Letters to the Editor
-
"Homegrown Terrorism Act" Vote in the Senate
Just a heads up to everyone....
Barack Obama sits on the Senate Homeland Security Committee that is headed by Indycrat Joe Lieberman. The House already passed "The Homegrown Terrorism Act" last fall by an overwhelming vote of 404-6 (introduced by AIPAC's own Jane Harman (D) CA), and the Senate Committee is now considering the legislation (SB 1959).
This legislation should be titled "The Stifling of Dissent Act" because that is exactly what it's intention is. In the hearing Jane "I think destroying those torture tapes would be a BAD IDEA" Harman invited the heads of The Rand Corporation ("think tank") and The Simon Wiesenthal Center ("never again") to testify. At one point, the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Mark Weitzman did a Power Point presentation and brought up the website of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" as a potential "national security threat" because the group, via it's website and outreach, is convincing MILLIONS of Americans that the "official story" of 9/11 should not be trusted.
Here's the website he pointed out:
ae911truth.org/
You will note an exchange of letters between the head of AE911truth.org and Mark Weitzman on this website (and an excellent speech and presentation on 9/11 by Richard Gage).
The questions to Barack Obama are these: What is your position on this legislation that has been crafted to intimidate the American people from seeking the truth and speaking out on 9/11 and other issues? Will you stop campaigning to go back to D.C. and participate in the discussions on this legislation? If not, why not?
Because if it's not important enough for Barack Obama to discuss this legislation publicly and come out forcefully against it, he doesn't deserve one nanosecond of our time, money or support. And neither will Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd or Joe Biden if they support it.
(Kucinich voted against it and Ron Paul was absent but has clearly stated he is opposed to it.)
-
HIllary is Prez - by FT Prediction
AlwaysforHillary wrote:
Hillary Clinton is the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO IS QUALIFIED, EXPERIENCED, INTELLIGENT AND HAS THE WISDOM AND STRENGTH TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY FORWARD!!!
Here's where the bear sits with the buckwheat: In their 2008 predictions two days ago, The Financial Times, which had a fabulous forecast record for 2007, predicted Hillary in a landslide.
Even if Obama manages to somehow snare IA (which I doubt, since 90% of his youthful backers lack the confidence or know-how to caucus) - Hillary will be in at the end.
And we can begin Clinton Presidency No. 3.
-
One thing that bothers me about Obama
I want to say right away -- it's not his position, it's how he chose to frame it.
I'm very grateful and very relieved that all the Democratic candidates say they'll stop dispensary raids in medpot states.
I would never exclude a candidate just because he or she was against legalizing "recreational" use.
After all, I'm thinking of voting for Hillary, so that proves I'm not going to exclude anyone by their position on recreational pot.
But Obama phrased his position in a way that made me wonder about the linkage between his mouth and his brain.
He said he's against someone using pot "just because they feel tense after a hard day and need a joint to relax."
Workplace stress has been identified by our medical establishment as an actual cause of disease. So feeling tense and needing to relax does according to our medical establishment constitute a legitimate medical need.
Doctors are legally allowed to prescribe pills approved by the FDA for this purpose.
And the liquor stores are legally allowed to sell their customers many very dangerous liquid drugs for this purpose too.
So what is Obama saying? Is he saying he wants to ban alcohol, Xanax and Clonipine? Is he against Ambien too?
It's a fact that our national policy on marijuana is extraordinarily hypocritical, given that drugs like vodka and Clonipine are perfectly legal.
So what is Obama trying to say, exactly? The way he framed his opposition to legalizing recreational use opened up a lot of questions.
But is he willing to answer any of these questions?
I think not. I don't see that he's ready to answer any of those questions. I don't see him being willing to explain how vodka and Clonipine are okay, but marijuana is not, in his moral universe.
So he should have framed his position on marijuana differently. He should have thought before he spoke.
Maybe he's just a person who doesn't think enough before he speaks.
So that's what concerns me.
The REAL reason why candidates HAVE to be against recreational use of marijuana is because we don't want the law enforcement lobbies and PACs to desert the Democrats for the Republicans.
Look at the medical marijuana states -- it's been hell trying to get police to obey these laws. It's been a very expensive hell, too, because we've had to take them to court so many times.
Police love to claim that they "just enforce the law" -- but they don't -- they love the marijuana laws, for some reason, and they openly rebel when those laws are liberalized in any way whatsoever.
Police have been taken to court many, many times in the medical marijuana states for their refusal to enforce the state laws. And they have LOST in court just as many times -- because it is their duty to enforce the state laws.
The REAL reason why no politician who advocates legalizing recreational use of marijuana has a chance of getting elected is because the American law enforcement establishment is willing to sacrifice America to religious fanatics just to preserve their right to wave guns at potheads.
Let's see Obama deal with that reality. Is he ready to open up that question? I think not.
Nobody is willing to open up that question. That's a very dangerous question to open up on a national level.
Personally, I'll be happy if the next President is able to rein in the DEA over medical marijuana -- because the DEA will rebel, just like the local and state police have rebelled.
Getting the DEA to obey the White House on medical marijuana is going to be a much harder job than most people imagine. If the next President can do that, that will be enough for me.