Homeless in Arizona

NSA Surveillance - Lady Liberty Raped

Phoenix man seeks to recall Rep. Kyrsten Sinema

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema supports the police state Patriot Act???

Kyrsten Sinema when she was in the Arizona legislator tried to flush Arizona's medical marijuana laws down the toilet by introducing a bill to slap a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana.

When I first met Kyrsten Sinema it was in the anti-war movement.

But it seems that Kyrsten Sinema has sold out the anti-war movement and now supports the police state and military industrial complex.

When I knew Kyrsten Sinema she was also a gun grabber.

Last in almost every election when Kyrsten Sinema has run for office her campaign signs say she is supported by the police unions. I guess that is a good indication that Kyrsten Sinema has sold out to the police state.

Source

Phoenix man seeks to recall Rep. Sinema

By Erin Kelly Gannett Washington Bureau Fri Aug 9, 2013 3:26 PM

WASHINGTON -- A Phoenix man has applied to circulate a petition to recall U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema from office because he does not like how she voted on a measure to prevent the National Security Agency from collecting phone data on Americans as part of its intelligence-gathering efforts.

However, a spokesman for Secretary of State Ken Bennett said the secretary of state’s office would not order a recall election in Sinema’s case even if thousands of signatures are collected because the congresswoman is not bound by the state’s recall law.

In Arizona, some federal officials have signed a voluntary pledge through the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office agreeing to accept the results of any recall election, if one is called. Sinema never signed that pledge.

“Sinema didn’t sign the pledge so the entire process would end without a recall being ordered,” said Matt Roberts, Bennett’s spokesman.

No member of Congress from Arizona, even those who signed the pledge, has ever been recalled.

On Thursday, Phoenix resident Michael David Shipley applied to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, stating his intent to circulate and file a recall petition against Sinema, a freshman Democrat. He listed himself as treasurer of an organization called the “Nullify Sinema Alliance.” Another Phoenix man, Thane Eichenauer, was listed as chairman of the group.

The application objects to the fact that Sinema voted against an amendment to a defense spending bill.

That amendment, which failed after a close vote, was introduced by Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., and would have prevented the National Security Agency from collecting most telephone data under the Patriot Act anti-terrorism law. The agency would have been able to collect data only from people under investigation and could not have conducted broader intelligence-gathering efforts in the United States.

Shipley’s application says that Sinema “has broken her oath” to defend the U.S. Constitution by voting against the legislation.

“On July 24th, 2013, (Sinema) chose not to stand with 205 other U.S. House members in placing a limit on government snooping,” the application says. “Kyrsten Sinema chose to reject limits on NSA data collection. In doing this, she supports a ‘Big Brother’ government with no limits. We call on our fellow Arizona residents to support the recall of Kyrsten Sinema.”

Sinema, in a press release issued on the day of the vote, said she voted against Amash’s amendment because it was too broad and she feared it would interfere with the NSA’s efforts to thwart terrorist plots.

“I believe, while well intentioned, that the text of this amendment could interfere with legitimate and appropriate efforts to keep our citizens safe from harm,” Sinema said. “The broad language we considered today could have limited the ability of our national security and law enforcement community to prevent the bombing plot against the New York subway system or to quickly respond to events like the Boston bombing.”

Instead, Sinema voted for an alternative amendment by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., that prevents the NSA from storing the content of Americans e-mails and phone calls. It would allow the NSA to continue storing phone metadata. It passed 409-12.

“I believe this (Pompeo’s amendment) is a good step forward and that we can find stronger ways to protect our individual liberties,” Sinema said.

If Shipley disagrees with Sinema’s vote, he should run against her rather than trying to recall her, said Sinema campaign spokesman Rodd McLeod. Sinema is up for re-election in November 2014.

“The entire House of Representatives is up for re-election next fall, and if this gentleman wants to run against Kyrsten, it’s a free country,” McLeod said. “He should run.”

Shipley, a 38-year-old Libertarian and local activist, said opponents of Sinema’s vote shouldn’t have to wait until the regular election.

“I definitely haven’t ruled out myself or somebody else I’ve organized with running against her,” Shipley said Friday. “But why wait? Why should we sit and be unhappy and see our wishes thrown under the bus? The time to act is now, not later.”

Under Arizona law, a candidate for the U.S. Senate or U.S. House “may” file with the secretary of state a statement that says, “If elected, I shall deem myself responsible to the people and under obligation to them to resign immediately if not re-elected on a recall vote.”

Federal candidates who sign that pledge and are elected to office “shall be subject to the laws of the state relating to recall of public officers,” according to the Arizona statute.

But Sinema did not subject herself to any state recall laws since she did not sign the Arizona pledge. And a January 2012 report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service says that members of Congress are not subject to recall.

“The United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States,” the CRS report says.

Pot farms on federal land targeted for new penalties

And of course the problem, as usual, is caused by the government morons that made marijuana illegal.

I wonder if U.S. Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema voted for this??? When she was in the Arizona legislator Kyrsten Sinema introduced a bill that would slap a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana.

Source

Pot farms on federal land targeted for new penalties

By Richard Simon

August 10, 2013, 7:00 a.m.

WASHINGTON — Scientists have likened the illegal marijuana-growing operations in remote areas of the West to leaking chemical-weapons stockpiles, with the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides posing risks to the environment, including to waterways and wildlife.

In response, Congress is moving to toughen the penalties for cultivating pot on federal land.

The Senate recently approved a measure that would add — on top of the sentence for illegally growing marijuana — up to 10 years in prison for those cultivating the drug on federal land. The measure, a little-noticed addition to the immigration overhaul bill, also calls for new penalties for environmental damage such as that caused by the use of toxic chemicals.

In a rare instance of bipartisanship, a similar measure has been introduced in the House by unlikely allies — freshman Reps. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), a San Francisco Bay-area liberal, and Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale), a conservative Northern California farmer. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) is a cosponsor.

California, with its hospitable climate and vast stretches of remote land, had 1 million pot plants eradicated from federal land last year, by far the most in the nation, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Angeles National Forest has ranked in the Top 10 national forests for illegal marijuana groves for the last three years, according to the U.S. Forest Service. Last year, Los Padres National Forest ranked first, followed by Sequoia and San Bernardino forests.

The legislative push follows a recent study that said pesticides used in marijuana-growing operations may be taking a toll on the fisher, a weasel-like mammal. The study found higher mortality rates for female fishers living near marijuana-growing sites in the Sierra.

“Very few people realize that the illegal marijuana gardens in the Western U.S. are not mom-and-pop efforts,” said Craig Thompson, the study's lead author and a U.S. Forest Service wildlife ecologist at the Pacific Southwest Research Station. “But instead they are actually industrial-scale efforts by foreign nationals, using large quantities of toxins that are banned in the United States.”

During a raid last year of an illegal marijuana-growing operation in Sequoia National Forest, authorities found oak trees chopped down to make way for about 10,000 marijuana plants. They also found fertilizers and pesticides dispersed throughout the site, including a banned rat poison.

“These illegal chemicals are poisoning public lands, killing wildlife and endangering people who come in contact with them,” Benjamin B. Wagner, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of California, said last fall after charging the suspects in that case.

Taxpayers often are left with the tab for cleaning up the marijuana-growing sites, officials said.

The tougher penalties were included in the immigration bill at the urging of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who says that Mexican drug traffickers use immigrants brought into the country illegally to cultivate and guard the pot farms.

The measure would direct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to draw up guidelines to increase the punishment for diverting water, using poison or other hazardous chemicals, possessing a weapon or setting a booby trap while cultivating marijuana on federal land.

Dan Riffle, director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project, which promotes legalization, was skeptical that tougher penalties would help end environmental damage.

“In our view, the best way to end destruction of federal land by illicit marijuana grows is not through further criminalization, but through regulation,” he said. “The only permanent solution is taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol. There's a reason we don't read headlines about Mexican cartels growing illicit fields of hops and barley in our national parks.”

While Huffman is cosponsoring separate legislation to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level and leave it to states to decide whether to allow marijuana for medicinal or recreational use, he says he sees no inconsistency in his support for cracking down on marijuana-growing operations that cause environmental damage.

“As we move toward more rational marijuana policies … it’s important that we address the immediate threat to our environment and public safety posed by trespass growing operations,” he said.

richard.simon@latimes.com

Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema takes a junket to Israel

Atheist Kyrsten Sinema sells out to the Jewish Christian lobbyists???

Even though US Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema is an atheist in this article see seems to have sold out to the Jewish Christian lobbyists. And of course she also seems to have sold out to the military industrial complex which supplies Israel with weapons that they use to terrorize the Arabs.

"Sinema and other Democratic lawmakers were in Israel on a previously scheduled trip paid for by an arm of a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group."

Last but not least US Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema attempted to flush Arizona's medical marijuana law down the toilet by introducing a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana.

Source

Political Insider: Irate Goldwater refuses to answer senator’s questions on its ties to ALEC

The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:17 PM

Another assault on freedom ... Or so the Goldwater Institute believes, as it sent an indignant retort to a U.S. senator who asked the conservative think tank if it is associated with the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council.

Specifically, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., wanted to know if Goldwater served as an ALEC member, if it funded ALEC this year and if it backed ALEC’s support of model legislation promoting “stand your ground” gun laws.

The reason for the Illinois senator’s snoopiness? Durbin wrote that he needs the information as he readies a congressional hearing on the self-defense law. He’s also reaching out to other groups that have been identified as ALEC funders.

Goldwater officials fired off a letter that effectively told Durbin to stuff it.

“Simply put, especially in the wake of IRS intimidation and harassment of conservative organizations, your inquisition is an outrage,” wrote Goldwater president Darcy Olsen, litigation director Clint Bolick and policy director Nick Dranias.

They refused to answer, because, they wrote, “as free Americans, that is our right.”

For the record, media reports have identified Goldwater as an ALEC donor.

Sorry, can’t make it, I had other plans ... Wendy Rogers, the tough, bike-riding, Republican Air Force mom who’s hoping to unseat U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema in the midterm elections, was outraged that her potential Democratic rival missed President Barack Obama’s Phoenix speech this week.

“Disrespectful. Self-serving. In it for herself,” Rogers, who ran unsuccessfully in the primary last year, blustered on her Facebook page. “Today the president of the United States came to our AZ-09 district, yet our congresswoman didn’t even show perfunctory respect by at least showing up.”

Sinema and other Democratic lawmakers were in Israel on a previously scheduled trip paid for by an arm of a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group.

Arizona’s Republican members of Congress were in town. And none of them was at Obama’s speech, either.

He’s the president. ’Nuff said ... The state’s congressional delegation may have missed Obama’s speech, but the Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer’s office were well represented.

The GOP gaggle waiting to get inside the Desert Vista High School auditorium wasn’t exactly thrilled to see Insider and offered different reasons for stepping into the swarm of swooning Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader John McComish said his district includes the Ahwatukee Foothills school, so he was representing his constituents. Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs said the commander in chief, no matter their party, is a big deal: “It’s out of respect for the office.”

Brewer chief of staff Scott Smith, general counsel Joe Sciarrotta and spokesman Andrew Wilder also attended the speech. But given Brewer’s rather scathing prepared statement that followed — “Our recovery has been made possible in spite of the president’s policies — not because of them” — they apparently weren’t impressed.

State schools Superintendent John Huppenthal arrived early and grabbed a VIP seat with a passel of Democratic lawmakers. He’s the state’s top education official, and the speech was at a school, so that’s a handy excuse if he needs one.

But, really, does anyone need an excuse to see the president?

No resign if I run ... House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, is eying a run for the Congressional District 1 seat. And while he won’t say if he’s in, plenty of others in the political-gossip echo chamber are saying it for him.

Tobin said if he decides to take the plunge, he won’t jump out of the pool that is the Arizona Legislature. Tobin said he intends to remain speaker through the 2014 session, which would coincide with the eight-year limit on his term.

It’s bad form to abandon one office to seek another, he said.

Early prediction: If Tobin does jump into the CD1 race, look for a short session. It’s hard to campaign across a vast chunk of rural Arizona when you’re tied up in Phoenix.

Compiled by Republic reporters Mary Jo Pitzl, Mary K. Reinhart and Rebekah L. Sanders. Get the latest at politics.azcentral.com.

The sky is falling - We need a police state!!!!

Most people are in prison for victimless drug war crimes

After victimless drug war crimes most people are in prison for weapons violations

Victimless drug and gun crimes are why most people are in Federal prisons.

51 percent of federal prison inmates are there for victimless drug war crimes. In the above graph the second highest number of people are in federal prisons for weapons violations. The article didn't give a percent for weapons violations.

Source

Eric Holder is cutting federal drug sentences. That will make a small dent in the U.S. prison population.

By Dylan Matthews, Published: August 12 at 2:50 pm

Populations at federal prisons have grown, but state prisons are the real problem.

Attorney General Eric Holder will announce Monday that the Justice Department will no longer charge nonviolent drug offenders with serious crimes that subject them to long, mandatory minimum sentences in the federal prison system. As my colleague Sari Horwitz explains, Holder “is giving new instructions to federal prosecutors on how they should write their criminal complaints when charging low-level drug offenders, to avoid triggering the mandatory minimum sentences.”

He’s also expected to call for the expanded use of prison alternatives, such as probation or house arrest, for nonviolent offenders and for lower sentences for elderly inmates. And he’ll endorse legislation by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would increase federal judges’ flexibility in sentencing nonviolent drug offenders.

The changes Holder wants will likely make a big difference at the federal level. But that won’t be enough to solve America’s mass incarceration problem.

Focusing on drug offenses is a smart way to go about reducing the federal incarceration rate. According to data in Why Are So Many Americans in Prison?, a new book by UC – Berkeley’s Steven Raphael and UCLA’s Michael Stoll, the most serious charge for 51 percent of federal inmates in 2010 was a drug offense. By comparison, homicide was the most serious charge for only 1 percent, and robbery was the most serious charge against 4 percent.

Tougher drug sentencing accounts for much of the increase in the incarceration rate. “If you go back and decompose what caused growth in the federal prison system since 1984, a large chunk can be explained by drug offenses, around 45 percent,” Raphael says. The other big category accounting for the federal increase is weapons charges, such as the five-year mandatory minimum faced by drug offenders caught with guns. Raphael estimates that that accounts for 18 to 19 percent of the increase.

There’s also been an increase in incarcerations on immigration charges, with the rest of the increase in other areas. But there’s no doubt that the biggest category of crime behind the increase in the federal incarceration rate is drugs. Easing up on drug sentencing would make a big dent.

The states are different

But the federal system isn’t really where the action is. The most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimates find that there are 1,353,198 people incarcerated at the state level and 217,815 incarcerated federally. So about 13.9 percent of U.S. prisoners are in federal institutions; the other 86.1 percent are in state facilities. And most prisoners at the state level are not there for drug crimes.

In 2004, about 20 percent of state-level inmates were incarcerated on drug convictions, Raphael and Stoll find. Compared with the federal population, those incarcerated at the state level are much likelier to have committed violent offenses. In 2004, 14 percent were in prison for homicide, 9 percent for rape or sexual assault, 12 percent for robbery and 8 percent for aggravated assault. In 2011, it was much the same, according to BJS stats on state inmates serving sentences of a year or more. Fifty-three percent of inmates were in prison for violent offenses, 18.3 percent for property crimes, 10.6 percent for “public order” offenses such as drunk driving, weapons possession or vice offenses, and 16.8 percent for drug convictions.

Bjs state breakdown

Raphael and Stoll’s estimates of what’s accounting for the higher incarceration rates suggest that violent crimes are a big part of the state-level story. They find that harsher sentencing for violent offenders explains 48 percent of growth in incarceration rates, compared with about 22 percent attributable to increases in drug sentencing, and 15 percent due to increases in property crime and other sentences.

Then again, most people who go through state criminal justice systems do so on drug offenses. If you look at admission rates, rather than incarceration rates, at the state level, drugs become a much bigger part of the picture. For admissions, Raphael and Stoll find “relatively modest increases for violent crimes and property crimes and pronounced increases for drug offenses, parole violations, and other less serious crime.” And while higher admissions for less serious crimes with shorter sentences don’t affect the incarceration rate as much as increases in sentencing for serious crimes, they do dramatically affect the lives of those admitted, who have to find work as ex-offenders and live with the sundry restrictions states impose upon those who’ve served time.

It’s not hopeless

Holder is taking a fairly plausible approach to reducing the U.S. incarceration rate at the level where he can effect it. But that’s not the level that matters most, and if we were to get serious about reducing the state-level incarceration and admissions rates, we need to talk not just about reducing sentences for drug crimes but also about reducing prison admissions for drug offenses, and perhaps also lowering sentences for property crime and even violent offenses, particularly robbery.

There has been growing enthusiasm for reforming state sentencing laws, even backed by many conservatives. The American Legislative Exchange Council has joined the cause, creating model legislation for loosening state mandatory minimum laws. Especially if it’s not just limited to drug offenses, that kind of reform could greatly reduce the state incarceration rate.

Congressman Jackson Jr. - I don't deserve to be punished for my crimes???

Sadly when you compare a bank robber to a crooked Congressman, the bank robber usually admits he did something wrong, while the Congressman things he is being unjustly singled out and punished for crimes that all his Congressional buddies get away with.

Source

Tearful Jackson Jr.: 'I couldn't have been more wrong'

By Katherine Skiba and Marina Villeneuve Tribune Newspapers

10:30 a.m. CDT, August 14, 2013

WASHINGTON – A tearful Jesse Jackson Jr., addressing the judge who will sentence him for looting about $750,000 in campaign funds, apologized today for his crimes and expressed special regrets to his mother and father.

“Your honor, throughout this process I’ve asked the government and the court to hold me and only me accountable for my actions,” he said.

When Jackson Jr. spoke, he voice was firm except for the few times he wept openly and paused to dry his eyes with tissue, blow his nose and collect himself.

