Med. Marijuana Bill Introduced into PA House

On April 29, 2009 Rep. Mark B. Cohen introduced the bill to legalize medical marijuana with PA4MMJ. HB1393 would allow registered patients to grow six plants or purchase cannabis through Compassion Centers. A provision in the bill allows these medical cannabis sales to be taxed. READ MORE>>>

What do I think about it?

Well, it's a step in the right direction. However, largely all of the recent medical marijuana legislation are a means for politicians to distance themselves from their long held position that marijuana is a dangerous, possibly addictive, and harmful substance while not receiving any blow back for 'flip-flopping'.

It allows them to argue, "This bill isn't about recreational marijuana use... it's about "medical" marijuana use." As if giving a 'dangerous, possibly addictive, and harmful substance' to a immuno-compromised or seriously ill individual is better than giving it to a healthy individual.

The text of the bill allows for medicinal marijuana use without fear of arrest or prosecution for violating state laws. I have to give props to all of the Democrats that introduced the legislation, and a strong rebuke to the lack of Republicans that have shown support for it (only one Republican is listed on the bill).

What really pushes my buttons is the fact that Medical Marijuana Legislation is making news (controversially I might add) while Industrial Hemp legislation is no-where to be found. It's easy to see why people would be concerned about legalizing marijuana for recreational and medicinal use, but it's unfathomable why a useful product such as Industrial Hemp is still classified as a pyschoactive substance.

It's a step in the right direction.

2009 Municipal Election

Tomorrow's election day, and I though you'd all benefit by knowing a little about the candidates that will be on the ballot tomorrow.

You can find the on going election results here: http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=12&ElectionID=33

The positions up for election and/or retention this year include:

• Justice of the Supreme Court
• Superior Court Judge (chose 4)
• Judge of the Commonwealth Court
• Superior Court Judge (Retention)
• Judge of the Commonwealth Court (retention)
• Judge of the Court of Common Pleas
• District Attorney
• Sheriff
• Prothonotary
• Recorder of Deeds
• County Controller
• Jury Commissioner
• And a whole slew of others.
  

I'll give you my recommendations for my county (Bucks County) to the best of my ability. I'm primarily using three voter's guides and minor research for my recommendations. I'll be using the FOAC's (Pennsylvania's offical 2nd Amendment PAC) endorsements; the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation PAC's endorsements; and the League of Women Voters (just understand that the LWV is not impartial) election guide.

Justice of the Supreme Court
Joan Orie Melvin - Joan Orie Melvin is recommended by both FOAC and the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation. The endorsement by these two organizations indictates that Joan Melvin would be a good candidate because she will defend the innocent and stand up for our rights. Joan Melvin also was quick to speak out about the Luzerne Co. judicial corruption scandal.

Superior Court Judge (Pick 4)

• Temp Smith - Endorsed by both PA Pro-Life Fed & FOAC.
• Judy Olson - Endorsed by both PA Pro-Life Fed & FOAC.
• Sally Mundy - Endorsed by the PA Pro-Life Fed, but not by the FOAC.
• Paula Ott - Endorsed by the FOAC, but not by the Pro-Life Federation.
• Kevin McCarthy - Endorsed by the FOAC, but not by the Pro-Life Federation.
• Marakay J. Rogers - She's the only Libertarian candidate on the ballot for Superior Court Judge. Since there'll be some compromise on at least two of the candidates, she might be a good wild card especially for Libertarian leaning voters. However, she was previously a Green Party candidate, so take that into account because she obviously isn't "hopelessly devoted" to the Libertarian Party. By this I mean, she doesn't believe in the LP principles so strongly that she wouldn't dream of changing her party membership to be elected. In her race for Attorney General her priorities were: "Stop prosecution of victimless crime, Put moratorium on death penalty, Protect citizens' rights from government abuse." Sounds all pretty good except for her position on the death penalty, but the fact that she changed party membership to get on the ballot for at least one election should be an indicator that she may value the possibility of being elected over her party values. Therefore, one could conclude or make the assumption that the party is more a vehicle to her political career than political party that describes her personal beliefs and priorities.
  

I haven't read anything good about these candidates. It may mean they'd be horrible choices, but it might just mean that they're neither pro-life nor pro-rights nor pro liberty.
Not Recommended: Robert J. Colville; Anne E. Lazarus; Teresa Sarmina

Judge of Commonwealth Court:
Kevin Brobson - Endorsed by the FOAC & The PA Pro-Life Federation
Patricia McCullough - Endorsed by the FOAC & The PA Pro-Life Federation

Judges for Retention
Kate Ford Elliot - Endorsed by The PA Pro-Life Federation for retention.
Dan Pellegrini - Endorsed by The PA Pro-Life Federation for retention.

District Attorney
David W. Heckler - Endorsed by the FOAC.

Sheriff
Not enough information present to make a recommendation.

The rest of the positions are iffy (School Board, county controller, recorder of deeds, prothonotary, jury commissioner, and the rest) as I don't have any real information about them.

You can do your typical very sophisticated "eeny-meeny-miney-moe" and "my mother hit your mother in the nose--What color was the blood?" methods of deduction for the best candidate or check your local (think very local i.e. Souderton Independent, News Herald-Oct28&Nov3rd edition) newspaper for information on these smaller local elections.

PA-Rep on PA Budget Crisis

Just got this update from Pennsylvania State Rep. Katherine Watson.

There's one of two important bits that should be seen.

Representative Democracy: One More Casualty of the Budget Impasse
By Rep. Kathy Watson (R-Bucks/144th)

The number of personal impact stories caused by the Pennsylvania budget impasse grows by the day: parochial school students without new textbooks; college students without their PHEAA grant or loan payment; social service agencies unable to pay staff or being forced to turn away clients; or low-income families without day care subsidy payments forced to find alternative child care or stay home from work. The list goes sadly on. All of this misery and it didn’t have to happen.

To be sure, there are fundamental philosophical differences on how to best survive a deep recession and the loss of $3.5 billion in revenue, underpinning this deadlock. However, this current “budget crisis” is not a function of government, nor the result of the lengthy deliberations of the majority of the General Assembly members elected by their constituents.

Rather, it is man-made in the truest sense. Gov. Ed Rendell, when he signed Senate Bill 850, the stop-gap budget, chose to blue-line (veto) funding for schools, both public and non-public; vital human services including subsidies for day care, drug and alcohol counseling, and PHEAA grants and loans; funding to counties for daily operations; and the line items go on and on.

As he explained to the Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter in an interview he gave on Aug. 5, “The reason I line-item vetoed everything is to make sure there is still pressure. For example, the county governments are screaming bloody murder because all of their lines are out. The universities, the PHEAA grants...none of the PHEAA grants can go out... The providers like Pre-K Counts and the Head Starts, they’re going to run out of money by the end of August, so there’s still plenty of pressure to get this done.”

Using Pennsylvania families, college students, school children, social service agency workers as leverage to get an agreement from one side in a budget dispute is wrong and definitely not what William Penn envisioned for his “grand experiment” of government. Added to this “the ends justify the means” strategy, has been the fact that, in the Pennsylvania House, at nearly every attempt, the 188 rank-and-file members have been thwarted from full public debate through the manipulation of the House rules and calendar. This means that almost 11.5 million Pennsylvanians were denied having their representative publicly debate any budget proposal, either before the June 30 deadline or after. Couple this with the fact that the joint House-Senate Conference Committee consists entirely of members of leadership, decisions will be in the hands of a few.

Even more troubling is the notion that even with substantive input from any member of the General Assembly into the contents of a final budget, this could have – and should have – been done in May, long before the budget deadline and the countless games that follow that have caught Pennsylvanians squarely in the middle.

Some would argue that there was considerable public debate on Senate Bill 850 – the document that eventually became the bridge budget to triage state employees and which was stained in blue ink by the governor’s line-item vetoes. But it was never anyone’s intent to have that bill become the final budget document. Senate Bill 850 was a starting point by the Senate. It was a tool to get where we needed to go in early June, setting the stage for negotiations.

Yes, we know that revenues were way below projections. Yes, we know that state government has to live within its means. Yes, we recognize that we must know revenue levels so we know how much we can spend. I do not believe that we needed to create a crisis to solve the problem. My colleagues and I wanted real input into a budget document and to participate in real discussions – whether at public meetings or on the House floor – to the state’s spending priorities.

For many years, this was the case. Rank-and-file members examined the budget document, drafted amendments to prioritize spending and were the voices of the 60,000 people they each represent.

We worked from that exercise, and we knew where each of us stood on our spending priorities. Instead of following years of precedent and procedures that worked to get a budget done on time and without hurting the very people who depend on state government services, budget documents were introduced late; amendments hundreds of pages long were added at the last minute; and the leaders of the controlling party have had final say on the contents of budget bills.

As a result, this budget has become a partisan game in which everyone is a loser. Every individual, every family, every business, every organization and every governmental body within the Commonwealth has become a very public victim of this budget crisis. It’s time to bring a real piece of legislation to the House floor, discuss our spending priorities and enact a budget once and for all.

Representative Katharine M. Watson
144th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives

This all sounds like the thuggish tactics that we have come to expect from the people of the left.

Let's put a stop to these politics that sound more like what you'd expect from a union boss or perhaps a Gotti.

Let's elect a conservative in 2010!

Operation Chaos: Key to Hilary win in PA

A friend of mine brought this to light.

What I DID find on the PA Department of State was a link to download a spreadsheet including many different tables, including a spreadsheet with voters who switched to Dem or Rep, by county and by week!

With a little Excels-manship, the answer is:

Candidate Votes Percent
CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM) 1,238,232 54.6%
OBAMA, BARACK (DEM) 1,030,703 45.4%

207,529 difference.

According to the PA Department of State, 164026 Republican voters re-registered as Democratic, and
14887 Democratic voters re-registered as Republican!

PA Voter Registration Statistics website.

Operation Chaos is going splendidly. Remember folks, for this next primary, you're going in in deep cover. Play the part, pretend like you're the typical Democratic voter, this next one is HUSH-HUSH.

I did my part, now you do yours.

With any luck the in-fighting in the party will destroy the Democratic party for the next five decades!

Keep fighting the good fight!