Remarks by the President at Presentation of the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy to the U.S. Naval Academy Football Team

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

East Room

2:12 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  (Applause.)  Hello.  Please, everybody have a seat.  Well, good afternoon.  Welcome to the White House. 

I want to start by recognizing Coach Ken Niumatalolo, my fellow Hawaiian, for being here once again -- where is he?  There he is right here.  (Laughter.)  Hard to miss him.  Give him a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  I also want to recognize Vice Admiral Mike Miller, the Superintendent of the Naval Academy, for his outstanding service to our country and for keeping all of you guys in line.  (Laughter and applause.)   

It is my pleasure to welcome the Navy Midshipmen back to the White House to receive the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy -- again.  They have now won 19 of their last 21 games against the other service academies, making this their 8th trip here in 10 years.  (Applause.)  Michelle and I were thinking about just leaving the key under the rug.  (Laughter.)  

This season, you finished 8-5, earned your 9th bowl appearance in the last 10 years.  But perhaps most importantly, after a two-year break, you achieved that very first goal you set at the start of every season:  You beat Air Force, you beat Army, and lugged this 170-pound trophy back to Annapolis. 

Against Air Force, you lost your quarterback to an injury in the middle of the game.  You trailed by eight points in the fourth quarter.  But freshman quarterback Keenan Reynolds took over and led you back in overtime.  That’s when an unlikely hero -- offensive lineman Jake Zuzek -- gave you a --

TEAM MEMBERS:  Zu!

THE PRESIDENT:  Zu! -- gave you a 28-21 win when he recovered a fumbled snap in the end zone for his first-ever touchdown.  (Laughter.)  I’m not sure Coach called the fumblerooski, but I bet that Jake will take it anyway.

That set up a winner-take-all game with Army to end the season.  Down three entering the fourth quarter, Keenan again led the comeback, driving the team down the field for 80 yards and the winning score, and showing why he was only the third Navy freshman ever to start at quarterback.  The win gave the Midshipmen their 11th straight victory over Army, which is a series record. 

But at Navy, obviously it’s not just about the wins.  It’s about how you win.  This year, your team motto was INAM, which is short for “It’s Not About Me.”  And that ethic of teamwork and discipline and unselfishness was led by your captains, Bo Snelson and Brye French, and it ran through your entire season.  

All season long you kept your priorities in line, your mission in focus.  Your work in the classroom helped keep the Naval Academy’s graduation rate in the top 10 of the NCAA for the eighth straight year, including linebacker Keegan Wetzel –- a first-team Academic All-American with a 3.89 GPA in systems engineering.  So give Keegan a big round of applause.  I like that.  (Applause.)

And when you faced adversity, you pulled together.  Over Thanksgiving break, freshman Rafi Montalvo was in a serious car accident and doctors pulled him into a coma.  And even though the Army game was next on the schedule, Coach was one of his first visitors at the hospital down in Florida.  And then pretty soon, his teammates started showing up.  When it came time to take the field against your biggest rival, you all put “Rafi” stickers on your helmets and gave him the game ball after your victory.

So, gentlemen, that’s why I have no greater honor than serving as your Commander-in-Chief.  You’re there for each other and you are there for our country.  In just a few weeks when I visit you all for commencement -- and I always have to get ready because Midshipmen, they got strong handshakes, some of them give me chest bumps, I’ve got to just make sure I don’t tip over -- 18 of you will be commissioned as ensigns in the Navy, and 10 more as second lieutenants in the Marine Corps. 

And in the years to come, you will all follow their footsteps.  You’ll be leading your peers in some of the most complex, dangerous missions on the planet.  You’ll be teaching them to pull together, to keep their mission in focus, to always remember that “it’s not about me.”  And together, your victories will not simply be about football trophies -- as impressive as that trophy is -- but it will be about our security and our values and protecting our freedom. 

So I want you to know that I could not be prouder to have each of you representing this great country of ours.  Americans all across the country feel the very same way.  And every single day, we will stand behind you and support you, and do the very best that we can in our own lives to reflect the courage and the honor and the character of the men and women of the United States Naval Academy.  So God bless you.

And with that, let’s -- I understand I’ve got a little something waiting for me.  All right, that’s the official Navy helmet, fitted for me.  (Laughter.)  Pretty sharp.  (Laughter.)  Here’s the general rule:  You don’t put stuff on your head if you’re President.  (Laughter.)  That’s politics 101.  (Laughter.)  You never look good wearing something on your head.  Are we going to -- we’re going to have the coach up here. 

Coach, great to see you again.  (Applause.)

END
2:19 P.M. EDT

This week’s address is delivered by Francine Wheeler, whose six year old son, Ben, was murdered alongside nineteen other children and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, four months ago. Now, Francine – joined by her husband David – is asking the American people to help prevent this type of tragedy from happening to more families like hers.

Understand how and where your tax dollars are being spent.

President Obama sends a message to the White House email list to explain why he asked Francine Wheeler to deliver the Weekly Address.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

User talk:Aschlafly

(Difference between revisions)::In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT)::In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT)::'''EDIT''' You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does ''[sic]'' this frequently."  I trust you are familiar with [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/apprpc.htm#x3dot3 Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)::'''EDIT''' You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does ''[sic]'' this frequently."  I trust you are familiar with [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/apprpc.htm#x3dot3 Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)$wgGroupPermissions['*'            ]['createpage'] = false;$wgGroupPermissions['user'        ]['createpage'] = false;$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true;$wgAutoConfirmAge = 600 ; # Ten Minutes

Comment here

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

I was a little bit disappointed that Pentecost didn't make the Main Page, even after I had mentioned it: see Talk:Main_Page#Pentecost....

I'd like to see the Christian Feasts being honored on the Main Page, be it by a masterpiece, a link to an article, etc.: the next will be Trinity Sunday. Any ideas?

Thanks, --AugustO 08:42, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Good suggestions. Often this will depend on what else is in the news, or what other entries editors are spending their time on at a particularly moment. Other websites on the internet are purely religious sites.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly,
I wanted to apologize if my past edit offended you or damaged the project. It was never my intent to remove information from the table, but only to enhance the layout and supplement the content through additional citations. I have also apologized on the talk page of the article, but I thought I owed you a direct apology as well.

Additionally, I still have a desire to improve the article. I have posted a proposed plan on the talk page, and I would be very grateful for your input. I eagerly await your suggestions.

Sincerely, WilliamWB 11:27, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly, you claimed that „Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people”. I'm still interested in an example for this - as you said that this happened often, you should be able to provide us with one. To be more precise: I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks ( e?????? - like in Matthew 14:19) or laying hands upon someone (?p?t???µ? ?e??a? - like in Matthew 19:15), I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people.

Could you please give us a verse? Thank you. --AugustO 15:40, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

For example, Jesus routinely prayed in public before each meal.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 24 May 2013 (EDT) „I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks” „I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people” „Could you please give us a verse?” As you can see, your answer doesn't match the question. --AugustO 22:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) Try John 8-14 (Translated)#11:41 - when Jesus very publicly prays to and thanks God prior to raising Lazarus from the dead.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) I wonder if he'd be satisfied with John 17:11-17: Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. [1] Perhaps there aren't as many transcripts of our Lord's specific prayers as we'd all like. --Ed Poor Talk 19:46, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

I may be a "liberal" Christian but I am devout, but some articles (guess by who?) suggest I am more associated with Satan them I am Jesus. I will not stand for it any longer--Patmac 09:34, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Can you please unprotect this page? I would like to update it with information about VY and Shock's chatroom that has come to light at Talk:Main Page. If this is not desirable, then I would suggest unprotecting the page (which is currently sourced only to a single page on an anonymous blog) so that a more verifiable article can be written in its place (and perhaps if I can get a hold of Conservative, he can point me to reliable sources). Thanks, GregG 21:28, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Can you do anything with this: Template:Dead link? --JoeyJ 14:02, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

What is wrong with it?--Andy Schlafly 16:20, 1 June 2013 (EDT) Maybe you can expand it. In Wikipedia there is a category for articles with dead links --JoeyJ 09:00, 2 June 2013 (EDT) I've done it. If Mr. Schlafly or someone else wants to change the exact name of the category, they can go ahead. Onward 09:25, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Could you restore my talk page, actually? A nice little memento from the hoopla. :) Onward 20:24, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Conservative still goes on with his hatred, I will get blocked for this but here is my promise, I will wait 3 days and if after that time this users hatred is not completely removed from this site I am going to report Conservapedia to the Southern Poverty Law Center and request it is designated a hate group.--Patmac 11:28, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

I would have preferred to send these messages to you in person but I cannot find an email for you so it has to be done here, I have requested you do something before but have been constantly ignored. Lets face it Andy, despite not holding office you are very much a politician, and what does a politician do when a subordinate constantly jeopardizes his position? He gits rid.--Patmac 11:41, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Conservapedia supports and defends the full right to free speech, and urges liberal groups to do likewise.--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is not free speech, this is hate speech. When i read that Jesus eats and spits out moderate Christians that is hate speech, and it also brings the name of our saviour into disrepute. He does not just attack evolutionists and atheists, he attacks Christians, to the extent that we are not Christians at all. "Liberal" Christianity and marital infidelity, "Liberal" Christianity and whore mongering, "Liberal" Christianity and bestiality, need i say more? But if someone dare challenge his position, he blocks them, how is that free speech? I think you personally have some pretty strange ideas but you do allow them to be challenged without going on a hate spree, and you are to be respected for that. But constantly allowing Conservative to post his vile tirade, however free it may be, just undermines Conservatives and by extension your image.--Patmac 12:32, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This user Pacmac is blocked indefinitely. Apparently, he thinks he can define what hatred is, even so far as to saying that the above reference concerning Jesus constitutes "hate speech". This is the place in the Bible where it comes from, Revelation, Chapter 2: 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. What it means is that this user is trying his best to stop any mention of the Bible unless this mention is done in accordance with his liberal philosophy; which means that the above Revelation verses are null and void. He further threatens to call the SPLC on us if we don't behave in according to his whims, i.e. one hate filled individual calling a hate-filled organization to complain about our alleged hate against his own hate-filled ideas. Patmac had also forgotten about our First Amendment RIGHTS to FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE. He's so filled with hate himself that he would demand the SPLC to try to stop us from enjoying those rights. As far as I'm concerned, he failed. And he can continue failing somewhere else. Karajou 13:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Firstly, let me say that I do not endorse user:Patmac`s tactics of legal threats. They have no place on a wiki, and should instead be sent to the site's owner (Mr. Schlafly) by email. However, as per hate speech and the Bible, it is clear that the Bible condemns churches who do not uphold the tenets of Christianity, but on the other hand, who is User:C to decide which churches are not upholding these tenets? brenden 13:43, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is an opportunity for Andy to show some leadership in setting a path that de-escallates the conflict here. On the one hand, Patmac is absolutely right about the intemperate nature of User:C's comments. On the other hand, Patmac's frustration with the failure to address that problem led him to make intemperate remarks as well. I suggest that we forgive Patmac for his transgression, and address whether User:C's edits are consistent with the fundamental commandments of Conservapedia. This is not a "Free Speech" issue. User:C is free to express his views on his private blog. Our question is whether CP should endorse and republish some sharp comments as the views of the entire project. Wschact 07:22, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

ReymeDneK's contributions? Thanks, GregG 10:15, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

There is a dispute between myself and user:Markman regarding User:Rafael's block. Could you please provide some guidance? Thanks, brenden 15:34, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

See this edit. Clear case of incivility. Considering his previous record I'd say he should be banned for at least a week if not more. I would have given him a lifetime ban but unfortunately there are too many editors with blocking rights who seem to be determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules. Interestingly enough, many of those editors are also in cordial relations with the RW userbase. - Markman 15:42, 6 June 2013 (EDT) You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist. As per "determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules", I would suggest that you re-read the rules. I still haven't forgotten your bullying of AlanE. brenden 15:48, 6 June 2013 (EDT) "You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist." Come on darling, don't be afraid to call the parodist by his name - Dvergne. The same Dvergne who sided with you and with AlanE against me. So you're basically admitting to both associating with a liberal website and with parodists. - Markman 15:54, 6 June 2013 (EDT) As far as I understand, User:Dvergne, Karajou, and myself were chastising you for spamming {{uncited}} specifically on AlanE's contributions. Are you insinuating that Karajou is "associating with a parodist"?? Furthermore, once again, you have shown yourself unwilling to read that userpage, that explains my goals on that website specifically. In case you can't see that website, I have the words reproduced below:

==Wat?== *Why are you here? :I'd rather not be impersonated, and I would like a word in this place. *What are you doing at Conservapedia? :I do enjoy thought exercises. While Conservapedia does go in a little overboard at times, I still have faith in it. I feel that the only reason that Conservapedia's problems are so famous, are because of the inordinate amount of trolls and parodists, trying their best to write something so ridiculous, that their comrades might congratulate them. That, and the continued threats by [[user:naca|certain]] [[user:Umichcynic|people]] [[user:Proxima Centauri|at]] [[Liberapedia|certain websites]], to (blocked by spam filter), and harrass the precarious community at Conservapedia, have not helped the situation. One of my goals there is to rectify that. brenden 16:00, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Your other edits on that website reveal a different story. Your cordial relations with the RW userbase shows that you're one of them. - Markman 16:04, 6 June 2013 (EDT) In the days of TK your admiting you are even reading that site would have earnt you a ban. Davidspencer 16:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT) On the contrary, I have been called a dick, a parodist, a "smarmy little prefect", among other things. I do my best to present Conservapedia in a positive light, and frankly, are doing a lot more good than Markman, going there to deliberately spread a false impression of a surly, confrontational Conservapedia. brenden 16:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that I made my case and I don't need to elaborate any further. I don't only enforce the 90/10 rule but also try to comply with it, so I'll refrain from any further replies until Mr. Schlafly says his word. - Markman 16:09, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that you shouldn't jump the gun, and instead, should wait for Mr. Schlafly's word on this matter. brenden 16:05, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

A sock of Mr. Mason has recently posted some vile attacks on that page. Although I have undid them, someone may want to block that sock and/or take other remedial measures. Thanks, WilliamWB 12:43, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I know you've taken interest in voter ID just as I have, and I found out this week that the Arkansas Secretary of State has proposed rules to implement Arkansas' new voter ID law. [2]. I'm planning on writing up and submitting comments to fix several issues with the rules, and I was wondering whether you were planning on submitting comments or wanted to see what I am writing. Hopefully, if the rules are fixed as I suggest, the voter ID law should survive federal and state court challenges. Thanks, GregG 13:24, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

That's interesting. I wasn't planning on submitting any comments, but I'd be curious to see what you submit. My own view is that voter ID laws are not as significant as early voting laws.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Andy, I think if Conservapedians could spend more time creating content rather than fighting spammers that they would do so if given the opportunity.

Why don't you add the feature to the wiki that fights spammers that Brenden says works great at his wiki?

Here is the informmation:

I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. Here is the information for this extention: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha brenden 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

I hope this helps. Conservative 10:30, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

User:Conservative reverted my recent edits without explanation and protected the page. Since there is no way to contact U:C and I don't see it likely that there will be fruitful discussion about improving the article about the logical fallacy of quote mining, I would request that the page be unprotected and that U:C work in collegiality with me to improve the page. Thanks, GregG 11:21, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

There is nothing wrong about quoting the other side and using those quotes to disprove and discredit their position. Some evolutionists pretend there is something wrong with this, yet politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does this frequently.--Andy Schlafly 13:00, 9 June 2013 (EDT) I'm glad you are offering your input, and I should probably explain my changes fully on the talk page. Science, law, theology, politics, mathematics, and philosophy are all different systems for answering questions about our world. Each system has its own rules, so what may be a valid argument in law (citing to binding precedent or quoting an authority) is not necessarily valid in science or math. Likewise, logical deduction from axioms is the main way mathematical results are proven, but it has less utility in the other systems of answering questions. In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article. Thanks, GregG 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT) EDIT You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does [sic] this frequently." I trust you are familiar with Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. GregG 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Try this:

$wgGroupPermissions['*' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true; $wgAutoConfirmAge = 600 ; # Ten Minutes

View the original article here

Laura Ingraham: Celebrities Can Talk About Fracking But a Neurosurgeon Can't Discuss Healthcare

Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham on Tuesday made a marvelous observation about the media firestorm surrounding Dr. Benjamin Carson's speech last week at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Ingraham said, "We can have celebrities talk about fracking and all sorts of political issues...but the head of pediatric neurosurgery at one of the top hospitals in the world" shouldn't discuss healthcare (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):

LAURA INGRAHAM: So we can have celebrities, right, talk about fracking and all sorts of political issues, but we actually have the head of neurosurgery, pediatric neurosurgery, at one of the top hospitals in the world, who gets up on that stage at the National Prayer Breakfast, and he addresses a number of topics, right, but from a common sense, very respectful fashion. He wasn’t mean-spirited. He wasn’t nasty. But the reaction was so profound from the public, thinking, “Why don’t we have politicians who speak in these common sense terms?”

Absurd, but not at all surprising.

Consider the anthropogenic global warming debate.

The media are far more interested in what Al Gore - a man that did terribly in science classes while at Harvard! - and pop star Sheryl Crow have to say on this subject than actual scientists including the over 31,000 that have signed the Oregon Petition.

America's press in 2013 aren't interested in facts or a serious discussion on issues facing the nation.

Instead, the modus operandi is to fill the airwaves and print with nonsensical propaganda while demonizing anyone that deigns to disagree with it.

As Dr. Carson said Monday, "An uneducated populace will fall for anything" including "pundits on television."

(HT Mediaite)

View the original article here

Marijuana

(Difference between revisions)'''Marijuana''' (colloquially known as '''"weed"''' or '''"pot"''') is the name given to the flowering buds of the cannabis sativa plant prepared for human consumption. The main active ingredient in marijuana is [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, an [[organic chemistry|organic chemical]] compound. Marijuana is harmful and generally illegal to possess, cultivate and sell in most countries, although it is legal in a few liberal jurisdictions if prescribed as medication by a physician.The sale of marijuana is illegal virtually everywhere in the world, and results in long prison sentences in many places.  In Portugal, Argentina, California and South Australia, the use (rather than the sale) of small quantities of marijuana is allowed. In only one country in the world, the Netherlands, the sale of marijuana in small quantities is reportedly allowed by law enforcement.'''Marijuana''' (colloquially known as '''"weed"''' or '''"pot"''') is the name given to the flowering buds of the cannabis sativa plant prepared for human consumption. The main active ingredient in marijuana is [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, an [[organic chemistry|organic chemical]] compound. Marijuana is harmful and generally illegal to possess, cultivate and sell in most countries, although it is legal in a few liberal jurisdictions if prescribed as medication by a physician.The sale of marijuana is illegal virtually everywhere in the world, and results in long prison sentences in many places.  In Portugal, Argentina, California and South Australia, the use (rather than the sale) of small quantities of marijuana is allowed. In only one country in the world, the Netherlands, the sale of marijuana in small quantities is reportedly allowed by law enforcement.The [[liberal media]] typically downplay or completely ignore the role of marijuana in mass killings, horrific accidents, and other types of harm to innocent people victimized by users of the drug.  For example, authorities conceal from the public how much marijuana was in the system of "College Weed Dealer" [[Young Mass Murderers|Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]] when he went on his alleged killing rampage.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-dealing-drugs/64529/The [[Truth|liberal media]] typically downplay or completely ignore the role of marijuana in mass killings, horrific accidents, and other types of harm to innocent people victimized by users of the drug.  For example, authorities conceal from the public how much marijuana was in the system of "College Weed Dealer" [[Young Mass Murderers|Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]] when he went on his alleged killing rampage.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-dealing-drugs/64529/The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, malaise, psychosis in predisposed individuals as well as impairment of physical and mental functioning. Some research has found that cannabis has medicinal benefits (see [[Medical marijuana]]); however many contest this, and state that there are numerous federally approved medicines for the diseases that medicinal marijuana can be used to treat.The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, malaise, psychosis in predisposed individuals as well as impairment of physical and mental functioning. Some research has found that cannabis has medicinal benefits (see [[Medical marijuana]]); however many contest this, and state that there are numerous federally approved medicines for the diseases that medicinal marijuana can be used to treat.

Marijuana (colloquially known as "weed" or "pot") is the name given to the flowering buds of the cannabis sativa plant prepared for human consumption. The main active ingredient in marijuana is THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, an organic chemical compound. Marijuana is harmful and generally illegal to possess, cultivate and sell in most countries, although it is legal in a few liberal jurisdictions if prescribed as medication by a physician.[1]

The liberal media typically downplay or completely ignore the role of marijuana in mass killings, horrific accidents, and other types of harm to innocent people victimized by users of the drug. For example, authorities conceal from the public how much marijuana was in the system of "College Weed Dealer" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev when he went on his alleged killing rampage.[2]

The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, malaise, psychosis in predisposed individuals as well as impairment of physical and mental functioning. Some research has found that cannabis has medicinal benefits (see Medical marijuana); however many contest this, and state that there are numerous federally approved medicines for the diseases that medicinal marijuana can be used to treat.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Marijuana contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco, thus when smoked it has the same harmful effects including: potential damage to DNA, cancer, respiratory diseases associated with smoke inhilation, and impaired immune system.[3]. However, these effects have not been linked directly to alternate methods of marijuana use. Marijuana use can impair short term memory while intoxicated. THC has slight negative affects on long term memory and thus, in chronic users (approximately 1g/24Hrs)[4], complications with long term memory are a risk. If smoked, marijuana leads to a temporary increase in heart rate and blood pressure while intoxicated. For this reason, there is a slight increase in the risk for heart related problems including heart attack during the time of intoxication[5]. Chronic smokers often suffer from mild withdrawal symptoms, however marijuana is not physically addictive.[6]. Marijuana can impair judgment, motor skills, and balance [7]. Marijuana has also been linked to impaired learning and developmental diability in unborn children [8]

The active ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been shown (in studies) to produce certain psychological and medicinal benefits. Marijuana has been used to treat anorexia and has been used as an antiemetic.[9] Harvard University conducted a study on the effect of ?-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on certain lung cancers. The result of the test was that THC can reduce tumor size by as much as half.[10] In addition to a significant reduction in tumor size, there was a reduction in lesions on the lungs by 60%, and a reduction in protein markers associated with the progression of cancer.[11] This study shows that not only can THC treat the side effects of cancer treatment, but can stop the spread of cancer, repair damage caused by tumors, and even reduce the size of tumors.

In addition to the positive effect on cancer treatment symptoms and cancer itself, marijuana is used to help patients afflicted with ALS[12].

Marijuana is an antispasmodic and is used in the treatment of seizures [13]. Marijuana is also used in the treatment of migraines, arthritis[14], depression[15], and glaucoma. However the effect of marijuana on intraocular pressure (IOC) is not as effective as those offered by other drugs on the market [16].

There have not been many in-depth and widely distributed studies into the possible medicinal effects of marijuana. However, with pressure from liberal advocates of marijuana, more otherwise accredited institutions are conducting research on the drug.

Carl Sagan used recreational marijuana to help "open his mind".[17] Cannabis was first cultivated in China around 4000 B.C.[18] U.S. Declaration of Independence was not written on hemp paper, despite popular belief.[19] George Washington grew marijuana. [20] Alcohol is over 100 times more lethal than marijuana (ratio of lethal dose to effective dose)[21]. President Obama has admitted to use of marijuana. Former President Clinton has also admitted to smoking marijuana, but claims that he 'did not inhale'.

Marijuana is a Schedule I Controlled Substance in the United States of America, meaning that it is illegal under federal law of the United States, and considered to have no redeemable medical value. In several countries, particularly in Western Europe, it is has been decriminalised. However, in many other countries, particularly those in the Middle East and Asia, possession of even small amounts of cannabis can be punishable by death. In 2012, the states of Washington and Colorado adopted voter referenda to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. At the same time, Oregon voters rejected a similar proposition. Federal officials said that they would contest state laws that would legalize marijuana.[22]

The Netherlands decriminalized the use of marijuana in 1976. As a result, marijuana use among the 18-25 age group doubled, however, despite its availability, marijuana use in the Netherlands is lower than the European average. The Netherlands also saw an influx of "drug tourists" and other undesirables, as well as an increase in crime. This has since levelled out, leaving the Netherlands with one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.

Many liberals have advocated for decriminalization.[23][24]

Many American conservatives, especially social conservatives, oppose legalization of marijuana in any form due to its perceived harmful medical and psychological effects and its likelihood of harm to third parties due to drug-related crime and reckless driving. A few libertarian-leaning conservatives, most notably Ron Paul, William F. Buckley, and Larry Elder, have advocated the decriminalization of this drug. Some liberals support legalization, but most instead advocate for drug treatment and rehabilitation. Libertarians are usually the biggest supporters of marijuana legalization. Gary Johnson, a former Republican and 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate for President, is the highest ranking US politician to advocate for marijuana legalization. He was a two-term Governor of New Mexico.

? The sale of marijuana is illegal virtually everywhere in the world, and results in long prison sentences in many places. In Portugal, Argentina, California and South Australia, the use (rather than the sale) of small quantities of marijuana is allowed. In only one country in the world, the Netherlands, the sale of marijuana in small quantities is reportedly allowed by law enforcement.? http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-dealing-drugs/64529/? Science Daily 6/9/2009? AskMen: Benefits of Marijuana? AskMen: Benefits of Marijuana? Psychology Today: Is Marijuana Addictive?? [1]? Neuropsycopharmacology: High-Potency Marijuana Impairs Executive Function and Inhibitory Motor Control? National Cancer Institute? Science Daily 4/7/2007? Science Daily 4/17/2007? American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine? National Academies Press: Marijuana and muscle spasticity? Online Library: Treatment of adjuvant arthritis in rats with anti-inflammatory drugs? Interesting Facts: Facts about marijuana? National Eye Institue: Glaucoma and Marijuana use? Boing Boing: Carl Sagan Spaced Out? Interesting Facts: Facts about marijuana? Constitutional FAQ Answer #145 - U.S. Constitution Online? The President and the Cabinet: George Washington the Man? Wikipedia: Tetrahydrocannabinol? Dobuzinskis, Alex. "Marijuana legalization victories could be short-lived", Nov 7, 2012. Retrieved on November 8, 2012. ? Law Enforcement Against Prohibition? http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml

View the original article here

Obamacare and Taxes - Curtis Dubay on Willis Report

Recorded on November 25, 2012

Senior Policy Analyst Curtis Dubay discusses how Obamacare and taxes are fueling our struggling economy on Willis Report.

View the original article here

Obamacare: An Alarming Checkup

OK, Obamacare. Up on the table. It’s time for your annual physical.

Three years old, eh? Well, with any luck, you’ll leave here with a clean bill of uh-oh. I can see one problem already. Have you seen these tax hikes?

Let’s see — five, 10, 15, 18 tax hikes in all. That hardly seems wise, considering the fragile health of the economy, but there they are.

There’s the tax on individuals who don’t purchase health insurance. That will cost $55 billion over the next decade. I also see a 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. It’ll be $111 billion for that between 2018 and 2022. Several smaller ones, such as limiting the amount people can set aside in their flexible spending accounts: $4.5 billion there from 2011 to 2022.

It all adds up, Obamacare. It’s not healthy.

Hate to tell you this, but it gets worse. See this? That’s the number of people who are going to lose their current health insurance because of you. Not thousands, but 7 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This isn’t guesswork; it’s already happening.

Take Universal Orlando, which recentlyannounced that it won’t continue to cover its part-time workers. Why? Not because they’re coldhearted, but because they can’t afford it. Your prohibition of annual benefit limits beginning next year is making Universal’s health plans too expensive. The word is, this will affect about 500 Universal employees.

Or consider the American Veterinary Medical Association in Illinois. “[M]edical coverage will end for some 17,500 association members and thousands of their dependents at year’s end,” the group says in a news release. There are many more to come, from other employers. Ouch.

Wait. Obamacare, didn’t you say that nobody who liked his current plan would lose it? Yes. You promised it, in fact — repeatedly. I’d better note that in your chart.

You may be getting uncomfortable, but we’re not done yet. Over here, there’s another serious problem: You’re hurting hiring — and right at a time when the economy could use all the help it can get to reduce unemployment.

You don’t believe it? Look at the “Beige Book,” a report that the Federal Reserve publishes eight times a year detailing the economic activity in the Fed’s 12 regions. According to its most recent report: “Employers in several districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff.”

“Affordable Care Act.” That’s you.

There’s more. It’s a good thing you’re sitting down. It turns out you’re making it more difficult to access Medicare services.

You can be as skeptical as you want, but this is right from the Congressional Budget Office and Medicare’s own trustees. They’ve shown what you don’t want to admit: You’re raiding Medicare to pay for other new programs.

Payment rates for Medicare Advantage: down $156 billion over the next decade. Home health services: down $66 billion. Hospice services: down $17 billion. The biggest one is hospital services, which you cut by $260 billion. What’s that? No, the cuts do not target medical institutions or organizations suspected of waste, fraud or abuse. Nice try.

Finally, I see that insurance premiums are going to skyrocket under you. It’s those coverage mandates you put in place; they’re the culprit. According to a congressional report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, some premiums are set to rise in every state. Yes, every state, and not by small amounts. In many states, they’re primed to go up by more than 50 percent; in others, by more than 100 percent. It’s all as a result of changes you’ve introduced.

This despite your claim that your law would “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” That sure isn’t working out, is it?

You can pay the receptionist on your way out. No, I’m afraid we don’t accept that insurance plan anymore.

-Ed Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).

First appeared in The Washington Times.

View the original article here

User:TheTruthIsHere

View the original article here