As voters consider marijuana-legalization efforts in several states this November, they can expect opposition from the usual pot opponents like law-enforcement groups and anti-drug activists – but some of the most ardent foes come, unexpectedly, from within the marijuana community itself. Opponents include some in the medical-marijuana industry, concerned about what a wide-open recreational market would mean for their businesses. Advocates for recreational marijuana also fear the latest legalization measures come with so many restrictions that pot smokers might be better off, for now, within the existing medical-marijuana system. All five states considering legalization this November – Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada – already allow the medical use of pot. Perhaps the biggest battlefield is California, where voters will consider Prop 64, funded by Napster founder Sean Parker. “I’m on the record totally opposing this law [California Proposition 64] that does not legalize marijuana,” said Steve Kubby, an original proponent of the 1996 ballot measure that legalized medical marijuana. Prop 64 would technically legalize pot, but also impose a 15-percent tax on marijuana sales and empower a new bureau to enforce the regulations and issue licenses. The measure creates what supporters call a “seed-to-sale” system of tracking and regulating marijuana. Kubby, who backed an alternate legalization measure that never made it to this year’s ballot, complained the Prop 64 proposal creates tougher punishments for people who have more than an ounce. California’s marijuana industry is centered in Humboldt County, the redwood-forested coastal region 200 miles north of San Francisco. Yet a July 12 report in the Humboldt Independent found deep divisions within the California Growers Association, a cannabis growers’ trade group, over the “Adult Use of Marijuana Act.” An opinion poll found its members evenly split over Prop 64. Some growers told the newspaper they feared the initiative would allow big marijuana companies to dominate the entire supply chain. The group reportedly had threatened to oppose the proposition until drafters included temporary limits on cultivation size. Dale Gieringer says his group, California NORML, backs the initiative “but we definitely have reservations.” Medical patients are right to be concerned, he said, because it raises taxes on medical dispensary purchases and gives local governments the right to ban them. On the plus side, it reduces felonies. Diane Goldstein, executive board member for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), touted the proposal. “This initiative is the best chance California has to end a failed war on marijuana resulting in the criminalization of almost half a million people in the last decade,” she said. Such wide differences of opinion from within pro-marijuana circles are playing out in other states, also. The Massachusetts measure gives existing medical dispensaries preferential licensing treatment, so a number of existing companies have actively supported the measure. But Dan Delaney, a Boston lobbyist who has helped medical-marijuana clinics seek licenses and is chairman of Safe Cannabis Massachusetts, opposes the measure. He is particularly opposed to language that limits the ability of local governments to regulate it and said many of the state’s hardcore pro-marijuana activists have joined with the anti-marijuana activists to oppose the measure. They view it as being “crafted by industry folks.” There’s another potential foe that marijuana-legalization supporters might not have expected: the alcohol industry. US News reported in May that an alcohol trade group is funding opposition to the recreational marijuana initiative in Arizona, but that alcohol companies are backing a similar legalization measure in Nevada. A likely reason: The Nevada proposal gives alcohol distributors first crack at the distribution licenses. The latest polls show legalization ahead in California and split in Massachusetts and Nevada. It’s behind in Arizona, but was ahead in Maine in May.
For some reason this didn’t make it into her racism speech yesterday in Reno Ku Klux Klan leader Will Quigg endorses Hillary Clinton for president. This interview took place after a KKK rally in California in March. Reporter: Who do you like for president, sir. Will Quigg: Hillary Clinton. Reporter: Do you think whites are superior to Blacks and Latinos? Will Quigg: Well we are God’s chosen people. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, a prominent member of the hate group announced earlier this year.
You absolutely MUST see this video!! Then, forward it to your friends and family members. It’d make an awesome Trump ad. 🙂
Swimmer Katie Ledecky stunned the world with one of the greatest performances in Olympic history, scoring four gold medals and one silver at the Rio Olympics. But the 19-year-old’s record-breaking achievements are reportedly not enough to get her into a swim club not far from her family’s suburban Washington, D.C., home. According to the Wall Street Journal, Ledecky’s family has been on the wait-list to join the Little Falls Swimming Club for years — first applying for membership some 15 years ago. Entry into the club is competitive. The selection process uses a numerical formula that gives prospective members points based on 10 concentric rings of increasing distance between an applicant’s residence and the exact center of the pool, the newspaper reported. The Ledecky family, from Bethesda, Md., remained on the waiting list even after their daughter won her first gold medal in 2012 at the London Olympics, according to the paper. Some members of the club noted the irony. “It’s kind of humorous that the fastest female swimmer couldn’t get into our pool,” Bob Scribner, a local schoolteacher and the pool’s board member in charge of membership this year, told the paper. “But I don’t think it’s funny enough that we should change the rules.”
Yeah…real funny Bob…you tool. What breathtakingly bad business decision for this snotty little club. They have arguably the fastest female swimmer on the planet trying to swim at their pool..and they won’t let her because of some stupid mathematical formula? Seriously? Can you imagine the good publicity the club would get from Katie’s membership? Wow.. What morons.. Shame on the Little Falls Swimming Club and it’s board..
The U.S. could resettle nearly one million immigrants from the Muslim world under one term of a Hillary Clinton presidency, according to projections from Center for Immigration Studies’ Steve Camarota. Camarota explained that this large expansion in Muslim migration would be part of a massive increase in overall immigration, which the U.S. could experience under a President Hillary Clinton. Camarota noted that Clinton could potentially add as many as 10 million new immigrants to the U.S. during her first term alone, on top of the millions of illegal immigrants to whom she would grant immediate amnesty. Camarota’s analysis is based on recent data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Census Bureau. According to the most recent DHS available data, nearly 150,000 immigrants from the Muslim world permanently resettled in the U.S. in 2014. He explained: ” Absent the kind of change in policy that Donald Trump is talking about, it seems likely under the existing system that 600,000 new immigrants from the Muslim world settle in the United States in the next four years. On top of that, Secretary Clinton has indicated that she would like to take in 65,000 refugees from Syria next year. If that were to be repeated for the four years of her presidency, it would be an addition of roughly 215,000 immigrants from the Muslim world annually. So that the total number of immigrants from the Muslim world that might arrive in the United States is about 860,000 if Secretary Clinton were elected President.” “While Clinton has not spelled out her long term plans for how many Syrian refugees she would take into the country, the number who could come from that country is certainly enormous,” Camarota added. If the same policies were followed in Clinton’s second term, roughly 1.7 million migrants from the Muslim world could potentially arrive during two terms of a Clinton presidency. Camarota explained that these figures are just part of the larger immigration expansion that would take place under a President Clinton, who could potentially add as many as 10 million new immigrants to the country– not including the millions of illegals to whom Clinton would grant amnesty. “Census data shows that each year the U.S. adds 1.5 million legal and illegal new arrivals. If a President Clinton were to add 65,000 Syrian arrivals on top of that number, then you could potentially see more than 6 million new immigrants added during her first term alone,” Camarota explained. “Further, if Hillary Clinton were able to pass a bill that were similar to the Rubio-Schumer bill, then it would likely add another one million legal immigrants on top of that figure annually,” Camarota said—pointing specifically to previous analysis Camarota conducted on the Clinton-backed Gang of Eight bill, which demonstrated how the plan would have doubled legal immigration. This means that Clinton could add 10 million new immigrants to the U.S. during her first term alone– in addition to the 11 million illegal immigrants Clinton has said she plans to amnesty within her first 100 days in office. “While there are some unknowns in making projections of these kinds, that does seem to be what would happen,” Camarota said. Today about nine out of every 10 new immigrants brought into the country on green cards come from non-Western countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, or the Middle East. The current record level of immigration into the U.S. is the result of a 1965 immigration rewrite championed by Ted Kennedy, which lifted the immigration curbs enacted by President Calvin Coolidge..
Holy crap1! If that didn’t scare the yell out of you, then you’re either an idiot or an illegal alien
The suspicious text message that appeared on Ahmed Mansoor’s iPhone promised to reveal details about torture in the United Arab Emirates’ prisons. All Mansoor had to do was click the link. Mansoor, a human rights activist, didn’t take the bait. Instead, he reported it to Citizen Lab, an internet watchdog, setting off a chain reaction that in two weeks exposed a secretive Israeli cyberespionage firm, defanged a powerful new piece of eavesdropping software and gave millions of iPhone users across the world an extra boost to their digital security. “It feels really good,” Mansoor said in an interview from his sand-colored apartment block in downtown Ajman, a small city-state in the United Arab Emirates. Cradling his iPhone to show The Associated Press screenshots of the rogue text, Mansoor said he hoped the developments “could save hundreds of people from being targets.” Hidden behind the link in the text message was a highly targeted form of spyware crafted to take advantage of three previously undisclosed weaknesses in Apple’s mobile operating system. Two reports issued Thursday, one by Lookout, a San Francisco mobile security company, and another by Citizen Lab, based at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs, outlined how the program could completely compromise a device at the tap of a finger. If Mansoor had touched the link, he would have given his hackers free reign to eavesdrop on calls, harvest messages, activate his camera and drain the phone’s trove of personal data. Apple Inc. issued a fix for the vulnerabilities Thursday, just ahead of the reports’ release, working at a blistering pace for which the Cupertino, California-based company was widely praised. Arie van Deursen, a professor of software engineering at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, said the reports were disturbing. Forensics expert Jonathan Zdziarski described the malicious program targeting Mansoor as a “serious piece of spyware.”
Indeed.. To read the rest of this AP article, click on the text above.
The University of Chicago, one of America’s most prestigious and selective universities, is warning incoming students starting this fall not to expect safe spaces and a trigger-free existence during their four-year journey through academia. In a letter sent to the class of 2020, university officials said one of the defining characteristics of the school was its unwavering commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression. Civility and mutual respect are vital to the campus culture, the letter states, but not at the expense of shielding students from unpopular opinions or ideas. “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings,” we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” the letter states. The University of Chicago is consistently ranked one of the top universities in the world, and also one of the most selective. Only about 8 percent of the more than 31,000 people who applied to enter the class of 2020 were accepted by the school. The warning from Chicago stands in sharp contrast to many other American universities that have gone out of their way to coddle students by protecting them from ideas they may find offensive or disturbing. The University of Chicago is having none of it. To drive home the point, the letter to students includes a link to a report on freedom of expression issued by the university in January 2015. The report quotes a former president of the University, Hanna Holborn Gray, as saying that “education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think.
Exactly!! It’s about time a university or college actually took this stand! So, major kudos to the Univ.of Chicago for taking this courageous stand, and telling all of those bet-wetting, whiny, pampered kids to man (or woman) up and get ready for college…where you go to learn how to actually think. Imagine that..
Despite government data supporting Donald Trump’s claim that blacks are worse off under President Obama, the White House insisted Thursday that blacks have made progress under the first black president and that the Republican nominee would reverse those gains. Mr. Trump’s pitch that black Americans have “nothing to lose” by voting for him is clearly irritating the White House, which tried but failed to muster much convincing evidence that life for blacks in America has improved much over the past eight years. “I think you’d be very hard pressed to make the case that somehow the African-American population in the United States is somehow not better off,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. The black unemployment rate in July was 8.4 percent, compared with 12.6 percent when Mr. Obama took office in January 2009. But the jobless rate for whites, now at 4.3 percent, has fallen slightly more than it has for blacks in the past eight years — down 37 percent for whites and 33 percent for blacks. On a range of other government data, blacks are faring worse under Mr. Obama. The black labor force participation rate has fallen from 63.2 percent in 2009 to 61.2 percent last month — down 3.1 percent. Black home ownership last month was 41.7 percent, down from 46.1 percent in 2009 — a drop of nearly 10 percent. The percentage of black Americans living below the poverty line has risen from 25.8 percent in 2009 to 26.2 percent in 2014, according to the most recent Census Bureau data. The number of black food-stamp participants spiked from 7.3 million to 11.7 million, an increase of 58 percent. Confronted with such statistics, the White House said it’s important for Hillary Clinton to build on Mr. Obama’s legacy. “The president’s never made the case that the work is finished, that the job is done,” Mr. Earnest said. “The point is, President Obama’s interested in being succeeded in office by someone who is committed to building on the progress we’ve made thus far as opposed to tearing it down.”
Wow… That’s rich, Josh. The point is that there hasn’t been any progress! And, they say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. By that logic, voting for Hillary would be an act of insanity. And yet, there are a growing number of idiots out there who will actually vote for that self-righteous, lying, pant-suit wearing, liberal elitist regardless…the facts be damned.