Prosecuting Medical Marijuana - O > W

The President has broken so many campaign promises, its hard to keep track. But it is hard to top the degree to which he has broken his promises regarding medical marijuana. Here is what Candidate Obama said in 2008.

"What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We’ve got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with.”

Of course, that promise has gone the way of other Obama promises. From the LA Times:

The federal government is moving to shut down the nation's largest and highest-profile medical marijuana dispensary operation, filing papers to seize properties in Oakland and San Jose where Harborside Health Center does business.
. . .
"The city of Oakland has developed a system to assure such distribution occurs according to state law in a fair and orderly process," Nancy Nadel, member of the Oakland City Council and vice mayor of the city, said in a statement. "It is most unjust to our citizen patients and distributors who have followed local guidelines to be harassed and treated as criminals by federal officials."

U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag, stated that she is targeting Harborside precisely because it is big. It is big, because it operates in an a trustworthy and above board manner. This appears to be consistent with the President's disdain for successful businesses. But, I digress.

Of course, where would administration lies and broken promises be without dissembling by the Attorney General.

"We limit our enforcement efforts to those individuals, organizations that are acting out of conformity with state law," Mr. Holder told a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing.

As to that O > W comparison?

Many of California’s most prominent and well-respected medical cannabis dispensaries and related facilities — including Oaksterdam University, Berkeley Patients Group, and Harborside Health Center (HHC) — flourished under the George W. Bush administration. But they’ll be lucky to survive President Barack Obama’s first term,” writes NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano.

For you conservatives who might not care about this issue, Gonzales v Raich is the precedent that allows the feds to prosecute dispensaries operating within state law. It was used as part of the constitutional argument made for Obamacare. That Justice Roberts called it a tax still means we are only one Supreme Court vote away from a unlimited federal power under the commerce clause. I am asking that conservatives and tea partyers make common cause with marijuana proponents; this is a state's rights and commerce clause issue. H/T for this article to StoptheDrugWar.

For those who might not be regular readers of this column or BeerswithDemo, Dean has developed a running list of areas of policy where Obama has exceeded Bush, and not in a good way. It started out as O=W, but soon Obama outdid the former President in so many negative ways.

Here is a sample list, to which we are adding the prosecution of medical marijuana issues.

losing Keeping open Gitmo.

Ending Formalizing the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists.

Ending Maintaining military tribunals.

Discontinuing Continuing other Bush-era policies like rendition, Project Gunrunner and TARP.

Ending Throwing into warp drive the politicization of the Justice Department under the leadership of the biggest hack in the administration.

Interpreting the Patriot Act to collect information on people via mobile phone geolocating

Engaging in an act of war against a country that posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S. with without the consent of Congress.

Swift Painfully slow response to national disasters.

Ending Maintaining the practice of signing statements.

For you visual types, how about a federal government - Goldman Sachs Venn diagram? (thanks, W.C. )

Signing off on predator drone strikes for the ostensible purpose of assassinating a foreign head of state. And then doing so.

Using executive orders and administrative actions and generally subverting the role of Congress in order to enact his agenda.

Shutting down Operating a seeming revolving door between the White House and Wall Street and K Street.

Signing legislation that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge. Got 4th amendment? Not anymore, you don't.

Authorizing a program to assassinate American civilians.

Actually authorizing a drone strike hit that killed American-born Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (from this point forward, we never... never want to hear a peep about water-boarding)

And adopting another Bush-like tendency in combating the war on terror: refusing to provide the legal justification for the killing of U.S. citizens.

Really?

Blame Bush? Lie about your intent? Forget the name of the slain border patrol agent? It's all here.

Odds and Ends

Obama's re-election odds are up to 57.6% on Intrade, my guess is that it is being driven by negative ads among by GOP Presidential hopefuls, and the supposedly rosy jobs picture.

I am taking a class on national security strategy that has helped me look at some world problems in a different light. When one considers the next century and America's role, there are reasons for great optimism and great pessimism. The optimism stems from our nation being freer than China and Europe, more open to new technology and change; and our key competitors fundamental strategic weaknesses with regards to their demographics and growth engines. (How long can China use export to grow at a faster rate than the consumers of its products?) Pessimism comes from our unwillingness to deal with our burgeoning debt and runaway government liabilities due to demagoguery on those issues.

I have new female political heroine: Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.) grilling AG Holder (aka that miserable hack) last Thursday:

“How many more Border Patrol agents would have had to die as part of Operation Fast and Furious for you to take responsibility?” she asked, referring to Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, whose death has been linked to weapons lost by the controversial program.

Apparently, Temple of Mut, "likes" her too.

The Greek tragedy of a slow motion default on their debt continues; yawn, who cares? I think we have all gotten used to the idea that they aren't paying much of it back, and so do the markets, which despite the headlines, are hardly moving. Relevant joke: How many economists does it take to change a light bulb? None, the market has already discounted the change.

Work and class are pushing blogging to the back burner, I hope to post with relevant but shorter articles.

In Other News

The Florida Republican primary dominated the news cycle today, but there was some interesting news that might threaten Obama's re-election, regardless of whom the GOP nominates. Darrell Issa, who has been one of my heroes for his relentless investigations of Obama administration corruption, and there is plenty, has threatened that miserable hack with contempt for failing to produce documents relating to Fast and Furious.

Holder has until Thursday, Feb. 9. to comply, according to Issa.

Issa accused the Justice Department of trying to “obstruct our investigation and deceive the public” by withholding documents.

“Your actions lead us to conclude that the department is actively engaged in a cover-up,” he said in a four-page letter.

The California Republican pointed to a document that the DOJ released last Friday, which indicated that Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer had promoted gun-walking to Mexico on the same day that Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to Congress denying that the DOJ had allowed guns to walk.

This is normally Dean's beat, but this news was just too juicy to ignore. Clearly, senior members of the so called Justice Department are obstructing justice. Taking the fifth, threatening stool-pigeons whistleblowers, playing the race card: all part of the Chicago way at inJustice.

This is too egregious not to be used against Obama in November, it will be all the more effective because it goes to his supposed strengths on integrity. Same for Solyndra and other green crony capitalism plays.

Lying, Cheating . . . whatever

I read a couple of articles today that made my blood boil, not only because of what happened, but because I am certain that there will be absolutely no accountability imposed for lying and cheating. Exhibit 1, involving the DOJ and that miserable hack, of course, involves admitted perjury by a justice lawyer, presumably an "officer of the court." H/T HotAir. From PJMedia.

Stephanie Celandine Gyamfi, reportedly told investigators from the Inspector General’s Office that she perjured herself during an inquiry into Justice Department leaks during the previous administration. Despite the admission, she has not been fired for criminal malfeasance. Indeed, it appears she has not been disciplined in any meaningful way at all.
. . .
According to numerous sources within the Section, Ms. Gyamfi had been asked in two separate interviews whether she was involved in the leaking of confidential and privileged information out of the Voting Section. Each time, she flatly denied any knowledge as to who was responsible for the leaks. In a third interview, she was once again questioned about her role in the leaks. At first, she adamantly denied involvement. Then, however, she was confronted with e-mail documents rebutting her testimony.

And here is the kicker, and what drives me to despair. The lack of accountability.

Amazingly, despite Ms. Gyamfi’s admission of committing perjury not once, but three times, she so far has been neither terminated nor disciplined by the Justice Department. In fact, her boss, Voting Section Chief Chris Herren, continues to assign her to the most politically sensitive of matters, including the Department’s review of Texas’s congressional redistricting plan.

Mere mortal employees of the federal government, such as yours truly, would find ourselves out on our butts, our security clearances revoked and generally unemployable if we were determined to have perjured ourselves. Further, we would not even have to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, the mere preponderance of evidence would be necessary to get ourselves fired. But because Ms. Gyamfi's political positions are useful to this administration, jack will be done.

Exhibit 2 is even more painful, because it expressly violates the will of the voters in California. Olga Pierce and Jeff Larson have a devastating article in ProPublica titled, How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission. The whole article is almost too much for me to take. It is such an obvious first step on the road to dictatorship that I have difficulty absorbing the article's entire contents.

