The Stoner Jesus: 'We've Got To Stop Criminalizing People For Using Marijuana!'

 

Source:The Stoner Jesus- Some criminal defense attorney appearing on FOX Business, talking about marijuana decriminalization.

"We've Got To Stop Criminalizing People For Using Marijuana!"  

From The Stoner Jesus

I know I've been blogging a lot about marijuana lately the last year or so as well as the broader War on Drugs, but its been a slow news day and this is still very important issue and I'll do my best to not sound repetitive, but no promises. 

If a left-wing Democrat like Representative Barney Frank, who was the Bernie Sanders of the House before Bernie came around and a Libertarian Republican like Representative Ron Paul can agree that we should no longer criminalize the use and possession of marijuana, if they can agree on anything, then we should take their marijuana bill in the House seriously. (After we give that story to The Onion and the tabloids, because on one else will believe it) And at least take a look at it. Just for the fact that Representative Frank and Representative Paul actually agree on something and it may be the last time that they agree on anything, gives hope that poverty and starvation one day, a very long time from now can be cured. As well as world piece, perhaps the day after. 

But on a serious note: the Frank-Paul  bill doesn't legalize marijuana without any strings attached which would be irresponsible and they both know that. Their marijuana bill simply treats marijuana like alcohol, which does just as much or more damage to people in society and is just as addictive if not more. With regulation and taxation just like alcohol: 21 or over to smoke, posses or sale to use as examples. 

Right now marijuana users get off tax free and don't pay a dime for their marijuana use and have a major advantage over alcohol and tobacco users. Which again is unfair to alcohol and tobacco users and a lot of marijuana users end up using pot their entire adult lives without paying a dime in taxes. 

By the way, a lot of these marijuana users don't spend a day in jail or prison, which is good for them and society in general but thats a different post. To put in the case you weren't aware file: just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it goes away or isn't done. All you have to do to know this is to take a look at what the oldest profession in the world including America, where its currently illegal as well but thats another post as well. That profession is alive and well in America and the rest of the world. 

There's and attempt by me to not sound repetitive, but my broader appoint is that if people want to do something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it whether it's legal or not. Its just a matter at what price they as well as society pays for it. This is true with marijuana, gambling and yes prostitution and I can go down the line as well (but in the interest of time and keeping you awake I'll spare you, for now) so knowing this we would be better off financially and morally, to take that as fact and instead of prohibiting how adults live their own lives. 

Let's regulate how these activities are done instead, because since we know that these activities are done, we might as well make them as safe as possible because for the very fact that we know that they are going to be done, whether they are legal or illegal.

Russia Today: 'Tea Party Bagging Defense Spending?'

Source:Russa Today- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) member of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Following the November 2010 elections, several Tea Partiers went from hopeful candidates to US Senators and members of Congress. Most campaigned on a platform of cutting spending and reducing the national deficit. Now that they are in power though, will the Tea Party implement the economic austerity they promised and take on the "Sacred Cow" of US defense spending cuts? Are they serious about cutting entitlements and defense by the amounts needed for long term fiscal sanity? Of the Republicans' 47 Senators and 242 Congressional Representatives, only 5 percent (15 members) expressed support for cutting defense spending. So is it all just talk to win political points?" 

From Russia Today

What happened to the old Tea Party that was about limited government, getting the Federal Government off of our backs, that was anti-big government, anti-corporate welfare, anti-neoconservative?

The Tea Party was a movement back in 2009-10 when they came on the seen that didn't want to be associated with the Christian- Right and Neoconservatives, that was even anti-George Bush. That wasn't part of today's Republican Party thats dominated by the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives. That sort of looked like the Grand Ole Party of 20-30 years a real limited government party. 

I gotta admit that back in the summer of 2010, when I started blogging about the Tea Party movement, that I saw them as a faction of the Christian-Right with a very conservative fiscal message. As they moved along and went out-of-their-way to not be associated with social issues that moves the Christian-Right. That told me they had Conservative-Libertarians in it. That told me that they were a separate movement from the Christian-Right and were a real classical conservative movement that people had the right to live their own lives, as long as they weren't hurting anyone else with their freedom. And by in-large wasn't interested in social issues and looking to push some anti-gay or anti-porn ban. 

