Barry Obama Leader of the Choom Gang, Hypocrite in Chief

Back in 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama said that his views on medical marijuana was that it was a state rights issue best left up to state and local governments to decide.

“I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue,” he said to the delight of many who utilize medical marijuana and it’s advocates. He also promised an end to Bush era raids on providers of medical pot, which is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia.

But it didn’t take very for President Obama to go back on those words and unleash a multi­agency crackdown on medical marijuana that goes far beyond anything perpetrated  by George W. Bush. The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, promising to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, in addition to threatening state employees with prison time for regulating medical marijuana. With more than 100 raids on pot dispensaries during his first three years, the Obama is now on pace to exceed Bush’s record for medical-marijuana busts.

“There’s no question that Obama’s the worst president on medical marijuana,” says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “He’s gone from first to worst.”

The estimated 730,000 patients nationwide, many of whom are seriously ill or dying, who rely on state-sanctioned marijuana recommended by their doctors are obviously being adversely affected by the crackdown. In addition, drug experts warn, the White House’s war on law-abiding providers of medical marijuana will only expand the black market for real criminals.

“The administration is going after legal dispensaries and state and local authorities in ways that are going to push this stuff back underground again,” says Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a former Republican senator who has urged the DEA to legalize medical marijuana, pulls no punches in describing the state of affairs produced by Obama’s efforts to circumvent state law: “Utter chaos.”

Some might describe the president’s high school years as utter chaos. Those very same years when him and his friends were known as the “Choom Gang” for their marijuana smoking prowess.

In his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father,” Obama writes about smoking pot as a high school kid. He would smoke “in a white classmate’s sparkling new van,” he would smoke “in the dorm room of some brother” and he would smoke “on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids.”

Now a soon-to-be published biography by David Maraniss entitled “Barack Obama: The Story” gives more detail on Obama’s pot-smoking days, complete with testimonials from young Barry Obama’s high school buddies.

According to Maraniss, teenage Obama was not just a pot smoker, but a pot-smoking innovator.

“As a member of the Choom Gang,” Maraniss writes, “Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.” One of which was “Total Absorption” or “TA”.

“TA was the opposite of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled,” explains Maraniss. Here’s how it worked: If you exhaled prematurely when you were with the Choom Gang, “you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around.”

As one of Obama’s old high school buddies tells Maraniss: “Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated.”

Another Obama innovation was called “Roof Hits.”

“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

Maraniss also says Obama was known for his “Interceptions”: “When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted ‘Intercepted!,’ and took an extra hit.”

So not only was the president a weed head but he was also a bogart.

A bogart and hypocrite who wrote about doing drugs enthusiastically in his youth, who promised to respect state laws on medical marijuana and who is ultimately hurting  those who rely on it to combat a variety of aliments.

A president so hip and cool he can laugh and brag about the fun times he had in his youth, while locking people away for doing the very same although not for fun but for relief from pain.



Here Are Your Choices For President

Choose Wisely.


Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government to Revoke American’s Citizenship

When Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, the president stated in a signing statement that he wouldn’t use the power afforded him to indefinitely detain, without due process,  persons considered threats to national security on American citizens. But what if the president had the authority to strip an American citizen of their citizenship?

If the Enemy Expatriation Act passes in its current form, the legislation would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of anyone suspected of engaging in or supporting hostilities against the U.S. Of course true to form the bill would let the government shred our constitution without formally bringing charges against individuals or presenting any evidence in a court of law.

Under the legislation, “hostilities” are defined as “any conflict subject to the laws of war” and does not explicitly state that charges against suspects go to court.

The National Defense Authorization Act drew widespread opposition despite the corporate media largely turning a blind eye. Under NDAA, the government can indefinitely imprison anyone deemed dangerous by Washington and hold them without trial.

Some are now saying that Obama’s attempt at discrediting the NDAA by insisting that he would not use it against American citizens came only as a precursor to this latest Act. By adding his signing statement to the NDAA, the president insured that legislation such as the Enemy Expatriation Act would make any limitations placed on his power to detain citizens negligible at best.

“I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans,” Stephen . Foster, Jr. writes on the website. “Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

The bill, currently being passed through Congress, is sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA).

