* THIS IS FROM THE NYT. (OF COURSE, IT'S FROM THE VERY
LAST LINE OF THE FIRST PAGE OF A TWO-PAGE ARTICLE...)
(*SHRUG*)
Joining a growing group of states that have loosened
restrictions on marijuana, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York plans this week to
announce an executive action that would allow limited use of the drug by those
with serious illnesses, state officials say.
* BY... EXECUTIVE... ORDER...
* FOLLOWED 14 PARAGRAPHS LATER BY THE
"CLARIFICATION" THAT "MR. CUOMO HAS DECIDED TO BYPASS THE LEGISLATURE
ALTOGETHER."
* FOLKS... AGAIN... THE RULE OF LAW NO LONGER EXISTS IN
AMERIKA. OBAMA DOES NOT FEEL BOUND BY IT. FEDERAL OFFICIALS DO NOT FEEL BOUND
BY IT. GOV. CUOMO DOES NOT FEEL BOUND TO IT? AND WITH GOOD REASON... NO ONE IS
SAYING "NO" TO THEM! NO ONE IS STANDING UP FOR THE RULE OF LAW.
Still, Mr. Cuomo’s plan is sure to turn heads in Albany,
the state’s capital. Medical marijuana bills have passed the State Assembly
four times — most recently in 2013 — only to stall in the Senate, where a group
of breakaway Democrats shares leadership with Republicans, who have
traditionally been lukewarm on the issue.
* AND SO... (READ ON...)
Mr. Cuomo has decided to bypass the Legislature
altogether.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
* BY... WHAT... RIGHT...? BY WHAT STATUTORY AUTHORITY...?
BY WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY...?
In taking the matter into his own hands, the governor is
relying on a provision in the public health law known as the Antonio G.
Olivieri Controlled Substance Therapeutic Research Program. It allows for the
use of controlled substances for “cancer patients, glaucoma patients, and
patients afflicted with other diseases as such diseases are approved by the
commissioner.”
* SO... SO... SO... CUOMO ISN'T TRAMPLING THE LAW...? THE
NYT IS FULL OF SHIT WHEN THEY FRAME THE ISSUE THIS WAY...? THAT'S HOW IT
APPEARS!
The provision, while unfamiliar to most people, had been
hiding in plain sight since 1980.
* FOLKS... READ THE ARTICLE FROM START TO FINISH
YOURSELVES. WHAT IS THE TIMES TRYING TO DO? ARE THERE ANY PROFESSIONAL WRITERS
OR EDITORS WORKING FOR THE TIMES? I'M TOTALLY FLABBERGASTED!
Another hurdle: State and federal laws prohibit growing
marijuana, even for medical uses, though the Obama administration has tolerated
it.
* OF COURSE IT HAS...
6 comments:
Just in case any of you are wondering why I posted the NYT/Cuomo piece after the initial premise was blurred...
(*LOPSIDED GRIN*)
I call 'em as I see 'em. That's the value of my newsbites! I'm not gonna "throw" a story. I'm not gonna take a dive!
You folks can trust me to be straight with you. Always.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/05/fbi_drops_law_enforcement_as_primary_mission#sthash.dTe9DVfT.Z7ojOv1v.dpbs
The FBI's creeping advance into the world of counter-terrorism is nothing new. But quietly and without notice, the agency has finally decided to make it official in one of its organizational fact sheets. Instead of declaring "law enforcement" as its "primary function," as it has for years, the FBI fact sheet now lists "national security" as its chief mission.
* REMEMBER PEACETIME? I WONDER IF THE POLITICIANS WILL EVER LET US RETURN TO IT AGAIN. WHY BE A MERE "CHIEF EXECUTIVE" OR "HEAD OF STATE" OR "PRESIDENT" WHEN ONE CAN BE "COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF," RIGHT?
* YES, FOLKS... I UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT... THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE... THE HEAD OF STATE HAS ALWAYS BEEN "COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF," BUT "COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF USED TO BE A COMPARTMENTALIZED ROLE. NOW...? AMERICA IS A MILITARIST NATION. "NATIONAL SECURITY" TRUMPS ALL. THIS ISN'T WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED...
[T]he agency's increased focus on national security over the last decade has not occurred without consequence. Between 2001 and 2009, the FBI doubled the amount of agents dedicated to counterterrorism, according to a 2010 Inspector's General report. That period coincided with a steady decline in the overall number of criminal cases investigated nationally and a steep decline in the number of white-collar crime investigations. "Violent crime, property crime and white-collar crime: All those things had reductions in the number of people available to investigate them," former FBI agent Brad Garrett told Foreign Policy. "Are there cases they missed? Probably."
According to a 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer investigation, the Justice Department did not replace 2,400 agents assigned to focus on counter-terrorism in the years following 9/11. Back in 2000, the FBI sent prosecutors 10,000 cases. That fell to a paltry 3,500 cases by 2005.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579296140856419808?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
* BY U.S. SENATOR RON JOHNSON (R-WI)
On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America.
(*STANDING OVATION*)
By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.
* YES IT HAS!
The president and his congressional supporters have also broken their promise to the American people that ObamaCare was going to be so good that they would participate in it just like everyone else.
* YES THEY DID!
In truth, many members of Congress feel entitled to an exemption from the harsh realities of the law they helped jam down Americans' throats in 2010.
(*NOD*)
Unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans.
It is clear that this special treatment, via a ruling by the president's Office of Personnel Management, was deliberately excluded in the law. During the drafting, debate and passage of ObamaCare, the issue of how the law should affect members of Congress and their staffs was repeatedly addressed. Even a cursory reading of the legislative history clearly shows the intent of Congress was to ensure that members and staff would no longer be eligible for their current coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.
(*NOD*)
The law states that as of Jan. 1, 2014, the only health-insurance plans that members of Congress and their staffs can be offered by the federal government are plans "created under" ObamaCare or "offered through an Exchange" established under ObamaCare.
Furthermore, allowing the federal government to make an employer contribution to help pay for insurance coverage was explicitly considered, debated and rejected.
* EXPLICITLY CONSIDERED; DEBATED AND REJECTED!
In doing so, Congress established that the only subsidy available to them would be the same income-based subsidy available to every other eligible American accessing insurance through an exchange.
* YEP!
This was the confidence-building covenant supporters of the law made to reassure skeptics that ObamaCare would live up to its billing.
(*NOD*)
They wanted to appear eager to avail themselves of the law's benefits and be more than willing to subject themselves to the exact same rules, regulations and requirements as their constituents.
* THE KEY WORD BEING "APPEAR."
(*SMIRK*)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Eager, that is, until they began to understand what they had actually done to themselves. For instance, by agreeing to go through an exchange they cut themselves off from the option of paying for health care with pretax dollars, the way many Americans will continue to do through employer-supplied plans. That's when they went running to President Obama for relief. The president supplied it via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which issued a convoluted ruling in October 2013 that ignores the clear intent and language of the law. After groping for a pretext, OPM essentially declared the federal government a small employer — magically qualifying members of Congress for coverage through a Small Business Health Options Program, exchanges where employers can buy insurance for their employees.
Neat trick, huh? Except that in issuing the ruling, OPM exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and legal authority.
In directing OPM to do so, President Obama once again chose political expediency instead of faithfully executing the law — even one of his own making.
If the president wants to change the law, he needs to come to Congress to have them change it with legislation, not by presidential fiat or decree.
* YES...!!! YES, YES, YES...!!!
The legal basis for our lawsuit (which I will file with a staff member, Brooke Ericson, as the other plaintiff) includes the fact that the OPM ruling forces me, as a member of Congress, to engage in activity that I believe violates the law. It also potentially alienates members of Congress from their constituents, since those constituents are witnessing members of Congress blatantly giving themselves and their staff special treatment.
Republicans have tried to overturn this special treatment with legislation that was passed by the [Republican-controlled] House on Sept. 29, but blocked in the [Democrat-controlled] Senate.
Amendments have also been offered to Senate bills, but Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) refuses to allow a vote on any of them.
I believe that I have not only legal standing but an obligation to go to court to overturn this unlawful executive overreach, end the injustice, and provide a long overdue check on an executive that recognizes fewer and fewer constitutional restraints.
* GOD BLESS RON JOHNSON!
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_1_bloomberg.html
While Bloomberg was often called the “businessman mayor” with an eye on the bottom line, city spending jumped 55% during his 12 years in office (a big portion of it going to the schools and public-sector worker pensions), and the debt doubled.
* AND... THE... DEBT... DOUBLED...
[S]ince Bloomberg took office, Gotham tax collections have doubled, growing about twice as rapidly as the city’s economic output...
* TAX COLLECTIONS HAVE DOUBLED... CITY SPENDING JUMPED 55%... AND THE DEBT DOUBLED...
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/january/05/iraq-the-%E2%80%98liberation%E2%80%99-neocons-would-rather-forget.aspx
Remember Fallujah?
Shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military fired on unarmed protestors, killing as many as 20 and wounding dozens.
In retaliation, local Iraqis attacked a convoy of U.S. military contractors, killing four.
The U.S. then launched a full attack on Fallujah to regain control, which left perhaps 700 Iraqis dead and the city virtually destroyed.
According to press reports last weekend, Fallujah is now under the control of al-Qaeda affiliates.
The Anbar province, where Fallujah is located, is under siege by al-Qaeda.
During the 2007 “surge,” more than 1,000 US troops were killed “pacifying” the Anbar province. Although al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the U.S. invasion, it is now conducting its own surge in Anbar.
For Iraq, the U.S. “liberation” is proving far worse than the authoritarianism of Saddam Hussein, and it keeps getting worse. Last year was Iraq’s deadliest in five years. In 2013, fighting and bomb blasts claimed the lives of 7,818 civilians and 1,050 members of the security forces. In December alone nearly a thousand people were killed.
I remember sitting through many hearings in the House International Relations Committee praising the “surge,” which we were told secured a U.S. victory in Iraq. They also praised the so-called “Awakening,” which was really an agreement by insurgents to stop fighting in exchange for U.S. dollars. I always wondered what would happen when those dollars stopped coming.
Where are the surge and awakening cheerleaders now?
Last month the U.S. shipped nearly a hundred air-to-ground missiles to the Iraqi air force to help combat the surging al-Qaeda. Ironically, the same al-Qaeda groups the U.S. is helping the Iraqis combat are benefiting from the U.S. covert and overt war to overthrow Assad next door in Syria.
The neocons may be on the run from their earlier positions on Iraq, but that does not mean they have given up. They were the ones pushing for an attack on Syria this summer. Thankfully they were not successful. They are now making every effort to derail President Obama’s efforts to negotiate with the Iranians. Just last week William Kristol urged Israel to attack Iran with the hope we would then get involved. Neoconservative Senators from both parties recently introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013, which would also bring us back on war-footing with Iran.
Next time the neocons tell us we must attack, just think “Iraq.”
Post a Comment