s 2000 election (when Republican­s stole the election), when Bush rammed those tax cuts through, no Democrats talked about "what about if we need that money for a rainy day?" Or "find ourselves in a war?"

Around 2006, when Democrats won the election and talk was rampant about Bush's legacy, when even conservati­ves were repudiatin­g Bush, Bush was saying that he was certain he'd be vindicated in history as " a great conservati­ve".

Even conservati­ves didn't see what he was talking about (that what Bush is counting on is the end of the Great Society programs, like Social Security and Medicare, vindicatin­g him as both a great president and a great conservati­ve).

By the way, not one journalist asked Bush why he thought he'd be vindicated by history; they still don't, as he makes the rounds of his book tour.

Democratic politician­s aren't stvp!d, by the way.  They knew what Bush and Republican­s were up to, and they let it happen.  

Why?  Why would Democratic politician­s want to end Social Security and Medicare?  

KEEP READING
About Gay Marriage
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barney Frank Criticizes House Republican On Jobs, Wall Street Reform


Before I got to Blackburn's quote ("can't see the forest for the trees"), I was thinking that the key to not being taken in by politicians' talking points is to stand back and looking at the bigger picture.  In this instance, what Blackburn said, that women have lost more jobs in the last 3 years than men is accurate.  But she wanted to leave it at that, and talked over Frank as he explained the 'why' of it, hoping that viewers would only hear the first part, the 'trees', and not 'the forest' that lays the blame at tax cutting, small government, borrowing money for wars.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

JPMorgan Trading Loss Suggests Little Has Changed Since The Financial Crisis

Saturday, May 12, 2012


Rep. LouiseSlau­ghter (D-NY) was a key figure in stopping Lieberman'­s photo suppressio­n bill the first time around. Slaughter explained that this time, the provision was slipped into the HomelandSe­curity spending bill during the conference between House and Senate negotiator­s -- "apparentl­y under direct orders from the Administra­tion."

Late in October, Obama quietly signed it into law. 

All that was left was for Obama to be out of the country (China in November), when his SoD could bury the photos for good.

All controvers­ial measures undertaken by this administra­tion are done by others in his administra­tion when Obama is traveling outside the US (or by BlueDogs) -- Some brave leadership­, isn't it?

The problem's Obama.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

JPMorgan Trading Loss Suggests Little Has Changed Since The Financial Crisis


Obama was forced into signing because the republicans were going to cut off unemployment! It won't happen again!

================================================

Obama had already offered to make Bush's tax cuts permanent.  Read here and here.

The 'Super Committee' was Obama's creation.  Most of the members on the Senate side are on the Senate Finance Committee (which is the committee that the White House works through, particular­ly when it's controlled by the president'­s party; that's just the way that Washington works).  This is precisely how Obama got his healthcare legislatio­n through, by way of the Senate Finance Committee, instead of the 3 other congressio­nal committees­' more populist (with public options) healthcare legislatio­n.  

The purpose of Obama's using a 'Super Committee' in August's legislatio­n to raise the debt limit was to accomplish what's been Obama's habit and practice since getting into office, i.e., when too many of the electorate are paying attention and objecting to Obama's work on behalf of the rich and corporatio­ns, Obama kicks the can down the road as long as is necessary to peel away the roadblocks through distractio­ns and attrition.

Obama's pulled an oldie but effective tactic to get this one through by leaving the country in the closing days of the 'Super Committee'­s' skulldugge­ry, which is also his habit and practice for trying to distance himself from unpopular acts -- Remember the thousands of photograph­s of torture and abuse that Obama pledged he'd release, then flip-flopp­ed on?:

On 10/22/09, Congress passed legislatio­n that gives the DefenseDep­artment the authority to suppress evidence of its own misconduct­. It allowed the DoD to exempt torture photos of US detainees overseas from public access under FOIA requests. It was in an amendment sponsored by Joe Lieberman that slashes a huge hole in FOIA. 

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

JPMorgan Trading Loss Suggests Little Has Changed Since The Financial Crisis


Obama was forced into signing because the republicans were going to cut off unemployment!

