Friday, October 11, 2019
Flower marijuana is the best.
We are given a plant. A very beneficial plant that is soothing, healing and beneficial to us. It is perfect the way it is. Just grow it, dry it, roll it up and fire it up. Not terribly complicated as far as plans go nor is it burdensome. It is perfect the way it is but is that good enough for us? No, we have to fuck with it and do this here and do that there until we have some concoction that may or may not be fatal. As far as vaping goes there are fatalities. The irony is that vaping was sold to the public as a safer alternative to smoking. With marijuana that is not the case. Vaping THC, which is man-made, has caused people to die while natural flower marijuana continues to be the safest substance on the planet. We do this every time all the time. When we do it kicks our ass. The edibles are pretty safe along with the flower buds so let's stay in that range. When it comes to vaping just say no.
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Joe Biden threatens to cut off aid to Ukraine if they investigate Hunter
The American mainstream media is trying to make Trump look like a loon for bringing this up. With their "nothing to see here. Just more Trump lies" dismissive attitude. They hate Trump and will do anything to ruin him. We literally have a left-wing base that will cut off its nose to spite its face. It has just become pathological at this point with fringe elements setting the narrative. The Democratic Party has scrapped the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights (their hatred of due process being given to their enemies if their enemies are accused of a crime.) and they have replaced them with Marxist/Leninist ideals and The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. With Antifa as their foot soldiers, they can enforce their beliefs through terrorism. They hate the 2nd Amendment if it protects you from violence from them aka Antifa. Antifa will be armed. Their foot soldiers have been seen carrying rifles. I'm sure they will be exempt from gun control laws while you and your family are penalized under them. Thus putting you and those you care about at the mercy of Antifa.
Friday, September 13, 2019
Dershowitz: Today's leftists as 'dangerous' as Stalinists
The hard-Left is a much greater threat to civil liberties in the United States than the hard-right, Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz wrote.
“People on the ‘woke’ hard-Left seem so self-righteous about their monopoly over Truth (with a capital T) that many of them apparently see no reason to allow dissenting, politically incorrect, views to be expressed,” Dershowitz wrote in an Aug. 31 analysis for Gatestone Institute.
“Such incorrect views, they claim, make them feel ‘unsafe.’ They can feel safe only if the views they share are allowed to be expressed. Feeling unsafe is the new trigger word for demanding censorship.”
Dershowitz said there is a “dangerous similarity” between America’s hard-Left “wokers” and Stalinists.
The similarity, Dershowitz wrote, “is that both disdain due process for those they deem guilty of political incorrectness or other crimes and sins. They reject any presumption of innocence or requirement that the accuser bears the burden of proof.”
Dershowitz continued: “For Stalinist and ‘wokers,’ there is no uncertainty or fallibility. If they believe someone is guilty, he must be. Why do we need a cumbersome process for determining guilt? The identities of the accuser and accused are enough. Privileged white men are guilty perpetrators. Intersectional minorities are innocent victims. Who needs to know more? Any process, regardless of its fairness, favors the privileged over the unprivileged.”
Hard- right extremists would and have used violence “to silence those with whom they disagree. They are indeed dangerous,” Dershowitz wrote. “But they have far less influence on our future leaders than their counterparts on the hard-Left.”
Those on the hard-right, Dershowitz noted, “are not teaching our college-age children and grandchildren. They are marginalized academically, politically and in the media. The opposite is true of hard-Left Stalinists. Many have no idea who Stalin even was, but they are emulating his disdain for free speech and due process in the interests of achieving the unrealizable utopia they both sought. They also have in common the attitude that noble ends justify ignoble means.”
Dershowitz continued: “No university student has the right to be safe from uncomfortable ideas, only from physical threats, and any student who claims to be in physical fear of politically incorrect ideas does not belong at a university. The most extreme example of this distortion of the role of higher education took place at my own university when a distinguished dean of a Harvard residential college was fired from his deanship because some "woke" students claimed to feel unsafe in his presence because he was representing, as a defense lawyer, a man accused of rape.”
