Marijuana Community: 'Get Info About Marijuana!'

 

Source:Marijuana Community- What are you smoking? LOL

"GET INFO ABOUT MARIJUANA! Marijuana Community." 

From the Marijuana Community

You take politics out of the marijuana debate and politicians not worried about looking "soft on crime" or "soft on the War on Drugs" than marijuana would already be legal in America. Same thing with alcohol in the 1920s and 30s: take politicians out of that debate and we don't have alcohol prohibition either back then. 

Marijuana prohibition is about big government trying to control how people live their own lives, trying to protect people from themselves. Marijuana decriminalization is about pragmatism and sanity, making something that government already knows a lot of its people use, as safe as possible. Just the way alcohol and tobacco are regulated in America and that system by in-large has worked very well in America. 

I'm not arguing that marijuana is healthy for people and that everyone should be using it and I wouldn't make the same argument for alcohol and tobacco either. I'm just saying that if you know people are going to do something that is very similar to other things that are already legal like alcohol and tobacco, you might as well take a realistic and practical approach to marijuana and decriminalize it at least at the Federal level. And let the States figure out where to go with marijuana from there, just as they regulate alcohol, tobacco and marriage today. 

If you are anti-big government and don't want government controlling how you live your own life, as long as you are not hurting innocent people, then you have no problem with marijuana decriminalization and then regulating and taxing it. 

If you believe 2M people is too many people to have in prison and the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of people in prison just for possession or use of narcotics, then you don't have a problem with marijuana decriminalization. And again regulating and taxing it, treating it like alcohol and tobacco to prevent people from driving or flying to use as examples while they are high. Again to make it as safe as possible because marijuana like alcohol and tobacco have negative side effects. 

 Let's decriminalize marijuana, let's stop arresting people for simple use or possession of it. 

Let's pardon our prison inmates who are in prison for marijuana possession or use who haven't committed any other crimes while in prison. 

Let's transfer our prison inmates who are in prison for possessing or using other narcotics and haven't committed any other crimes while in prison to drug rehab clinics and halfway houses where they can get the help that they need with their addiction and turn their lives around. Because they don't represent a threat to anyone else other than themselves. 

Let's save our limited prison space for the people who need to be in prison who do represent a major threat to society. 

And let's end the failed forty year fake War on Drugs where we've spent trillions of tax revenue trying to control how people live their own lives, instead of how they interact with each other. 

And let free people in a free society live their own lives instead of trying to control our population. If you know someone is going to do something and you can't stop them from doing it and all you can do is to react to what they did after the fact. And they are not hurting anyone else with their actions, you might as well give them as much info as possible about what they are doing. Instead of trying to stop them all together, so they can make the most informed decisions as possible. 

Marijuana Prohibition to me is sort of like sex prohibition for adolescents: it's just as ineffective.

CBS News: CBS Evening News- President Richard Nixon vs. Senator Ted Kennedy on Health Care (1971)

Source:CBS News- Washington correspondent Daniel Schorr.

"Back in 1971 Republican President Nixon and Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy debated national health care reform. Here's a report at the time from CBS News' Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr." 

From CBS News

If you look at what President Richard Nixon proposed in health care reform in 1971 to Congress and you look at what Senator Ted Kennedy wanted to do then and perhaps his whole Congressional career, the debate then between President Nixon and Senator Kennedy is very similar to the debate that President Barack Obama had with the Democratic Socialist faction of his party in 2009-10. 

The one difference between 1971 and 2010 on health care is that President Nixon being a Republican obviously and a ProgressiveRepublican (I know that sounds strange) Someone who didn't believe in empowering the Federal Government and expanding it generally in the economy, other than to help people help themselves and serve as an economic insurance system for people who truly needed.

And Senator Ted Kennedy who I would describe as the Bernie Sanders of the 1970s, along with Senator George McGovern and perhaps a few other left-wing Democrats in Congress, who believed in social insurance programs and the welfare state. And in protecting them and even expanding them. 

Health care being a perfect example of this as Senator Kennedy was in favor of a single payer health insurance system. With Medicare being the only health insurer for the whole country. But what President Nixon offered and I give him a lot of credit especially as a Republican for taking on health care reform an issue that the Democratic Party has owned at least since the creation of Medicare in 1965.

But what the Nixon Administration offered looks very similar to what President Obama worked out with the Democratic Congress in 2010. The Nixon Administration essentially created our employer sponsored health insurance system. Where a lot of American workers get their health insurance today. And for a long time through their employer. 

What President Nixon wanted to do in health insurance was to expand it to millions of Americans who couldn't afford health insurance on their own. Or couldn't afford their employers health insurance plan. President Nixon's program was essentially private health insurance expansion through workers employers. Which is what the ACA is with a Patients Bill of Rights built into it as well and a health insurance mandate.

So to call the Affordable Care Act extreme or socialist, or anything like that is nonsense. (To be generous) It's a very mainstream approach to health insurance reform. That was started in 1971 in the Nixon Administration and then later proposed again in 1993-94 with then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole a Republican, obviously. Along with then Senator John Chaffey a Northeastern Republican during the failed Clinton health care reform debate then. That President Clinton now admits that he regrets not taking the Senate Republican compromise in health care reform.

The Senate Republican proposal of the early 1990s, that President Clinton could've had, but would've given him a partial victory in this debate and an accomplishment. And a chance to fight round two of health care reform in his presidency and build off of the first bill. And perhaps even saving the Democratic Congress in 1994. But of course we will never know. 

Senator Kennedy clearly didn't like the Nixon health Care reform plan as this video indicates. But it's hardly an extreme proposal proposed by right-wing extremists. Because the Dole/Chaffey health care plan in 1993-94 would've build off of the employer sponsored health insurance system. And what was in the Nixon plan, a lot of it is in the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

Helmer Reenberg: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- On The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1963)

Source: Helmer Reenberg- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) talking about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, in 1963.

"Assassination of John F. Kennedy, mortal shooting of John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, as he rode in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. His accused killer was Lee Harvey Oswald, a former U.S. Marine who had embraced Marxism and defected for a time to the Soviet Union. Oswald never stood trial for murder, because, while being transferred after having been taken into custody, he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, a distraught Dallas nightclub owner." 

From the Encyclopedia Britanica 

"Senator Barry Goldwater talks to reporters about his memories of and respect for President Kennedy." 

From Helmer Reenberg

The assassination of Jack Kennedy was tragic in so many ways for so many people and a big reason for it was, because of how talented President Kennedy was as a President as well as a man. But just as political junky from my perspective, one of the reasons why his death was so tragic, was because of what could've been. 

The 1964 presidential election would've look and it would've probably affected the Congressional elections as well. Because I believe and we will never have anyway of knowing this that a Goldwater-Kennedy election would've been much closer. 

After President Kennedy was assassinated most of the country turned to Lyndon Johnson to be their President to full-fill President Kennedy's agenda. Which is a big reason why Richard Nixon didn't run for President in 1964 and waited till 1968. But I believe the 1964 presidential election had it been between Goldwater and Kennedy, would've been a great presidential election. I think Kennedy would've still won though.

But with Senator Barry Goldwater, you would've had a presidential candidate representing classical conservatism about as well as it could be represented. And to a certain extent I believe he did that anyway in 1964. Running against President Johnson despite losing in a landslide where I believe he won less than 40% of the vote and lost around forty states. But managed to win Southern states that were owned by the Democratic Party. 

And then you would've had President Jack Kennedy on the Center-Left, a liberal hero of mine, representing liberalism as well as it could be represented. And I believe we would've seen great debates across the country. As they were apparently already talking about doing in as early as 1962, I believe from what I would've heard. And they would've been great debates, on civil rights. The President being in favor of the civil rights bills that President Johnson got through Congress. Senator Goldwater had a different approach: Medicare which was a bill that President Kennedy tried to push through Congress. Senator Goldwater would've wanted a different bill with more competition for senior citizens. 

Cuba with Fidel Castro and how we try to deal with that Communist Republic, there would've been a lot of great issues that these great men would've debated in 1964. 

The assassination of President Jack Kennedy was tragic on many levels, but from a perspective of a political junky, it was tragic for the country as well. Because they were left with one less great general election. With President Kennedy running a tough race to get reelected and Senator Goldwater giving him a run for his money. 

A Goldwater-Kennedy presidential election, would have been a great classic battle, between the Center-Right and the growing conservative movement. Against Center-Left Liberals, who are called New Democrats today. But we'll never know. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson: Charles Moore: On Margaret Thatcher

Source:Hoover Institution- Charles Moore, talking about U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,

“Charles Moore, a former editor at the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, and Spectator Magazine, discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, the “Iron Lady,” Margaret Thatcher.”

From the Hoover Institution 

"One of Britain’s most distinguished journalists, Charles Moore is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and of the Spectator magazine. Moore is also the authorized biographer of the Right Honorable Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, better known as Margaret Thatcher."  

Source:Hoover Institution- British journalist Charles Moore, on Margaret Thatcher.

From the Hoover Institution

If you want to know what classical conservatism is and what it means to be a Classical Conservative, then look at Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom and her political career. She’s the worst nightmare for Socialists. Democratic and classical in Britain, but perhaps everywhere. Just like Ronald Reagan is the worst nightmare along with Milton Friedman of Socialists in America and perhaps everywhere else as well.