Watch as Charles Dent tries to justify what can only be viewed as the federal government’s latest trampling of our civil liberties.

Obama administration pushing for extension of troop presence in Afghanistan until 2024

Afghan and American officials are hoping to sign an agreement before the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan in December that would see U.S troops remain in Afghanistan until 2024. Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai agreed last week to escalate the negotiations and their national security advisers will meet in Washington in September.

Rangin Dadfar Spanta, President Karzai’s top security adviser, told The Daily Telegraph that “remarkable progress” had been made. US officials have said they would be disappointed if a deal could not be reached by December and that the majority of small print has been agreed upon.

Dr Spanta said a longer-term presence is crucial to build Afghan forces and to fight terrorism.

“If [the Americans] provide us weapons and equipment, they need facilities to bring that equipment,” he said. “If they train our police and soldiers, then those trainers will not be 10 or 20, they will be thousands.

“We know we will be confronted with international terrorists. 2014, is not the end of international terrorist networks and we have a common commitment to fight them. For this purpose also, the US needs facilities.”

Afghan forces would still need support from US fighter aircraft and helicopters, he predicted. In the past, Washington officials have estimated a total of 25,000 troops may be needed.

Dr Spanta added: “In the Afghan proposal we are talking about 10 years from 2014, but this is under discussion.” America would not be granted its own bases, and would be a guest on Afghan bases, he said.

The agreement would allow not only military trainers to stay to build up the Afghan army and police, but also American special forces soldiers and air power.

The impending deal has already been met with anger among Afghanistan’s neighbors including Iran and Pakistan and risks being rejected by the Taliban, derailing any attempts at negotiations, according to one senior member of Hamid Karzai’s peace council.

A withdrawal of American troops has already begun following an agreement to hand over security for the country to Kabul by the end of 2014, but some Afghans are wary of being abandoned and would like America to remain after the deadline. Many analysts also believe the American military would like to retain a presence close to Pakistan, Iran and China.

Andrey Avetisyan, Russian ambassador to Kabul, said: “Afghanistan needs many other things apart from the permanent military presence of some countries. It needs economic help and it needs peace. Military bases are not a tool for peace.

“I don’t understand why such bases are needed. If the job is done, if terrorism is defeated and peace and stability is brought back, then why would you need bases?

“If the job is not done, then several thousand troops, even special forces, will not be able to do the job that 150,000 troops couldn’t do. It is not possible.”

A complete withdrawal of foreign troops has been a precondition for any Taliban negotiations with Karzai’s government and the deal would wreck the currently distant prospect of a negotiated peace, Mr Avetisyan said.

Abdul Hakim Mujahid, deputy leader of the peace council set up by Mr Karzai to seek a settlement, said he suspected the Taliban had intensified their insurgency in response to the prospect of the pact. “They want to put pressure on the world community and Afghan government,” he said.

Progressives being left out of budget talks?

Have you heard of “The People’s Budget“? If you only watch the “liberal” media for your political news chances are you haven’t. We all know about the ongoing budget talks between the Republicans and Democrats but one proposed budget that seems to be being completely ignored is the Progressive Caucus’s People’s Budget.

In response to President Obama’s statement “if you are a progressive, you should be concerned about debt and deficit just as much as if you’re a conservative.” CPC Co-Chair Raul Grijalva said the following:

“The Progressive Caucus has introduced the only budget that creates a surplus by 2021 because we take seriously the need for a strong economy and manageable debt. Our budget eliminates the deficit in 10 years and creates jobs while protecting the programs our constituents rely on. We stand ready to work with you, as we have throughout this process, to solve the budget impasse in a way that helps rather than punishes the American people. With the House under tea party control and the Senate held hostage by Mitch McConnell, it is up to you to fly the standard of the people who elected you. We feel our budget achieves your policy goals, and we look forward to producing a successful outcome for our economy and our constituents at home.”

The People’s Budget includes a stimulus package of public works and infrastructure funding to get people working immediately. It brings taxes back to the Clinton era level and makes them more progressive. It reduces military spending to a little less than the rest of the world combined on the military, rather than more than it. It taxes financial speculation and includes a public option in health care.In other words, the People’s Budget addresses every single root cause that President Obama said drove the deficit to the heights we see now.