The concept of political correctness, Dershowitz pointed out, “originated in the Stalinist Soviet Union, where Truth — political, artistic, religious — was determined by the central committee of the Communist Party and any deviation was regarded as unacceptable. To be sure, there is a vast difference between how Stalin treated political incorrectness and how the ‘woke’ generation treats it. Stalin murdered those who deviated from his Truth, while ‘wokers’ generally shun and discredit, though there has been occasional violence from elements of the hard-Left toward those who deviate from their Truth. But both produce a similar result: less dissent, less reliance on the marketplace of ideas and more self-censorship.”
For many of the “wokers” on the hard-Left, Dershowitz wrote, “freedom of speech is nothing more than a weapon of the privileged used to subjugate the unprivileged. It is a bourgeois concept that emanates from an anachronistic white, male constitution that is irrelevant to the contemporary world. Free speech for me — the underprivileged — but not for thee — the privileged. That is what the ‘wokers’ want. Affirmative action for speech!”
“That is why I make the controversial claim that today the ‘woke’ hard-Left is more dangerous to civil liberties than the right,” Dershowitz wrote.
Source
“People on the ‘woke’ hard-Left seem so self-righteous about their monopoly over Truth (with a capital T) that many of them apparently see no reason to allow dissenting, politically incorrect, views to be expressed,” Dershowitz wrote in an Aug. 31 analysis for Gatestone Institute.
“Such incorrect views, they claim, make them feel ‘unsafe.’ They can feel safe only if the views they share are allowed to be expressed. Feeling unsafe is the new trigger word for demanding censorship.”
Dershowitz said there is a “dangerous similarity” between America’s hard-Left “wokers” and Stalinists.
The similarity, Dershowitz wrote, “is that both disdain due process for those they deem guilty of political incorrectness or other crimes and sins. They reject any presumption of innocence or requirement that the accuser bears the burden of proof.”
Dershowitz continued: “For Stalinist and ‘wokers,’ there is no uncertainty or fallibility. If they believe someone is guilty, he must be. Why do we need a cumbersome process for determining guilt? The identities of the accuser and accused are enough. Privileged white men are guilty perpetrators. Intersectional minorities are innocent victims. Who needs to know more? Any process, regardless of its fairness, favors the privileged over the unprivileged.”
Hard- right extremists would and have used violence “to silence those with whom they disagree. They are indeed dangerous,” Dershowitz wrote. “But they have far less influence on our future leaders than their counterparts on the hard-Left.”
Those on the hard-right, Dershowitz noted, “are not teaching our college-age children and grandchildren. They are marginalized academically, politically and in the media. The opposite is true of hard-Left Stalinists. Many have no idea who Stalin even was, but they are emulating his disdain for free speech and due process in the interests of achieving the unrealizable utopia they both sought. They also have in common the attitude that noble ends justify ignoble means.”
Dershowitz continued: “No university student has the right to be safe from uncomfortable ideas, only from physical threats, and any student who claims to be in physical fear of politically incorrect ideas does not belong at a university. The most extreme example of this distortion of the role of higher education took place at my own university when a distinguished dean of a Harvard residential college was fired from his deanship because some "woke" students claimed to feel unsafe in his presence because he was representing, as a defense lawyer, a man accused of rape.”
The concept of political correctness, Dershowitz pointed out, “originated in the Stalinist Soviet Union, where Truth — political, artistic, religious — was determined by the central committee of the Communist Party and any deviation was regarded as unacceptable. To be sure, there is a vast difference between how Stalin treated political incorrectness and how the ‘woke’ generation treats it. Stalin murdered those who deviated from his Truth, while ‘wokers’ generally shun and discredit, though there has been occasional violence from elements of the hard-Left toward those who deviate from their Truth. But both produce a similar result: less dissent, less reliance on the marketplace of ideas and more self-censorship.”
For many of the “wokers” on the hard-Left, Dershowitz wrote, “freedom of speech is nothing more than a weapon of the privileged used to subjugate the unprivileged. It is a bourgeois concept that emanates from an anachronistic white, male constitution that is irrelevant to the contemporary world. Free speech for me — the underprivileged — but not for thee — the privileged. That is what the ‘wokers’ want. Affirmative action for speech!”
“That is why I make the controversial claim that today the ‘woke’ hard-Left is more dangerous to civil liberties than the right,” Dershowitz wrote.
Source
Saturday, August 10, 2019
Official approval
I just received my official government approval grade. I felt very honored that they held me in high esteem.
Friday, July 26, 2019
Friday, July 5, 2019
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
Congress Schedules Hearing To Discuss Ending Marijuana Prohibition
A major congressional subcommittee will hold a hearing on marijuana policy next week, Marijuana Moment has learned.
Though few details about the meeting are currently available, the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee are expected to discuss various legislative proposals to allow states to set their own cannabis policies without fear of federal intervention.
Several sources who did not wish to be identified shared with Marijuana Moment the names of witnesses expected to soon receive formal invitations to testify before the panel on Wednesday, July 10. Given the backgrounds of these individuals, it seems apparent that committee members will be discussing not whether the U.S. should end federal cannabis prohibition, but will focus primarily on how to do it.
Witnesses are anticipated to include Malik Burnett, a physician at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who previously served as the Washington, D.C. policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs, where he helped lead a successful ballot initiative campaign to legalize cannabis in the nation’s capital in 2014.
Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, who announced in January that her office would no longer prosecute cannabis possession cases and would work to clear the records of certain individuals with prior marijuana convictions, is also being invited to testify.
David Nathan, a physician and board president of the pro-legalization group Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), will also appear before the committee.
He told Marijuana Moment that he looks “forward to discussing the evidence-based health effects of cannabis, the failure of prohibition, the inadequacy of decriminalization, and the public health and social justice benefits of effective regulation.”
“DFCR physicians have successfully fought for legalization in states around the country,” Nathan said. “Now DFCR is proud to advocate for the broad majority of Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—who want our government to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and finally end the specter of federal interference with state cannabis laws.”
Finally, Neal Levine, CEO of Cannabis Trade Federation, will be the minority witness—which is noteworthy in and of itself, as Levine advocates for legalization, while one might expect the minority Republican party to invite someone who shares an opposing perspective on ending prohibition.
“I cannot comment on what has not been announced publicly by the committee, but I would welcome the opportunity to share the perspective of our members,” Levine, who previously served as a staffer for the Marijuana Policy Project, told Marijuana Moment. “We are especially well positioned to discuss the challenges arising from the inconsistency between state and federal cannabis laws.”
(Full disclosure: the Cannabis Trade Federation and its affiliate CTF Action have sponsored Marijuana Moment.)
After this story was initially published, the subcommittee posted an official notice for the hearing. It is titled “Marijuana Laws in America: Racial Justice and the Need for Reform” and will begin at 10:00 AM ET.
While lawmakers aren’t expected to vote on any particular bill at the hearing, it will nonetheless be one of the most significant congressional developments on marijuana reform to date.
The Judiciary Committee, under which this subcommittee falls, wields particular influence in advancing broad changes to federal drug laws, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) designated it as the panel to bring about the end of cannabis prohibition in a blueprint to legalization in the 116th Congress.
“For the first time in recent memory, there will be a candid conversation in the Judiciary Committee about the failures of marijuana prohibition in the United States and how people have been impacted,” Justin Strekal, political director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “We look forward to working with the subcommittee to best inform the conversation and the public at large.”
Legislation that could be marked up by the panel in the future includes the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act, the Marijuana Justice Act, the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act and the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is also said to be working on his own bill to end federal marijuana prohibition, but no details have yet been announced.
Notably, every single Democratic member of the full Judiciary Committee, including the chairman, voted in favor of amendment protecting cannabis programs in all states, U.S. territories and Washington, D.C. from Justice Department intervention last month. Six Republican members of the panel joined them in support of the measure, which was attached to spending legislation that has since cleared the House. The bipartisan nature of that vote indicates that further reform legislation stands a strong chance of passing in the committee.
Besides Blumenauer’s House-passed amendment protecting cannabis programs, this Congress has also seen several other hearings on cannabis issues. The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee discussed four pieces of legislation concerning veterans and marijuana last month, and the House Small Businesses Committee also convened to address opportunities and barriers for small cannabis businesses under the federal framework of prohibition.
In March, a bipartisan bill that would provide protections for banks that service cannabis businesses cleared the House Financial Services Committee following a hearing on the issue, and a full floor vote on that legislation could be coming soon.
