Had enough yet

[HipKat]

TOTALLY AGREE.



The technologies and fossil fuels business is something I really can not give an informed opinion about. I am scientifically and mathematically challenged to the point of being feckless, hapless, and in a phrase, dumb as a stump. I really need some politically purified-background sources HipKat. Any references?



My conservative values say no that; the slippery slope towards the destructive hard stuff; the sort of thinking, which may or may not be scientifically supported. But my libertarian instincts say people should be able to engage in activities that do not pose a danger to others. In a sense, it is no worse than booze, or my vice, smoking.

Governor who called legalization 'reckless' now says Colorado's pot industry is working

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...nap-story.html

“If I had that magic wand now, I don’t know if I would wave it,” he said. “It’s beginning to look like it might work.”

It was the latest in a series of comments Hickenlooper has made signaling what looks like an evolution of his views on marijuana. In April last year, during an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, Hickenlooper said legal weed was “not as vexing as we thought it was going to be.”

And during an appearance on "60 Minutes," he predicted that Colorado might “actually create a system that could work” in successfully regulating marijuana.

Why the change?

“The predictions of fire and brimstone have failed to materialize,” said Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national group working to reform pot laws. “Most Coloradoans, including the governor, recognize that the law is working.”

[mark blazejewski]

From UK's "The Sun," Monday, September 4, 2017. Hold Your breath again:

NUKE KID ON THE BLOCK
North Korea has successfully developed a nuke that can fit INSIDE a ballistic missile and may fire towards the Pacific within days, Seoul’s defence minister reveals

South Korean military chiefs have reportedly detected signs of another North Korean ICBM missile test
By Jenny Awford

4th September 2017, 10:42 amUpdated: 4th September 2017, 4:14 pm

NORTH Korea has successfully developed a nuclear warhead that fits on a ballistic missile and may fire towards the Pacific within days, South Korea claims.

Seoul's defence minister today said he believes tyrant Kim Jong-un’s team of scientists has “miniaturised” a nuclear weapon that attaches to an ICBM.


"We believe it fits in an intercontinental ballistic missile," Song Young-Moo told lawmakers after North Korea’s hydrogen bomb test on Sunday night.

South Korea believes Kim is plotting another nuclear test and more long range missile launches this week as the nuke crisis escalates.

The crazed despot threatened to "reduce South Korea to ashes" after Seoul carried out a live-fire missile exercise in response to North Korea's hydrogen bomb test on Sunday.

South Korean spies have reportedly detected signs that the hermit kingdom is preparing to fire an ICBM missile towards the Pacific by September 9.

Fears were raised about a fresh North Korean rocket test after South Korea carried out a simulation of an attack on Kim's test site.

Read the entire "The Sun" article:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/438543...ms-south-korea

[Lee Chowaniec]

Governor who called legalization 'reckless' now says Colorado's pot industry is working

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...nap-story.html

“If I had that magic wand now, I don’t know if I would wave it,” he said. “It’s beginning to look like it might work.”

It was the latest in a series of comments Hickenlooper has made signaling what looks like an evolution of his views on marijuana. In April last year, during an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, Hickenlooper said legal weed was “not as vexing as we thought it was going to be.”

And during an appearance on "60 Minutes," he predicted that Colorado might “actually create a system that could work” in successfully regulating marijuana.

Why the change?

“The predictions of fire and brimstone have failed to materialize,” said Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national group working to reform pot laws. “Most Coloradoans, including the governor, recognize that the law is working.”

To me this is code for saying legal marijuana usage appears to have no more adverse impact that when it was used illegally so let’s make state money over it.

To also say it is no worse that alcohol or tobacco use should not give it legitimacy. Use of all three products do increase risk to the user and impacts the quality of life of others and otherwise accident risks.

I would suggest you guys read the National Institute on Drug abuse comments on marijuana use and abuse and its risks.

[mark blazejewski]

To also say it is no worse that alcohol or tobacco use should not give it legitimacy. Use of all three products do increase risk to the user and impacts the quality of life of others and otherwise accident risks.

Mr. C., I'm not advocating for a legalization. To the contrary, as previously stated, my conservative side tells me to oppose legalization.

But, at the same time, the my libertarian side beckons me to observe that the issue suggests a rather select application of intrusive government control. All three are vices, are personally destructive, but are controlled/approached in three different ways.

Pot is illegal, period.

Tobacco, is legal, but is loudly condemned, taxed up the wazoo, and consumers are overtly treated like third-class human beings, and subject to ridicule.

But alcohol is popularly accepted, and is only resisted/sanctioned when its use, or abuse, poises legally-defined threats to public safety.

Think of it, alcohol, junk food, and gambling, are all enthusiastically placed front and center at church, and at some government-sponsored social events. (I have heard of beer tents, but no tobacco tents; the tyrant who runs the prison I live in, will bake for church Bingo games, thus supporting the vice of gambling, as well as bad eating habits, but won't permit a freakin' after-dinner cigarette. Heil!)