I'll tell you what happened with part of the Tea Party movement (in case anyone was wondering) they got in bed with the Christian-Right and combined both movements. 

Representative Michele Bachmann case in point: she's the Leader of the Christian Tea Party. This faction as I see it is different from the Tea Party or represents another movement on their own or has even replaced the Tea Party as a major political movement not only in the Republican Party, but in American politics as a whole. 

I'm sure there are still some Conservative-Libertarians left in the Tea Party movement but they are no longer in charged and won't have much of a say in who the Republican Party nominates for President in 2012. 

Anyone who believes that we can get our Federal deficit and debt under control without making overall cuts in defense spending, without making damaging cuts in entitlement programs and passing painful Ttx hikes on the middle class, as apparently these Republican Representatives believe can be done, doesn't understand the Federal budget and the debt and deficit issues it faces. 

Cathy Ferkleheimer: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- 'We Do Not Take Care Of One Another - Special Comment - 2011-07-11'

Source:Cathy Ferkleheimer- Countdown With Keith Olbermann, talking about the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

"We Do Not Take Care Of One Another - Special Comment - 2011-07-11" 

From Cathy Ferkleheimer

Just to critique Keith Olbermann's Special Comment: the American safety net is not America's greatest accomplishment. He's simply dead wrong there. (And thats the nicest way to put it) The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are our greatest accomplishments. The two documents that guarantee our freedoms. That I believe some Americans unfortunately take for granted, but perhaps thats a different piece.

I'll start this piece with a question: is the job of the safety net to take care of people? The last time I check the role of a safety net is to catch people who fall and then help them back up. The term safety net implies that, to catch people who have fallen and then help them back up and to not leave them on the ground. 

The job of government is not to take care of people who are mentally able and physically able bodied. In America if you're physically and mentally capable of working, then you are expected to. That the whole reason why we have limits on Unemployment Insurance and now for about fifteen years Welfare Insurance has time limits as well, people on Unemployment and Welfare are expected to go back to work, earn a living and be self-sufficient.

People who end up using public assistance are not expected to live off of taxpayers indefinitely and that government can help people go back to work and help them find jobs and give them assistance to go to school or go back to school to get a good job and not have to live off of taxpayers indefinitely. 

So when Keith Olbermann implies that the safety net's job is to take care of people, he's essentially implying that the people who benefit from these safety net programs no longer have the freedom and responsibility to take care of themselves. Because government will do that for them.

The job of the safety net is to catch people who fall and then help them get back up on their own two feet. Yes, with temporary financial assistance, but more importantly down the the road empower people who need these social insurance programs. And I'm not talking about Social Security and Medicare programs that people have paid into their whole lives, but the anti-poverty programs, with education and job placement. 

The best anti-poverty programs are a good education and a good job. Because then low-income people will become self-sufficient and be able to take care of themselves.

Government's job is to protect and defend its people, not take care of them indefinitely. And when people fall through the cracks, catch them with the safety net (so to speak) but then help them back up with a good education and a good job. So they can stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves.

American Film Institute: 'Michael Moore- Talks About Socialism'

Source:American Film Institute- Successful, wealthy filmmaker Michael Moore, talking about socialism.

"Michael Moore talks about socialism while speaking after a screening of his film CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY at the AFI Silver Theatre in Silver Spring, MD." 

From The American Film Institute

I find it ironic that someone who speaks out against American capitalism and perhaps capitalism in general (which is what filmmaker/comedian Michael Moore does) a man who I have lets limited respect for, speaks out against an economic system that works so well for him. Michael Moore speaking out against capitalism, would be like Michale Jordan speaking out against the National Basketball Association, a league that has done so well for him and with him: you're going after your own bread and butter, meat and potatoes (Of what have you) 

Mr. Moore is not a government filmmaker or a government or a government comedian or a government actor, he's a private citizen who's had all of his professional success in life in the private sector. And yet he claims to be either a Socialist and if America were to give up on capitalism and move to a Marxist-Socialist economy, Mr, Moore then would become a state propagandist. 

Mr. Moore would no longer be a private filmmaker (in a Marxist-Socialist system) working for himself, he would be working for the Federal Government. He's not a dumb guy and rather intelligent actually but a lot of his facts are just wrong. Like when he says that America should move our economy towards France, because their services are all free, like health care, health insurance, education, transportation, pension, etc. He's simply dead wrong: none of those services are free, because the French either pay for them in taxes from the Federal Government there, or pay for them in fees in the private sector. 