But it’s not just Prime Minster Thatcher’s economic conservatism and her ability to articulate it as well as she did along with her humor. Like saying things like the problem with socialism is that it runs out of other people’s money to spend. Which as a Liberal, I feel the same way myself . But it was the fact that Prime Minister Thatcher did not want government interfering with how people lived their lives, generally speaking. One thing I respect about British politics, is even though there’s not a consensus on what the size of the British Government should be.

Britain, currently debating big government socialist democracy. The Conservative Party, would clearly like to see the British Government become smaller. The Labour Party, would probably like to see the British Government become bigger along with the Democratic Party. But all three of these parties believe in social freedom, generally speaking. And a lot of them believe that government shouldn’t be interfering in how people live their lives. Something a lot of people in the Republican Party in America have forgotten with how they’ve moved toward religious conservatism.

Christian-Conservatism, really isn’t very conservative and actually very expensive. And it is more of a version of authoritarianism, with a progressive bent when it comes to social welfare. Canadian politics, is pretty similar to British politics that they there’s a consensus there. That Canadians should have a lot of social freedom. But they differ on how much involvement the Federal Government there should have in the Canadian economy. But what Socialists fear about Classical Conservatives is that they will lose power. That government will lose influence in how much control they have over the people. In the economy and that the people will have all of this freedom and become less dependent on government and make a lot of money.

There are still plenty of Maggie Thatcher Conservatives in the Conservative Party. I would put Prime Minister David Cameron on that list. Except his rhetoric tends not to be as partisan and as blunt. Even though I don’t know him nearly as British political analysts. But there aren’t many Thatcher or Reagan Conservatives left in the Republican Party in America. But they no longer run the Republican Party anymore as that party has moved farther right and into a more authoritarian direction.

Christian-Conservatives in America, would like to see the Federal Government become more involved in marriage with DOMA and other things. And with their support of the Patriot Act to use as another example. But Classical Conservatives, truly represent the best of the conservative movement and are truly pro-freedom. Especially individual freedom and not just economic and political freedom. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Marijuana Community: 'US Government ALLOWED Mexican Drug Cartel To Smuggle Drugs!'

Source:Marijuana Community- Mexican drug dealers.

"US Government ALLOWED Mexican Drug Cartel To Smuggle Drugs!" 

From Marijuana Community

Here's another example of the hypocrisy in the American so-called War on Drugs: allowing some narcotics come into America, in exchange for info on other drug cartels. Fixing one broken leg while you are breaking the other. And you can add this to the list of hypocrisy in the fake War on Drugs: prohibiting marijuana while allowing alcohol and tobacco, drugs that are just as dangerous if not more dangerous than marijuana. 

Now I've said this before: I'm not for legalizing marijuana because I think its good for people or I want to use it and not risk going to jail because of that use. But what I'm saying is that if government is going to prohibit and activity, because they think it's bad for people and try to protect us from ourselves and try to make these decisions for us, instead of giving us the freedom of choice to decide these things for ourselves, then they should prohibit all activities where the cost benefits are about the same. Alcohol and tobacco are excellent examples when talking about marijuana. Otherwise it's just hypocritical of government and gives people another reason not to trust them, as if people didn't have enough already. 

If you want to win the fake War on Drugs, you can start by being honest with the people you are trying to protect and not be hypocritical. And stop having laws and trying to pass new laws that attempts to protect people from themselves and instead just have laws that try to protect innocent people from the harm of others. Because once you pass a law, you still have to enforce it , otherwise it's as worthless as jaywalking laws. 

Just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean it goes away, thats why we have jails and prisons, all the evidence you need to know that. And enforcing laws comes with a cost whether they are good laws or bad laws. A cost to society, so you might as well just have good honest laws that are designed to protect innocent people from the harm of others. And stop having and passing as Classical Liberal economist Milton Friedman called "Bad Laws" laws that are designed to protect people from themselves instead of the harm of others. 

This Mexican drug cartel case of where the U.S. Government agreed to let narcotics smuggled into America in exchange for intelligence on other drug cartels. Is just more evidence of the hypocrisy and stupidity of the fake War on Drugs and why we need to change and reform it before this war causes more damage on American society.

Eric Cantor: 'With Unemployment At 9.2%, What Economic Theory Validates President Obama's Desire To Raise Taxes?'

Source:House Majority Leader Eric Cantor- talking about President Obama, taxes, and the economy.

"With Unemployment At 9.2%, What Economic Theory Validates President Obama's Desire To Raise Taxes?"

From House Majority Leader Eric Cantor

In round one of the debt deal, there was a plan that was all about budget cuts, including in the Defense Department and no cuts in entitlement programs. 

Round two of the debt deal will be about entitlement reform and tax reform. I don't see this Republican House ever going for tax hikes on anyone, income tax hikes impossible. But would could happen from this Congressional Joint Committee (as I prefer to call them) is tax reform that closes tax loopholes, including corporate welfare, big oil and gas subsidy's eliminated and using that revenue to help pay down the debt. In exchange these company's would be able to have more areas to operate which would actually be good for the economy, because of the jobs it would create. 

