Oregon hoping to ban cigarettes and, in time, approve the recreational use of margewana.

<<<<  She's hiding her identity just in case some one turns her in for smoking   . . . . . . . . .   cigarettes. 

Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs  —  If you're a regular smoker, you may want to keep an eye on a new bill in the Oregon Legislature.  —  Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance.

Editor’s notes:  think about it,  this week we learn that the liberals in the great state of Oregon (I keep telling you these folks have a “stupid” gene) intend to make smoking the normal fag,  a criminal offense as if cigs were more dangerous or as dangerous as pot,  for the individual and those who have to compete in the driving experience with Oregon's stoner population.   

Incredible.  The “entitlement mentality” is not the only thing we have to worry about,  in our evolving pool of leaders.  Heck,  we have a president who was stoned during the last two years of high school  --  ah, according to his own words.  Leaving aside the question of “how did a stoner get into Harvard,”  we have the character questions surrounding a humanistic and moraless society,  one {referring to H Obama] that sees no value in personal [political] honesty,  but cherishes the idea of “fairness” even if that concept destroys the economy and sinks all ships.  

Obama's proposal fails as to be "balanced," but, let's have his bill submitted to congress. Let's vote on his idea. Last time we voted on one of his budgets, it failed to get a single congressional vote.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It's not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal. What Geithner offered, what you showed on the screen, Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox, and he lost the Civil War. The Democrats won by 3% of the vote and they did not hold the House, Republicans won the house. So this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that is what the administration is asking of the Republicans.

This idea -- there are not only no cuts in this, there's an increase in spending with a new stimulus. I mean, this is almost unheard of. What do they expect? They obviously expect the Republicans will cave on everything. I think the Republicans ought to simply walk away. The president is the president. He's the leader. They are demanding that the Republicans explain all the cuts that they want to make.

We had that movie a year-and-a-half ago where Paul Ryan presented a budget, a serious real budget with real cuts. Obama was supposed to gave speech where he would respond with a counter offer. And what did he do? He gave a speech where he had Ryan sitting in the front row. He called the Ryan proposal un-American, insulted him, offered nothing, and ran on Mediscare in the next 18 months.

And they expect the Republicans are going to do this again? The Republicans are going to walk on this. And I think they have leverage. Yes, for Congressional Democrats it will help them in the future if Republicans absorb the blame because we will have a recession. But Obama is not running again unlike the Congressional Democrats. He's going to have a recession, 9% unemployment, 2 million more unemployed, and a second term that's going to be a ruin. That is not a good proposition if you are Barack Obama . . . . .  text taken from RealClearPolitics

Editor's notes:  Krauthammer is on the right track,  but,  seriously,  why not tell the President,  

"Stop talking and submit your proposal to the House and we will vote on it,  within days."

Understand that the last time our Budget Genius submitted one of his budget proposals to the House,  it failed 414 to Zero and 97 to Zero in the Senate.  Can you imagine ??  A budget proposal so poorly written [by Obama] that it did not garner a single Democrat vote  -  not one.  

And what is his "new" budget proposal?  

1.6 trillion in new taxes on the so-called rich.

50 billion in new "stimulus." 

Presidential power to raise the debt ceiling on his own.  

Apparently,  no one in the WH understands that we are dealing with the "fiscal cliff."    There is nothing in the above plan that avoids the "fiscal cliff" and the financial disaster beginning a month from now.  

Instead of his 2012 campaign scenario of 800 billion dollars in new taxes,  Obama via Tim Geithner,  doubled that amount [yesterday, in a closed door meeting with the Republican leadership] to 1.6 trillion.  This proposal can only be seen as an insult to the GOP and nothing more.  When the GOP is saying,  "No new taxes via tax rate reform,"  and Obama comes back with a doubling of his original request,  that is a clear insult.  

More than this,  Obama's 1.6 trillion (over the course of a ten year period) will fund the government for less than 20 days.  Look,  this "fiscal cliff" issue  is the result of the fact that we no longer have money.   Taxing the rich  to get 20 days of income,  is an idiot's proposal,  and our congressmen know this.  So,  put it up for a vote.  

As to the 50 billion dollar stimulus.  How stupid is this idea?  If you remember,  in 2009,  our Fiscal Genius crammed through a one trillion stimulus and it accomplished nothing,  if ending the current recessionary period  was the goal. This part of the Obama proposal is simple "silly."  Even if "stimulus" works,  an amount equal to 1/20th of the 2009 proposal does not rise above level of "goofy."

