ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [306] -- End Of Reefer Madness?

[ Posted Friday, May 30th, 2014 – 17:02 PDT ]

It has been a momentous week, with the resignation (read: "firing") of a cabinet secretary, a presidential speech on America's foreign and military policy, and the announcement of a timetable to bring home the remaining troops in Afghanistan. Plus all the usual Washington squabbling. But one story risks being buried among all this other newsworthy stuff, and that is the vote which happened late last night in the House of Representatives. Because, with a healthy bipartisan majority, they just voted to end the war on medical marijuana forever. If the Senate follows their lead, this could be one of the biggest turning points in ending the federal War On Weed altogether. In other words, it is a momentous event.

The "Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment" was sponsored by Republican Dana Rohrabacher and Democrat Sam Farr, both from California -- the first state in the nation to legalize medical marijuana, almost two decades ago. It uses the traditional congressional "power of the purse" to ban the Justice Department from spending any money on arrests, raids, and prosecutions of medical marijuana providers and patients that comply with their states' medical marijuana laws. That's the entire Justice Department, including federal attorneys, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

While the Obama administration began with a promise not to prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers, the reality on the ground has been far different. U.S. Attorneys in some states have used an extremely heavy hand in bringing such prosecutions to court, no matter what the head office was saying (this article, written before the amendment passed, lists a few of these). The head of the D.E.A. has (to put it politely) not exactly jumped on board with laying off medical marijuana providers. Action by Congress, in this case, was necessary to refocus the entire Justice Department away from the drug-warrior mindset when it came to providing medicine to ill patients.

Last night, to the great surprise of even marijuana reform activists, the House voted 219-189 to yank all funding for targeting medical marijuana in states where it is legal (in state law -- it still remains illegal under federal law, medicinal or not). A whopping 49 Republicans joined 170 Democrats in voting "yea." That's about as bipartisan as it gets, these days. It also raises hopes that its chances in the Senate could be pretty good. House Republicans, by standing behind the idea, have given political cover to Republican senators to vote for the measure, to put this another way. It's barely even a contentious idea politically any more, as surveys show public support is now at a sky-high 85 percent.

Rohrabacher even invoked a sacred name (for Republicans), showing how to put a conservative spin on the issue: "The heart and soul of the Republican party is that pro-freedom, individual philosophy that Reagan talked about. I think that what we've got now and what we have here in the Republican vote last night were people who took a lot of those words and the philosophy of Ronald Reagan to heart." Those are strong words indeed (again, for Republicans).

If the Senate follows the House's lead, this will be the beginning of the end of the federal legal battle against medical marijuana -- which is now legal at the state level in close to half of the states. Success is by no means guaranteed, however. The amendment has been attached to a budget bill, and there is no guarantee that any budget bills will make it to the president's desk this year (they may be rolled into some giant omnibus bill, or Congress may punt until after the election or even next year). The Senate may not even take up the amendment at any point. There are all sorts of ways it could be derailed, in fact.

Even if it does survive in a bill Obama can sign, it is still only the first step. The ultimate goal, in this particular case, is "rescheduling" marijuana so we can end the federal legal fiction that it has no accepted medicinal value. Attorney General Eric Holder can do so with his signature, but he has indicated that he'd like Congress to buy into the idea as well. Last night's vote means that this could indeed happen in the near future. In addition to the other marijuana reforms either Holder or Congress has approved (sentencing reforms, allowing recreational legalization in two states to proceed, hemp production, allowing medical research on marijuana, etc.), we are now standing on the brink of ending the "reefer madness" altogether. No, not the "madness" of the "reefer fiend" so famously propagandized in the movie of the same name, but rather the madness of treating marijuana more harshly than drugs like methamphetamine. It is, indeed, madness to believe that weed is more harmful to society than crystal meth. And that is the madness that could be about to end.

Even if the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment doesn't survive the budgeting process, the vote itself was a powerful statement: spending money persecuting medical marijuana patients and providers is a gigantic waste and will no longer be allowed. This, from the Republican-led House, no less. The politics of marijuana reform are shifting fast, and politicians from both parties better take note. So while President Obama may have pushed this off the front pages with his foreign policy speech, accepting Shinseki's resignation, or his announcement of the end of the Afghanistan War; we felt the most important story of the week is one that didn't make many front pages: the beginning of the end of the federal government's reefer madness.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

President Obama was certainly in the news this week, as just mentioned. He announced the Afghanistan drawdown schedule, he gave a major foreign and military policy speech, he finally fired (oh, excuse me, "accepted the resignation of") Veterans Administration head Eric Shinseki, he held a conference on concussions in sports, and he teased the media with an upcoming announcement on new Environmental Protection Agency rules on pollution and greenhouse gases. All in all, a pretty productive week, politically. But this week he only earned an Honorable Mention for all his fervent activity.

Because the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week was none other than Representative Sam Farr. Farr represents a coastal district in Central California which includes the seaside town of Santa Cruz. So it's not like he's going to suffer politically for championing the end to federal persecution of medical marijuana. I'd have to check a map, but I believe that the pivotal Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Raich (originally Ashcroft v. Raich) began with a raid of a medical marijuana cooperative in Farr's district (or, perhaps, "just north of his district"). But Farr hasn't been as prominent in the marijuana reform movement as other Democrats (such as Jared Polis of Colorado, to name just one), at least not up until now.

But by cosponsoring Rohrabacher's amendment, Farr took the lead in this instance. Dan Riffle of the Marijuana Policy Project praised Farr's efforts, after the vote:

Representative Farr gave an impassioned floor speech, and lobbied his colleagues on the House floor leading up to the vote. His staff was also incredibly helpful in narrowing down the list of members I needed to target.

If the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment becomes law, this will be a stunning achievement. It will be pivotal in redirecting the federal government's entire drug policy, in fact. For leading the effort on the Democratic side, for rounding up 170 Democratic votes, for working across the aisle on an important issue (and by doing so, proving that it should now be seen as a non-partisan issue), for doing what his constituents want him to do in Washington, and for possibly ending the federal reefer madness altogether, Sam Farr is this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

Well done, Sam! Well done indeed.

[Congratulate Representative Sam Farr on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

This one's pretty obvious.

Eric Shinseki has served his country in many ways. He left part of his foot on the battlefield in Vietnam wearing the uniform of the United States. He was the highest-ranking Japanese-American ever in the military. He told the truth when asked about how many troops he thought would be necessary in Iraq (much to the dismay of Donald Rumsfeld). And he took on a tough job in the Obama cabinet.

But, while he did make a lot of improvements at the Veterans Administration, he fell far short on one major area. The institutional problems at the Veterans Administration go back decades (if not centuries) -- America just doesn't have all that great a record when it comes to taking care of veterans (with the exception of World War II vets, perhaps). But that doesn't excuse Shinseki. He was at the helm for five years, and in all that time didn't realize that the data on wait times was being gamed far and wide by lower-level administrators in local hospitals. This is an enormous failing, whether you hold Shinseki personally responsible or not.

When the interim report was released this Wednesday, it was clear that Shinseki had to go. Over 100 members of Congress -- including many Democrats -- called on him to step down. The media was more split, although I have to admit that I joined in the chorus calling for Shinseki to go after the report was released. Many veterans groups stood behind Shinseki all week, but in the end it wasn't enough.

Some might argue that Shinseki's not exactly a Democratic politician, but in our eyes serving in the cabinet of a Democratic president is close enough. Which is why we're awarding him the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week on his way out the door.

[Eric Shinseki is now a private citizen, and our policy is not to provide contact information for people out of the world of politics.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 306 (5/30/14)

We've got quite the mixed bunch this week, since we spent most of the rest of the column on a single subject. Oh, and for every blogger out there (which definitely includes me) who has ever made a mistake or typo they later had to go back and sheepishly correct, here's the cover of the venerable New York Times from earlier this week. Note that sub-heading on the Obama speech story: "Tells West Point Cadets That Critics Misread His Cautious Reponse to World Crises." Reponse? Heh. Even the high and mighty slip up, on occasion!

OK, sorry, that was juvenile. Ahem. Getting back to the subject at hand... well, we seem to have quite a few subjects at hand this week. A lot happened in the political world, including a whole lot of stories we didn't even have room for, so it's kind of a hit-or-miss week for the talking points.

 

1
   End the madness

To make this point, all you need to do is compare marijuana (listed under Schedule I -- the most dangerous drugs around) with all the drugs which are considered less harmful (those on Schedule II). It's a pretty easy point to make.

"I fully support the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, which will zero out the budget for the Justice Department to go after medical marijuana users and providers in states which have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. We need to end the 'reefer madness' in the federal government. Because it is indeed madness to put sick people and their medical providers in jail for five or ten years when their own state allows such medical treatment. With medical marijuana legal in over 20 states, it is madness for the federal government to list marijuana as having, and I quote from the Schedule I definition: 'no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.' The federal war on medical marijuana is nothing but sheer madness, folks. Listing marijuana as more dangerous than cocaine? Madness! Listing it as more dangerous than crystal meth? Madness! Listing it as more dangerous than opium, Dexedrine, PCP, and barbiturates? Utter and complete madness, nothing less. Which is why I strongly support Rohrabacher-Farr, and hope it passes the Senate and arrives on President Obama's desk. Because we simply must stop this reefer madness in the federal government, once and for all."

 

2
   Maybe next year, huh?

This one is almost too funny for words.

"I see that even though Republicans have now had three or four years to come up with their own bill to replace Obamacare, the House is punting on the issue once again. The House leadership just announced that they will be postponing a floor vote on the non-existent Obamacare Republican replacement plan. It seems that, and I quote from the Washington Post article announcing this decision, 'the delay will give them more time to work on the bill and weigh the consequences of putting a detailed policy before the voters in the fall.' That's really amusing, isn't it? They don't want the voters to know what they're planning. They're afraid it will not be as popular as Obamacare, to put it another way. They need more time -- that's the really funny part! They've had years and years now, and they are still no closer to replacing Obamacare with some pie-in-the-sky pure conservative answer because such an answer does not exist. Voters, please take note."

 

3
   Championing incestuous fathers' parental rights

I wrote recently about how Democrats should frame this issue, in the strongest terms possible. Representative Alan Grayson this week tried to get a change to an anti-abortion provision in an appropriations bill. Republicans kept the exceptions for rape and the life of the mother intact, but somehow dropped the exception for incest. While Grayson's bill failed, he did a good job of expressing his outrage. From his floor speech:

Laws have consequences. The scenario we're describing here is one where a female prisoner is the victim of incest. If this law passes as currently written, that female prisoner will be forced to carry to term the child of an incestuous relationship. I regard this as absolutely indefensible.

 

4
   Tax cuts pay for themselves?

The hypocrisy is obvious on this one.

"Whenever Democrats try to get federal money for a deserving cause -- like relief funds for natural disasters, for instance -- Republicans say 'it's got to be paid for elsewhere.' Whenever any Democratic budget proposal is made, Republicans respond by saying the money has to be cut from other programs. But this budget-cutting purity gets thrown right out the window when Republicans push for more tax breaks. The House Ways and Means Committee just pushed $304 billion in tax breaks (over ten years), after voting for $310 billion in other loopholes last month. They didn't pay for a dime of it. They just tacked the entire thing onto the budget deficit. Once again, Republicans show that they only posture about being fiscally responsible -- when the subject is relief money for hurricane victims, say -- but they could not care less about busting the budget when it comes to tax breaks for their donors. The hypocrisy is astounding. Where are all those Tea Partiers, hollering to the skies about balanced budgets, one wonders."

 

5
   Latino vote landslide?

House Republicans seem absolutely determined to drive the Democratic share of the Latino vote to new heights, it seems.

"House Republicans refuse to even hold a vote on the Senate immigration reform bill, because they are terrified that it will pass. The Republicans cannot agree on putting their own immigration reform bill together, either. The window is fast closing politically for action on immigration reform this year, except when they rush through a vote on bills like the one Steve King just got passed, which focus 100 percent on the enforcement side of things. At the same time, they block votes against allowing citizenship for immigrants who serve America in the armed forces. It's almost as if the Republican Party is trying to see how high the Latino vote percentage can go against them. Not unlike their non-existent Obamacare replacement plan, the non-existent House Republican immigration reform bill means Democrats are going to get an even-bigger landslide among Latino voters for the foreseeable future. Anyone want to bet how high it'll be in the 2016 presidential election? Maybe 80 percent this time? Or 85 percent? How many states will that guarantee go to the Democrats in the Electoral College, do you think?"

 

6
   Whoops.

The Washington football team (we prefer to now call them the "Washington Racial Slurs") decided that social media was the way to go in their fight with the likes of Harry Reid. Whoops.

"The football team in our nation's capital refuses to change their team name, even though it is quite obviously racially offensive. Harry Reid and 49 other Democratic senators wrote the team a letter urging them to change the name. The team responded on Twitter, in the hopes that legions of fans would inundate Harry Reid's Twitter feed. Instead, what they got was legions of people informing them that their team name is no longer acceptable. I encourage the entire Twitterverse to join in this pile-on, using either @Redskins or the hashtag #RedskinsPride, so they'll notice."

 

7
   Have a drink before you vote!

This one is rather amusing, especially for those Americans who have never experienced what "dry counties" and alcohol "blue laws" are like in some places.

"I see that South Carolina is about to lift their ban on alcohol sales on election day. By doing so, they'll join the rest of the country where it is legal to toss down a few stiff ones before exercising their citizen's franchise. Prohibition is over, and the days of getting lots of voters drunk in ballot-stuffing schemes are long gone. So voters in South Carolina will soon be able to use alcohol on election day as they see fit -- whether that means getting tipsy enough to bring yourself to vote for one guy over another, or whether it means popping open some bubbly to celebrate when your candidate wins. As W. C. Fields famously once said: 'Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink.' A fitting toast for election day in South Carolina!"

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

30 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [306] -- End Of Reefer Madness?”

  1. [1] 
    LewDan wrote:

    I don't really get your obsession with marijuana reform. Its medical uses are largely only of use BECAUSE of our drug laws and the overregulation of painkillers. Our REAL problems are because delusion that we can protect people from themselves by imposing prohibitions and in the minorities we choose to suppress using drug enforcement as an excuse.

    Marijuana may be a big issue among marijuana users but its otherwise not that important. Instead of addressing the real issues marijuana reform covers them up. Instead of pretending its a great day if we tweak our drug policy if "medicinal uses" exist (Gonna reduce the schedule for cocaine too? SUPER painkiller, medicinal uses out the yang. Been used medicinally for centuries!) we need to face the fact that our antidrug policy is tragically and thoroughly misguided and misused--as well as abused.--There's nothing special about marijuana.

  2. [2] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    There's nothing special about marijuana.
    Clearly you have never had any of the good stuff!

  3. [3] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Nice piece, I myself had to look at couple of news sources to make sure I wasn't falling for an "onion". While the medical use of marijuana or the real agricultural value of hemp is going to be a subject for interesting commentary in the good ole comment section it really is about time that we stop sending people to jail for more years than a murderer, meth maker, meth dealer, crack dealer, drug importer, and just because it is an easy target, banksters.

    Personally I hope that this bill comes out as being good enough to allow for more vigorous prosecution of violent drug offenders, I mean SERIOUSLY, when was the last time you had a stoner squat in a house and deal drugs, and have his clientele commit home invasions while the police ignored over 160 calls for service and the banks refused to secure the property, only to have them get arrested and then released in less than 6 months just in time for them to do it all again.

    Unfortunately I have no faith in our government to be able to do anything that benefits the public, so I would be very interested to see if this bill also forbids feds in bordering states from using funds to prosecute, does this bill also forbid other agencies from participating in building cases or allowing them to take federal evidence and give it to local DA's for prosecution? As a big follow the money, they are all corrupt kind of guy, I would like to see where the money came from to get this bill to pass. Remember the one thing democrats and republicans have in common is that their asses all look the same when they are bent over the corporate feeding trough. Remember that recently the fed have had to give back some dope and seeds for studies that have significant corporate funding....so money is involved somewhere.

    As for number 4 I think you are way off base. As of late the republicans have been practicing the "smack the pinata in the ass and it will explode" theory of economics. This works is based on the fact that the rich can only hold onto a finite amount of wealth before they explode ALA Mr Creosote. We both know those pesky taxes will delay the inevitable explosion of money from above that will rain down upon us and fix all of our problems, besides in washington what is good for the goose may not be good for the Foie Gras. Please, I beg you, just trust the republicans, we need to keep stuffing all money into those rich peoples pockets so they explode sooner and money rains down upon us like a golden shower that will wash away all of us common folks problems.