Unlike the new Judiciary hearing, the minority witnesses at the Financial Services and Small Business hearings—representatives of the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the Heritage Foundation, respectively—opposed legalization.
Source
Though few details about the meeting are currently available, the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee are expected to discuss various legislative proposals to allow states to set their own cannabis policies without fear of federal intervention.
Several sources who did not wish to be identified shared with Marijuana Moment the names of witnesses expected to soon receive formal invitations to testify before the panel on Wednesday, July 10. Given the backgrounds of these individuals, it seems apparent that committee members will be discussing not whether the U.S. should end federal cannabis prohibition, but will focus primarily on how to do it.
Witnesses are anticipated to include Malik Burnett, a physician at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who previously served as the Washington, D.C. policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs, where he helped lead a successful ballot initiative campaign to legalize cannabis in the nation’s capital in 2014.
Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, who announced in January that her office would no longer prosecute cannabis possession cases and would work to clear the records of certain individuals with prior marijuana convictions, is also being invited to testify.
David Nathan, a physician and board president of the pro-legalization group Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), will also appear before the committee.
He told Marijuana Moment that he looks “forward to discussing the evidence-based health effects of cannabis, the failure of prohibition, the inadequacy of decriminalization, and the public health and social justice benefits of effective regulation.”
“DFCR physicians have successfully fought for legalization in states around the country,” Nathan said. “Now DFCR is proud to advocate for the broad majority of Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—who want our government to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and finally end the specter of federal interference with state cannabis laws.”
Finally, Neal Levine, CEO of Cannabis Trade Federation, will be the minority witness—which is noteworthy in and of itself, as Levine advocates for legalization, while one might expect the minority Republican party to invite someone who shares an opposing perspective on ending prohibition.
“I cannot comment on what has not been announced publicly by the committee, but I would welcome the opportunity to share the perspective of our members,” Levine, who previously served as a staffer for the Marijuana Policy Project, told Marijuana Moment. “We are especially well positioned to discuss the challenges arising from the inconsistency between state and federal cannabis laws.”
(Full disclosure: the Cannabis Trade Federation and its affiliate CTF Action have sponsored Marijuana Moment.)
After this story was initially published, the subcommittee posted an official notice for the hearing. It is titled “Marijuana Laws in America: Racial Justice and the Need for Reform” and will begin at 10:00 AM ET.
While lawmakers aren’t expected to vote on any particular bill at the hearing, it will nonetheless be one of the most significant congressional developments on marijuana reform to date.
The Judiciary Committee, under which this subcommittee falls, wields particular influence in advancing broad changes to federal drug laws, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) designated it as the panel to bring about the end of cannabis prohibition in a blueprint to legalization in the 116th Congress.
“For the first time in recent memory, there will be a candid conversation in the Judiciary Committee about the failures of marijuana prohibition in the United States and how people have been impacted,” Justin Strekal, political director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “We look forward to working with the subcommittee to best inform the conversation and the public at large.”
Legislation that could be marked up by the panel in the future includes the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act, the Marijuana Justice Act, the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act and the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is also said to be working on his own bill to end federal marijuana prohibition, but no details have yet been announced.
Notably, every single Democratic member of the full Judiciary Committee, including the chairman, voted in favor of amendment protecting cannabis programs in all states, U.S. territories and Washington, D.C. from Justice Department intervention last month. Six Republican members of the panel joined them in support of the measure, which was attached to spending legislation that has since cleared the House. The bipartisan nature of that vote indicates that further reform legislation stands a strong chance of passing in the committee.
Besides Blumenauer’s House-passed amendment protecting cannabis programs, this Congress has also seen several other hearings on cannabis issues. The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee discussed four pieces of legislation concerning veterans and marijuana last month, and the House Small Businesses Committee also convened to address opportunities and barriers for small cannabis businesses under the federal framework of prohibition.
In March, a bipartisan bill that would provide protections for banks that service cannabis businesses cleared the House Financial Services Committee following a hearing on the issue, and a full floor vote on that legislation could be coming soon.
Unlike the new Judiciary hearing, the minority witnesses at the Financial Services and Small Business hearings—representatives of the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the Heritage Foundation, respectively—opposed legalization.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
