Obama: "You can only smoke pot if you are me"

I am seriously pissed. I have been loosely following the California medical marijuana case involving Charles Lynch, especially with the sentencing coming up on April 23rd. For the record, I have never smoked pot nor do I have any interest in doing so (if I had a medical condition that marijuana could help, I would certainly consider it). I am extremely saddened by what is happening to Mr. Lynch. A quick background: Charlie Lynch operated a medical marijuana dispensary in California, following all state and local laws, and now faces a minimum of 5 years in prison for distributing drugs.

Lynch is one of the countless casualties of an idiotic and tragically long-running war on drugs. His shop scrupulously followed Golden State laws and when he opened his shop in Bay, local officials attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony.

God King Obama's DOJ decided to screw Mr. Lynch

The Justice Department announced over the weekend that it will not intervene in the case of Charlie Lynch, the California man convicted on federal charges of drug distribution despite the fact that his business was legal under California law. The federal judge in Lynch’s case had postponed Lynch’s sentencing to inquire if the Obama administration might want to back off, given Attorney General Holder’s recent statements about not prosecuting medical marijuana distributors who are complying with state and local law.

So much for hope and change. This is even more disgusting in light of the fact that our current president once used marijuana in the past. Why hasn't he gotten into trouble for his illegal drug use? In the California case this isn't recreational drug use we are talking about but rather medical necessary treatment.

There is an awful lot to be pissed about concerning Obama (I'll get to the DC voucher stuff next). I only hope the marijuana decrim and medical marijuana activists who supported Obama realize the error of their ways. Come on people - libertarians (and Ron Paul) have supported a sensible drug policy for many, many years. Why can't you all pull your heads out of your asses and think before you enter the voting booth? And take these stupid stickers off your frickin' hybrids and beat-up minivans already (or at least change that "H" to a "D").

Sorry for the pissy post - I have a cold and it's late and I *hate* Obama supporters for their disgusting hypocrisy.

Except for bombing

I am new to the study of economics, but over the past year or so have tried to pay more attention to economic woes of the country. With all the the troubles that their citizens are in, a few cities and states have decided to give price controls another try after many miserable failures. Since God King Obama is our Demander-in-Chief, maybe the fundamental principles of economics will have changed. From this article

"In a free market system," Glaeser said, goods go to the people who value them most; in a price-controlled system, goods go to whoever is lucky enough to get them. As a result, people hold on to rent-controlled apartments even if they barely use them."

But sponsors of pending U.S. price and rent control legislation dismissed such theories.

"The housing affordability crisis trumps any theoretical recommendations of economists," New York State Assemblyman Jonathan L. Bing, a sponsor of many of the rent-control provisions pending in New York, told FOXNews.com.

Theoretical? Well, I found the following example from later in the same article to be quite...not theoretical:

"In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city -- except for bombing," said Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a former socialist who has been researching rent control since the 1960s.

"In New York City, the Bronx basically fell to pieces because of rent control. You even had the extreme of landlords burning down their houses."

The South Bronx lost 40 percent of its housing stock in the 1960s and '70s, largely due to arson. Many buildings were suspected to have been torched by the landlords themselves, who found that their buildings were literally worthless: There was no way to make a profit due to rent controls, and nobody would buy a building that could not make a profit. Burning the building allowed them to collect insurance money and pay off debts.

The "except for bombing" part sounds pretty real to me.

Why can't she just bear arms instead?

I have been hearing way too much about the First Lady's "arms" the past few days. I might give a shit if they were talking about firearms, but really, can we lay off word play involving Mrs. Obama and guns? I'll bet $600 (the cost of my next purchase) that Mrs. Not-proud-of-this-country-unless-you-elect-my-husband-Obama has never actually fired any sort of gun.

And the reason for this lack of experience must be that she is too busy working on her own "arms" to have time for any other type. This article is really just silly:

"But others were amazed, like 25-year-old Jessie Rosen. After seeing Obama at the speech Tuesday, she went to the Adidas store in New York and bought two five-pound dumbbells. "It was her arms being so toned in spite of her life," she said.

"This woman is redecorating White House, trying to raise two children and backseat driving the nation," Rosen said. "She seems to have time to keep her arms toned, so why can't I?" "

Well at least Ms. Rosen can be pround of her ability to give out backhanded compliments. Trying to raise two children? Backseat driving the nation? So "in spite of her life" must mean that she has no money, no time, no personal chef, no housekeeper, no personal trainer... oh wait.

"Obama has said she exercises in 90-minute workout three times a week with a personal trainer."

I consider myself an average (modern) housewife in terms of what I do around the house and with my kids. But, with two little soon-to-be-homeschooled kids and a spouse who works quite a lot, I have no time (not to mention money) for 270 minutes of workouts a week with a trainer. If I did happen to have a spare 270 minutes, I would probably spend it keeping track of what the government is trying to do to my freedoms.

Well, look on the bright side. The more time our stylish First Lady spends on her arms, her decorating, and trying to raise her kids, the less she can devote to backseat driving. Not that her husband really needs much help in screwing up our country.

Homeschooling regulation

Today the kids and I went on our first "official" homeschooling field trip. I say official because we have finally decided that we are going to homeschool, at least for the next few years. I am relieved to have come to a decision and very excited to begin this new adventure as a homeschooling mom.

So our field trip was to the New Hampshire statehouse to demonstrate opposition to some MAJOR homeschooling regulation. If this bill passes, New Hampshire would have some of the strictest requirements in the country. After driving around for 30 minutes trying to find a somewhat decent parking spot, we made it to the state house, picking up a few anti-homeschool-regulation friends along the way. I didn't know exactly where to go once we were in the state house, but the crowd of say, oh, 500+ people was pretty easy to spot. The turn out was amazing - only gun related legislation can come close to getting the same number of people.

I didn't get into the hearing but I didn't expect to as we arrived a bit late to get a good place in line. But I did sign the sheet stating my opposition to the legislation and enjoyed observing and talking with some wonderful people. I realized today how much more positive my interactions with the homeschooling community have been compared to the schooling community.

I'll probably post an update when there is more news but the above link will have all the updates (if anyone cares in the first place...).

Edited to add: I just saw some new stats for how many people showed up at the state house today - 1000!

Bear spray control !?!

This article had me laughing so hard I could barely tell my husband about it. I know I have already made fun of Canada a couple of times, but really, they are askin' for it.

A few choice excerpts:

"In a city where bear spray is involved in as many crimes as guns are - over 700 incidents in 2006 and 2007- it didn't take long for the officers to divine the rowdies' intentions."

The use of bear spray while committing a crime is as common at the use of a gun? Wow, I guess gun control is really working up there in Canada, eh?

Here comes the government to the rescue!

"In what may be the first mention of bear spray in a Throne Speech, the NDP government recently vowed to "limit access to animal repellants, which in the past have been used in burglaries and assaults."

And as of Jan. 1, the province mandated all bear-spray vendors to acquire a licence and record each customer who buys the substance.

Most retailers had already required customers to sign a declaration saying they would only use the spray in case of a dog or bear attack. "

Well, of course we will believe them if they say it will only be used on animals....

Again, I read the comments for this article (how could you not!). Most of the readers seem to have a lot of sense and see the complete nonsense of trying to regulate bear spray. What's next - regulation of kitchen knives, scissors, hot sauce in spray bottles, rocks, and pointy sticks?

Now that I have written my post, I am going to finish what I set out to do before all this Canadian lunacy distracted me: Become an official member of the 2nd Amendment Sisters.

And remember: If bear spray it outlawed, only outlaw bears will have spray...

Or maybe Canada should adopt the U.S. Second Amendment but change it to: Keep and arm bears...

Bat-leth control

The second I saw this news story, I knew it would make for the perfect blog post.

"Colorado Springs police are on the lookout for a man who attempted to rob two 7-Eleven convenience stores early Wednesday with a Klingon bat'leth sword."

"It could be used as a dangerous weapon," understated Colorado Springs police officer Lt. David Whitlock to the local ABC affiliate. Doubtlessly, none of which have witnessed the brutal bat'leth competition held on Forcas III. "We didn't think it was a toy and neither did the victims, they felt threatened."

I have gotten into the habit of reading comments on news articles. Seriously - I have learned quite a lot from the various weirdoes who actually have time to post comments. The ones following this particular article are no exception. They range from Klingon phrases, to the almost cliché "Beam me up Scotty!" to the classic "Kaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhnnnnnnn!" which for some reason (at least to this Trekkie) always seems to be funny. But the best comment I saved for last. Someone was wondering how long it would take for Mr. Obama to include the Klingons in the bailout package. Well, since no one in the entire universe has actually read the whole darn thing, how do we know the Klingons haven't been given a few 10^12 dollars? Or maybe the Ferengi - but wait! The Ferengi rely on a "gold-pressed latinum" standard so they probably wouldn't be in need of a bailout in the first place...

On a somewhat related topic, and the reason for the title of this post, I wonder when the gun-control nuts will take on the bat-leth? Can't you just see the headlines: "Trekkies dressed as Klingons descend on Washingting to lobby for their 2nd amendment rights" and "District of Columbia v. Worf - Decision expected today!" Maybe we can only keep a bat-leth in our home if it has a trigger lock...

Edited to add: I just saw this comment as I was closing my browser window: "Outlaw Klingon swords, and only outlaws will have Klingon swords."

Wandlung zum Guten?

With the inauguration only a few days away I can't help but pay some attention to our president-elect and how his (our) new administration is shaping up. The always entertaining reason.tv has given us this fun video (with an ironic soundtrack...).