And to give this clown, power to raise the debt ceiling at will,  good grief.  Understand that we are not talking his money,  we are talking about our money.  

Again,  I say,  let Obama have his bill submitted to the House.  Let's see how many representatives vote in his favor.  The last time Obama submitted such a proposal,  the total vote count was "zero"  om both houses of Congress.   

So,  bring it on.  Write your proposition,  submit it to congress,  and let's see what happens.   

The wheels have come off Obama's Bain Attack on Romney and, in its place, we have Obama running defense as he seeks to make his anti-business statement of last week, sound somehow, American.

<<< make no mistake,  Liz Warren has been an Obama insider since 2007.  She is a big time collectivist,  a borderless One Worlder.  Her comments help to define Obama's critical statement on business,  last week.  


Latest polling results:  63% support Romney's Bain experience;  73% believe Obama is wrong in his critical, anti-business, remarks.  

The genie is already out of the bottle.  Obama,  acting as a free spirited pundit,  talking without his teleprompter,  has made his feelings clear with regard to the business community.  In short,  he is [really] saying,  

“You owe more than you are paying in taxes,  because you did not create your business on your own, and, because I, as a representative of the Government,  say you owe more.” 

Here are his exact words:  If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Editor’s notes in brief:  re: the government and the internet – he is talking the military.  While the internet was invented by the military,  Cerf and Robert Kahn invented the “IP address system,”  and,  the private market place gave the internet its capital value and glory.  In the end,   the “return” on the military’s contribution to the internet is not a demand for higher and higher taxes,  but revenue increases to the national economy (GDP)  and  private sector jobs created by businesses and the incomes associated with that reality THAT is the payback for the private sectors refinement and use of the internet,   but neither Obama nor Elizabeth Warren go anywhere close to this reality.  In fact,  they completely ignore the fact that society already has its payback [in perpetuity,  I might add]. 

With all the critical talk against Obama’s statement,  Elizabeth Warren made these comments: 

“You know, this [the uproar over Obama’s thoughtless words] is just one more attempt to not talk about the central issues. But the way I look at this: I love little businesses. My daughter started a small business, my brother started a small business, my Aunt Alice started a small business. I worked in it when I was a teenager.  

This is really about a basic question of fairness. And that is when big businesses really make it big, should they get the special tax breaks so that they don't have to make the contributions to help support all the basic infrastructure. You know, the roads, the bridges, the schools and all those pieces. The basic infrastructure that lets the next kid make it big, and the next kid after that, and the next kid after that. 

You know, the way I see this, this is really is about a basic question about how we build our future. The Republicans have given their vision about how we build the future. They said, 'I got mine, the rest of you are on your own.'  

Our vision of how you build a future is that you make the investments forward so every kid has a chance. That's what this is really about.

Warren,  of course,  is not talking about fairness, at all.  In a world where the top 1% pays 38% of all federal taxes – regardless of the tax rate – well,  there is nothing fair about that.  It is not fair that half the population lives off the other half with no demands to improve their state of affairs,  to educate themselves,  to work to become part of the productive part of our society, especially when there are so many low cost or free opportunities for educational/vocational advancement.  Her claim that conservatives’ plan includes the sorry statement, “You’re on your own”  is not only a lie,  it is criminal in its charge and as disingenuous as her long time claim to being an American Indian.  She received miles and miles of “open door” benefit off that lie,  and now,  wants folks to trust her assessment on a much more critical issue. 

Finally,  more than all the above,  neither Warren or Obama offer a concrete methodology for achieving their Utopian world view. 

I have included the Warren video of a few months ago because it helps to define Obama's thinking.  In fact,  it is the opinion of the radicalized Left that Business - whether Big or Small Business - feeds off societal blessings and provisions,  and,  therefore, owes society whatever the Government says it owes.  

Day two of Week Three in the Campaign for the US Presidency.

