Remember when the current president was running for the position last time? Remember how he stated that he was going to be trasnparent in his actions… no behind the closed doors sneaky things going on? Remember how he blew smoke up your ass and you just grinned and believed every puff of smoke he exhaled? Bush got reamed for allowing torture (which I personnaly disagree with…) but Obama doesn’t even have to get close enough to touch the person, and it isn’t just a person from another country…
Maybe he will decide that whatever he says is the best for the country and whomever disagrees with his policies must be against his warped ideas of the country… would we all be eligible for his drones missions? Senators and Congress men didn’t even knpw of these authorizations… and if they did, without asking the public, for which they stand, what they thought about it… they would be as bad as the president themselves.

Drones in the US: Senators Could Derail CIA Nominee Confirmation Over Administration’s Drone Program

A bipartisan group of 11 senators sent a letter to President Obama Monday asking for “any and all legal opinions” that describe the basis for the authority to “deliberately kill American citizens.”  

The senators are threatening to “collide” with the administration during CIA director nominee John Brennan’s confirmation hearing on Thursday over the White House recently leaked and controversial drone memo. 

“The executive branch’s cooperation on this matter will help avoid an unnecessary confrontation that could affect the Senate’s consideration of nominees for national security positions,” the senators wrote. 

The drone program, one of the most important tools in the administration’s counterterrorism campaign, has become a controversial part of Obama’s foreign policy as critics from both sides of the aisle question its legality as well as its effectiveness as they say could exacerbate militant’s resentment against the U.S (the senators’ questions follow a 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed two Americans; Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan). 

2 states legalize recreational marijuana use, topping long list of ballot initiatives | Fox News

2 states legalize recreational marijuana use, topping long list of ballot initiatives

Published November 07, 2012

FoxNews.com

Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational use of marijuana Tuesday night, setting up a battle between the states and the federal government, which prohibits use of the drug.

The historic votes were among a host of decisions on ballot initiatives that will shape state-level policy on everything from recreational drug use to same-sex marriage.

“The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will,” said Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who opposed the marijuana measure in his state. “This will be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don’t break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly.”

The Colorado measure has sparked a national debate about marijuana policy, with supporters pushing for the federal government to end marijuana prohibition nationwide. The Colorado measure states adults over 21 can possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana, or six marijuana plants, for personal use. Opponents have said it will make the state a haven for drug tourists.

The measure in Washington State, Initiative 502, will legalize and regulate the production, possession and distribution of marijuana for residents age 21 and older.

The new law will impose a 25 percent tax rate on marijuana when the grower sells it to the processor, when the processor sells it to the retailer and when the retailer sells it to the customer. The measure could bring in $500 million, a figure analysts dispute.

Voters in Oregon, where the pro-marijuana advocates were less organized and poorly funded, defeated a ballot measure that would have allowed the commercial growth and sale of marijuana to adults. Known as Measure 80, it would have legalized pot through state-licensed stores, allowed unlicensed growth and use of marijuana by adults and prohibit restrictions on pot.

In Arkansas, voters rejected a measure legalizing medical marijuana, while in Massachusetts, voters supported a similar measure. Massachusetts also voted on a physician-assisted suicide measure, but that result was too close to call early Wednesday.

Springfield City Council tactic is to pass law, repeal it | Springfield News-Leader | news-leader.com
It wasn’t long ago the E-Verify issue was at the forefront of local politics. The Ozarks Minutemen petitioned to bring to City Council an ordinance that would require employers in the city to use the free federal program to ensure the work eligibility of all employees.

 I also remember having the concern that those on council opposed to the measure would pass the ordinance only to turn around and repeal it. 

I remember in particular a conversation I had with our former mayor about this concern. I explained that regardless of the position one takes on the issue, it would be nothing short of slighting all citizens of this city by undermining the petition process, hence the city charter we swore to uphold, if we were to pass the bill to only turn around and repeal it.

I don’t remember the exact terms or language he used, but he agreed with the concept I presented and voiced the disapproval he would have for something like that going on.

Oh how times change! Since the former mayor has left office, so very much has happened. We, as citizens, have been told we are doing a disservice to the council by e-mailing our concerns to them; we have been accused of “threatening” them only because we stated we will base future votes in council elections on the councilperson’s voting record; there are now unconfirmed reports that certain members of the city (either staff or council) have the opinion that individual citizens should be held accountable for the financial burdens of lawsuits brought forth by businesses against the city only because the individual citizens followed the law via the City Charter. These are all things that have happened in less than a year’s time.

But that’s not all! Back to the introduction and the discussion of the petition initiative process: We have now our latest sleight of hand to the voters of Springfield. Regardless of how one feels about the “Marijuana Ordinance,” I would hope what the council did serves as a lesson as to what they are willing to do.

After the citizens of the community petitioned to reduce the punishment for marijuana followed the law and brought the issue to the City Council appropriately, our city leaders decided to undermine the petition process by passing the ordinance only to repeal it.

City leaders will talk about the illegalities of the ordinance; they will scare you by telling you the city will face litigation; they will tell you it’s for your own good. What they are doing is justifying their belief that regardless of the fact you — a citizen — may follow proper protocol as the law requires, if they disagree with you … they’ll win.

Frankly, the pot issue itself, to me, is trivial. What isn’t trivial is we now have a council willing to undermine citizens and the charter if they disagree with the issue at hand. I’m not sure about you, but I question their definition of “representative.”