“I am the example for the whole Congress,” he said. “I understand that. I didn’t separate my personal life from my political activities, and I couldn’t have been more wrong.”

Jackson Jr. said he “misled” people, the government, the Federal Election Commission and the people. “I was wrong,” he said.

Talking about his desire to be sent to a federal prison camp in Alabama, he said: “I want to make it a little inconvenient for everybody to get to me.”

He said he hoped that he wife could earn enough money in his absence to keep the family together. “When I get back, I’ll take on that burden,” Jackson Jr. said. “By then I hope my children will be old enough that the pain I caused will be easier to bear.”

Before Jackson Jr.’s remarks, his lawyer Reid Weingarten said his client felt “horror, shame and distress” over his crimes.

But Weingarten also attempted to downplay the impact of Jackson Jr.’s crimes, since he took money from his own campaign fund. It’s not as if there are widows and orphans outside the courthouse who are victims and asking for his head, Weingarten said.

“This is not a Ponzi scheme,” he said.

Weingarten asked for an 18-month sentence for Jackson Jr. and noted, “He suffers from a very, very serious mental health disease.”

He identified the ex-congressman’s illness as bipolar disorder, and conceded that it was relevant even though “we didn’t plead guilty by reason of insanity.”

Matt Graves, an assistant U.S. attorney, countered that Jackson Jr.’s crimes represented one of the largest cases of theft from a campaign treasury that had ever been prosecuted.

Graves also took a shot at Jackson Jr.’s reported condition of bipolar disorder, saying normally when mental health issues are litigated in court, there was expert testimony, discovery and an examination of the defendant — and said none had occurred in this case.

“When one looks at the facts,” Graves said, “it’s quite clear that there’s no there there.”

He decried Jackson Jr.’s “wasted talent” and “what he threw away.” [I wonder if bank robbers use that lame excuse in pleading for a reduced sentence???]

Jackson Jr., 48, and his wife, Sandi, 49, a former Chicago alderman, will be sentenced today by federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is no relation to the defendants. Both could receive prison terms – him on a felony conspiracy count and her on a related charge of failing to report about $600,000 in taxable income.

The Jacksons held hands as they arrived this morning at the federal courthouse. They emerged from a white SUV and were accompanied by Judy Smith, a crisis communications expert and former federal prosecutor whose work inspired the TV show “Scandal.”

Jackson Jr. wore a dark suit and grimaced. Sandi Jackson wore a beige suit and smiled broadly. They said nothing to more than 20 media representatives gathered.

The ex-congressman’s father, Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., arrived earlier with his wife and some of his children.

Speaking with reporters before the hearing, Rev. Jackson reflected on his son’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder. [So is he saying people with bipolar disorder have a God given right to commit crimes??? And deserve to get off with a slap on the wrist???]

“I don’t know how I missed so many signs,” he said. “We found out he was sick very late. We thought we almost lost him. He was in a different place altogether.”

“He was very sick,” said Rev. Jackson. “People speculating, ‘Is he faking it?’ No, he’s not.”

Jackson said that for a time his son wouldn’t drink water, worrying it was dirty.

The sentencing hearing began at about 8:35 a.m. Chicago time. The judge said she would hear out both sides, then take a recess, and pronounce sentence first against Jackson Jr. and then his wife.

The judge gave Jackson Jr. an early victory when she indicated he would not have to pay $750,000 to his old campaign fund in addition to the $750,000 money judgment forfeiture he agreed to when he pleaded guilty.

“If the victim is the campaign, the campaign is defunct,” she said.

Weingarten had argued for just such a ruling -- that Jackson Jr. owed $750,000, not double that amount. “My client wants to be able to feed his children,” Weingarten said. “There are a limited amount of resources here.”

Weingarten said the $750,00 would be coming out of the Jackson household and that Jackson Jr. “will be breaking his head” to make that happen. He did not elaborate on the source of those funds.

After the financial ruling in favor of Jackson Jr., the courtroom discussion turned to the $168,550 in restitution to the IRS that Sandi Jackson had agreed to make at the time of her plea.

Dan Webb, her attorney, tried to persuade the judge that extracting a total of $750,000 from the two Jacksons was sufficient and that his client need not be ordered to make separate restitution to the IRS.

Prosecutors want both the $750,000 judgment from him and the $168,550 from her.

Webb noted that the judge had the confidential pre-sentence investigations done on the Jacksons. In reference to the $750,000, Webb said: “This is not an insignificant amount of money.”

Jackson Jr. told the judge that he could pay the $750,000, but didn’t have the $168,550 and suggested the IRS be paid first out of the larger sum. “I certainly don’t want the IRS harassing my family while I’m away,” he said.

The judge said she would decide that issue when she handed down the sentences.

The Jacksons, both Democrats, pleaded guilty in February after a yearslong spending spree with campaign funds. Among the loot: a $43,000 Rolex watch, furs, vacations, two mounted elk heads and memorabilia ranging from a Michael Jackson fedora to an Eddie Van Halen guitar.

Prosecutors want him to serve four years in prison and her 18 months. Defense lawyers want probation for her and a lighter term for him.

If both get prison terms, they are expected to be served consecutively so that either the husband or wife is free to care for their two children, ages 9 and 13.

Jackson Jr. was in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2012. Sandi Jackson served on the City Council from 2007 until last January. Both resigned their positions leading up to their guilty pleas.

Jackson Jr. began a mysterious medical leave of absence from Congress in June 2012 and never returned. His office said initially that he was suffering from “exhaustion,” but his lawyers later said he was being treated for severe depression and bipolar disorder.

kskiba@tribune.com

¿Como se dice Nazi en Español? ¡¡¡John Kerry!!!

EU recaba información para garantizar seguridad: Kerry

El secretario de Estado estadounidense justificó los programas de espionaje de su país y reiteró que éstos se realizan dentro del marco jurídico.

El secretario de Estado de Estados Unidos, John Kerry, respondió a las quejas brasileñas sobre el espionaje global y dijo que su país seguirá haciendo "lo necesario" para preservar la "seguridad" de los estadounidenses y "del mundo en general".

En una rueda de prensa junto al canciller brasileño, Antonio Patriota, quien reiteró el malestar que causaron en su país las denuncias del espionaje estadounidense, Kerry aseguró que Washington hará "lo necesario para que esos problemas no interfieran en las relaciones" y sostuvo que EU actúa "dentro de las leyes".

Kerry explicó que no podría "discutir cuestiones operacionales" relativas a la "seguridad nacional" en una rueda de prensa, pero aseguró que todas las actividades de las agencias estadounidenses se dan en los marcos de leyes aprobadas "por el Congreso nacional después de los ataques del 11 de septiembre" de 2001.

Según Kerry, "Estados Unidos recoge información de inteligencia para proteger a sus ciudadanos, como hacen todas las naciones del mundo, y lo hace dentro de las leyes".

Explicó que, en el caso de Brasil, "se seguirá dialogando para que haya certezas y el gobierno entienda y esté de acuerdo" con lo que Estados Unidos "debe hacer para garantizar su seguridad y la seguridad del mundo en general".

Subrayó además que, "en los últimos años, un cierto número de grupos (terroristas) han atentado contra los intereses no sólo de Estados Unidos, sino también de otros países", y que el gobierno de Barack Obama "sólo está intentando evitar que esas cosas ocurran".

Según Kerry, Brasil y Estados Unidos deben seguir "trabajando juntos" y "concentrarse" en las "realidades más importantes de las relaciones bilaterales". Entre ellas citó la promoción de "los valores democráticos", el "empeño por mejorar la vida de nuestras sociedades", el fomento del comercio y las relaciones económicas o la cooperación en áreas como ciencia y tecnología.

Republicans screw Libertarians to beat Democrats???

The reason the Republicans passed this new law is because in close elections the Libertarian candidates will steal votes enough votes from Republican candidates to cause them to lose elections to Democrats.

Socialist Kyrsten Sinema won her election against Republican Vernon Parker because enough Republicans thought that both Kyrsten Sinema and Vernon Parker sucked and voted for Libertarian Powell Gammill.

Source

Signature requirements spiral for some candidates

The controversial elections bill changes the amount of voter signatures candidates must get on nominating petitions.

House Bill 2305 requires one-sixth of one percent of the total voter registration in at least three counties for statewide candidates for office, such as U.S. Senate, governor or attorney general.

For legislative and congressional candidates, the new requirement is one-third of one percent of the total voter registration in the district from which a congressional candidate, or a state legislative candidate, is running.

Here’s a few examples of how the numbers will play out for the various political parties when the law takes effect Sept. 13:

For governor, all candidates – from all parties – will need to submit 5,376 valid signatures.

For Libertarians, that’s a jump of 4,380 percent from the current requirement of 120 signatures.

For Greens, an increase of 20,577 percent, up from 26.

For Democrats, its up 9.8 percent, from 4,896.

For Republicans, the requirement represents a drop of 5.8 percent, from 5,709..

For Congressional District 1, all candidates must submit 624 signatures.

For Libertarians, that’s an increase of 4,700 percent, up from 13 signatures.

For Greens, its a hike of 20,700 percent, from 3 signatures.

For Democrats, its down 13 percent, from 717 signatures.

For Republicans, its an increase of 8.9 percent, from 573 signatures.

Source: House Bill 2305

Blockwatch grants - A big waste of money!!!!

Blockwatch grants - a government welfare program for cops???

Source

Phoenix Block Watch allocations draw questions

Youth programs get portion of crime-prevention money

by Connie Cone Sexton - Aug. 8, 2012 11:01 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

Since 2008, more than $1.5 million of taxpayer money for Phoenix neighborhood crime prevention that could have been awarded to traditional Block Watch programs was given to programs designed to steer youths from crime, even though some question whether the latter is effective.

An Arizona Republic analysis of the past five years of Phoenix Neighborhood Block Watch grant awards found that more than one in five grants benefited youth programs, including Wake Up Clubs, sports or academic programs.

The money was used to take children to Lake Pleasant, the Arizona Science Center, Kartchner Caverns and other destinations as a reward for participating in a Phoenix police-led after-school program and for completing community-service projects.

Meanwhile, at least 15 traditional Block Watch grant applicants initially received no funding this year from the annual pool of $1.2 million, despite requests for items such as security lighting and cameras to catch graffiti vandals. However, at least three of those groups were later granted at least partial funding on appeal. The Phoenix City Council is expected to vote on final allocations in the next few weeks.

Crime-prevention specialists, while acknowledging the benefits of teaching children values like respect for police officers and community service, question whether the emphasis -- to deter children from a life of crime -- is effective. [So one of the things these Blockwatch grants do is brainwash the kiddies into worshiping cops! I bet Hitler and Stalin's Blockwatch grants did the same thing]

Voters created the Phoenix Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program with Proposition 301, a sales-tax increase passed in 1993. Today, those who oversee it are divided over the best way to fight crime. For some, it's getting neighbors to monitor their streets, installing security lighting or Block Watch signs, using walkie-talkies for neighborhood patrols and holding community events to promote crime prevention. For others, it means continuing to invest in programs for youth.

Since 2008, more than $36,000 paid for youth sports at Granada East School in central Phoenix. In May, the City Council approved $7,600 for 2012-13 to pay coaches, referees, league fees and transportation for boys and girls to participate in basketball, soccer, baseball and softball. [Sounds like the money we were told was going to prevent crime is used for sports programs.]

In 2011, the Wilson Coalition neighborhood in southeast Phoenix received $9,800 to pay for after-school playground, library and gym supervisors for students at Wilson Elementary School.

Phoenix officials said there is anecdotal evidence that youth programs curb crime but could not provide research to back that up. [Translation - trust us, we know what we are doing even if it doesn't look like it.] Some members of the city Block Watch Oversight Committee question the investment.

"They sound like good programs, but do they really prevent crime? An argument can be made that it's not," said John Schroeder, a member of the City Council-appointed Block Watch Oversight Committee, which reviews grant applications and makes recommendations.

Every year, neighborhood groups in Phoenix may apply for up to $10,000 for a crime-prevention project. The Phoenix Police Department, which administers the Block Watch program, presents the committee's recommendations to the City Council. The newest round of grants were approved in May without discussion.

For the fiscal year that began July 1, about $224,000 has been designated for 24 Wake Up Clubs. That's 18.6 percent of total funding.

Of the 211 applications, 25 groups were initially unfunded. Among the rejections: Tatum Park Neighborhood Block Watch in northeast Phoenix, which requested $6,100 for projects that included solar lights for security; and Discovery at Villa de Paz in southwest Phoenix, which sought $9,800 for a flashlight camera to catch vandals. Funding questioned

Most of the youth money has supported about two dozen Wake Up Clubs.

The programs are held one hour a week after school and for about five weeks during the summer. Phoenix police officers serve as class leaders -- some making $60 or more an hour -- working with children on community-improvement projects or homework. [So the Blockwatch grants are also a jobs program for cops - some who are getting paid $60/hr which is about $120,000 a year]

During the past four years, each club was given $3,000 to $5,000 to pay for police officers to operate an individual program. Another $3,000 to $5,000 was awarded to fund admission and transportation costs to various attractions or to travel to community-service projects. The field trips, sometimes done in summer, are for children who participate in Wake Up Club meetings during the school year.

Phoenix police Officer Robin Ontiveros, who oversees the Wake Up Clubs, said she has seen the difference they make in the lives of children. "It's very effective because it's run by the Police Department. It's like a mentoring program." [Translation - I'm getting paid $60 and hour to brainwash kids into loving cops. I love my high paying do nothing job as a police officer]

Wake Up Clubs were started in 1995 by the department's Community Effort to Abate Street Crime, after a drive-by shooting of a 4-year-old in south Phoenix spurred residents to ask for help.

Critics say funding for Wake Up Clubs may benefit the community in the long run but hurt groups seeking money for crime-fighting programs. Schroeder questions the money going to youth programs and wants to see research and statistics on their impact.

The first year northeast Phoenix resident Jerry Cline was on the Block Watch Oversight Committee, he noticed all Wake Up Club applications were identical, seeking the same amounts of money to take kids to the same places. By the second year, he started asking questions. This year, he said there were a lot of "conversations" about whether the clubs should continue to be funded through Block Watch.

"When you get close to running out of money, you start thinking whether you should use the money to fund other projects," Cline said.

This year, for the first time since 2010, most Wake Up Club requests were not fully funded. Still, the oversight committee didn't make drastic cuts, except in the case of one school, Simpson Elementary, which last year sent kids on 30 field trips with Block Watch funds.

For fiscal 2012-13, Simpson's Wake Up Club was given $6,198 of their $10,000 request. Most clubs saw their $8,900 to $10,000 requests trimmed by only $100 or $200.

'Faith' and fairness

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton said he believes children's programs "pay long-term dividends" and said he takes the oversight committee's recommendations on "faith" that it knows what's best for the community. [Translation - Trust your government masters, we know what we are doing. Even if we don't have an facts to verify that we are producing results]

Judy Welch, captain of the Villa de Paz Block Watch, near Camelback Road and 102nd Avenue, disagrees. She said her group's request for a flashlight camera to catch graffiti violators was denied. She doesn't think it's right that funding instead went to Wake Up Clubs.

"What do they have to do with crime prevention?" she asked. "Block Watch money is about graffiti and vandalism. ... You'd have to have a lot of research into following these kids for years to find out if it helped."

Abby Dunton, coordinator for the Farmington Park Block Watch near 91st Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road, said her group was denied $10,000 for an audio, solar-powered, bilingual flashing-beacon system to help pedestrians at a busy crosswalk. During an appeal to the oversight committee last week, her project was approved.

For Cline, of the oversight committee, the question about Wake Up Clubs remains, "How does it deter crime?"

Early intervention

Crime prevention takes many forms, including Wake Up Clubs, said Phoenix police Officer Deb Iodice, the Block Watch Program coordinator. Officers talk to the kids about things like bullying and drugs. [More of those $60/hr jobs for cops to brainwash the kiddies????]

"You can see the wheels in their head turning," Iodice said. [Yea, and you can also see the dollars signs dancing around in the head of Phoenix police Officer Deb Iodice]

Iodice acknowledges that the city can't quantify how many crimes are prevented this way. "There's no great way to track it. I think that's a disservice, but we're here to educate people," Iodice said. [Yea, I think it great that I am getting paid $60 and hour for a job where I don't have to document that I am producing results]

She understands the criticism of using crime-prevention money for an after-school program. "Sometimes the program kind of gets a negative vibe because it costs a lot of money, but I think it's a fantastic program," Iodice said. [Yea, and she isn't even going to address the question of does it make sense to pay cops $60 and hour for programs that don't do anything other then fatten the wallets of the cops that give them.]

Daniel Morales, a prevention coordinator at Touchstone Behavioral Health, a non-profit organization that works to help young people lead productive lives, said getting kids to feel better about themselves can help keep them from underage drinking, drug use and getting into trouble. [Wile it is a non-profit organization, I bet Daniel Morales is getting paid big bucks for his part in the program. Just like the cops are]

Miguel "Mickey" Villarreal, 14, said he took his Wake Up Club experience in middle school seriously. "It helped me open up and be more accepting of others. And they teach you the consequences of drugs and getting into trouble. I've seen my older brother grow up and make the wrong decisions." [Translation - the police brainwashing worked on Miguel "Mickey" Villarreal]

Villarreal, now a freshman at Trevor Browne High School in west Phoenix, returned this summer to volunteer with a Wake Up Club.

Republic reporters Ofelia Madrid, Matt Dempsey and Samantha Bush contributed to this article.

Lawsuit challenges CHA's drug testing policy

But I am also against the government flushing the constitution down the toilet and making people pee in a bottle to prove they don't take illegal drugs to get into these programs.

Source

Lawsuit challenges CHA's drug testing policy

By Kim Geiger Tribune reporter

10:04 a.m. CDT, August 15, 2013

A Chicago man who objects to having to submit to drug testing as a condition of living in an apartment that he rents from the Chicago Housing Authority filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the policy in federal court.