Apparently Michael Moore never saw or read Milton Friedman's lecture about there's no such thing as a free lunch: we all pay for what we get or somebody pays for it for us. Mr. Moore is also wrong about the French health insurance and their health care system in general. They don't have a single-payer health care system that he would like to see in America. They have a public-private health care system that includes both their health care and health insurance. 

I don't believe Mr. Moore is a Marxist-Socialist for selfish reasons: I don't believe he would want the Federal Government being able to censor his movies. (For example) Can't blame him for that. I see Michael Moore as a Democratic Socialist, someone who believes that government especially the Federal Government should play a big role in providing services for people in society: health care, health insurance, education, pension, transportation, housing ,etc. Meaning the welfare state, because he believes yes, it's the right thing to do, but also so he can continue to make his own private movies. 

The Young Turks: Michael Shure- 'Ban Porn! Michele Bachmann 2012 Pledge'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) hard against porn.

"2012 Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann signed a Christian-Right pledge that slams porn, gay people and sex before marriage. Michael Shure explains." 

From The Young Turks

Normally I wouldn't hit this story twice: I blogged about it on Friday, even though that post was about Representative  Michele Bachman's broader view on social issues. But since this is Michele Bachmann and she has a hypocritical streak going (longer than Joe Dimaggio's hitting streak, if she stays at this pace) when it comes to big government and it's Saturday, the slow news day (of all slow news days) I'm going to hit this story again and go out-of-my-way not to sound repetitive on this story, but no promises. 

This is what big government, anti-constitutional conservatism at its worst, but that would be an insult to conservatism, because conservatism is about conserving constitutional rights, not abolishing them. Which apparently with Representative Bachman's views on social issues, she's trying to eliminate some of our constitutional rights and making America a less free society and no longer a liberal democracy. 

This is more like theocratic, fundamentalist, authoritarianism than conservatism: essentially using government meaning (the Central Government) and in America's case the Federal Government, to protect people from themselves as well as others, but protect us from ourselves as well. That if people have too much freedom (in an authoritarian's mind) that they won't know what to do with it and might hurt themselves with it. 

So things like pornography, certain types of movies and other forms of entertainment including fashion would be illegal. That certain forms of speech thats not political thats also protected by the U.S. Constitution with the First Amendment, would no longer have those protections if the Federal Government doesn't approve of it. 

So if the Federal Government doesn't personally like porn, let's take that first just because thats Representative Bachmann's latest public position (not because I have or don't have some special affection for pornography) instead of the FEDS just making the choice that they would have in a liberal democracy, the freedom of choice to look at or not look at porn, they simply make that illegal, punishable by jail time for everyone else. And would make that choice for the rest of the country on their own. 

Thats just one example, instead of moving America forward as a first world liberal democracy, they want to move America backwards as like a third world authoritarian republic or monarchy thats common in the Middle East. 

The next time I hear Representative Michele Bachmann claim that she's a Constitutional Conservative and anti-big government and I see her make that claim on TV or the internet, I'm going to treat those remarks as part of her daily monologue, because at the rate she's going she's turning into a first-rate comedian and a second-rate politician. Because she's doesn't know what the hell she's talking about and is a (pardon the term) a master of speaking out of her ass.

The Young Turks: Michael Shure- U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch- 'Poor People Don't Pay Enough Taxes'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican, Utah) talking about poor people not paying taxes.

"Republican Senator Orrin Hatch argued that top income earners pay too much in taxes while the bottom 51% of Americans don't pay enough. Michael Shure explains." 

From The Young Turks

Senator Orrin Hatch who by the way is the Ranking Member on the Senate Finance Committee (the lead minority member of that committee) So hopefully he has some idea of what he's talking about when it comes to taxes. (Perhaps vague, though) 

Apparently Senator Hatch came out on Thursday for tax hikes on low-income people. I don't know the Senator personally but known of him for about twenty years now, since the Clarence Thomas Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Senator Hatch is still a member of that committee and has served as both Ranking Member and Chairman of that committee. He's been in the Senate so long that he's had both of those jobs twice. 

I don't know Senator Hatch personally, but what I've learned about him personally and politically, is that he's a very honest Conservative Republican. As a Liberal myself, you might be able to count on one hand and not need all five fingers, to count the number of things that we agree on. But what I've respected about him (and yes I mean that in past tense) is his honesty: you know where the Senator stands on all the issues. 

Senator Hatch has had sorta of a take it or leave it, this is who he is sort or  approach to politics. The same thing that Ted Kennedy had and why Conservative Republicans had so much respect for him. And the same thing can be said about Orrin Hatch with Liberal and left-wing Democrats. Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch are two of the most honest people to ever serve in the Senate as well as Congress as a whole. And one reason why I believe they were such close friends and worked so well together. 

So when Senator Hatch comes out for tax hikes for low-income people and protecting tax cuts for high- earners, when Senator Hatch who also supported the Earned Income Tax Credit in the past, a tax credit that I believe was created by President Reagan of all people, it tells me that Senator Hatch has more than fiscal policy on his mind but his political future as well. 

Senator Bob Bennet one of the most conservative members of Congress when he served, lost the Republican primary in Utah in 2010, which is why he's no longer in Congress, because he wasn't conservative enough and caught working with Liberal Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. That sounds simplistic, but thats most of the truth. 

There's talk that Senator Hatch who's up for reelection himself in 2012, will face a primary challenge from the Far-Right as well and we are talking about Utah. So thats about as conservative as conservative gets and I believe that Senator Hatch believes the best way of getting reelected to the Senate and going back to Congress, is to not face a primary challenge and win it if he gets one and look as far to the right as possible especially on fiscal policy. Even if that means taking positions he doesn't believe in and wouldn't take normally. 

I believe that Senator Hatch coming out for tax hikes on low-income people is pure politics and not leadership. One thing leadership is about taking positions that you believe in whether they are popular are not, because you believe in them and believe they are the right thing to do. Once a politician takes a position just for popular support, they are no longer a leader but a puppet for popular will.

Mike Stark: 'James Clyburn- On Deficit Commission, Means-Testing Social Security'

 

Source:Mike Stark- House Majority Whip James Clyburn, talking about Social Security.

"The number three Democrat in the US House of Representatives is widely perceived as being fairly liberal.  Here he says he has confidence in the President's deficit commission, does not believe that a Value-Added Tax is on the table and that social security should be means tested." 

From Mike Stark

Jim Clyburn who's one of the members of Congress in both the House and Senate that I respect the most in both party's, has this exactly right: Democratic Socialists in Congress and around the country should jump all over this potential deal. 

Means-testing for Social Security and Medicare and reforming it in a way for people who actually need it, meaning wealthy people paying more into Social Security and collecting less if anything and giving more benefits to the retirees who actually need Social Security income to pay their bills, making the program more of a Welfare Insurance program for the people who actually need it and eliminating early retiree income for high-earners as well, would save Social Security and Medicare.

We should also be reforming Medicare in a way that reforms it for the people who need it by increasing Medicare taxes on high-earners and having them pay more in premiums. In exchange Democrats would get an excise tax on millionaires as well as substantial, somewhere in the ballpark of 70-100B$ a year in defense cuts. 

Conservative Republicans are already on board for defense cuts and some of them are already on board tax hikes, but they would probably have to start at around a million dollars a year, not 250K$. They would probably also need tax reform including corporate tax reform, that eliminates tax loopholes and lowers rates. 

This for me would be a grand bargain for Democrats and their left-wing (if not Far-Left) base, because they would get a millionaires tax and serious defense cuts. Social Security and Medicare would be reformed, but not in a way that hurts anyone who needs it but helps us get our deficit and debt under control. 

Anyone who's truly interesting in moving the debt ceiling as well as the broader deficit and debt issue past us, so we can concentrate mostly on the economy again and bringing our troops home, should take this deal. Anyone who just wants this issue to fire up their base will of course say no. 

President Obama wants to make this deal, I believe House Speaker Boehner wants to make this deal and I believe Senate Leader Reid wants to make this deal. 

If people on Social Security and Medicare who need those programs aren't hurt by it, which they wouldn't be and then he could sell the deal to the Senate Democratic Caucus. The question is will the fringe bases in both party's allow the deal to happen or not.