I believe this is the best that Democrats and the President will be able to get from this Republican House. And is something that they and the Democratic Senate should fight for. As well as entitlement reform that saves these programs without hurting people who need them. But demanding that wealthier people who don't need them, pay more into them and take out less. 

As far as the rest of the social insurance programs in the Federal Government: I would like to see them taken off of the Federal and state budgets all together. And made independent of the Federal Government all together and turned into non-profit, good will services that would help people in need as well as empowering these people to become self-sufficient. But still regulated by the Federal Government. But I don't see that this Congressional Joint Committee coming up with this. But thats an idea I'll be pushing in the future. 

The problem with the economy isn't that taxes are too high on the wealthy. The problem with the economy has to do with lack of demand. People aren't spending enough money and purchasing enough items, for business's to make enough money to create enough economic growth that leads to strong job growth. 

And while we are waiting for the Congressional Joint Committee to hopefully draft round two of debt reduction, hopefully the economy will be the next focus.

The White House and Congress should be concentrating on the economy and creating more demand in it so people spend more money, to get economic and job growth going again. And they can do this without adding to the debt, which would be the easiest way to pay down the debt without hurting anyone. 

The economy should be Congress's main focus in September when they come back, things like a National Infrastructure Bank which would pay for itself which would also help with our manufacturing industry. Because the people who do these projects need the supplies to do this work. 

And we also need a comprehensive energy plan would help the economy as well and allow our energy company's to expand their presence in America. Which again would create a lot more jobs in exchange for cutting their corporate welfare. 

And last but never least, three trade deals stuck in Congress: Central America, Columbia and Korea, three major markets where we could export our goods.  

It's  good that round one of debt reduction is behind us and now Washington will have an opportunity to focus on the economy when Congress comes back in September along with the NFL, hint hint. And that has to be the biggest focus right now for several reasons but also without a strong economy, debt reduction means nothing. 

CNN: '1994- Newt Gingrich's Contract With America'

Source:CNN- House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) talking about the House Republicans Contract With America.

 "In 1994, Newt Gingrich led Republicans against the Clinton administration and orchestrated "The Contract With America." 

From CNN

The 1994 Republican Revolution in Congress that not only saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years, but saw them take control of the Senate for the first time in eight years, was obviously very impressive. First of all the numbers: they went from I believe 178 Seats in the House to 230, a fifty two seat pickup in one mid-term election. And then some right-wing Democratic Representatives switched over to the Republican Party right after that election. 

And Senate Republicans went from forty four Senators, a filibuster proof minority to fifty three, a nine seat pickup in the Senate. Where only 1/3 of the Senators runs every two years so that pretty impressive as well. 

But it's how Congressional Republicans did this: a lot of it were gifts from the Democratic Party President Clinton and the Democratic Congress. The 103rd Democratic Congress was very productive as far as passing legislation. President Clinton got most of his agenda from the 1992 campaign through his first two years. 

I'm not sure a lot of people are aware of this and I believe a lot of good legislation. Two trade agreements that both actually had bipartisan support that the Republican Leadership who were still in the minority in both the House and Senate, instead of trying to block it like they were successful in doing with health Care reform, helped try to pass those bills.

Then President Clinton got his Family and Medical Leave bill through, his deficit reduction bill through without one Republican in Congress voting for it. And the 1994 crime bill that had some bipartisan support for. As well as two Supreme Court Justices through the Democratic Senate, Stephen Brier and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two liberals, by the way. 

But the problem with most of this legislation that President Clinton and Congressional Democrats passed was how unpopular it was with the Republican base and Independents and ended up uniting the entire Republican Party against President Clinton and the Democratic Congress. 

And the Republican Congressional Leadership along with the Republican National Committee and their allies knew how unpopular Washington Democrats were and were able to take advantage of this anger across the country and tell people especially in Republican areas, that they don't like what the Democrats are doing as well, vote for them in 1994 and they'll stop them. Along with the Senate Republican Leadership with Bob Dole able to block more legislation from passing. 

Another thing that I respected as a political junky and also as a Liberal even though I disagreed with a lot of the Contract with America, was what it was about, getting America back to classical conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism and foreign policy conservatism. Even though they brought in the Christian- Right which certainly doesn't represent classical conservatism but religious fundamentalism.

The Newt Gingrich Congressional Republicans (especially in the House) weren't from the George W Bush Administration. Their message was the Federal Government was too big, has too much power and spends too much money. And has moved away from what the U.S. Constitution and we need to send some of this power back to the states and people. And give them a bigger say in how they govern themselves. This was sort of a Barry Goldwater/Ron Reagan conservative message. That they almost threw away in their first two years but they got off to a good start.