Joseph Peery, 58, has lived in the Parkside of Old Town mixed-income housing development on the Near North Side since 2010. Drug tests are required of all renters before they move into the complex and every year on renewal of a rental agreement, Peery said.

“It’s humiliating, embarrassing, stigmatizing, and it’s unfair,” Peery said in an interview. “I think it needs to end.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois took up Peery’s case and filed a class action lawsuit against the CHA.

The suit alleges that the drug testing, which is required at a number of the CHA’s mixed-income developments, violates tenants’ protections from unreasonable searches, seizures and invasions of privacy under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under the Illinois Constitution.

Mixed-income developments are privately owned and operated housing complexes in which public housing tenants live alongside tenants who pay affordable rates and those who pay market rates. The CHA owns the land and provides subsidies to the developments’ public housing units, CHA spokesman Matt Aguilar said in a statement.

The agency also reviews the management company’s tenant selection criteria “and ensures that all rules for CHA residents are the same as those for market rate renters,” he said.

The CHA defends the Parkside policy, saying that it is applied equally to all renters at the complex, including those whose rent is not subsidized.

“One of the requirements of renters is that they follow property rules. And if those rules happen to include drug testing, then public housing families — like their market-rate and affordable renter neighbors — must adhere to those rules,” Aguilar said.

The CHA in 2011 considered requiring drug tests of all CHA tenants, but the board of directors killed the proposal. Then-board chairman James Reynolds said at the time that the board thought the proposal was “kind of close to violating on civil rights.”

Adam Schwartz, a senior lawyer at the ACLU of Illinois, said the Parkside policy and those at other mixed-income developments are clearly aimed at CHA renters.

“The reason they’re doing this is because of the stigma of the CHA renters,” he said. “If they weren’t trying to get the CHA renters, they wouldn’t be doing it to any renters.”

Schwartz said that CHA acts as the “ultimate decider” on policies imposed by the housing manager.

“If the CHA does not want a criteria, the criteria doesn’t go in,” he said. “It takes CHA action to impose this policy.”

Peery’s rental agreement is with the CHA, not the private management company, according to Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for the ACLU of Illinois.

Brian Gilmore, a clinical associate professor and director of the housing clinic at Michigan State University College of Law, said he researched drug testing policies throughout the country in 2011 and was unable to find any other housing authority in the U.S. that allows the drug testing requirement.

“It looks like Chicago has probably gone the furthest of anyone,” Gilmore said.

Peery said he does not do drugs. He spent more than a decade working on projects aimed at helping people stay away from drugs, he said. He now works in the kitchen at Mount Sinai Hospital.

Peery described feeling humiliated by the testing process, which takes place at the office of the management company that oversees his apartment building.

“There’s secretaries there and people walking in and paying rent, and I’m handed a cup,” Peery said.

After producing the urine sample, “you’re literally sitting there with this cup on your lap with people walking in like why is this guy sitting there with a cup of urine on his lap?” Peery said. “I haven’t done a crime. Why am I made to feel like this?”

About a year after Peery moved into his one-bedroom apartment at Parkside, he heard that the CHA was considering appliying the drug test policy to all CHA tenants. He attended a town hall meeting where he said hundreds of people turned out to object to the idea.

“What really touched me was to watch a little old lady get up out of a wheelchair, right, to come to the mic to be able to speak, right, and shaking with — I mean, very vehement — ‘Why am I being forced to drug test and urinate into a cup?’” Peery recalled. “Why would you do that to a grandma?”

kgeiger@tribune.com

Members of Congress haven't had a raise in years

Members of Congress make a lousy $174,000 a year

Damn almost makes me want to cry. Our royal members of Congress make a measly $174,000 and haven't had a raise since 2009.

Of course our royal members of Congress are not as grossly under paid as they want to make it out. Now they are on a summer 5 week vacation.

According to a second article I attached members of Congress only work a measly 126 days a year.

Most of us normal folks work 245 days a year and get two weeks off for vacation and another week off for the standard holidays.

If you assume the royal members of Congress work 8 hours days, which is usually not the case that means they only work 25.2 five day work weeks.

So their weekly pay is only a lousy $6,904 a week, or $1,380 a day.

Source

Members of Congress haven't had a raise in years

USA Today Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:47 PM

WASHINGTON — Haven't had a raise in a while? Well, neither has your member of Congress.

This month, congressional salaries slid to their lowest inflation-adjusted levels since December 1990.

When congressional approval ratings are at historic lows, congressional pay — $174,000 for rank-and-file senators and House members — may seem high. But some argue that shrinking paychecks for public service perpetuates a political culture where mostly the rich can afford to serve in office.

Members of Congress have to maintain households in two locations, one being Washington, one of the most expensive housing markets in the country even for rentals. [Must be tough making ends meet. On the other hand I probably could maintain households in 3 or 4 locations if I was make $174,000 for a job which I only had to work a lousy 126 days a year. And of course that $174,000 yearly income doesn't include the hundreds of thousands and in many cases millions of dollars in bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions they get. ]

"It's always shocking to see members of Congress sleeping in their offices," says Brad Fitch, president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation. "I know one who turned their office couch into a bed and their file cabinet into a laundry bin." [of course he doesn't actually do the laundry, the laundry bin is where is maid picks the laundry up at. And sleeping on a couch??? That's just a quaint story he tells the folks back at home to get re-elected. They think he actually sleeps on the couch instead of hanging out in topless bars where he is usually found]

"The pay is adequate but not extravagant," agrees Norm Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. "It's hard to make that case to most Americans. But in Washington, you're competing for housing with second-year associates at law firms who are already making the same salary as you." [Yea, $174,000 base salary for working 125 days a year certainly isn't extravagant. At least that's what they tell the folks back home to get re-elected]

Since 1992, congressional pay has not kept up with inflation. To keep up, pay would have to be closer to $219,000, according to a June report by the Congressional Research Service. [Life's a bitch when you only make a lousy $174,000!!!, well at least before you throw in the bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions of hundreds of thousands and many times millions of dollars]

By law, Congress obtains an annual automatic pay adjustment, equivalent to the prior year's average private sector wage change. However, the raise can't be a higher percentage than for other federal employees. [Yea, a lot of Congressmen are envious of the janitors that clean their offices, who only make $20,000 a year, but percentage wise got much higher pay raises then the Congressmen!!!]

Congress can vote to delay or deny this raise and has done so five times since the last increase in 2009, most recently in January of this year. If each of those increases had gone into effect, congressional pay would today be 5.5% higher, still less than inflation.

While lawmakers' relative pay is declining, their wealth is increasing: Many in Congress have vast personal wealth. Since 1992, according to Stanford University and the Center for Responsive Politics, congressional net worth increased significantly. Average American household net worth during that time declined. Yet average net worth among freshman members first elected last November stands at more than a million dollars. [Some mean spirited people will point out that the $174,000 doesn't include hundreds of thousands and many times millions of dollars in bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions, but hey a few extra hundred thousand dollars or even a million bucks doesn't go that far in Washington D.C.]

Thomas Mann says this is not coincidence.

"It's politically impossible to set salaries at a reasonable rate," says Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution. "So it's not realistic to expect Congress to proportionally reflect America in terms of bartenders or construction workers. Especially to have two homes – one in Washington and one in the district – if you don't have personal wealth, you almost can't do it."

"Most would make far more money in their former jobs or the private sector," Fitch concurs. "Probably the only ones doing better than before are those who have been in public service their whole lives. That's definitely the minority, since most come from the legal or business worlds."

One factor causing this slide was the 1992 passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, which required that any pay adjustment Congress votes for itself would not take effect until after the next election. That way, representatives could not vote themselves a self-serving immediate pay raise and would have to risk that any such vote may benefit successors who may be ideological or political rivals.

Since ratification of the amendment, congressional pay has increased at less than half the rate of inflation. By contrast, in the five years before passage, congressional pay increased at almost twice the inflation rate.

Ornstein says lower congressional pay perpetuates a "revolving door" between Congress and K Street.

"When lobbying pays five to 10 times congressional pay, that is genuinely corrupting," Ornstein says. "Almost 50% of those leaving office [either due to retirement or being voted out] stay in Washington, compared to a blip a few decades ago."

Though denying themselves pay increases could earn members of Congress short-term brownie points with their constituents, the consequences could be damaging further out.

"If you continue to let the differential grow, at some point, Congress would be forced to make up for it with pay increases greater than inflation," Fitch predicts. "And there will be hell to pay."

Source

Want a Job With 239 Vacation Days? Become a Member of Congress

New statistics show that Congress may be more dysfunctional than at any time in the last 60 years.

We have to let our representatives know that business as usual isn't acceptable and we expect them, above all else, to get stuff done. The number of laws passed by Congress last year was fewer than at any point since 1947. And to make matters worse, Congress will get 239 "vacation days" in 2013.

The figures from the House Clerk's office paint a bleak picture of Congressional productivity.

But what remains most astonishing about our representatives on the Hill is not only the quantity of legislation, but the amount of time spent working. The Congressional calendar for this coming year consists of 126 days, [let's see, if if they work 126 days a year that is $1,380 a day at their pay rate of $174,000 a year] leaving members of Congress 239 days to perhaps tour our great nation, toy with the idea of running for higher office, and maybe visit a natural disaster or two. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's calendar releases rather embarrassing scheduling without a single 5-day work week or weekend. If you are already feeling riled up about this, I would not suggest looking at the month of August.

So, how? How can hard-working Americans, residents of one of the most overworked countries in the world, commute five times a week to and from work while their money is squandered away in one of the two or three weekly meetings Congress manages in squeeze in?

Well, perhaps my take on activities is somewhat cynical (not that you should have expected any less). Apparently, these weeks off are called "District work periods," also known as free travel at taxpayer expense.

Even Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) admits the wrongdoing of his colleagues: "I think we'd get more work done if we spent more time in Washington. We come in, we go straight to votes, and then we go to our separate quarters. We don't really get to know each other anymore."

But Cantor disagrees in publishing a schedule with many long breaks allowing for travel and "district work periods."

This isn't the beginning. This unabashed congressional laziness has run rampant over the past decade and is only inflating. In 2007, Fox News reported expensive monthly trips taken by members of Congress to far-off lands on whose dime? Oh yes, that’s right. I think I'm starting to understand her point.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) and his wife are particularly cultured because of his spot on the Hill. He and his wife frequent Aspen Institute conferences, along with many other members of Congress. The Aspen Institute, an international nonprofit dedicated to fostering enlightened leadership and open-minded dialogue, has covered the costs of sending members of Congress to their seminars and workshops in the past. From 2000-2007, the Miller couple has attended 30 conferences with a total value of over $200,000. But that is not the kicker. Rep. George Miller, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman, did not even have a place at these conferences. Only 3 of the 30 conferences he has attended were related to education. And don't let the name fool you: The Aspen Institute certainly does not hold conferences in Aspen only. Mr. and Mrs. Miller have traveled to Aspen conferences in:

Naples, Florida, San Juan, Vancouver, Prague, Grand Cayman, Florence, Helsinki, Punta Mita, Mexico, Scottsdale, China, Barcelona, Montega Bay, Jamaica, Rome, Cancun, Venice, Dublin, Istanbul, and Hawaii.

Not only do these luxurious conferences take place across the globe, but they also ended up consuming about half a year in total, or 10% of every year.

So, does the Aspen Institute represent 10% of Rep. George Miller's constituents?

Sanjay Gupta: the DEA is a bunch of liars about marijuana???

"Gupta said he had mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency had sound scientific proof when it placed marijuana in the category of the most dangerous drugs"

"I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof"

Source

Sanjay Gupta: I was wrong about weed

By Alia E. Dastagir USA TODAY Thu Aug 8, 2013 3:29 PM

Sanjay Gupta is apologizing for "misleading" the American public on weed.

CNN's chief medical correspondent, whose documentary Weed airs on CNN this Sunday, said he was wrong about the effects of the drug.

"I have apologized for some of the earlier reporting because I think, you know, we've been terribly and systematically misled in this country for some time," Gupta told Piers Morgan on CNN Wednesday night. "And I did part of that misleading."

Gupta has spoken out against the use of medical marijuana in the past, including penning a TIME magazine article in 2009 titled, Why I Would Vote No on Pot.

In an op-ed that appeared on CNN's website Thursday, Why I Changed My Mind on Weed, Gupta said he had mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency had sound scientific proof when it placed marijuana in the category of the most dangerous drugs:

"I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't look far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.

Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have 'no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse.' "

Gupta says he hopes his upcoming documentary will help set the record straight on medical marijuana.

Kyrsten Sinema isn't a worse crook then the rest of Congress???

Last but not least Neil B. Johnson forgot to say that when Kyrsten Sinema was a member of the Arizona legislator she tried to flush Arizona's Medical marijuana law down the toilet by introducing a bill that would have slapped a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana.

Source

Recall is part of representation

Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:16 PM

I wish to make two points regarding the attempted recall of Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. (“Man seeking recall of Sinema over NSA vote,” Valley & State, Sunday).

A representative represents the people of his or her district and he or she should be subject to recall as a matter of law.

It doesn’t make sense that the people who elect a person to represent them cannot recall that person if the people determine that the person no longer represents them.

If the people were to recall every representative whose vote violated the Constitution, I daresay that virtually every member of the Senate and Congress would have to be recalled.

And the president, too.

— Neil B. Johnson, Glendale

Congresswomen are unproductive parasites???

Look Bill I will agree with you that they are a bunch of parasites, but unproductive parasites???

Our royal Congressmen and Congresswoman have robbed America blind. Sure the lazy creeps work two hour days, but in those 2 hour days they steal more then most common criminals steal in their entire life times. That certainly is not unproductive.

Source

Letter: Elected officials need to earn their pay like everyone else

Posted: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:55 pm

Letter to the Editor

Congress was in session for 112 days in 2012. It may make it to 126 days in session this year. Our country is in almost insurmountable debt. I think Congress is to blame for not preventing most of our problems. Its members are well paid and have an unprecedented lucrative retirement and healthcare system. I think of them being somewhat akin to a bunch (535) of unproductive parasites. Why shouldn’t they have to earn their pay like almost everyone else?

Bill Baxter

Apache Junction

Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years

While Bradley Manning is guilty as hell of all the charges, the jury should have voted to acquit him.

Sure he committed a few victimless crimes, but he only did it to expose even worse crimes our government masters have committed.

The same goes for Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. They are all freedom fighters who should be given medals, not time in prison.

The real criminals are the members of the US Congress, the US Senate and Presidents Obama and Bush who allowed the American government to flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet and turn Amerika into a police state.

Source

Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years

By Julie Tate, Updated: Wednesday, August 21, 8:17 AM E-mail the writer

A military judge on Wednesday morning sentenced Army Pfc. Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.

Manning, 25, was convicted last month of multiple charges, including violations of the Espionage Act for copying and disseminating the documents while serving as an intelligence analyst at a forward operating base in Iraq. He faced up to 90 years in prison.

Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg says Bradley Manning did not deserve any prison time.

Manning is required to serve one-third of the sentence, minus three and half years of time served, before he is eligible for parole. That will be in eight years when he is 33.

Judge Denise Lind, an Army colonel, said Manning was dishonorably discharged. He was also reduced in rank and forfeits all pay.

Manning stood at attention, flanked by his attorneys, to hear the verdict with his aunt, Debra Van Alstyne, sitting behind him. He did not appear to react when the sentence was read.

As Manning was escorted out of the packed courtroom, more than half a dozen supporters shouted out to him, “We’ll keep fighting for you, Bradley! You’re our hero!”

The decision was immediately condemned by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system,” said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

The government had asked the judge to sentence Manning to 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing classified information,” said Capt. Joe Morrow, a military prosecutor. “National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.”

Defense lawyer David Coombs portrayed Manning as a well-intentioned but isolated soldier with gender identification issues, and he asked Lind to impose “a sentence that allows him to have a life.”

“He cares about human life,” said Coombs as the sentencing phase of the court-martial at Fort Meade ended last week. “His biggest crime was he cared about the loss of life he was seeing and was struggling with it.”

Manning also addressed the court and apologized for his actions, saying he was “sorry that I hurt the United States.”

Manning will receive a credit of 1,293 days for the time he has been confined prior to the sentence, including 112 days of credit for abusive treatment he was subjected to in the brig at the Quantico Marine Base.

Manning transmitted the first documents to WikiLeaks in February 2010, sending what came to be known as the Iraq and Afghanistan “War Logs” — field reports from across both theaters. Manning’s lawyers said he had become disillusioned by what he was seeing in Iraq and hoped that the public release of the secret material would prompt greater public understanding of the wars.

Manning established a relationship online with a person who is thought to be Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. As their personal correspondence deepened, Manning continued to transmit more material, including assessments of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and an enormous cache of diplomatic cables. He also leaked a video that showed a U.S. Apache helicopter in Baghdad opening fire on a group of Iraqis, including two journalists and children, that the helicopter crew believed to be insurgents.

According to his lawyers, Manning became more and more stressed in Iraq, wrestling with his sexuality and the breakup of a relationship. At one point, in April 2010, he sent an e-mail to a superior with the subject line “My Problem” and a photo of himself wearing a blond wig and lipstick.

On May 7, Manning was found on the floor of a supply room with a knife at his feet. After some brief counseling, he was returned to his workstation. Later that same day, he struck a fellow soldier and was removed permanently from the secure environment where he worked.

Following these events, Manning boasted to hacker Adrian Lamo that he had been working with WikiLeaks. After engaging Manning for several days, Lamo informed Army investigators and the FBI about the breach of information and provided them with his chat logs with Manning.

Manning was arrested in Iraq on May 27, 2010.

Legal proceedings against Manning began in December 2011 and, in February of this year, Manning pleaded guilty to 10 lesser included charges. The trial portion of the proceedings began June 3, and on July 30, Lind found Manning guilty of 20 of the 22 charges he faced.

NSA collected thousands of U.S. communications

Source

NSA collected thousands of U.S. communications

Associated Press Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:57 PM

WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency declassified three secret U.S. court opinions Wednesday showing how it scooped up as many as 56,000 emails and other communications by Americans with no connection to terrorism annually over three years, how it revealed the error to the court and changed how it gathered Internet communications.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper authorized the release Wednesday.

The opinions show that when the NSA reported that to the court in 2011, the court ordered the NSA to find ways to limit what it collects and how long it keeps it.

The NSA reported the problems it discovered in how it was gathering Internet communications to the court and shortly thereafter to Congress in the fall of 2011.

Three senior U.S. intelligence officials said Wednesday that the NSA realized that when it was gathering up bundled Internet communications from fiber optic cables, with the cooperation of telecommunications providers like AT&T, that it was often collecting thousands of emails or other Internet transactions by Americans who had no connection to the intended terror target being tracked.

The officials briefed reporters on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe the program publicly.

While the NSA is allowed to keep the metadata — the address or phone number and the duration, but not the content, of the communication — of Americans for up to five years, the court ruled that when it gathered up such large packets of information, they included actual emails between American citizens, it violated the U.S. Constitution’s ban against unauthorized search and seizure.

In the opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denouncing the practice, the judge wrote that the NSA had advised the court that “the volume and nature of the information it had been collecting is fundamentally different than what the court had been led to believe,” and went on to say the court must consider “whether targeting and minimization procedures comport with the 4th Amendment.”

For instance, two senior intelligence officials said, when an American logged into an email server and looked at the emails in his or her inbox, that screen shot of the emails could be collected, together with Internet transactions by a terrorist suspect being targeted by the NSA — because that suspect’s communications were being sent on the same fiber optic cable by the same Internet provider, in a bundled packet of data.

These interceptions of innocent Americans’ communications were happening when the NSA accessed Internet information “upstream,” meaning off of fiber optic cables or other channels where Internet traffic traverses the U.S. telecommunications system.

The NSA disclosed that it gathers some 250 million internet communications each year, with some 9 percent from these “upstream” channels, amounting to between 20 million to 25 million emails a year. The agency used statistical analysis to estimate that of those, possibly as many as 56,000 Internet communications collected were sent by Americans or persons in the U.S. with no connection to terrorism.

Under court order, the NSA resolved the problem by creating new ways to detect when emails by people within the U.S. were being intercepted, and separated those batches of communications. It also developed new ways to limit how that data could be accessed or used. The agency also agreed to only keep these bundled communications for possible later analysis for a 2-year period, instead of the usual 5-year retention period.

The agency also, under court order, destroyed all the bundled data gathered between 2008, when the FISA Court first authorized the collection under section 702 of the Patriot Act, until 2011 when the new procedures were put in place.

The newly released court opinions revealed the court signed off on the new procedures, deeming them constitutionally acceptable.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House still contends there is no domestic surveillance program despite new revelations about the scope of U.S. emails and Internet communications that can get swept up by the NSA. He said the program is specifically to gather foreign intelligence, adding that the fact that the extent of incidental American surveillance has been documented is proof positive that accountability measures are working properly.

“The reason that we’re talking about it right now is because there are very strict compliance standards in place at the NSA that monitor for compliance issues, that tabulate them, that document them and that put in place measures to correct them when they occur,” Earnest said.

The Emperor Wears No Clothes

The Emperor Wears No Clothes

If you want a thousand good reasons to legalize, or re-legalize marijuana the book The Emperor Wears No Clothes has those reasons for you.

Proper channels for whistle blowers - Keep your mouth shut!!!!

Source

The price Gina Gray paid for whistleblowing

By Dana Milbank, Published: August 20

President Obama, in his news conference this month, said that Edward Snowden was wrong to go public with revelations about secret surveillance programs because “there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions.”

This is a common refrain among administration officials and some lawmakers: If only Snowden had made his concerns known through the proper internal channels, everything would have turned out well. The notion sounds reasonable, as do the memorandums Obama signed supposedly protecting whistleblowers.

But it’s a load of nonsense. Ask Gina Gray.

Gray is the Defense Department whistleblower whose case I have been following for five years. She was the Army civilian worker who, before and after her employment, exposed much of the wrongdoing at Arlington National Cemetery — misplaced graves, mishandled remains and financial mismanagement — and she attempted to do it through the proper internal channels. Pentagon sources have confirmed to me her crucial role in bringing the scandal to light.

For her troubles, Gray was fired. The Pentagon’s inspector general recommended corrective action to compensate Gray.

According to documents just obtained by Gray’s lawyer, Mark Zaid, Army Secretary John McHugh rejected the inspector general’s suggestion. McHugh wouldn’t offer Gray anything because she was on “probationary status at the time of her termination.”

Gray, who worked in Iraq as an Army contractor and Army public affairs specialist, is now unemployed and living in North Carolina.

“I went all the way up the channels,” Gray told me on Tuesday. “This is what happens when you do that.”

In response to my inquiries to the Pentagon, an Army spokesman, Col. David H. Patterson Jr., issued a statement saying that Gray’s status as a whistleblower was limited and that her firing was unrelated. “We consider the matter closed,” he said, calling the Army’s position “validated” by a federal court’s “dismissal of Ms. Gray’s lawsuit — with prejudice.”

The lawsuit was dismissed this week — because Gray dropped it. She could no longer afford the legal fees.

Sadly, Gray’s case is emblematic of the way this administration has handled whistleblowers. Obama came into office pledging transparency and professing admiration for government workers who expose abuses. But his administration has pursued more cases under the 1917 Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined (including the prosecution of National Security Agency workers who tried to register their objections through “proper” channels). And the alleged intimidation of would-be whistleblowers goes beyond those involved in sensitive intelligence. For example, diplomat Gregory Hicks told a House committee that he was demoted because he gave congressional investigators a description of the attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, that was at odds with the official version of events.

Gray’s ordeal began in April 2008 after I covered the Arlington funeral of an officer killed in the Iraq war. While there, I observed a dispute between Gray and deputy superintendent Thurman Higginbotham, the man later at the center of the Arlington scandals. Higginbotham was trying to prevent reporters from observing the burial, in violation of the family’s wishes and Arlington’s regulations — and Gray, though new on the job, told him he was wrong.

Gray registered her objections internally — but loudly. She refused to sign off on a report to the Army secretary’s office that was a whitewash of the way burials were handled at Arlington because, she said, her higher-ups were violating Defense Department regulations. She began to learn of other misdeeds by Arlington management and attempted to let military officials know; in June 2008, according to one of Gray’s legal filings, she told the commanding general of the Military District of Washington about “major problems” at the cemetery, involving fraud, mismanagement and broken regulations.

Two days later, she was fired.

A 2010 report by the Pentagon’s inspector general designated Gray as a whistleblower and concluded that, contrary to regulations, Arlington management “elected to terminate her, rather than make a reasonable effort to address public affairs policy issues that she raised” or to “document performance deficiencies that ANC management later claimed formed the basis for Ms. Gray’s termination.”

After her firing, Gray passed along information about mismanagement at Arlington to three congressional offices, all of which received false assurances from the Army that everything was under control. Gray eventually provided her findings to reporters and to the inspector general, leading to the ouster of the Arlington management.

Snowden’s case is quite a bit different, and murkier; his dalliances with China and now Russia raise questions about his motives. But Gray’s case shows that Snowden was correct about one thing: Trying to pursue the proper internal channels doesn’t work.

If the Obama administration wants whistleblowers to take the “proper” route, it needs to protect them when they do.

Local governments cutting hours over Obamacare costs

And remember Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema LOVES Obamacare as much as she loves passing laws that remove money from your wallet.

Source

Local governments cutting hours over Obamacare costs

By Reid Wilson, Published: August 22 at 10:00 am

Many cash-strapped cities and counties facing the prospect of shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars in new health-care costs under the Affordable Care Act are opting instead to reduce the number of hours their part-time employees work.

The decisions to cut employee hours come 16 months before employers — including state and local governments — will be required to offer health-care coverage to employees who work at least 30 hours a week. Some local officials said the cuts are happening now either because of labor contracts that must be negotiated in advance, or because the local governments worry that employees who work at least 30 hours in the months leading up to the January 2015 implementation date would need to be included in their health-care plans.

On Tuesday, Middletown Township, N.J. said it would reduce the hours of 25 part-time workers to avoid up to $775,000 in increased annual health-care costs. Earlier this month, Bee County, Tex., said it would limit its part-time workers to 24 hours per week when the new fiscal year starts Oct. 1.

Last month, department heads in Brevard County, Fla., were told to plan similar cuts in advance of the 2015 deadline. Brevard County Insurance Director Jerry Visco estimated the new mandate would cost the county $10,000 per part-time employee — or $1.38 million a year if all 138 part-time employees who work more than 30 hours a week are covered, he told Florida Today. The Brevard County libraries have already cut hours for 37 employees.

“It’s not something we prefer to do, but the cost of health insurance is significant and would really impact municipal budgets,” said Anthony Mercantante, Middletown’s township administrator. “It’s not something we can take on, particularly when we don’t know some of the other ramifications of the Affordable Care Act. There are far more questions than answers right now.”