What I am saying is, if the government is going to legislate against vice(s) or bad habits, it should do so across the board. The select application of vice control within the power of the Nanny State, not only appears to functionally establish a social caste system, but smacks of tyrannical, arbitrary hypocrisy.

Just sayin'.

[HipKat]

Smoking has zero benefits and is deadly. It will kill you or lead to a lesser quality of life - Government makes a fortune off of taxing it. Tobacco companies are some of the richest businesses in the country.

Alcohol may have scan kill you if abused over time. If overly used can lead to prison time and loss of driving privileges for up to 10 years - Government makes a fortune off of taxing it and liquor companies and liquor stores rarely have slow periods.


Marijuana itself cannot kill you, unless heavily abused over time and ingested by smoking it. You cannot OD on it. No such thing as Pot Poisoning - has immeasurable health benefits as have been outlined in many medical documents and periodicals. States that have legalized have joined the government in making a fortune off of it and to date, there has been no rise in crime or vehicular deaths in those states.

Seems to be a pretty easy choice to me

[BorderBob]

Obama gave away 150,000,000 to Iran to continue their nuclear dreams. 150B would go a long way in Texas right now.

Except it wasn't out money.




b.b.

[HipKat]

Except it wasn't out money.


b.b.

Since you're going to be asked, Bob...

Under the nuclear deal, Iran would have access to billions of dollars in assets that were frozen in foreign accounts due to previous nuclear sanctions.

But the exact amount of Iran’s windfall, and the idea that Iran would get the assets even if Congress doesn’t approve the deal, aren’t sure things.

Sanctions placed on Iran because of its nuclear program froze billions of dollars of Iran’s assets in foreign accounts. The nuclear deal would unfreeze those accounts, which the White House has estimated could send up to $150 billion to Iran.

But Obama administration officials said that Iran wouldn’t receive the full $150 billion in frozen assets because the country owes billions to China and other countries. After repaying those debts, Iran would receive about $56 billion.

In other words, it's Iran's money to begin with

[mark blazejewski]

In other words, it's Iran's money to begin with

The Iranian sanctions and asset freeze issue(s) goes back to the 1979 hostage seizure; not all of the assets were released. Their continuance was further justified by Iran's allleged involvement with terrorism, such as the 1983 Marine Barracks Beirut bombing.

Yea, it is Iran's money, but a sanction is like a fine or penalty. IE: If you owe the IRS a penalty, and pay the penalty, tell them that it is still your money.

[Lee Chowaniec]

DACA

After reading the following, I have to ask you guys: ‘what am I missing’?

Is Trump the mean-spirited prick the left is portraying him to be and/or is it too much to ask Congress to address an illegal immigration problem? Oh the horror, asking Congress to act on making law!

Does anyone really believe Trump wants to deport 800,000 Dreamers when according to polls 70% of Americans don’t want to see that happen but understand the need to address a policy that can’t continue – including me.

As President (Trump), my highest duty is to defend the American people and the Constitution of the United States of America. At the same time, I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.

The legislative branch, not the executive branch, writes these laws – this is the bedrock of our Constitutional system, which I took a solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend.

In June of 2012, President Obama bypassed Congress to give work permits, social security numbers, and federal benefits to approximately 800,000 illegal immigrants currently between the ages of 15 and 36. The typical recipients of this executive amnesty, known as DACA, are in their twenties. Legislation offering these same benefits had been introduced in Congress on numerous occasions and rejected each time.

In referencing the idea of creating new immigration rules unilaterally, President Obama admitted that “I can’t just do these things by myself” – and yet that is exactly what he did, making an end-run around Congress and violating the core tenets that sustain our Republic.

[mark blazejewski]

Is Trump the mean-spirited prick the left is portraying him to be and/or is it too much to ask Congress to address an illegal immigration problem? Oh the horror, asking Congress to act on making law!

Setting immigration policy takes legislative action. Even President Obama observed that immigration policy, addressed exclusively through executive fiat would not likely survive judicial review. As you quoted the former President: “I can’t just do these things by myself.”

Trump, properly, has given the Congress a golden opportunity to fully, finally, and effectively address this issue. Unlike the famed "Executive Order," such legislative action would lend permanence to the remediation, and would remove many, if not all, Constitutional controversies from the equation.

Therefore, Mr. C., I totally agree with your assessment.

Does anyone really believe Trump wants to deport 800,000 Dreamers when according to polls 70% of Americans don’t want to see that happen but understand the need to address a policy that can’t continue – including me.

The President has stated his affection for the "Dreamers" and would like to see their rights legislatively protected, and their dreams fulfilled.


Attendant to the legislation regarding the "Dreamers," he wants a sound, fair, and realistic law that would protect the rights and lives of all American citizens and legal residents, including those "Dreamers" whose general welfare has garnered so much concern and support.

The legislative branch, not the executive branch, writes these laws – this is the bedrock of our Constitutional system, which I took a solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend.

Sometimes, it appears that the left doesn't quite get the Constitution. Three co-equal branches, not one, not two, not a whimsical combination of the three, but three independent, co-equal branches.

It appears that many on the left prefer an executive branch brandishing "a phone and a pen," and a renegade judicial branch, with a predisposition towards judicial activism, to alternately function whimsically for and as, the legislative branch.

[dtwarren]

Setting immigration policy takes legislative action. Even President Obama observed that immigration policy, addressed exclusively through executive fiat would not likely survive judicial review. As you quoted the former President: “I can’t just do these things by myself.”

This is a generally accurate statement, however it is up to the executive to prioritize how to enforce all the laws with limited financial appropriations that has been allocated to carry it out. For example in New York adultery is a crime, but you will not see it charged when it clearly could be because most District Attorneys prioritize their budget to enforcing more serious crimes. That was the rational behind DACA, the executive set them at the lowest enforcement priority for a number of factors in favor of dedicating his budgeted amount for enforcement to deporting those that have committed certain crimes and other factors.

Now that this is ending it will be interesting to see how quick they run through their budget and cannot deport even the most violent immigrant criminals.

[dtwarren]

As a side note, The INA expressly provides for deferred action as a form of relief that can be granted at the Executive's discretion. For example, INA § 237(d)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1227(d)(2), allows a noncitizen who has been denied an administrative stay of removal to apply for deferred action. Certain individuals are also "eligible for deferred action" under the INA if they qualify under a set of factors. See INA § 204(a)(1)(D)(i)(II); 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(D)(i)(II). Deferred action is available to individuals who can make a showing of "exceptional circumstances." INA § 240(e); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e). By necessity, the federal statutory and regulatory scheme, as well as federal case law, vest the Executive with very broad discretion to determine enforcement priorities.

Congress expressly charged the Department of Homeland Security with the responsibility of "[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities." 6 U.S.C. § 202(5). The Department of Homeland Security regulations describe deferred action as "an act of administrative convenience to the government which gives some cases lower priority." 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14). Additionally, the Supreme Court has made it clear that "an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion." Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831, 105 S. Ct. 1649, 84 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1985).

So I do not buy the argument that DACA was unconstitutional or unauthorized by Congress.

[mark blazejewski]

This is a generally accurate statement, however it is up to the executive to prioritize how to enforce all the laws with limited financial appropriations that has been allocated to carry it out. For example in New York adultery is a crime, but you will not see it charged when it clearly could be because most District Attorneys prioritize their budget to enforcing more serious crimes. That was the rational behind DACA, the executive set them at the lowest enforcement priority for a number of factors in favor of dedicating his budgeted amount for enforcement to deporting those that have committed certain crimes and other factors.

Now that this is ending it will be interesting to see how quick they run through their budget and cannot deport even the most violent immigrant criminals.

You are correct Mr. W.

Executive orders are intended to create, tweak, expand, or otherwise revise the various Federal Regulations that implement statutory law.

The DACA issue, as I see it, is not one suggestive of the readily recognized "prioritization" latitude an executive generally enjoys, but the exposure of a rather obvious, thinly-masked, executive overreach tactic to subvert Congressional responsibility to legislatively set broad immigration policy..

Since the 4-4 Supreme Court left in place a lower court ruling blocking Obama's order. As such, until legislatively addressed, or more judicially redressed, it appears that the Dream Act is not the definitive law of the land, and was implemented by Presidential overreach.

[dtwarren]

Since the 4-4 Supreme Court left in place a lower court ruling blocking Obama's order. As such, until legislatively addressed, or more judicially redressed, it appears that the Dream Act is not the definitive law of the land, and was implemented by Presidential overreach.

The decision in Texas v. United States did not rule Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program unlawful because it is not Congressionally authorized or not within the executive branch's authority, it was ruled null and void and of no force in effect for failure to follow the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. Had the Obama administration followed those procedures it would have withstood the judicial challenge. As I pointed out Congress gave the DHS the responsibility of "[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities." 6 U.S.C. § 202(5).

[mark blazejewski]

The decision in Texas v. United States did not rule Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program unlawful because it is not Congressionally authorized or not within the executive branches authority, it was ruled null and void and of no force in effect for failure to follow the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. Had the Obama administration followed those procedures it would have withstood the judicial challenge. As I pointed out Congress gave the DHS the responsibility of "[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities." 6 U.S.C. § 202(5).

As I said, the law needs to face further legal scrutiny. That is what I meant when I commented:

or MORE judicially redressed