Donald Trump finally, begrudgingly, signs Russia sanction bill into law.

Fine, I'll sign it. But I am not happy about it.

Courtesy of NPR:  

After being approved by overwhelming majorities in Congress, President Trump begrudgingly signed into law new sanctions against Russia on Wednesday. The move is in contrast with his frequently stated desire to improve relations with the country. The president also issued a signing statement where he declared that the legislation has a number of what he deems to be "unconstitutional provisions." 

The sanctions bill targets Russia's mining and oil industry, and aims to punish the country for interfering in the 2016 presidential election as well for its military aggression in Ukraine. In announcing that he'd signed the bill, Trump made his most definitive statement yet about Russia's interference in last U.S. presidential election. 

"I also support making clear that America will not tolerate interference in our democratic process, and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization," he said. 

He also made clear however, that he has a number of qualms with the "seriously flawed" bill. Most notably, with the fact that it restricts his ability to ease sanctions without Congress' involvement. To waive sanctions, Trump has to send Congress a report explaining and justifying his decision, and lawmakers would then get 30 days to decide whether to allow the waiver. 

"The bill remains seriously flawed — particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch's authority to negotiate," Trump said, adding "The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President. This bill will prove the wisdom of that choice."

Yes, well the framers may not have anticipated that there would someday be a president who was working as a double agent for an American adversary.

Perhaps the most important part of this bill is not the sanctions it places on Russia, but the sanctions that it places on Donald Trump's ability to undermine it.

That's right, the man living in the White House, "a real dump," has to be treated as a potential enemy of the state.

Apparently Trump was so upset about having to sign this bill that he would not even let the media cover it.

.@realDonaldTrump has signed Russia sanctions bill despite reservations given veto-proof majority had no choice no coverage permitted

— Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) August 2, 2017

Probably did not want them to catch him sobbing.

Law professor says that obstruction case against Donald Trump is a slam dunk.

Courtesy of Business Insider:

In the weeks since the New York Times reported that President Trump allegedly asked James Comey to drop a pending criminal investigation of Michael Flynn, there has been much debate about whether the president committed obstruction of justice. 

Looking at the entire affair from the standpoint of strict legal analysis, there's just one conclusion: All available evidence says he did. 

Under such a plain legal analysis, of the sort my students and I conduct in the law school classroom, it is highly likely that special counsel Robert Mueller will find that there is a provable case that the president committed a federal felony offense. 

The Justice Department, as well as many scholars, have opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted and tried for a crime. So the ultimate issue, whatever Mueller's findings, will come down to the political question of impeachment. But Mueller's determination will be critical because the crime of obstruction would be the most legally potent charge in any impeachment debate, as it was in the articles of impeachment against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton. 

It's worth looking at the already strong publicly available evidence, as well as the supposed flaws in that case. Even taking into account possible shortcomings, the current case for an obstruction of justice charge is crystal clear.

The professor goes on to state categorically that the three basic legal elements of obstruction of justice are satisfied in this case.

First Trump's request to Comey that he drop the case against Michael Flynn clearly qualifies as an attempt to obstruct  an ongoing investigation.

Second the request was clearly made to rescue his former national security adviser from prosecution.

And third the attempt was made with the "corrupt intent" of obstructing justice.

According to Professor Samuel Buell that is all it takes for this case to move forward.

The professor does recognize that Trump's attorneys will have a number of tactics at their disposal for arguing that this case is without merit or that Trump is immune from prosecution, which is why it will be left up to the House and Senate to determine how to deal with Mueller's findings.

And while we have every reason to doubt that the Republicans will want to move for impeachment of their president, literally every day Trump does or says something so troubling that it may leave them with little choice in the end.

After suggesting for years that mass shootings were a mental health problem, and not a gun problem, the Republicans decide to rescind law keeping guns away from the mentally ill.

Courtesy of Bloomberg: 

Republicans in Congress began a process Thursday of rescinding a federal rule aimed at preventing people with serious mental-health problems from buying guns, one of the earliest targets in a long list of Obama administration regulations lawmakers plan to reverse. 

Gun-rights groups and some mental-health advocates say the rule, approved in December, was overly broad, established a flawed standard and violated peoples’ due-process rights. 

The House voted 235-180 to disapprove the rule. Republicans are using a special procedure under the Congressional Review Act to undo regulations put in place during the last six months of a previous administration using expedited procedures. The mechanism allows the Senate to circumvent the 60-vote threshold, which means it can be passed without Democratic support.

No, it makes perfect sense if you think about it.

After all with a law on the books to keep guns out of the hand of the mentally ill how would Trump voters ever be able to get a gun?

Just your daily reminder that every argument that conservatives use to protect gun manufacturers from suffering a loss of profit, is pure bullshit.

Federal judge temporarily blocks Donald Trump's Muslim ban. Trump throws Twitter fit over it.

Courtesy of Politico: 

President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order suffered its most severe legal blow to date Friday, as a federal judge in Seattle blocked the impact of the directive nationwide. 

U.S. District Court Judge James Robart ruled in favor of the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota on a lawsuit they brought seeking to overturn the order limiting travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries. 

The ruling prompted a typically combative reaction from the Trump White House Friday night, but in a departure from recent patterns, the most confrontational language was quickly dialed back. 

"At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a written statement. "The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people." 

Spicer's statement was reissued about 10 minutes later to remove the word "outrageous." 

Yes well maybe they can go back and edit the White House Press Secretary's statement, but nobody edits Donald Trump.

When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security - big trouble!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it's death & destruction!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

And which Middle Eastern countries would those be Donnie? Countries hoping to NOT be added to the ban perhaps?

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

For the record this "co-called judge" was appointed by George W. Bush.

And his ruling does NOT take law enforcement away from our country, however it DOES protect our Constitution.

As we know Trump really, really hates being told no.

Which is too bad really since it appears that he is going to be hearing a whole lot of no for the next four years.

New York Attorney General shuts down the Trump Foundation for violating state law.

Courtesy of the Washington Post:  

The New York attorney general has notified Donald Trump that his charitable foundation is violating state law — by soliciting donations without proper certification — and ordered Trump’s charity to stop its fundraising immediately, the attorney general’s office said Monday. 

James Sheehan, head of the attorney general’s charities bureau, sent the “notice of violation” to the Donald J. Trump Foundation on Friday, according to a copy of the notice provided by the press office of state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D). 

The night before that, The Washington Post reported that Trump’s charity had been soliciting donations from other people without being properly registered in New York state.

You know if all of this were happening to somebody else I would almost feel bad for them.

But it's Donald Trump so let the good times roll.

Gee I wonder if Trump is still glad that he decided to run for President?

Hawaii now has a law that automatically places the names of citizens who register a gun into the FBI criminal database.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Hawaii’s governor signed a bill making it the first U.S. state to place its residents who own firearms in a federal criminal record database and monitor them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country, his office said. 

The move by gun control proponents in the liberal state represents an effort to institute some limits on firearms in the face of a bitter national debate over guns that this week saw Democratic lawmakers stage a sit-in at the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Hawaii Governor David Ige, a Democrat, on Thursday signed into law a bill to have police in the state enroll people into an FBI criminal monitoring service after they register their firearms as already required, his office said in a statement. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation database called “Rap Back” will allow Hawaii police to be notified when a firearm owner from the state is arrested anywhere in the United States. 

Hawaii has become the first U.S. state to place firearm owners on the FBI’s Rap Back, which until now was used to monitor criminal activities by individuals under investigation or people in positions of trust such as school teachers and daycare workers.

I think this is a great idea.

Of course I am also one of the people in a position of trust whose fingerprints have been sent to the FBI like five times now, for a variety of different positions.

If the FBI gets to keep an eye on me, a peaceful non-gun owner, then it seems perfectly fair that people with deadly weapons in their possession should be tracked as well.

I mean if they don't do anything wrong, they have nothing to fear.

Right?

P.S. By the way Hawaii has the lowest number of gun fatalities in the nation.

Ted Cruz's former law professor says that according to Cruz's own interpretation of constitutional law he is disqualified from running for the presidency.

Courtesy of CNN: 

Calling him a "fair weather originalist" and accusing him of "constitutional hypocrisy," Ted Cruz's former law school professor is arguing that the Texas senator's own legal philosophy disqualifies him from serving as president. 

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard whose students include President Barack Obama and Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan, hammered Cruz over questions about his presidential eligibility because of his birth in Canada, which have been raised by Donald Trump and caused headaches for the Calgary-born Texas senator in the Republican primary. 

Appearing on "Anderson Cooper 360" Monday night, Tribe slammed Cruz for his "constitutional hypocrisy." 

He argued that the strict, originalist legal philosophy that Cruz advocates on issues like the 2nd Amendment and gay marriage, and which his potential Supreme Court nominees would likely espouse, should disqualify him from being president. 

"Ironically, the kind of justices he says he wants are the ones that say he's not eligible to run for president," Tribe argued. "This is important because the way this guy plays fast and loose with the Constitution, he's a fair weather originalist."

That's the problem with using the Constitution as a bludgeon, sometimes you're the one that gets kneecapped. 

Anchorage FINALLY has a law protecting LGBT people. And it only took six years.

Source

Courtesy of Alaska Dispatch:  

Anchorage’s new law adding discrimination protections for gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual people is now officially on the books, with Anchorage Assembly Chair Dick Traini signing the legislation Friday morning in a brief ceremony at City Hall. 

The Assembly passed the law in a 9-2 vote just before midnight Tuesday. Normally, the chair signs legislation with little fanfare, Traini said. But he said he wanted to have a ceremony to give the law’s supporters closure. 

Traini signed the law with Assembly member Elvi Gray-Jackson at his side. About two dozen onlookers cheered as he handed out the pens he used to sign the measure. 

“It’s been a long road,” Traini told the room after the signing. “And this will help a lot of people in Anchorage who have been discriminated against. So hopefully we’ve sealed that. And we’ll just move on.”

Man has this been a long time coming.

Some of you long time IM visitors may remember the Summer of Hate back in 2009 when Jerry Prevo had Fundamentalist Christians from the Valley bused in to argue against the ordinance. Resulting in some rather angry confrontations.

Despite the best efforts of Prevo and his religious homophobes, that ordinance passed.

However Anchorage's newly elected mayor, Dan Sullivan, promptly vetoed it which put us back at square one.

Now with a new mayor in place we can finally provide protection to some of our most vulnerable citizens.

And that my friends is why local elections matter.

Homophobic county clerk Kim Davis met with Pope Francis during his visit to America. Wait, what?

Courtesy of NPR: 

"I never thought I would meet the Pope," Davis said via her legal team. "Who am I to have this rare opportunity? I am just a County Clerk who loves Jesus and desires with all my heart to serve him." 

The meeting is said to have occurred last Thursday, the same day Francis addressed Congress. Davis was in Washington for another purpose: She received a Cost of Discipleship award at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit on Friday night. 

"Just knowing the pope is on track with what we're doing, and agreeing, you know, kind of validates everything," Davis tells ABC News Wednesday morning, speaking about her meeting with Pope Francis and the stand she has taken against same-sex marriage. 

She adds, "I've weighed the cost, and I'm prepared to do whatever it takes."

Asked for comment Vatican spokesmen did not deny that the meeting took place. 

You know all of my warm fuzzies about this Pope just dried right up now.

Either he is dedicated to helping to oppress the LGBT community, or he simply does not understand American law. But either way this is a huge screw up on his part.

And you have to know that this is going to re-energize support for Davis and reinvigorate her desire to be seen as a martyr to the cause of "protecting traditional Biblical marriage."

Mike Huckabee joins his fellow GOP presidential wannabe Ben Carson in saying that the President does not have to do what the Supreme Court says.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

“You seemed to indicate that as president, you wouldn’t necessarily obey court rulings, even the Supreme Court,” Fox News host Chris Wallace pointed out during an interview on Sunday. “We have operated under the principle of judicial review since the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803.” 

According to the GOP candidate, the United States would be operating under “judicial supremacy” instead of judicial review if bans on same-sex marriage were to be struck down. 

“Presidents have understood that the Supreme Court cannot make a law, they cannot make it, the legislature has to make it, the executive branch has to sign it and enforce it,” Huckabee said. “And the notion that the Supreme Court comes up with the ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches to following it defies everything there is about the three equal branches of government.” 

“The Supreme Court is not the supreme branch,” he added. “And for God’s sake, it’s not the Supreme Being.”

As many of you may remember Ben Carson was widely mocked for making the same argument earlier this month.

Towards the end of the interview Huckabee makes this statement:

"I want to get back to the main point here, it 's a matter of balance of power. If the Supreme Court could make a ruling, and everybody just had to bow down, and fall on their faces, and worship that law, that isn't a law because it hasn't been yet passed, then what if the Supreme Court ruled that they were going to make the decision as to who is going to be the next President?"

Huckabee goes on to say that the Court can't do that. Which should come as a great shock to President Bush, because that is exactly how he got into office. 

When the Supreme Court decided to stop the recounts, they for all intents and purposes gave the election to George W. Bush. If the recounts had continued evidence suggests that Al Gore would have been the President.

Of course Huckabee is only focused on gay marriage right now, but if he pushes this idea that we can simply ignore rulings by the Supreme Court, I don't think he would be very happy with the can of worms that could open up.

Hey remember that guy who is heading up the most recent Benghazi investigation? Yeah, well the Washington police would like to have a word with him.

.@TGowdySC stopped by today and we got a photo with my AR-15 #2A #SecondAmendment @TPPatriots @TeaPartyExpress pic.twitter.com/FhnAlyqTeW
— Congressman Ken Buck (@RepKenBuck) April 16, 2015

Courtesy of The Hill:  

Police in Washington, D.C., have been referred materials for a possible investigation into two Republican congressmen who posed for a picture with an assault rifle in a House office building. 

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) last week tweeted a picture of himself and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the leader of the House's Benghazi investigation, holding an AR-15. 

Having the AR-15 in the District could be a violation of the city’s strict gun laws, and the city attorney general’s office has referred the matter to police, a spokesman told The Hill. 

"The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan Police Department for further investigation,” he said. 

Buck said in the tweet the assault rifle is his and the picture was taken after Gowdy “stopped by.”

According to Rep. Buck the gun is inoperable, and is really only a "beautiful, patriotic, paperweight."

A useless thing that keeps bills from moving through Congress? That sounds like every teabagging Republican in the House to me.

I seriously doubt anything will happen. After all these are Congressmen and nobody expects them to understand the law.

However I finally did put two and two together and figured out why Trey Gowdy looks so familiar.

I always wondered what happened to that kid from Deliverance.

Barack Obama for the Supreme Court? I can hear the conservative heads exploding already.

This from Robert Reich's Facebook page:

If Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat wins the White House next year, Barack Obama should be their first Supreme Court pick. He's been a constitutional law professor. He has the right temperament and values. He's a superb writer. The average age of newly appointed justices is 53; Obama will be 55 on leaving office. Even a Republican Senate would be hard-pressed not to confirm a former president. There are precedents (William Howard Taft was appointed to the Court after his presidency). 

What do you think?

I am totally interested in what all of you think as well.

But for my part I have to say that while it would be a great idea in theory, that in reality it would be unworkable.

For one thing the republicans would fight this appointment to their last breath.

And secondly I don't think the President would want the job when he has the opportunity to create an impressive "after the presidency" legacy that might make him even more popular and admired than Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

I think the President will go on to do great things, and though he would clearly be a great asset to the Supreme Court, I think he would find that too limiting.

Just my opinion. Care to share yours?

Texas legislator is pushing a law that would give fetuses their own attorneys. That's right, fetuses with lawyers.

Courtesy of The Dallas Morning News: 

The fight over the death of Marlise Muñoz, the pregnant and brain-dead North Texas woman who was left on life support for two months, appears likely to begin again soon at the Capitol. 

A Fort Worth lawmaker is pushing a new state law that would provide representation for fetuses in court hearings — an idea that Muñoz’s family opposes. 

A blood clot caused Muñoz, 33, to collapse at her Haltom City home in November 2013. Two scans taken at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth revealed that she was brain-dead. Her family immediately asked the hospital to remove her from life support, as her husband said she would have wanted. Doctors refused, saying that because she was 14 weeks pregnant, state law compelled them to keep her alive. 

Her parents and husband recall the “torture” of watching her body deteriorate for two months before a judge ordered the hospital to grant the family’s wishes. 

“We felt that they were pushing aside her wishes — pushing aside our wishes — and using Marlise as an experiment, if you will, to see how long the baby could survive,” said her mother, Lynne Machado. 

The proposal by Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, would appoint a representative to speak on behalf of the fetus if a pregnant woman is declared brain-dead or otherwise permanently incapacitated. Krause is working with legislative bill-drafters and has yet to introduce a specific measure in the House. 

“You’ll hear what the family wants, and you’ll also give the pre-born child a chance to have a voice in court at that same time,” Krause said. “The judge weighs everything and he or she makes their decision based on that.”

Watching your loved one deteriorate because there is a life growing inside that has no hope of survival. Does not get muhc more macabre than that.

So of course we can all see where this is going and what it could mean for women thinking of getting an abortion. It will not be long before Texas starts to assign lawyers to embryos the minute the plus sign shows up on the pregnancy test.

Of course once the little bastard is born, Texas could not give two shits about them.

Just for fun, SNL's hilarious take on New York's new marijuana laws.

Okay that's damn pretty funny.

I have a feeling a whole lot of people, in a whole lot of states, are going to be trying to figure just what is, and what is not, legal when it comes to pot in the next several years. 

Convicted felon, and sovereign citizen, claims that he does not have to obey the law because his rights come from "the creator."

Courtesy of Monroe News: 

An Erie man charged with multiple felonies challenged constitutional laws in a Monroe court and claimed his rights were violated when police searched his home and confiscated several weapons. Philip R. Za­pata, 36, of 6705 Preston St. said in First District Court Tuesday afternoon that he was not bound by Michigan laws, a belief typically shared by those known as sovereign-nation citizens. 

“Your laws are violating my rights,” Mr. Zapata told First Dis­trict Judge Jack Vitale. “My rights don’t come from the Constitution. My rights come from the creator.” 

Acting in his own defense, Mr. Zapata challenged virtually every facet of the case, including the police identifying his residence on Preston, which he called his “family storage unit.” He also challenged the use of his name because it was printed on legal documents in capital letters. He referred to his name as a “dead entity.” 

The case against Mr. Zapata involves his alleged possession of weapons that Erie Township police removed from his home on Feb. 6. Chief Dean Ansel and Officer Jon LaSotta both testified that they had a legal search war­rant when they entered Mr. Za­pata’s house. Mr. Zapata, a convicted felon, is not allowed to legally own weapons. Inside the house that day, the police officers testified to finding and seizing a rifle in a bathroom, a 9mm handgun be­hind a trap door in a wall and a shotgun behind a freezer. 

You see this is the result of people being told that this is a Christian nation and that God wrote the Constitution.

These people are simple, barely functioning morons, who somehow believe despite their ignorance and criminal behaviors they are entitled to own guns.

I wonder if while in prison he will convince his cellmate not to touch him in his naughty bits because those body parts come from his creator?

Gitmo detainees cite Hobby Lobby case in new request for religious freedom.

Courtesy Mother Jones:

 In a new court filing, attorneys for two Guantanamo Bay detainees have invoked the Supreme Court's controversial decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which allowed certain corporations to ignore the Obamacare contraception mandate if their owners object to it on religious grounds. The motions, filed with a Washington, DC, district court on behalf of Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan and Emad Hassan of Yemen, ask the court to bar military officials from preventing Gitmo inmates from participating in communal prayer during Ramadan. 

"Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons—human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien—enjoy the special religious free exercise protections of the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act]," the lawyers argue. 

A spokesman for the Department of Defense told Al Jazeera America on Friday that the "Defense Department is aware of the filing," and that the "government will respond through the legal system."

Gee I wonder if the Justices who were supposedly trying to protect the non-existent religious freedom of corporations recognized the can of worms that they were opening?

I also wonder how all of those Right Wing supporters who touted the decision as a victory for religious freedom will feel if it helps these prisoners get more of their own religious freedoms back?

Yeah I somehow doubt that Chad and Christie Christian will be terribly thrilled with their newly protected religious freedom being extended to people who pray to Mecca five times a day and think that Jesus was a great prophet but no son of God. 

Federal judge overturns the most restrictive abortion law in the country.

Courtesy of BBC News:

A US federal judge has overthrown a North Dakota law banning abortion after the foetus' heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks in some cases. 

District Judge Daniel Hovland found the law "invalid and unconstitutional" on Wednesday. 

The North Dakota abortion law was considered the most restrictive in the nation. 

The state attorney general has not yet announced whether he plans to appeal against the decision. 

"The United States Supreme Court has spoken and has unequivocally said no state may deprive a woman of the choice to terminate her pregnancy at a point prior to viability," Judge Hovland wrote in his ruling.

If this law had been allowed to stand it would have essentially outlawed abortions after only eight weeks. That means that many women would lose the option before they even realized they were pregnant.

It is pretty clear that these attacks on woman's right to choose are going to keep on coming until the anti-abortion crowd can get a court case all the way to the Supreme Court.

I believe they feel that if they can get it to the highest court in the land that the Justices will either dramatically undermine Roe vs Wade, or do away with it all together.

I wish I could have confidence that they are wrong in that assessment.

It looks more and more like the Republicans will have to find something other than Obamacare to run on in 2014.

Courtesy of Americans Against the Tea Party:  

It’s not looking good for the Republican naysayers who have insisted, no matter how many times their predictions of doom and gloom for Obamacare have proven to be wrong, the law is about to fail. They are still insisting that there is no chance that the enrollment goal of 6 million can be reached by the March 31 deadline. 

The latest forecast made by Charles Gaba on his blog, acasignups.net is that enrollment is on a pace to actually exceed that goal by approximately half a million. Opponents of the law have tied their last ditch hopes for the law’s failure to the assumption that the goal of 6 million could not be reached by the deadline and with that goal in sight have nothing left, they know that this was the last chance they had to get rid of the law. 

Gaba has been very accurate in his earlier projections as the right cheered every misstep and minor setback each time calling it the end for the law, or as they began calling it when the roll-out of the federal website proved to be less than a resounding success, the “death spiral” of the law. 

At that time, as Chris Hayes pointed out Tuesday on MSNBC’s All In, the accepted wisdom on the right was that with a website that was experiencing serious problems only the old and the sick would sign up for insurance making the whole plan an actuarial nightmare that would die of its own weight. 

They have not backed off from those predictions even as the data began to show that people were signing up and that a significant number of those who were signing up are healthy young people. 

Gaba’s graph includes enrollments through exchanges, Medicaid expansion and those under 26 who can now remain on their parents’ insurance. More importantly, it shows that as of Monday enrollment had passed the 5 million mark putting it in a very good position to reach the CBO goal by the end of the month. 

Much to the dismay of the Republicans who have been predicting the law’s demise, according to Forbes Magazine health benefits consultants say that the number who have enrolled are enough already to make the ACA work, even though the numbers are still short of what the President had hoped for.

Not often, but occasionally, I  turn on Fox News just to see if anything has changed. But it hasn't.

They still spend much of their air time slamming the Affordable Care Act and predicting doom and gloom for the Democrats in 2014.

However as time passes there is more evidence to suggest that Obamacare is a success, and that any plans to repeal or "fix it" coming from the Republicans is not well received by the American public.

Paul Ryan found that out the hard way at a recent town hall:  

But not all of Ryan’s constituents agree with his position. On Wednesday, the Republican congressman was confronted by one such voter at a town hall in southeast Wisconsin. 

“ACA subsidies are a good thing,” Michael Martincic, 64, of Oak Creek told Ryan, criticizing his Party’s repeated attempts to get rid of the health reform law. 

Martincic works as a roofer and is currently paying $700 for his health insurance through his union. However, upon browsing Healthcare.gov — “it was so easy to get on the site; the whole thing only took 15 minutes,” Martincic told ThinkProgress afterward — he found that he qualified for subsidies and could be paying as little as $200 for coverage.

As more and more of these stories come out, and Democrats should be actively soliciting them,  the harder it will be for Republicans to campaign on the "failure" of the law.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but we need to get our act together as a party, and we need to get it together NOW.

Boy, School House Rock sure has changed. And NOT for the better.

I think I prefer the original.

Yesterday was the first day to purchase legal pot in Colorado. There was some excitement.

Iraq war veteran Sean Azzariti making Colorado's first legal marijuana purchase.

Courtesy of USA Today:

The new year got a little happier for pot smokers in Colorado on Wednesday as the nation's first retail outlets for recreational marijuana opened their doors. 

"Marijuana does not have to be a burden to our communities," said Betty Aldworth, deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Association. "Today in Colorado we shift marijuana from the underground into a regulated market." 

The first sale, orchestrated as a news media photo opportunity, was made to Sean Azzariti, an Iraq War veteran who has lobbied publicly for legalization and says pot helps mitigate problems stemming from his post-traumatic stress syndrome. Azzariti, who served six years in the Marine Corps and two tours in Iraq, spent about $60 at 3D Cannabis Center for an eighth of an ounce of "Bubba Kush" and a pot-laden truffle. 

"Today I was fortunate enough to be the first recreational cannabis purchase in the world," Azzariti tweeted. "We did it!!" 

Aldworth said pot sales in the state are expected to reach $400 million this year. More than $40 million in tax revenue is targeted for public schools. Dozens of shops are opened or will open soon. She spoke of jobs, tax dollars and peace of mind for marijuana smokers.

Hundreds of people lined up to purchase the newly legal pot.

Many of the customers turned up before dawn.

So much for the old adage about pot users being lazy.

This is actually one of the issues that I do not always see eye to eye with my liberal friends.

Personally I have never been a drug user.

Oh I dabbled a little when I was a young man, but it as never my thing.

I don't have any serious problems with it, however I did have a number of family and friends who started with pot before taking the plunge into more dangerous recreational drug use.

Some did not come out the other end. 

However to be fair my family historically has a much bigger problem with alcohol than with drugs.

For me it is one glass of wine a night, and that is about the extent of it. Hopefully that does not damage my liberal creds too badly.