Obama

1.  Obama gave a holocaust speech, Monday,  that did not receive good reviews.  With the speech,  he continues the theme that he is Israel's greatest presidential friend.
2.  Today (Tuesday) he got national coverage on some networks with his speech to a select college crowd,  as he touted his campaign to give away more money for student tuition. His "enthusiastic"  numbers with young people under age 40 has fallen from 76 percent in 2008  to 46, now .
4.  Obama continues to "double down" of the theme of "fairness."  Understand that  fiscal accountability is not nearly as important to Obama as is the notion of "fairness." (Click on the hyperlink label below - "fairness" for confirming articles).
3.  Rasmussen has Obama running behind Romney by four points.  Many believe this is indicative of an early campaign problem for B. Hussein that goes beyond serious.    He has been campaigning for, at least,  a year and half,  while Romney has just finished grueling and very negative GOP primary.  He really should be "up" by 10 points or more.
4.  The Secret Service prostitution/GSA scandals are proving to have more "legs" than Obama and Company prefer.  What is troublesome for the Administration is that such scandals suck the blood out of campaign strategies, not to mention the daily headlines.

Romney

 Romney wins all five primaries by substantial margins (56% or more) and delivers an excellent speech - probably his best to date.  He stressed the "unfairness" of Obama's economic policy,  and, generally, presented an upbeat message centered in returning prosperity to our nation and confidence in America throughout the world.  

The really good news about Romney,  is the fact that the politicians mentioned in his search for a VP candidate, have all been quite conservative.  Senator Kelly  Ayotte of New Hampshire , Marco Rubio (Congressman from Florida), and Senator Rob Portman (Ohio)  are all GOP congressional figures supported by local tea-parties and very well thought of in their local communities.

The best one-liners of Romney's speech were these:

It is still about the economy and we are not stupid.  

A better America begins tonight 

"And the one shall appear as many" - deception at the grassroots level is a planned "happening" according to Occupy.

From Occupy Washington DC

“Clearly this is precisely what’s at play for the 99% Spring effort led by MoveOn.org, Van Jones and other trusted Democratic Party collaborators. 99% Spring’s activities will surely be carefully and quietly coordinated behind the scenes to have a maximum positive impact in defeating Republicans and re-electing President Obama,” he continued. “These groups will claim independence from the 2012 Democratic campaign agenda, but the fact is that funding will flow to them simply to create buzz and the appearance of a movement that dovetails perfectly with Obama’s campaign rhetoric. For months we have seen Democratic advertising money flowing to loyal media collaborators such as onAlterNet, The Nation, Mother Jones, and others.”

Editors notes:  the impact of this organizational strategy is to make it  appear as if the Progressive,  One World, justice movement is multifaceted and broad based; that Obama's campaign is fully representative of the desires of a very large population.  That is the strategy;  that is the scheme.  

Look, these people use the term "democracy" all the time,  as if they know what that word actually means.  While they use a term ("democracy")  that touts the rule of the majority,  they remain very much in the minority when it comes to political opinions that go beyond giving away money.  They cannot survive on commercial radio because the majority does not want to listen to them and their message.  Their newspapers are losing readership by the thousands.  And they have really done themselves in with the unpopular ObamaCare legislation and their collective disdain for making money.

So they resort to political trickery, trying to capitalize on buzz words and phrases such as "fairness," "for the greater good,"  "social justice," "wealth is a national treasure" and  "equality."

They want to take away the secret ballot with a bill they call, The "Employee Free Choice Act."  Understand that there is nothing free as regards to voting when someone is standing over you with a club (i.e. union thugs).

They want to silence conservative talk  on commercial radio,  so they come up with a bill that requires equal time for all demographics,  and prefer silence if all local ethic groups cannot or will not participate.  The name of the legislation?  "The Fairness Doctrine."

In fact, Obama has so overworked the notion of fairness,  that he no longer cares if raising taxes will help or hurt the economy.  In an ABC debate with Hillary, moderated by Charles Gibson (April 16, 2008),  Obama made it clear that financial workability was not the point in raising corporate dividend taxes.  Rather,  he made this ridiculous statement:

 "I would look to raising the capital gains tax for the purpose of fairness."

Summary and conclusion:  Obama actually thinks the theme of "fairness" in all its many applications,  is a rhetorical game changer.  He used the concept during the 2008 campaign and won.  But four years later,  "fairness" is not the issue.  So, why does he continue to make it the center of his re-election campaign?  Because he cannot say,  "I lowered taxes and cut spending and the nation is now in full recovery."  He has nothing to push forward but small ball complaints (Mitt's money or Mitt's family or Mitt's stay-at-home wife)  and "fairness" issues.  Geeeesh.