In previous years, the party had used its perennial control of California’s state Legislature to draw district maps that protected Democratic incumbents. But in 2010, California voters put redistricting in the hands of a citizens’ commission where decisions would be guided by public testimony and open debate.
. . .
n the weeks that followed, party leaders came up with a plan. Working with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — a national arm of the party that provides money and support to Democratic candidates — members were told to begin “strategizing about potential future district lines," according to another email.
. . .
When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party. One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento.
. . .
The losers in this once-a-decade reshaping of the electoral map, experts say, were the state’s voters. The intent of the citizens’ commission was to directly link a lawmaker’s political fate to the will of his or her constituents. But as ProPublica’s review makes clear, Democratic incumbents are once again insulated from the will of the electorate.

We used to have a consensus in this country that crimes against the public trust were serious and important enough to warrant punishment, regardless of the politics of the perpetrator. If we accept that any amount of lying and chicanery is acceptable in the name of political gain, then we have surely lost our way.

The Government is Collecting Geolocation Data from Your Cellphone

Just a warning. Reliable sources indicate that the information the U.S. Government is collecting mobile phone geolocation data under a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. From Reason's blog:

. . . [Senators] Wyden and Udall, both members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have been warning that the Obama administration relies on a "secret interpretation" of the PATRIOT Act to justify surveillance that the general public does not realize is happening. The interpretation involves Section 215 of the law, which authorizes the FBI to demands business records or any other "tangible things" it deems useful "for an authorized investigation. . .

Of course that miserable hack at DOJ is part of the fun. Wyden and Udall condemn Justice's denial of a secret interpretation as "extremely misleading."

Why do some think that this has to do with geolocation? From the Cato Institute' Julian Sanchez:

Department of Justice has developed a novel legal theory, known as the “hybrid theory,” according to which law enforcement may do some types of geolocation tracking of suspects’ cellular phones without obtaining a full-blown probable cause warrant. The “hybrid theory” involves fusing two very different types of surveillance authority. “Pen registers” allow the monitoring, in real time, of the communications “metadata” from phones or other communications devices (phone numbers dialed, IP addresses connected to). For cellular phones, that “metadata” would often make it possible to pinpoint at least approximately—and, increasingly, with a good deal of precision, especially in urban areas—the location of the user. Federal law, however, prohibits carriers from disclosing location information “solely” pursuant to a pen register order. Another type of authority, known as a 2703(d) order, is a bit like Patriot’s business records authority (though only for telecommunications providers), and is used to compel the production of historical (as opposed to real-time/prospective) records, without any exclusion on location information. The Justice Department’s novel theory—which I discussed at a recent Cato event with Sen. Wyden on geolocation tracking—is that by bundling these two authorities in a new kind of combination order, they can do real-time geolocation tracking without the need to obtain a full Fourth Amendment warrant based on probable cause.

Further, there is reason to believe that the information isn't being used in any particular investigation. From the Campaign for Liberty, more from Wyden and Udall:

Section 215 authorities are not interpreted in the same way that grand jury subpoena authorities are, and we are concerned that when Justice Department officials suggest that the two authorities are ‘analogous’ they provide the public with a false understanding of how surveillance law is interpreted in practice.

Why the discussion of grand jury rules? The U.S. Attorney's manual provides that:

It is improper to utilize the grand jury solely as an investigative aid in the search for a fugitive in whose testimony the grand jury has no interest.

Wyden and Udall conclude that:

...locating subjects for the benefit of law enforcement (rather than as a means of securing their testimony before the grand jury) is one of the few things so expressly and specifically excluded.

From this we might conclude that the government is making use of geolocation data for other than ongoing criminal investigations. I could be wrong, but I have to trust my instincts on this one.

I would like to thank this man, Julian Sanchez, for working diligently to work on the behalf of all citizens in the arena of electronic freedom.

Really? Miserable Hack Update

The Department of Justice has sent a letter to NCAA President Mark Emmert asking why the association does not have a major-college football playoff and it wants to know if Emmert believes some aspects of the Bowl Championship Series system do not serve the interests of fans, schools and players. Really. More here.

So that miserable hack that runs the inJustice Department has nothing better to do with his attorneys? Why is this a federal matter?

I guess since he is no longer involved in the KSM prosecution, he has too much time on his hands.