    Once again other than number 4 great read, now if you will excuse me I am going to have a beer with my friend whose main form of ID is his voter registration card while we discuss why it is a PITA to visit the US before he even tries to visit the US.

  4. [4] 
    LewDan wrote:

    I have one question. Why is everyone falling for this election-year Republican crap that the justice department budget needs to be slashed by Congress to prevent it from enforcing the laws Congress passed? Republicans are trying to paint the Justice Department as some rogue Obama villain for doing their job, and everybody in the media is more than willing to play along.

    If Congress doesn't want Justice to prosecute state authorized medical marijuana possession then all they have to do is change the law so that its no longer a federal crime. Pretending to play games with the Justice Department budget isn't about marijuana reform or the justice department.

    Applauding Republicans sudden enlightenment when all they're doing is taking advantage of the stupidity of Democrats in framing this amendment to validate their illegitimate out-of-control Obama administration conspiracy theory to goose their paranoid true believers, and perhaps even peel off some independents in an election year.

    Progressives, apparently, being happy to be played if they think they it'll get them pot.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    I find myself in the unique and unsettling position of agreeing with LD.. :D

    There isn't really anything special about marijuana...

    And, no, SF... I have never had ANY marijuana.. Never smoked ANYTHING in my entire life... :D

    But, we all have our little foibles, our little pet peeves/projects in our lives and who am I to deny CW's pet project... :D

    GT,

    Remember the one thing democrats and republicans have in common is that their asses all look the same when they are bent over the corporate feeding trough.

    There are a LOT more similarities between Democrats and Republicans than just that...

    Matter of fact, I challenge you to find me ONE substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans..

    They both put Party Before Country. They both care more for their political power than anything else..

    Democrats and Republicans are simply two different sides of the same perverse and corrupt coin.

    And I challenge ANYONE to prove me wrong..

    But please, use facts and not bigoted partisan hysteria...

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The football team in our nation's capital refuses to change their team name, even though it is quite obviously racially offensive. Harry Reid and 49 other Democratic senators wrote the team a letter urging them to change the name. The team responded on Twitter, in the hopes that legions of fans would inundate Harry Reid's Twitter feed. Instead, what they got was legions of people informing them that their team name is no longer acceptable. I encourage the entire Twitterverse to join in this pile-on, using either @Redskins or the hashtag #RedskinsPride, so they'll notice."

    I asked before and never got an answer.. So let me ask again..

    Is Harry Obama-Is-Light-Skinned-And-Doesn't-Have-A-Negro-Dialect Reid really the one that should be lecturing someone else about racism??

    I can list Democrat after Democrat after Democrat who, by YA'ALLs standards, would be considered racist...

    So, maybe Democrats should worry about cleaning their own house first before they presume to lecture someone else about being racist...

    I mean, honestly. Thanx to The Democratic Party, we had the KKK....

    Does a Party with THAT kind of history really want to throw out accusations of racist behavior??

    With regards to the Washington Redskins themselves, study after study after study was done and it turns out that the majority of Native Americans really like the team. The logo was designed by a Native American. The word "redskin" in the Native American languages denotes tribal camaraderie..

    These are the facts that are conveniently left out when discussing this issue..

    It's a NON-ISSUE...

    The problem here is that the US is finally shaking off the shackles of racism.

    And that scares the CARP out of the Democratic Party because the ONLY way that the Democratic Party can stay in power is by stoking the fires of divisiveness..

    Institutionalized Racism in this country against every race but the Caucasian race is dead.. It simply cannot be found...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD

    Republicans are trying to paint the Justice Department as some rogue Obama villain for doing their job, and everybody in the media is more than willing to play along.

    Uhh... Because it's factual....

    Progressives, apparently, being happy to be played if they think they it'll get them pot.

    hehehehehehe Now THAT was funny!!! :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    So Obama is a villain if Justice enforced the law? And Obama is a villain, of course, if Justice doesn't enforce the law?!--And, once again, its perfectly fine for Americans to break the law while immigrants are simply required to bend over and grab their ankles? Because obviously anyone who breaks the law is unsuitable to be an American?

    And, please, Michale, don't agree with me. It disturbs me even more than it does you. Its the only thing you say that makes me believe I must be wrong somehow, missing something somewhere!

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale and LewDan,

    You guys crack me up! You really should think about taking this show on the road ...

    Seriously, I love reading your give and take, back and forth. :)

  10. [10] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Before he left, Shinseki ordered the VA to send clinicians, mostly doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners etc, to Phoenix to help clear the current back log. They come from the VA's Disaster Emergency Medical Personnel System (DEMPS). He also stopped all bonus payments.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Obama is a villain if Justice enforced the law?

    No, Obama is a villain for NOT enforcing the law to suit a partisan agenda..

    Basically, Obama said, "Congress I want you to do this."

    Congress said, "No, Mr President, we're not going to do that."

    Then Obama said, "Fine. Screw you and screw the law, I am going to do it anyways"..

    Then Obama released over 30,000 murderers, rapists, killers, thieves and drunk drivers..

    That's the proper sequence of events..

    And, please, Michale, don't agree with me. It disturbs me even more than it does you. Its the only thing you say that makes me believe I must be wrong somehow, missing something somewhere!

    "Stuart. Don't agree with me. It just makes me doubt myself."
    -Michael J. Fox, SPIN CITY

    :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Before he left, Shinseki ordered the VA to send clinicians, mostly doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners etc, to Phoenix to help clear the current back log. They come from the VA's Disaster Emergency Medical Personnel System (DEMPS). He also stopped all bonus payments

    And why didn't Shinseki do any of this BEFORE this was all exposed??

    Because he didn't know what was going on under his own command..

    Now, when a REPUBLICAN does that, he is incompetent.. IE Brown and Christie..

    But I guess it's PERFECTLY OK for a Democrat to exhibit such incompetence..

    Hell, it's REWARDED.... Until it becomes public knowledge...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because obviously anyone who breaks the law is unsuitable to be an American?

    Let me put it this way..

    You come back to your home after being gone for a couple months.

    You have a family that has broken in to your home and is living there because they had no where else to go... They are running up bills that YOUR are responsible for, they are making a MESS of your house and trashing everything...

    Are you going to let them stay???

    Of course not.. You are going to call the cops and have them removed..

    How is THAT situation any different than illegal immigrants coming into this country, using OUR resources, killing and raping OUR citizens and generally trashing our country??

    Answer.. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE...

    Yes, there are foreigners who come here and follow the rules and obey the law and go thru proper procedure and they are rewarded with citizenship. We KNOW people like that...

    So, why should THEY follow the rules and these criminals get a free ride??

    ANSWER: Because the Democratic Party is in deep kimshee and they NEED an influx of freshly minted Dem voters...

    That's the entire answer right there...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    ANSWER: Because the Democratic Party is in deep kimshee and they NEED an influx of freshly minted Dem voters...

    That's the entire answer right there...

    "That angel went and created 50,000 new souls for your war machine. You can't just mint money, Castiel. It's wrong...It's dangerous... And I won't let you."
    Atropos, SUPERNATURAL, My Heart Will Go On

    Amazing how life imitates art, iddn't it??

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Its the Republicans who are hemorrhaging supporters, and have dwindling prospects for winning elections. That's why they're resorting to suppressing voters. They're the desperate ones, not Democrats!

    And a more accurate analogy for illegal immigrants would be trespassers illegally subletting your basement apartment you hire to do your gardening for you. In spite of the Right's massive sense of entitlement America isn't their private property. Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, do make positive contributions to society, and are no more prone to violence and crime than citizens.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    -And, once again, its perfectly fine for Americans to break the law while immigrants are simply required to bend over and grab their ankles?

    Don't get me wrong..

    I really don't have any problem with someone breaking the law if the security or the welfare of this country or her citizens are at risk.

    But I have a REAL problem with someone who breaks the law to serve a partisan agenda AT THE EXPENSE of the security and/or the welfare of this country and her citizens...

    Which is EXACTLY what Barack Obama has done...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Its the Republicans who are hemorrhaging supporters, and have dwindling prospects for winning elections. That's why they're resorting to suppressing voters. They're the desperate ones, not Democrats

    You would never know that by the desperation of the Democratic Party..

    Tell ya what.. Let's revisit the question mid November and see who was right and who was wrong... :D

    Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, do make positive contributions to society, and are no more prone to violence and crime than citizens.

    And yet, the FACTS prove you wrong...

    Oh sure, when the illegals buy a new TV, they pay SALES tax... But that's about it.. More likely, though illegals will just STEAL the TV...

    Simply by virtue of their existence, they are criminals...

    There is a LEGAL and PROPER way to go about citizenship.. MILLIONS upon MILLIONS have done it..

    Why should people who CHEAT the system and CHEAT this country and rape and murder and steal from this country's citizens be given special consideration??

    Because the Democratic Party is dying and needs millions upon millions of new souls/voters...

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, Obama breaks the law...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_print.html

    With absolutely NO CONSIDERATION to the consequences to our troops..

    Obama needed a "win" to cover up his VA incompetence..

    This guy is out of control.. The sooner he is out of office, the better..

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You guys crack me up! You really should think about taking this show on the road ...

    Seriously, I love reading your give and take, back and forth. :)

    "One is honored to be of service"
    -Robin Williams, BICENTENNIAL MAN

    :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale

    Michale

    "Pizza

    Pizza"
    -Little Caesar

    :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    "One is honored to be of service"

    You're welcome!

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I am wont to do...

    Movie Recommendation..

    NON-STOP starring Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore..

    MUST SEE....

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Michale ... I'll take that under consideration.

    Say, have you seen Captain America: Winter Soldier yet? That is also a MUST SEE!

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Say, have you seen Captain America: Winter Soldier yet? That is also a MUST SEE!

    Nope, I haven't.. But I want to..

    What's really kewl about CA:WS is that it directly tied into the TV show, AGENTS OF SHIELD. For people who saw CA:WS the day it was released and caught AOS the next day, it was like a 2-parter... :D

    I don't think that has ever been done in the history of TV/Movies...

    So, yea... Our plan is to watch CA:WS and then re-watch that episode of AOS... :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, as Obama proves once again, there is NOTHING he won't stoop to to change the subject when his Administration is being slugged by scandals..

    I have to admit I am torn by the latest POW/Taliban exchange..

    Always good to see a POW come home..

    But in this case, it's John Kerry Jr and I am not sure he's worth the cost of releasing 5 of the most dangerous Taliban leaders...

    But it does prove once again that the Obama administration is ruled by politics and politics alone...

    So much for "change", eh??

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/fellow-soldiers-bergdahl-deserted_794063.html

    We gave up 5 of THE most valuable Taliban/Al Qaeda commanders for THIS guy?!?

    What was Obama thinking!??

    Oh, that's right. Obama was thinking, "I simply MUST take the spotlight off the VA...."

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/207856-bergdahl-bumps-va-from-spotlight

    Obama didn't give two craps about this POW... And rightly so..

    Until Obama realized that he could use this scumbag to his political advantage...

    And to think I actually VOTED for the guy because he wasn't a cookie-cutter politician..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Bowe Bergdahl served the United States with honor and distinction"
    -National Security Adviser Susan Rice

    Yea.. And the Benghazi Terrorist Attack was caused by an anti-Islam video... :^/

    Could the Obama Administration be ANY more clue-less and ignorant??

    I highly doubt it...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news..

    Bakery Will Stop Making Wedding Cakes After Losing Discrimination Case
    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/30/bakery-will-stop-making-wedding-cakes-after-losing-discrimination-case/

    More intolerance and bigotry from gay activists...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    You really have to shake your head in sadness at the ineptitude of the Obama Administration..

    EXCLUSIVE - 'A cover up just like Benghazi': Outraged parents of officer who died hunting for 'deserter' POW Bergdahl lash out at Obama over 'LIES' they were told about how their hero son died
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646345/EXCLUSIVE-Outraged-parents-officer-died-searching-deserter-Bergdahl-hit-Obama-cover-just-like-Benghazi-claiming-told-LIES-hero-son-died.html

    Only an administration as moronic and incompetent as Obama's could ignite a BIGGER scandal while trying to move a DIFFERENT scandal off the Front Page...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.