Middletown spends about $9 million a year, out of its $65 million budget, on employee health policies, Mercantante said.

Elsewhere, Lynchburg, Va., administrators have cut hours for 35 to 40 part-time employees. Chesterfield County, just south of Richmond, is likely to cut the hours of “several hundred” employees, the county director of human resources told the Richmond Times-Dispatch earlier this year. Chippewa County, Wisc., will drop 15 part-time positions to avoid up to $163,000 in annual health care costs, the county administrator told Wisconsin Public Radio in April.

In a statement provided to GovBeat, White House Council of Economic Advisers chairman Jason Furman said there is no evidence that the Affordable Care Act is prompting employers to add part-time rather than full-time positions.

“Since the ACA became law, nearly 90% of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions. Furthermore, the law is helping make health insurance coverage more affordable which supports job growth,” Furman said. “Just yesterday, we learned that the growth in employers’ health care premiums has slowed significantly recently, to less than a third of the growth rate in the late ’90s and early 2000s.”

Other supporters of the law suggested the cuts could actually cost counties and cities more money than if they simply paid for part-time workers’ health-care costs.

“There are some costs of doing business where it really does cost you more money to have multiple people on the job,” said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. “Why would you create more jobs than you need to at 20 hours a week, when if you’re really responding to the Affordable Care Act you would assign people to work 29 hours a week?”

“I don’t think this is going to be a big direct-cost burden for counties and municipalities,” Burtless added.

Mercantante, the Middletown administrator, says it’s the uncertainty that’s driving his town’s actions. “Towns are going to have to start looking at different types of health-care packages to offer to people given the new mandates, but I can’t tell you what those are going to be or how much they’re going to cost us,” he said.

Students vote for Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema and get free money???

OK, technically that's illegal, just like bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions are illegal to trade for government pork.

But the bottom line is I suspect Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema will get a lot of student votes in exchange for her giving them dirt cheep Federal student loans!

Source

Sinema: Students will benefit from bipartisan student loans law

By Dulce Paloma Baltazar Pedraza

August 21, 2013 at 6:00 pm

ASU students who accept student loans this year will not see an increase in their interest rates, no matter what the economic climate looks like after President Barack Obama signed a bipartisan student loan bill into law on Aug. 9.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said she voted in favor of the measure, because it will greatly help students and will give them certainty.

“The first good thing it does, is that it provides a fixed loan rate for any student who gets a loan,” she said. “This means that no matter what happens in the market in the future, whether it’s five or 10 years down the road, the student loan rate for that individual loan will not change.”

However, the law connects the interest rate to whatever the market rate is at the moment and adds an extra percentage.

Sinema said she plans to introduce a new bill that would get rid of that portion of the law and instead add only the cost of administering the law.

Sinema, who is also a professor at ASU, [If you ask me when Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema voted for this law which will benifit herself it sounds like a conflict of interest. But who cares, government is all about getting as much money for yourself and the special interest groups that helped get you elected!!!] said students who accept loans will benefit from the law.

“Now is an awesome time to get a student loan, because it’s really cheap,” she said. “In the long term, it could be expensive for students, so my new law could help the little sister or little brother of the current students.”

Melissa Pizzo, ASU financial aid interim executive director, said the law will help many students but they should still be aware of the terms of the loans they accept.

“It’s possible that over time, depending on what the treasury index looks like, the interest rate for that student loan might increase,” she said. “It’s something that we need to continue to monitor. We need to make sure that our students know what the interests rates are so they are able to make good decisions.”

When ASU students finish their Free Application for Federal Student Aid, they receive a general financial aid package that sometimes includes loans as options. Then, students determine if they want to use those loans. If they do, they first have to take online counseling that helps them better understand the loan’s conditions.

“That component educates students on what the loans are, what their responsibility is, what their commitment is (and it) talks about interest rates,” Pizzo said. “It prepares students to understand what they´re committing to when they accept the loans.”

Although the University does not have data yet as to how many students will accept student loans this school year, Pizzo said ASU students are still below the national average.

Students also have an online cost calculator at their disposal, which can help them manage and understand what their budget might be for the academic year, Pizzo said.

Mathematics education graduate student Michael Tallman said students should always be aware of the interest rates and other conditions of their loans.

Tallman said, although he has never had to accept a loan, he thinks the law is a step in the right direction.

“Any policy that ensures that students who are educating themselves in American universities pay as little interest as possible is a good policy,” he said. “Anything that discourages students from higher education is a bad policy.”

Reach the reporter at dpbaltaz@asu.edu or follow her on Twitter @dpalomabp

Atheist Kyrsten Sinema sworn in without Bible

Source

Sinema sworn in under Constitution

By Shawn Raymundo

January 8, 2013 at 9:40 pm

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., was sworn in to the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday under the Constitution instead of the traditional Bible.

The newly elected congresswoman Arizona’s 9th Congressional District chose to be sworn in to the 113th Congress under the U.S. Constitution, said Justin Unga, Sinema’s communications director.

Sinema supports a secular form of government that protects both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, he stressed.

The act of swearing in under the Constitution is nothing new, Unga said. At least 12 other representatives chose to swear in and recite the Oath of Office under the Constitution instead of the Bible.

“I think there’s a personal choice that comes in with that swearing process,” he said. “It’s not an unusual thing.”

After the swear in, Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House Democratic Whip, appointed Sinema as the Assistant Whip for Congress, according to a press release from the Office of the Congresswoman.

“The 113th Congress was elected to be problem solvers,” Sinema said in the release. “Hard-working families can no longer afford to wait for a Congress that gridlocks on ideology.”

Reach the reporter at sraymund@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @ShawnFVRaymundo

NSA Surveillance - TSA goons destroying America

Recreational marijuana: Denver sets sales tax, retail rules

Well I guess that is a lot better then Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema who tried to flush Arizona's medical marijuana laws down the toilet with a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana.

It's been a while since I dug up the percent tax on tea that caused the Boston Tea Party, but I think it was something like 3/4 of a percent tax or a 1 and 3/4 percent on tea.

This 3.5 percent tax on marijuana in Denver is at least twice the tax that caused the Boston Tea Party.

Source

Recreational marijuana: Denver sets sales tax, retail rules

By Jeremy P. Meyer, Denver Post

Posted: 08/27/2013 09:28:33 AM PDT | Updated: 53 min. ago

Denver City Council on Monday made several big decisions about the nascent marijuana industry, including allowing stores to sell both medical and nonmedical pot without requiring physical barriers in the shops and setting a proposed 3.5 percent tax rate.

Also, new licensing requirements will give neighbors a chance to raise concerns about public safety, health and welfare of the neighborhood at mandatory public hearings before medical marijuana centers can convert to selling retail marijuana.

"We've done a good job here," Councilman Chris Nevitt said after an afternoon committee meeting. [You ever hear an elected official admitting they did a lousy job??? Nope, they always pat themselves on the back, not for doing an OK job, but for always doing a super, super, super fantastic job]

Denver, which has about 200 medical marijuana centers, is the largest city in Colorado to opt-in on allowing retail marijuana to be sold beginning in January. The City Council has been working on establishing a licensing and regulatory framework since Amendment 64 was passed by state voters last year.

The 3.5 percent sales tax, if approved by voters in November, is expected to raise $3.4 million a year to pay for regulation, enforcement and education around the new industry. [Translation - the 3.5 percent tax is a government welfare program for government bureaucrats!!!] Denver Mayor Michael Hancock had wanted a 5 percent beginning tax rate. The tax would be able to be raised as high as 15 percent without a public vote. [You can bet as time marches on the tax rate will be continually jack up until it hits the 15 percent max. And then the government crooks will ask the voters for permission to raise the tax higher]

"This will create the opportunity to deal with some of those social costs that will come as a result of an expanded presence of marijuana in Denver," said Councilwoman Debbie Ortega. [translation - it's a welfare program for overpaid government bureaucrats]

"The whole country is watching us," said Council President Mary Beth Susman. "Come Jan. 1, we are going to have people from all over the country asking us how is it going? We have thought about what it will mean for the future and to be among the first to legalize marijuana in this fashion."

The council on Monday also set the licensing requirements for the new industry that will begin in January. The new rules range from store hours to the substance of public hearings. The full council will vote on the licensing requirements next month.

Among the highlights :

• For the first two years, the city will allow only established medical marijuana businesses to convert to retail marijuana shops.

• Medical and retail marijuana can be sold in the same store without a physical barrier, which had been called for in an earlier version.

• Retail marijuana shops in Denver can operate from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., despite a state law that allows them to be open until midnight.

• Public hearings will be required when existing medical marijuana shops convert. But the hearings won't be as strict as liquor licenses, which determine whether neighborhoods need or desire that a liquor license be issued.

Some council members were concerned that the public wasn't going to have as much opportunity to make their cases before the pot shops begin operating. Councilman Paul Lopez was pleased that the council put in an allowance for neighbors to talk about their concerns.

"This will give neighborhoods a voice and will keep them at the table and not on the menu," he said.

Previous articles on the US Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema

More articles on the US Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema.