Birther Bill Is Surprisingly Popular

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

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

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

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

Barney Frank Criticizes House Republican On Jobs, Wall Street Reform

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

Barney Frank Criticizes House Republican On Jobs, Wall Street Reform

For you.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

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

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

JPMorgan Trading Loss Suggests Little Has Changed Since The Financial Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

#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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Leads Mitt Romney By 7 Points: Reuters Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

There are only two choices. If anyone thinks Mitt and the Mormon church will be less discriminatory than they have in the recent past then make your vote count.

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

Just as so many Democratic voters showed up in 2008 (10 million) to put who they believed was a progressive black man in the White House to undo what Bush, Cheney and Republicans had done in the previous years and then in 2010 when Democratic voters turned incumbent Democrats out of office, threw Blue Dogs out in huge numbers (liberals only lost 3 seats), the 2012 election seems to moving again in that direction.  With Blue Dogs being tossed out.  

As an old, OLD liberal Democrat (a 'New Deal' Democrat) who has never voted for a Republican, never will, I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.  I'll certainly never vote for any incumbent Democrat again, Blue Dog or other.

I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administration, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminating regulatory oversight from finance reform legislations, he's given pro-corporate, Republican-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government.

And just as Obama is accusing Romney of flip-flopping on issues, so has Obama flip-flopped and reneged on campaign promises.  The irony is that, if past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, Romney's record as governor isn't all that dissimilar from Obama's in the White House.  There were even moments of liberalism to Romney's record (gun control, state co-pays for abortion, etc.) - Certainly more progressive than Obama.

And let's not forget that it's Obama who has put Social Security and Medicare on the table for cuts.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

You blame Nader voters when, had Nader not even run, had he not be in the race, Bush still would've won.  Because Republicans had gamed that election more ways than we're ever going to know about.  You might as well blame Pat Buchanan with the same vigor and vitriole.

AlGore won.  Gore got more votes in Florida.  Any way it was counted (and the biggest point that people seem to forget is that there were 179,000 perfectly readable ballots that never got counted), Gore got more votes than Bush.
 
Whatever the means necessary to get BushCheney into the WhiteHouse would've happened.  Had Nader been in the race, had he not in the race, whatever.  Had Nader not run, the outcome would've been the same.  The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerable ways.

If the means for getting BushCheney into the WhiteHouse required a close election and Nader not been running, some other means would've been used.

For pity's sake, the CIA was working on GOP absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to election day in Florida.  That was the most amazing revelation from the televised court hearings in the post-election days in Florida --  'CharlesKane' testified to altering absentee ballots in the MartinCounty's Registrar's office in the two week period prior to election day (it's against the law and should render the ballots null and void).  When Kane was sworn in, he had to identify himself and give his occupation and employer. Retired CIA.  The judge asked him why he was altering the absentee ballots, and he answered "I go where I'm told."  Verbatim quote.  The judge didn't follow up.  There was next to no news coverage of this, and none by the networks.

Have you forgotten JebBush's vote purging scheme?

Have people really forgotten all the different ways that that election was gamed by the GOP?  And that's just in Florida.  And just the ways that we learned about because of legal proceedings in the post-election days.

There was a coup d'etat in America in 2000.  A bIoodless coup, but a coup nonetheless.  

And Democrats suppressed investigations, and then screwed over the Congressional Black Caucus's attempts to expose that stolen election.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

Nader again?  

That's the proof of just how susceptible to spin you are, and probably because instead of actually reading the data, you form your opinions from the opinions you hear from others on cable news programs.

Aside from the fact that in a nation of more than 300 million, unless you make it a law that voters can only vote for a Democrat or a Republican, unless you outlaw all other political parties, you can't possibly control how people vote.  Unless, of course, you're able to control the voting machines.

Nader didn't do anything to Gore that HarryBrowne, PatBuchanan, HowardPhillips, et al (other party candidates) didn't also do, yet you don't hear them being blamed.  Gore and Bush weren't owed other party's voters, and studies have shown that Nader pulled more votes from Bush than from Gore.

You presume that Nader voters would've voted for Gore (or voted at all) when studies and exit polling have indicated that's not the case.  

But here's the thing:

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

The argument that lost the Democrats the election in 2010 was the argument that people who were not 110% satisfied with Obama should have tantrums and stay home. They got the government they deserved - unfortunately, those of us who met our responsibility to vote also got the government that the non-voters deserved.

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

Here's the problem with that:  That was exactly what Obama and the Democratic establishment elites wanted.  

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the WhiteHouse, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind BlueDogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter. 

Republican-turned-Independent ArlenSpecter over progressive Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican-turned-Independent LincolnChaffee over Democrat FrankCaprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat DavidCicilline for the congressional seat Democrat PatrickKennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIsland). 

Republican-turned-Independent CharlieCrist over liberal Democrat KendrickMeek. 

Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.

Republicans, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republicans controlling the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republicans' continuing legislation like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?

Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLincoln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibustered a PublicOption for healthcare. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't (and doesn't).

The ProgressiveCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOption. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the ProgressiveCaucus, for threatening to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democrats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that when Obama needed Nelson re: StupakAmendment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could've done for Nelson's or Lincoln's vote at any time, on any legislation.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

Solutions for what?  How to get Democratic politicians to behave like Democrats?  How to get Democratic policies and legislation passed?  How to get rid of conservatives from government?

I've laid out solutions, beginning with "Stop voting for DLC-controlled Democrats".   All roads (to campaign finance reform, clean and green energy, ending corporate personhood, strong banking/environmental/etc. regulations, JOBS, education, no more resource wars, gay rights, civil rights restoration, affordable quality medical treatment for everyone, and so on) begin with that.  Everything that has been done these past 30 years has been done with Democrats' compliance -- Couldn't have happened without Democrats signing on.

Do you really not understand the problem and how to fix it?

Neither party is interested in ending corporate control over our government.  It feathers their nests now and will take care of them once they've left office.  Unless and until the money is out of politics, we're all just wasting our time, flapping our gums.  Obama isn't interested in reforming that.  He's not interested in reforming anything.  He's only interested in making it look like he's reformed government.  He's not alone -- All professional politicians has 'reform' as their campaign's centerpiece.  A lot of promises to reform, and when it's time to get reelected and whatever happened in the previous 2 or 4 years is spun to try to convince voters (and more importantly, about 10% of the voters, Independents who see themselves as centrists) that the reform that they wanted they got with their side of the D&R equation.  

Both parties generally take their bases for granted, but there is something to the adage, "Republicans fear their base and Democrats loathe their base".  

So we're back to the question that has kept this farce going for so many election cycles now, moving the parties and the government farther to right while the people, when informed of the issues,  tend to agree with and want liberal solutions):

Why should Obama-Demo­crats do anything for you if they know you're going to vote for them no matter what?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

And you have a choice, too.  Recognize that Obama has betrayed you, and all "them that brung 'im".  And the reason you're inclined to vote for him is not because he's satisfied your expectations, but because you hope that, contrary to his words and action, will do what he's never done in the past.

Your blind faith is dooming us all to continued Republican policies and legislation.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

I have faith that he'll champion marriage equality in his next term.

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

Putting aside for the time being your remarkable ability to presume to know what Obama intends (should he be reelected), or what I may or may not know (so if it doesn't meet with your approval, then I must be "disingenuous" and "know" that I am "disingenuous"), that's an interesting choice of words, "he'll champion marriage equality".  Not that Obama would work to repeal DOMA, etc., but that he'll say he supports marriage equality, which, for all intents and purposes, could just as easily be his current position of supporting gays in civil unions (and which also isn't equal to marriage -- Slippery with words, Obama is). 

But the point is that after the election it's too late.  

Before the election is when the deals are cut, the alliances forged.

That's why I keep telling Obama's 'most ardent supporters' that by assuring him that they're with him no matter what, they let him dismiss their issues and them.  I've really never seen a greater bunch of cowards, Obama's 'most ardent supporters', so terrified they are of getting issues on the table for knock-down, dragged out debates.  Ignorant cowards, too, or they're disingenuous about being supporters of issues like gays marrying and medical marijuana, etc., because the arguments for Democratic policies are sound and convincing.  But Obama's 'most ardent supporters' have no faith in the people's being able to see the soundness of Democratic policy.  

Like I've said for years, DLCers are the wrong people to be the stewards of the Democratic covenant.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

We're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republicans. There are other alternatives besides sitting out the election or voting for Republicans. There are other candidates running as independents, from Green to Libertarian, in just about every race.  If for no other reason than to get the 5 percent that is necessary for getting a seat at the table, I think that may be enough for great numbers of Democratic voters this time around.  And we'd better do it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn this all around.  This week's primaries swept out a bunch of incumbent Blue Dogs.

I say this as an old, OLD liberal Democrat (a 'New Deal' Democrat) who has never voted for a Republican, never will, but I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.  

I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administration, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminating regulatory oversight from finance reform legislations, he's given pro-corporate, Republican-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government.

So we're not limited to just Romney.  But should Romney get into the White House, will Democrats in Congress be as successful as Republicans have been in stopping Democratic policies and legislation, or will they rubberstamp Romney's policies and join in voting for Republican legislation as they have done during recent past Democratic administrations?

Perhaps with a Romney White House, Democratic politicians will be forced to work on behalf of the 99%, or be thrown out of office in 2016, replaced finally with real Democrats.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

Yeah, he could do it if it weren't an election year.

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

It's always something.

He's had 3 years to deliver on his campaign promises of 2008, and he's reneged and continued Bush-Cheney policies (going Bush-Cheney one better on several fronts).  

Unless you're Obama, you have no idea what he'd do if reelected, but as the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, Obama will have the DoJ restart defending DOMA.
About Gay Marriage
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost