Puerto Ricans Increasingly Involved in Drug Trade & Violence

I've seen their involvement in the drug trade first hand in northern California. 7/4/2011 there was some sort of a coup, I imagine over the local Mexican cartels. I think the US military was involved in taking out some of their leaders...



And the Puerto Ricans are imitating the black American gangsters of the 1980's. Obviously most are not involved, but where you see drugs, sex trade, gun running, etc it is the evil downward spiral. Keep an eye out for these folks.



Obama's recent visit was prompted by their economic conditions and the massive inflow of PRs into the States, along with the drugs. I dont have the full connection and explanation, yet..

Amplify’d from www2.tbo.com

For Puerto Ricans, what will it be — state, colony or nation? Commentary

By LUISITA LOPEZ TORREGROSA | Los Angeles Times Published: June 27, 2011

President Barack Obama's blink-of-an-eye visit to Puerto Rico, the first by a sitting American president since John F. Kennedy in 1961, put the spotlight on the island for maybe 10 minutes, just about as long as his arrival speech promising economic help to the island and support for whatever course its residents decide on when it comes to whether or not to become the 51st state.

Brisk as it was, the president's trip had a triple purpose: One was to appeal to the growing number of Puerto Rican voters in the key presidential state of Florida and the burgeoning nationwide Hispanic population; two was to reaffirm his 2008 campaign promise that he would set up a mechanism for resolving the island's political status during his first term; and three was to raise money for the Democrats and his campaign.

The visit came soon after a White House task force on Puerto Rico's status issued a report recommending that the island hold a two-step plebiscite by the end of 2012 to determine whether it should remain a protectorate or become part of the United States.

Obama vowed during his speech that his administration would support whatever Puerto Rico decides, but therein lies the dilemma.

About half the voters in Puerto Rico support statehood; the other half want to remain a commonwealth, keeping the self-rule territorial status forged for it in the 1950s. Only a small minority supports full independence. While all Puerto Ricans hold American citizenship, those who live on the island have no voting representative in the U.S. Congress, do not pay federal taxes and cannot vote in presidential elections, though they may vote in primaries. (In 2008 Obama lost to Hillary Rodham Clinton.)

Obama's intervention comes at a critical time.

Despite $7 billion in federal stimulus money for Puerto Rico, the island's Republican administration has slashed the budget and dismissed thousands of government workers. Unemployment has always been a problem on the island. Ten years ago, at the end of the prosperous 1990s, the island's rate was 11.7 percent, according to the Department of Labor and Human Resources. Today, it has climbed to a highly alarming 16.2 percent (compared with about 9 percent on the mainland).

Violence is rampant, driven in part by increased drug trafficking. Puerto Rico has less than half the population of New York City, but last year it had nearly twice as many murders, with 955 killings, according to FBI figures.

"We've hit bottom," Luis Agrait, the director of the history department of the University of Puerto Rico, told me during a spirited discussion at his San Juan apartment.

Statehood could bring parity with other states in economic aid and would confer full-fledged citizenship (with additional voting rights and representation in government) on Puerto Ricans. The economic benefits, according to the 2011 White House task force report, would at least partially offset the effect of federal income taxes.

On the other hand, opponents of statehood say that commonwealth status allows more independence from Washington and the preservation of a distinct bilingual culture rooted in the island's Spanish heritage.

Meanwhile, the island continues to bleed residents. Today, more Puerto Ricans live on the mainland (4.6 million) than on the island (3.5 million), and the exodus has become critical. A recent study by the Puerto Rico Statistics Institute found that the island has a net loss of about 35,000 people a year, and those who migrate out tend to be better educated and higher earning than those who are left behind or who migrate in. In the past decade many have moved to Central Florida, mainly to Orlando and Tampa, where Puerto Ricans now number approximately 850,000. Unlike the mostly blue-collar and unschooled Puerto Ricans who immigrated to New York and other points north in the 1940s and 1950s, today's newcomers support statehood and lean Republican.

In San Juan, President Obama addressed a people mired in economic crisis and facing a major political quandary: Who are we? Are we a state, a colony, a nation? For nearly 60 years that has been a dilemma for Puerto Ricans, and it is high time to make a decisive choice.

Luisita Lopez Torregrosa, a former editor at The New York Times, is a columnist for the International Herald Tribune. She wrote this for the Los Angeles Times. Read more at www2.tbo.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16rf5

Emotional Intelligence

I read this book a long time ago and the lessons that are supposed to be learned have to be practiced all the time or you forget.  Whenever you enter a new paradigm, it is difficult to remember the lessons from your past.

Emotional intelligence refers to the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others for motivating ourselves and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships - Daniel Goleman 1998 Working with Emotional Intelligence.

This is from a blogpost I found while researching the issue.

EMOTIONAL HIJACKING: THE TRIGGER TO AN UNHEALTHY MIND

Posted by Saif at 11:40:00 PM

Emotional hijacking is a state when an individual's cognitions are overpowered by his/her emotions. It is usually referred to in the context of aggression or fearfulness.

With respect to aggression, it can be said to be a sudden unleashing of rage towards another person. It is an extreme emotional outburst or an emotional explosion caused by an incident that may trigger anger or fear in an individual.

Such incidents happen many a times. There are a number of situations in which a person might get angry or upset and without even thinking about anything he/she might just lose his/her cool and simply explode with emotions and attack the other person verbally or even physically. For instance, an individual might suddenly get extremely angry and begin to shout at his/her friend and even slur him/her. In an extreme case, a disgusted husband might suddenly get upset and beat up his wife badly. In more extreme cases, a person might kill another person with an outburst of anger. 

Wife beating and killing a person due to emotional hijacking can be rare, but incidents of individuals quarreling with each other and in the process damaging a relationship are quite common. Such moments do not last very long, but the time that it lasts does enough damage. Most of the times, a person regrets getting into such an act. 

Research shows that such emotional explosions are neuralhijackings. In such a moment, a center in the limbic system (a part of the brain), the amygadala, the seat of all emotions in the brain, takes over the neocortex. The neocortex is the part of the brain that is responsible for our thinking. During thismoment the neocortex stops functioning. The amygdala gets triggered and in an instant takes control of the brain, in a sense hijacking it. Thus, it is called emotional hijacking.

Emotional hijacking does not occur just like that out of no where. Usually certain past events that are disturbing to the individual keep building up resulting in the sudden emotional outburst. If a person is facing some problems for quite some time, they start playing on the mind and a moment may occur when he/she cannot take it any longer, which may result in the extreme explosion of emotions. A person may be too stressed out, or a person might be a bit angry for something that might have occurred before. In such a moment if something happens that further causes distress, then the chances of emotional hijacking to occur increase to a great extent.

Emotional hijacking takes place in an instant and by the time it gets over it can do a lot of damage to the person in many ways. If emotional hijacking keeps on occurring time and again then, it will have an immediate negative affect on the individual’s ability to have relationships as well as the quality of his/her current relationships. Emotional hijacking occurring too often in a person will give the impression to others of the individual being a loose cannon. People will begin to dislike his/her behaviour and may keep a distance from him/her. Likewise, his/her peers, friends, and others who are close to him/her may begin to dislike him/her, because nobody would like to be at the receiving end of a person’s extreme rage, especially when the person has a close relationship with them.

Emotional hijacking also creates a lot of negativity within the atmosphere. If a person due to an extreme outburst of anger shouts very loudly it has a bad affect on the mood of not only others, but also on the individual himself/herself. Such an emotional outburst is not at all good for the mental and emotional stability of the person. One incident of emotional hijacking can lead to a severe mood swing, so one can imagine what will happen if this happens very often. Such kind of behaviour will also increase the stress level of the person. In extreme cases it can cause high blood pressure and even heart problems. Therefore, emotional hijacking can have a very bad affect on a person’s mental as well as physical health.
Instead of facing the negative consequences of emotional hijacking it is much better to try to prevent it as much as possible. One way to do this is to try to reason and thus challenge the anger provoking thoughts. Emotional hijacking is more of an impulse driven reaction. The person should try to think before he/she reacts in such an aggressive manner and in a way try to hold back that impulse. He/she should try to channelize his/her thoughts to a more rationalistic way and try to bring down the level of anger. This is a very good way to counter emotional hijacking, but it is easier said than done. During an episode of emotional hijacking, a person becomes cognitively incapacitated. He/she almost loses the ability to think at that moment.

The best way to prevent emotional hijacking is to just move away from that place and go for a walk as soon as one realizes that matters can become worse. This works as a distraction from the anger provoking thoughts for the person. The person buys out some time, which helps in relaxation of thoughts and makes the individual calm down. In such a situation the left prefrontal lobe (the front-left side of the brain) of the person comes into being. When the anger provoking thoughts get distracted, the left prefrontal lobe, which is responsible for maintaining emotional balance, works as a counter mechanism towards the amygdala and dampens its affect on the brain. Thus, the person comes back to his/her normal and calm phase and is able to prevent emotional hijacking.

In situations like this, watching television or listening to music can also help in distracting one from anger provoking thoughts and thus make the individual calm down. Distraction from such thoughts also helps the person to get into a more pleasant mood. If a person goes out for a walk, he/she might find the surroundings pleasant, which will have a positive affect on the mood and make him/her happier at that moment. The same thing happens when a person begins to watch television or listens to music at that moment.

Other ways of preventing emotional hijacking is deep breathing and muscle relaxation. This helps in changing the body’s high arousal of anger to a low-arousal state. It also, in a way, works as a distraction from whatever triggered the anger.

It is very obvious that emotional hijacking is a very unpleasant phenomenon.The consequences of emotional hijacking are nothing but bad, be it on mood, relationships, or the overall health of the individual. A person should always try to be in a positive frame of mind and try to be as emotionally relaxed and calm as possible. The more positive frame of mind the person is in the more chances are that he/she will be away from emotional hijacking and the more chances are that he/she will be an emotionally healthy person.

Congress Damned to Repeat the Errors of 2008 Crisis

the arguments Republicans are using to defend outrageous tax loopholes. How can people simultaneously demand savage cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and defend special tax breaks favoring hedge fund managers and owners of corporate jets?

Amplify’d from www.nytimes.com

Corporate Cash Con

Published: July 3, 2011

Watching the evolution of economic discussion in Washington over the past couple of years has been a disheartening experience. Month by month, the discourse has gotten more primitive; with stunning speed, the lessons of the 2008 financial crisis have been forgotten, and the very ideas that got us into the crisis — regulation is always bad, what’s good for the bankers is good for America, tax cuts are the universal elixir — have regained their hold.

And now trickle-down economics — specifically, the idea that anything that increases corporate profits is good for the economy — is making a comeback.

On the face of it, this seems bizarre. Over the last two years profits have soared while employment has remained disastrously high. Why should anyone believe that handing even more money to corporations, no strings attached, would lead to faster job creation?

Nonetheless, trickle-down is clearly on the ascendant — and even some Democrats are buying into it. What am I talking about? Consider first the arguments Republicans are using to defend outrageous tax loopholes. How can people simultaneously demand savage cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and defend special tax breaks favoring hedge fund managers and owners of corporate jets?

Well, here’s what a spokesman for Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, told Greg Sargent of The Washington Post: “You can’t help the wage earner by taxing the wage payer offering a job.” He went on to imply, disingenuously, that the tax breaks at issue mainly help small businesses (they’re actually mainly for big corporations). But the basic argument was that anything that leaves more money in the hands of corporations will mean more jobs. That is, it’s pure trickle-down.

And then there’s the repatriation issue.

U.S. corporations are supposed to pay taxes on the profits of their overseas subsidiaries — but only when those profits are transferred back to the parent company. Now there’s a move afoot — driven, of course, by a major lobbying campaign — to offer an amnesty under which companies could move funds back while paying hardly any taxes. And even some Democrats are supporting this idea, claiming that it would create jobs.

As opponents of this plan point out, we’ve already seen this movie: A similar tax holiday was offered in 2004, with a similar sales pitch. And it was a total failure. Companies did indeed take advantage of the amnesty to move a lot of money back to the United States. But they used that money to pay dividends, pay down debt, buy up other companies, buy back their own stock — pretty much everything except increasing investment and creating jobs. Indeed, there’s no evidence that the 2004 tax holiday did anything at all to stimulate the economy.

What the tax holiday did do, however, was give big corporations a chance to avoid paying taxes, because they would eventually have repatriated, and paid taxes on, much of the money they brought in under the amnesty. And it also gave these companies an incentive to move even more jobs overseas, since they now know that there’s a good chance that they’ll be able to bring overseas profits home nearly tax-free under future amnesties.

Yet as I said, there’s a push for a repeat of this disastrous performance. And this time around the circumstances are even worse. Think about it: How can anyone imagine that lack of corporate cash is what’s holding back recovery in America right now? After all, it’s widely understood that corporations are already sitting on large amounts of cash that they aren’t investing in their own businesses.

In fact, that idle cash has become a major conservative talking point, with right-wingers claiming that businesses are failing to invest because of political uncertainty. That’s almost surely false: the evidence strongly says that the real reason businesses are sitting on cash is lack of consumer demand. In any case, if corporations already have plenty of cash they’re not using, why would giving them a tax break that adds to this pile of cash do anything to accelerate recovery?

It wouldn’t, of course; claims that a corporate tax holiday would create jobs, or that ending the tax break for corporate jets would destroy jobs, are nonsense.

So here’s what you should answer to anyone defending big giveaways to corporations: Lack of corporate cash is not the problem facing America. Big business already has the money it needs to expand; what it lacks is a reason to expand with consumers still on the ropes and the government slashing spending.

What our economy needs is direct job creation by the government and mortgage-debt relief for stressed consumers. What it very much does not need is a transfer of billions of dollars to corporations that have no intention of hiring anyone except more lobbyists. Read more at www.nytimes.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16i4b

US Gas is CHEAP Compared to Europe- Learn WHY!

And this doesn't even include the cost of our military to defend our oil and natural gas interests around the world. That is estimated at $100B a year. Look up the Carter Doctrine. See President Carter vocalize this back in 1979.

Amplify’d from motherjones.com

US Gas Is Artificially Cheap: What We Don't Pay for at the Pump

California has some of the dirtiest air in the nation. Consequently, it has some of the strictest rules for gasoline, meaning it burns cleaner than it does in many other states. But cleaner fuels are more expensive.

Clean air requirements, combined with supply and refining constraints, make the price of California gas consistently among the highest in the nation. Turmoil in the Middle East is another factor that pushes up the global price of crude oil. Even though the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gas in California fluctuates around $4, some experts argue that $4 a gallon is much less than the real cost.

Watch an animated video, produced by the Center for Investigative Reporting, that explores the "external costs" of gas consumption–including the price of pollution and health problems caused by it:

Compared with other industrialized countries, the US has it cheap. The Economist notes that American consumers pay about half of what Europeans pay, which is up to about $8.50 per gallon (or $2.25 per liter). The media website Good has a nifty chart showing the disparity in prices across the Atlantic, and PBS' NewsHour explains the effect Middle East turmoil has on the retail price of gas. While politicians on both sides of the aisle bicker about why gas is expensive, US Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., is one who explains the real reasons, and as Grist reporter David Roberts notes, he is lonely in doing so. Read more at motherjones.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16i2w

Anger Towards Wall Street Could Lead to Civil Unrest

What are the unemployed and homeless going to do when the economy gets worse and they get angry? Protests? Civil Unrest. Will the American police beat down and arrest the citizens that all simply victims of financial terrorism?

Amplify’d from www.rollingstone.com

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? Financial crooks brought down the world's economy — but the feds are doing more to protect them than to prosecute them

By Matt Taibbi

February 16, 2011 9:00 AM ET

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

The rest of them, all of them, got off. Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted. Their names by now are familiar to even the most casual Middle American news consumer: companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Most of these firms were directly involved in elaborate fraud and theft. Lehman Brothers hid billions in loans from its investors. Bank of America lied about billions in bonuses. Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling. What's more, many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions — from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even "one dollar" just months before his unit imploded, to the $263 million in compensation that former Lehman chief Dick "The Gorilla" Fuld conveniently failed to disclose. Yet not one of them has faced time behind bars. Read more at www.rollingstone.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16i0u

QE2 Causing Inflation Abroad, Followed by Civil Unrest #peakoil #crisis #economy #deficit #2012

As the US created more dollars to inflate away its debt repayment obligations, countries that are linked to the dollar, including China, India and parts of Latin America, would suffer 1970s-style inflation



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/global-train-wreck-coming-20110630-1gszi.html#ixzz1R67wczqR

Amplify’d from www.smh.com.au

Global 'train wreck' coming

THE global economy is facing ''a slow-motion train wreck'' with Greece only the first nation to be hit, Reserve Bank director Warwick McKibbin has told a Melbourne conference.

Referring to the most recent global economic crisis as a mere ''blip'', he said the coming crisis could undo the mining boom and bring on inflation of the kind not seen since the 1970s.

Professor McKibbin told the Melbourne Institute conference dozens of European countries now had gross government debts on track to exceed 60 per cent of GDP. ''Japan is forecast to be 200 per cent of GDP, the US is forecast to be over 100 per cent of GDP,'' he said.

''At zero interest rates that can be sustained, but at 5 per cent interest rates countries have to put aside 5 per cent of their GDP every year just to service the debt. That is not sustainable.

''Already consumers aren't spending and investors aren't spending because of the tax increases that are in prospect.

''Greece, Portugal and Ireland don't just need to have their debts written off, they need to have a 30 per cent to 40 per cent depreciation of their real exchange rate,'' he told the conference.

''There are two ways to do that, either pull out of the euro and depreciate by 40 per cent, or have deflation of 40 per cent over the next 12 months.

''I do not believe any society can survive having a 40 per cent deflation that's been imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank.''

As the US created more dollars to inflate away its debt repayment obligations, countries that are linked to the dollar, including China, India and parts of Latin America, would suffer 1970s-style inflation. Read more at www.smh.com.au

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16i00

China increases its investments in Iraq #peakoil

China needs energy and doesnt go to war to get it.

Amplify’d from www.dallasnews.com

China increases its investments in Iraq

AL-AHDAB OIL FIELD, Iraq - China didn't take part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq or the bloody military battles that followed. It hasn't invested in reconstruction projects or efforts by the West to fortify the struggling democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

But as the U.S. military draws down and Iraq opens up to foreign investment, China and a handful of other countries that weren't part of the so-called coalition of the willing are poised to cash in.

In the past two years, Chinese companies have walked away with stakes in three of the 11 contracts the Iraqi Oil Ministry has signed in its bid to increase crude output by about 450 percent over the next seven years. Only two American firms won stakes in oil deals.

The French automaker Renault and Germany's Mercedes-Benz are in advanced talks to make trucks for industrial transport, according to Iraqi officials. The South Koreans signed a memorandum of understanding to build a multimillion-dollar steel mill in the south and a power plant, and the Turks have scored a series of construction and government services contracts.

Except for a $3 billion contract with General Electric to purchase power-generating equipment for Iraq, Iraqi and U.S. officials are hard-pressed to point to any significant U.S. investment in Iraq.

The U.S. "consistently ranks in the bottom" among investors, according to a 2009 study by Dunia Frontiers Consultants, which tracks private investment in Iraq.

"This is a rich country," French Ambassador Boris Boillon said. "In this world of recession, in this period of global crisis, we need to get growth and expansion wherever you can find it." Read more at www.dallasnews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16hzs

Ron Paul Misses the Point on Energy Policy & Geopolitics

While I like Ron Paul's ideas about auditing and possibly ending the Federal Reserve (which is a PRIVATELY held bank), and legalizing hemp (which is a PLANT and source of FUEL and ENERGY that is illegal in the USA), I dont agree that the free market will properly act in the benefit of the PEOPLE of the nation. Rather, corporations will act in the interest of its stockholders, who may be from all around the world and not give a damn about what is destroying America's middle class and economies.



Ron Paul may be ill advised because I dont think he is beholden to the oil companies, is he?

Amplify’d from www.ronpaul2012.com

FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS

The free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.

Unfortunately, decades of misguided federal action have helped lead to skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet.

Washington’s bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have distorted the market and resulted in government bureaucrats picking winners and losers.

In fact, much of the “pain at the pump” Americans are now feeling is due to federal policies designed by environmental alarmists to punish traditional energy production – like oil, coal, and natural gas – in hopes of making energy sources they favor more “economical.”

Sadly, even with $4.00 a gallon gasoline, many are attempting to make our energy crisis even worse by working to impose job-destroying carbon taxes, or a “Cap and Tax” system.

As long as we allow federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape to get in the way of energy exploration, our country will never solve its energy crisis, and Americans will continue to pay the price in high costs.

A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT

As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.

* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.

It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy. Read more at www.ronpaul2012.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16h5q

Ron Paul Misses the Point on Energy Policy & Geopolitics

While I like Ron Paul's ideas about auditing and possibly ending the Federal Reserve (which is a PRIVATELY held bank), and legalizing hemp (which is a PLANT and source of FUEL and ENERGY that is illegal in the USA), I dont agree that the free market will properly act in the benefit of the PEOPLE of the nation. Rather, corporations will act in the interest of its stockholders, who may be from all around the world and not give a damn about what is destroying America's middle class and economies.



Ron Paul may be ill advised because I dont think he is beholden to the oil companies, is he?

Amplify’d from www.ronpaul2012.com

FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS

The free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.

Unfortunately, decades of misguided federal action have helped lead to skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet.

Washington’s bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have distorted the market and resulted in government bureaucrats picking winners and losers.

In fact, much of the “pain at the pump” Americans are now feeling is due to federal policies designed by environmental alarmists to punish traditional energy production – like oil, coal, and natural gas – in hopes of making energy sources they favor more “economical.”

Sadly, even with $4.00 a gallon gasoline, many are attempting to make our energy crisis even worse by working to impose job-destroying carbon taxes, or a “Cap and Tax” system.

As long as we allow federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape to get in the way of energy exploration, our country will never solve its energy crisis, and Americans will continue to pay the price in high costs.

A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT

As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.

* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.

It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy. Read more at www.ronpaul2012.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16h5c

End Prohibition! Ask Congress to VOTE "YES" on HB2036 to Legalize Marijuana

Be sure you understand the differences between why non-narcotic industrial hemp is illegal and why marijuana is illegal. Look up hempcar.org and read the history there.

Amplify’d from blogs.alternet.org

Latest Obama/DOJ Memo Emphasizes Why We Must Pass HR 2306, The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act Of 2011

On Wednesday the Obama administration for the second time in two years issued a Department of Justice memorandum regarding the state-sanctioned use and production of medical cannabis. However, unlike the release of the 2009 ‘Ogden memo,’ which the administration promoted with great fanfare, the issuance of this week’s ‘Cole memorandum’ is strategically being downplayed by the Justice Department.

As for the content of the memo, which you can read in full here, it’s hardly surprising — particularly in light of the administration’s recent, and highly public threats to lawmakers in states wishing to enact medical marijuana laws or expand upon their existing programs.

Perhaps most notably, the memorandum states that the recent flurry of intimidating US Attorney letters to state lawmakers are ‘entirely consistent’ with the Obama administration’s position. In other words, the administration is now on record in support of claims made by US Attorneys in Rhode Island, Washington, and other states alleging that state employees could be targeted and federally prosecuted for simply registering and licensing medical cannabis patients or providers — a position that is even more extreme than that of the previous administration. (Notably to date, however, no state employee — or for that matter, no state sanctioned dispensary operator — has ever been prosecuted by the federal government.)

The memo goes on to state that the federal government distinguishes between individual medical cannabis patients and third party providers, indicating that it is a poor use of federal resources (rather than a poor use of judgment) to target the former, while indicating that the latter are fair game for federal prosecution. It states:

“A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly the Ogden memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers in illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term “caregiver” as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.”

Finally, the memo acknowledges that there has been an increase in the number of states that have either enacted or are considering enacting state laws allowing for the licensed production and distribution of cannabis to authorized patients. (To date, such state-licensed dispensaries are up and running in Colorado, New Mexico, and Maine; laws permitting such facilities are on the books in Arizona, Delaware, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.) Clearly, the federal government is not at all pleased with this progress.

“The Odgen Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating. selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with the resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financing laws.”

Regardless of how one wishes to interpret the latest memo from the DOJ, one thing is clear. States will never truly enjoy the freedom to experiment with alternative marijuana policies until the federal government is compelled to get out of their way. Only the passage of HR 2306, the ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011,’ can make that happen.

House Bill 2306 mimics changes enacted by Congress that repealed the federal prohibition of alcohol by removing the federal government’s power to prosecute minor marijuana offenders. It would eliminate the existing conflict between federal law and the laws of those sixteen states that already allow for the limited use of marijuana under a physicians’ supervision. Further, it would permit state governments that wish to fully legalize and regulate the responsible use, possession, production, and intrastate distribution of marijuana for all adults to be free to do so without federal interference.

State lawmakers should be free to explore alternate marijuana policies — including medicalization, decriminalization, and/or legalization — without being held hostage to archaic federal prohibition or the whims of the Department of Justice. Contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to vote ‘yes’ on HR 2306. Read more at blogs.alternet.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16ef7

Where is the #hempcar now? this is different #fuel #energy

Amplify’d from www.youtube.com

Cannabis Economics - Hemp Car - Hemp Clothes - Hemp Building

See more at www.youtube.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16eeo

Greed and Envy Are 2 Sides of the Same Coin

We gotta find harmony and balance in our lives before we kill each other and destroy the planet along with it.

Amplify’d from views.washingtonpost.com

Political/Education leader Kurt Schmoke A former mayor of Baltimore City, Kurt Schmoke is Dean of Howard University School of Law.

No Downside to Greed

I am skeptical about the ability of individual CEOs to change the culture on Wall Street that led to the recent economic crisis. What would happen to the leader of a public company who announced that he or she was not focused on maximizing profits in the short run, but was concerned about strengthening the company for the long term? Millions of Americans who do not own stock in that company would praise the virtue of that CEO while his or her stockholders would scream bloody murder.

Right now it appears that the pursuit of greed has no downsides, except if you work for a company that has to plead for help from a government official who was formerly chairman of one of your company's competitors. The private-sector pressures on Wall Street business leaders are such that we are unlikely to see significant change in the business culture. Appropriate government intervention will be necessary to alter the conduct that has led to such disastrous economic results in our recent past.

@DAN1138, JFV123, JERKHOFF et al..

There is a time value to money but no time value to Law - the time value must be provided by Regulation.

Greed and Envy are two sides to the same coin if you will excuse the expression, but both are time valued: I do not envy Bernie Madoff as much as I once did.

Here's the deal: I hate Regulation as much as the next guy, but it is the only way to insure that all (human) plaintiffs are not rendered indigent before a finding of fact. It is only recently that Public Defenders in Texas were prohibited from napping during Capital Murder trials, so this Regulation as Social Conscience thing might be a bit hard to swallow. Too bad. Bringing the Law up to the speed of Money, Greed and Envy is the only rational approach.

Posted by: gannon_dick | September 21, 2009 7:34 PM Report Offensive Comment Read more at views.washingtonpost.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16eeg

Greed & Poverty - 2 Sides of the Same Coin - Now out of #Balance- #crisis #economy#harmony

Thi article says it well. It doenst talk about ENVY. That drives the frustration between the haves and the have nots.

Amplify’d from www.thelangreport.com

Greed & Poverty – Two Sides of the Same Coin!

The most serious spiritual problem in the country today is reckless and untrammeled greed. caused the disgraceful corporate scandals that fill our newspapers. Greed is responsible for crooked cops and crooked politicians. Greed causes the constant efforts to destroy unions that protect basic worker rights.

Greed is responsible for the fact that so many Americans have no health insurance and the fact that the recent reform of Medicare was a fraud

Greed is responsible for the obscene salaries of CEOs. In the '90s the ratio of CEO compensation to average workers' compensation was 250 to 1

Greed is responsible for outsourcing, which is incapable of comprehending that the employees who lose their jobs are also the consumers who sustain the economy

Greed causes expensive wars that shatter the budget.

Greed is the reason that only the wealthy are benefiting so far from the economic upturn that is allegedly happening. Greed drives loan sharks

Greed is the reason poor white Appalachians, poor African Americans and poor Native Americans must fight the wars that the wealthy start

Greed is the reason why the country is being run by those whom the president has described, however inelegantly, as the ''haves and the have mores.''

Greed is the reason that the country is being run by the insurance, pharmaceutical, weapons and petroleum industries.

But how is this possible? GREED. The economic pie is getting bigger -- how can it be true that most Americans are getting smaller slices? The answer, of course, is that a few people are getting much, much bigger slices. GREED. Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled. The gap between the nation's CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago. GREED! Read more at www.thelangreport.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16ee4