============================================

With Obama's deal to preserve Bush's tax cuts for the rich (making it Obama's tax cuts for the rich), 99ers were cut off.  Of the 6 million people who were then currently receiving unemployment benefits, Obama's deal covered only 2 million, and many of them got crumbs from his deal because, in spite of the 13-month extension, benefits were cut off for many of those when they reached 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/territories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, so that's even fewer still.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Harry Reid: Filibuster Rule Has 'Been Abused,' Needs Changing


But Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party didn't, won't, let Reid force Republicans to filibuster. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislative agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People, but at less profit to corporations. And that's not what Obama and Company are there for. They are there to do the work of the transnational corporations, and preventing that are the liberals, which Obama has excluded from his administration and silenced throughout government. 

So that Obama can reach out for Republicans, and water down the legislation, make it Republican-like.   Legislation that Republicans won't vote for anyway, because everything that the parties do, both parties, is for the next election campaign.  So Republican-like legislation gets passed, with Democrats signing on, and that makes the corporations happy.  And Republicans can count on their 'dvmb as tree stumps'-constituents' votes, because Republicans in Congress stood firm against Democrats.  And all the while Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats work to prevent any more liberals and progressives from getting elected.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

JPMorgan Trading Loss Suggests Little Has Changed Since The Financial Crisis


All that Obama's been doing is trying to save unregulated capitalism and the lock that the 1% has on the other 99%.

With Obama's deal to preserve Bush's tax cuts for the rich (making it Obama's tax cuts for the rich), 99ers were cut off.  Of the 6 million people currently receiving unemployment benefits, Obama's deal covered only 2 million, & many of them will get crumbs from his deal because in spite of the 13-month extension, benefits will be cut off for many of those in the coming months when they reach 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/territories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, so that's even fewer still.

David Cay Johnston on Democracy Now! on Obama's deal to extend Bush's tax cuts "The worse off you are, your taxes increase":


"The bottom roughly 45 million families in America or households in America—and there are a little over 100 million households—they’re going to actually see their taxes go up.  Republicans got an extraordinarily good deal, that raises, I think, basic questions about the negotiating skills of the President."
The payroll tax 'holiday' in the deal sets SocialSecurity up for its end.  That's what Bush and GroverNorquist planned and why Bush believes he'll be vindicated as a great conservative in history: For ending the GreatSociety programs, by having bankrupted the nation so there's no way to pay out those benefits.  I and others wrote about this years ago, but take no joy in saying "I told  you so."

Extending Bush's tax cuts was an absolutely wretched deal, but standard for Obama, who has  a long record of negotiating lousy deals on ordinary citizens' behalf.  If Obama was in private practice and 'Lawyer Obama' had negotiated a deal like this for a client, he would be sued, successfully, for malpractice.

The purpose of the deal was so that Democratic political operatives could say, "Obama helped the unemployed"; most readers won't know the actual facts of how Obama sold out the American people.  Again.  Obama and Democrats have no jobs plan either.  Both parties are thinning the herd.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

JPMorgan Trading Loss Suggests Little Has Changed Since The Financial Crisis


If the Democrats pledged to reinstate every depression era regulation that has been removed and actually delivered on the campaign promise we would see a resurgance of America as the world leader in economic growth and the rapid rise of the middle class.  And the collateral damage would be the GOP in a permanent minority status.

Vote straight Democratic ticket


===========================================

As a liberal Democrat I can attest to the fact that that isn't what the DLC-controlled DemocraticParty is about or wants.  There is nothing that Republicans have done these past 40 years that they could've gotten done without Democrats signing on.  

After LBJ, the DemocraticParty signed on to privatizing public resources and deregulating. 
Democratic voters, for the most part, still haven't finished their love affair with the last Democratic president, BillClinton, GeorgeHWBush's "best friend" and partner in advancing the move to a "NewWorldOrder".

Most Democratic voters think the Clintons are liberals.  Most Democrats don't know that the Clintons co-founded the DLC; most Democratic voters have no idea what the DLC is.

Just like the real debate & assessment of Reagan that's never happened, we've never assessed Clinton's true legacy. Eliminating the social welfare safety nets, GlassSteagle, the passage of the TelecommunicationsAct of 1996, rendition, privatization, the sanctions & daily bombing of Iraq (& so much more) laid the foundation for what BushCheney did to decimate the country. As AlanGreenspan said, "BillClinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while."

The Clintons benefitted greatly from the repeal of Glass-Steagall (GrammLeachBlileyAct), which BillClinton signed into law at the end of his administration, and what's behind the economic meltdown.  He made $100 million in the last ten years, and much more than that (unknown, secret, which is the nature of hedge funds) from his dealings with Yucaipa and RonBurkle.  

In the weeks before the midterms elections, when BillClinton was campaigning for candidates in states where Obama's popularity is in the tank, not one reporter asked Clinton any question of substance (including  his signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which repealed GlassSteagall, and would he do all over again if he had the chance -- He would, by the way). 

This is another reason for why there have to be investigations and prosecutions into the collapse of our economy and the 'preemptive wars' policies -- Obama has to stop blocking these processes, because we can't go forward without looking back.  We cannot make wise decisions, not about policies and not about the politicians we need to make these policies and lead us without knowing what the h3ll happened.

Once Americans learn the role of both parties, and who these politicians really are and who they're aligned with, they will understand that both political parties are corrupt to the core and that the solution for our political and financial woes can only come from OUTSIDE of these parties.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

JPMorgan Trading Loss Suggests Little Has Changed Since The Financial Crisis


What makes you think that Democrats support reinstating Glass-Steagall or any regulations or legislation that's been repealed over the past 30 years?
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Harry Reid: Filibuster Rule Has 'Been Abused,' Needs Changing

Friday, May 11, 2012


But Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party didn't, won't, let Reid force Republicans to filibuster. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislative agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People, but at less profit to corporations. And that's not what Obama and Company are there for. They are there to do the work of the transnational corporations, and preventing that are the liberals, which Obama has excluded from his administration and silenced throughout government. 

So that Obama can reach out for Republicans, and water down the legislation, make it Republican-like.   Legislation that Republicans won't vote for anyway, because everything that the parties do, both parties, is for the next election campaign.  So Republican-like legislation gets passed, with Democrats signing on, and that makes the corporations happy.  And Republicans can count on their 'dvmb as tree stumps'-constituents' votes, because Republicans in Congress stood firm against Democrats.  And all the while Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats work to prevent any more liberals and progressives from getting elected.

We've known for years, before Obama got into the White House, that Republicans would obstruct everything that Democrats tried to do.  After Obama got into the White House, Reid and Democrats said, "Senate rules can't be changed in the middle of a congressional session", which isn't true; Senate rules can be changed at any time, not just at the start of a new Congress - It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc­.state.gov­/documents­/organizat­ion/45448.­pdf ).  Democrats could even change the supermajority rule by simple majority (50 + 1).

Nor is there just one way (or even two or three or more ways) for Democrats to get bills passed despite Republican­s' obstructio­nistic tactics.  But first they have to want to do it, with the fierce urgency of now (don't click on that link, don't watch it, if you aren't prepared and can't bear to have your cherished illusions about Obama destroyed).
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


Filibusters?

The Senate has no say in this.  Congress already gave the president the authority.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Harry Reid: Filibuster Rule Has 'Been Abused,' Needs Changing


Who woulda thunk Harry Reid would raise ending the filibuster as an election issue (says this hardened and cynical liberal Democrat)?

Reid, Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats would love for their supporters to believe it's all the Republicans' fault.

Yes, Republicans are scvm, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats haven't needed Republicans and have pulled their punches (hoping ignorant voters wouldn't know the rules that the Senate and the House operate under) and helped pass corporate-friendly legislation.  Like Obama's healthcare bill, without a public option, that does not provide affordable, quality medical treatment for everyone, and that was passed in the end through reconciliation (50 + 1).

Republicans haven't filibustered; they've threatened to filibuster.  And Harry Reid made a deal with Mitch McConnell, to let Republicans do that.  Harry Reid has refused to exercise the discretion that Senate Rule 22 allows: Making Republicans actually filibuster, instead of just threatening to do it.  Rule 22 gives the Senate Majority Leader the discretion to actually make the call.

Filibustering is hard on those soft, pampered bodies. Harry Reid should have forced them do it, over every issue where Republicans have threatened to do it -- Americans love reality TV. 'Survivor - E Capitol St NE and 1st St NE'.  The few times Reid has forced Republicans to actually filibuster, when Democrats have really needed whatever the issue was (like when Jim Bunning threatened to filibuster over extending unemployment benefits), Republicans caved.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

If You Use This Word, People Will Think You're Stupid


I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough -- Another pet peeve of mine (about myself, along with my being sloppy with pronouns).

Enthuse is a verb, not an adjective.  

"I'm enthusiastic about my new job," she enthused.  

It's not, "I'm enthused about my new job."

The verb enthuse is a back formation of the noun enthusiasm.  While it's gained in legitimacy (because it's so widely misused), it's still seen as colloquial, which is basically what this article is about; the misuse of words that make a person seem poorly educated.

:-)
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

7 Things My Cat Taught Me About Life (PHOTOS)


wearing the collar


I live with a lady and four cats
and some days we all get
along.

some days I have trouble with
one of the
cats.

other days I have trouble with
two of the
cats.

other days,
three.

some days I have trouble with
all four of the
cats

and the 
lady:

ten eyes looking at me
as if I was a dog.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State

Thursday, May 10, 2012


#1 - I repeat, when he was running for president in 2008, Obama insisted that medical marijuana was an issue best left to state and local governments. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot, which is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia.

#2 - There are no federal laws that allow for the sale of marijuana under any condition, neither in nor out of compliance with state laws, so the argument about state laws not overriding federal law is moot.

For the most part, those stores that are out of compliance were in their location before the regulations were created (and in some cases, before the schools were there), and had been grandfathered into the local law.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA. 930 F .2d 936 (1991). The Court ruled that two of the criteria used by DEA in making their findings were unreasonable.

Marijuana Rescheduling Petition; Denial of Petition, Remand. DEA. 57 FR 10499 March 26, 1992. DEA formally rejects Judge Young’s findings without using unreasonable criteria. 

Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA. 15 F.3d 1131 (1994). The Court upholds DEA’s rejection of Judge Young’s recommendations.

b. Petition #2 filed by Jon Gettman in 1995.

Petition #2 was an extensive catalog of research and other data specified in 21 USC 812 that emerged after the record was closed in the prior proceedings before Judge Young. Petition #2 focused primarily on challenging whether cannabis has the high potential for abuse required for schedule I status.

* Petition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed July 10, 1995  
* Petition accepted by DEA on July 27, 1995.
* Petition referred to HHS on December 17, 1997.
* Recommendations sent to DEA on January 17, 2001.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


Macdonald, Donald I. Acting Asst. Secretary for Health. Scientific and medical findings & recommendations on Nabilone. Letter to John Lawn. April 25, 1985. Nabilone is pharmacologically identical to THC. The review of Nabilone is interesting because it relies on different standards than the earlier reviews of THC and marijuana. An FDA advisory panel was utilized, and the panel debated whether Nabilone should be a schedule III or schedule IV drug. The panel recommended schedule III status. The Asst. Sec. of Health recommended schedule II for Nabilone because the panel had not recommended rescheduling for THC, a schedule II drug at that time. (846 KB PDF)

Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Synthetic Dronabinol in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules from Schedule I to Schedule II. DEA 50 FR 42186-87 October 18, 1985 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Synthetic Dronabinol in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules From Schedule I to Schedule II; Statement of Policy. DEA 51 FR 17476-78 July 13, 1986 Final Rule and Statement of Policy

Schedules of Controlled Substances; Proposed Placement of Nabilone into Schedule II. DEA 51 FR 22085-86 June 18, 1986 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Schedules of Controlled Substances; Hearing on Petition to Reschedule Marijuana and its Components. DEA 51 FR 22946-47 June 24, 1986 Notice of hearing on petition for rescheduling of marijuana and its components.

Grinspoon v. DEA. 828 F.2d 881 (1987) While this case did not concern marijuana the Court noted that scheduling under the CSA does rely on the relative abuse potential of listed ssubstances.

Schedules of Controlled Substances; Placement of Nabilone into Schedule II. DEA. 52 FR 11042-43. Final Rule. April 7, 1987.

United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. In The Matter Of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket No. 86-22. Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge. Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge. Dated: September 6, 1988.  Judge Young recommends that marijuana be placed in schedule II because it has an accepted medical use in the United States.

Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition. DEA 54 FR 53767-53785. December 29, 1989. In this filing the DEA formally rejects Judge Young’s recommendations.  


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


III. The legal and policy record.

a. Petition # 1, filed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) May 18, 1972.

NORML v. Ingersoll 497 F.2d 654 (1974). NORML filed a rescheduling petition under provisions of the CSA. The government declined to initiate proceedings on the basis of their interpretation of U.S. treaty commitments. The Court ruled against the government and ordered them to process the petition.

NORML v. DEA 559 F.2d 735 (1977). The government continued to rely on treaty commitments in their interpretation of scheduling related issues concerning the NORML petition. In this decision the Court makes it clear that the CSA requires a full scientific and medical evaluation and the fulfillment of the rescheduling process before treaty commitments can be evaluated.

NORML v. DEA, Unpublished Disposition, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13100, October 16, 1980. The Court orders the government to start the scientific and medical evaluations required by the NORML petition.

Brandt, Edward N. Asst. Secretary for Health. Scientific and medical findings & recommendations on THC. Letter to Francis M. Mullen, Jr. August 16, 1982. 

Brandt, Edward N. Asst. Secretary for Health. Scientific and medical findings & recommendations on the marijuana plant material. Letter to Francis M. Mullen, Jr. May 13, 1983. 


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


Here are the legal actions over the years to reschedule marijuana from schedule I to schedule III.  


United States Code Congressional and Administrative News. 91st Congress – Second Session. 1970. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. pgs 4566 – 4657. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

The legislative history includes a chart indicating fables and facts about marijuana (circa 1970) provided to Congress by the National Institute of Mental Health. (pg 4577-4578) The rescheduling process is reviewed on pages 4599 to 4605. The criteria required for scheduling related findings are defined on pages 4601-4603.

An important letter from Roger Egeberg of the the Department of Health Education and Welfare to Congress regarding the scheduling of cannabis is on pages 4629 – 30. This August 14, 1970 letter states:


” Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces ‘severe psychological or physical dependence” as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marihuana be retained in schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve this issue. If those studies make it appropriate for the Attorney General to change the placement of marihuana to a different schedule, he may do so in accordance with the authority provided under section 201 of the bill.”


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


Title 21. Food and Drugs. Chapter 13. DrugAbusePrevention and Control, Subchapter I, Control and Enforcement. Part B. Authority to Control; Standards and Schedules.

Sec. 811. Authority and criteria for classification of substances 

Under 21 USC 811 the AttorneyGeneral has the authority to add to, remove from, or transfer controlled substances between the regulatory schedules established by the ControlledSubstancesAct. This process is known as a rulemaking procedure and may be initiated by the AttorneyGeneral, the Secretary of HHS, or on the petition of any interested party. (21 USC 811 (a))

At the initiation of scheduling proceedings the AttorneyGeneral gathers the necessary data and requests from the SecretaryOfHHS a scientific and medical evaluation of all available evidence as well as a recommendation on the appropriate scheduling for the drug or substance in question. (21 USC 811 (b))

This evaluation will consider 8 specific factors in making findings to satisfy the criteria for scheduling established in Section 812 regarding accepted medical use, safety for use, abuse potential, and dependence liability. InOtherWords the factors listed in 811(c) are to be used to evaluate the scientific record to assess the criteria established for each respective schedule of the CSA.

21 USC 811(c) Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules. 

“In making any finding under subsection (a) of section 812 of this title, the AttorneyGeneral shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the PublicHealth.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.”

Sec. 812. Schedules of controlled substances.  

There are five schedules of controlled substances. The findings required for each of the schedules involve the following issues: potential for abuse, currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, safety for use under medical supervision, and the drug’s dependence liability. Schedule I drugs are characterized by a high potential for abuse and a lack of accepted medical use. Schedule II drugs have a high potential for abuse but also have an accepted medical use. The remaining schedules all require an accepted medical use. Schedule III drugs have a lower potential for abuse and dependence liability than Schedule I and II drugs. Schedule IV drugs have a lower potential for abuse and dependence liability than Schedule III drugs, and Schedule V drugs have a lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV drugs. (21 USC 812)

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


How do you come to believe that?  

The federal government's definition of marijuana:

"all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber provided from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seed of such plant, which is incapable of germination."

I. Statutory Provisions.

The rescheduling process consists of the following stages:

* Filing of Petition with DEA
* Acceptance of Petition by DEA
* Initial Review by DEA
* Referral to HHS
* Scientific and Medical Evaluation by HHS
* HHS Report to DEA
* Evaluation of Additional Information by DEA
* Publication of DEA Decision
* (Judicial Review by the US Court of Appeals)
* (Public Hearing on Disputed Matters of Fact)


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Leads Mitt Romney By 7 Points: Reuters Poll

Tuesday, May 8, 2012


Tell us about your life, jo ella.  

Your age, your schooling, what kind of a family you come from, what (if anything) you do for a living, etc.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


And yet, back when he was running for president in 2008, Obama insisted that medical marijuana was an issue best left to state and local governments. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot, which is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216#ixzz1uJw8m4HU
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


When it comes to this, and just about everything else given how Obama has been walking around in the Bush-Cheney 'Unitary Executive-I-Don't-Answer-To-Nobody'-shoes, the president does have the power, which was bestowed on him by Congress.

The relevant section of the Controlled Substance Act specifically gives the president (through the attorney general) the power to implement a process to reschedule cannabis administratively.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


Recreational marijuana would still be treated as a schedule I drug.

What we're talking about is medical marijuana, as a schedule III drug.  THC, the active psychotropic ingredient in marijuana, already is classified as schedule III.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


It actually is that simple.  AG Holder agrees.

An equivalent way of thinking about it might be when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade.  States had all kinds of different criminal laws on their books regarding abortion.  All of those laws just ceased to be enforceable, no repeals were necessary, as soon as Roe vs. Wade decision came down.

And now, should Roe be overturned, those same criminal laws from 40 years ago, still in place, would be the laws governing abortion.  

Should marijuana be reclassified as schedule III, the regulations for schedule III drugs would govern medical marijuana.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


I suggest that Obama, Holder and I know the same thing:  The law.

Attorney General Eric Holder was a guest of The Huffington Post at the correspondents' dinner. Before it began, a HuffPost reporter noted to Holder that Obama's reference to "congressional law" was misleading because the executive branch could simply remove marijuana from its "schedule one" designation, thereby recognizing its medical use.

"That's right," Holder said.

Man up, DenverRight!  You're a citizen of the United States and the laws exist to serve you, not have you confused about what you (or a president) can or cannot do.  It ain't rocket science.  Question authority, stop thinking they're your betters and remember that they're public servants -- They work for you!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


With all due respect, DOMA is not an equivalent comparison; what Obama did on DOMA was have his solicitor general stop defending it in court.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


Drugs are governed under the Controlled Substance Act, and the important thing is that this law explicitly gives the executive branch the power to unilaterally change the legal status of particular drugs.  Obama wouldn’t need to “nullify congressional law,” because he currently has the legal power to change marijuana’s classification.  The relevant section of the ControlledSubstanceAct specifically gives the attorney general the power to implement a process to reschedule cannabis administratively.

Marijuana is categorized as schedule I, which means it legally has no accepted medical use. This is why medical marijuana, while legal under some state laws, is illegal under federal law.

However, the law explicitly gives the executive branch the power to change the scheduling of particular drugs without needing Congressional action. Obama can instruct the relevant agencies under him to take an honest look at the research and reschedule marijuana so it qualifies as having legitimate medical uses. The Obama administration could easily and justifiably move marijuana to, say, schedule III, which happens to be the same schedule that synthetic THC is in, making medical marijuana legal under federal law.

There would be nothing unusual, extraordinary or legally suspect about Obama doing this. The executive branch has often moved certain drugs to lower or higher schedules based on new data without Congressional involvement. In fact, multiple sitting governors have petitioned the Obama administration asking him to move marijuana to a lower schedule, so he should be aware of the flexible authority he has.

Obama's not some hapless victim whose actions on this issue are constrained by congressional law. The truth is pretty much the exact opposite. Under current law Obama effectively has the power to unilaterally make medical marijuana legal. Obama is not legally forced to wage a war on medical marijuana; it is something his administration is actively choosing to do.

Apparently Eric Holder agrees:

AttorneyGeneral EricHolder was a guest of TheHuffingtonPost at the correspondents' dinner. Before it began, a HuffPost reporter noted to Holder that Obama's reference to "congressional law" was misleading because the executive branch could simply remove marijuana from its "schedule one" designation, thereby recognizing its medical use.

"That's right," Holder said.

So even Obama’s AttorneyGeneral admits there is nothing forcing the administration to wage a war on medical marijuana and nothing stopping the administration from making medical marijuana legal under federal law. This is an active choice the administration is making.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


Presidents ignore laws all the time, but even that isn't necessary for this.

The law explicitly gives the executive branch the power to change the scheduling of particular drugs without needing Congressional action.

Obama could easily and justifiably move marijuana to, say, schedule III, which happens to be the same schedule that synthetic THC is in, making medical marijuana legal under federal law.

So Obama is either lying or he's ignorant of the law.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


"I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, 'Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books."

================================

Nobody is asking Obama to nullify congressional law.  And new law is not needed.  Existing law explicitly gives the executive branch the power to change the scheduling of particular drugs without needing Congressional action.

Obama can instruct the relevant agencies under him to take an honest look at the research and reschedule marijuana so it qualify as having legitimate medical uses. The Obama administration could easily and justifiably move marijuana to, say, schedule III, which happens to be the same schedule that synthetic THC is in, making medical marijuana legal under federal law.

So Obama is either lying or he's ignorant of the law.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Medical Marijuana: Obama's War On Pot Ramps Up In Colorado, Key Swing State


The Democratic Party is trying to move the party even farther to the right of the right-of-c­enter (where the DLC has moved the party to) in order to attract into the Democratic Party the moderate Republican­s (the politician­s and their supporters­) who have been disenfranc­hised from the Republican Party since the Chrlstian right took over control of the party.  To make the Democratic Party the one true 'Corporate Party' of the US, thereby marginaliz­ing both the far rightwing and the left (the base of the Democratic Party and frankly where most Americans are).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

If You Use This Word, People Will Think You're Stupid


It's real-tor, not real-it-or.

The 't' is silent in often.

Lay is an intransitive verb - Hens lay; people lie.  "Bob was lying on the couch", not laying.  

There is no such word as enthused; It's enthusiastic.

'Gypped' is an ethnic slur.

And in spelling, remember "It's 'i' before 'e', except after 'c', and when it has the 'a' sound, as in neighbor and weigh (ex. sieve, receive).  And weird is just weird (and science is, too - remember it by the movie with that title).  

And separate isn't seperate.

Slow news day.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Bad Things Are


Even more heretical:  

By polluting the environment and pressuring Congress to eliminate regulations (and pressuring the executive branch to not enforce those regulations it can't eliminate), Americans are getting sick from toxic waste dumped in the air, sea, ground and water, affecting everything we breath/touch/ingest, corporations should be footing all healthcare expenses of all people, not just their employees.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP