Connect with us

Opinions

Marijuana coming to a California city near you

Published

on

If you are not aware, California voters in 2016 approved the use of marijuana for recreational use. This voter-approved measure will allow cities and counties across the state to determine whether to allow recreational sales of marijuana in their jurisdiction and if so what regulatory restrictions to impose on retailers.

According to the Sacramento Bee, on Tuesday, Sacramento City Council approved the sale of marijuana for recreational use beginning on January 1, 2018. Other cities like Oakland, San Diego, and San Jose have recently adopted ordinances allowing the retail sale of recreational marijuana, and San Francisco should follow suit shortly.

My city Anaheim, along with Fresno and Bakersfield have banned the retail sales.

My thoughts

Even though I didn’t vote in favor of this law, I believe the principles found in this bill is what most of our laws should look like. I believe in local control.

As a federalist, I believe that the federal government has no authority to regulate drug policy in individual states. The federal government has the authority to ban the foreign import of all drugs into this country but has no jurisdiction over California in this matter. The sole authority to regulate the use of marijuana is reserved to the states. The federal government should also cease its actions in hindering states from self-determination by removing the restrictions it places on legal marijuana dispensaries from fully utilizing credit cards and banking institutions. We the people have not given the federal government that authority and we the people in California will decide what is best for us, not D.C.

I also like the principles of this law because it allows cities to determine if they want recreation marijuana in their jurisdiction. The law establishes the basic blueprint and parameters. For instance, you must be 21 years old and you can only partake in a private home or a licensed business, but it doesn’t force cities from having dispensaries. What is right for Sacramento might not be right for Anaheim.

That is why I’m running for California State Controller. I believe the state should create the basic blueprint but people within their own communities should determine what is best for them. That is why I created the idea of trickle-up-taxation. Once, the structure of trickle-up-taxation is created, the people should vote to accept or reject my idea. If people want a heavy-handed state government determining what local governments should do then I would say don’t vote for it, if you want greater autonomy and greater local control, then I would suggest you vote for trickle-up-taxation.

The problem with politics on both sides of the political aisle is that they want to force their beliefs and ideology down your throat. I’m a Republican and it wouldn’t shock you to hear that I don’t like the politics of San Francisco. Shocker I know, but guess what. I don’t live there, so as long as they don’t infringe on people’s constitutionally protect rights and engage in illegal policies, I don’t care. It’s none of my business, they can decide what is best for their community, and I will work within my community to help shape what is best for us.

In like fashion, the Republican-controlled federal government shouldn’t tell California what to do within its borders. Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to stop his crusade of stamping out the legal use of pot in the 29 states that currently allow some form of legal marijuana use. Jeff Sessions and the federal government should be focused on protecting our constitutional rights not infringing on powers reserved to the states.

I hope that the principles behind this law of allowing greater local control will be utilized more often. It’s time we bring politics back to the local level instead of centralized government dictates from Washington D.C. and our state capitals.

Entertainment and Sports

Binge-worthy show: The Night Manager shows why Tom Hiddleston should be the next James Bond

Published

on

Binge-worthy show The Night Manager shows why Tom Hiddleston should be the next James Bond

He’s too posh. He’s too pretty. He isn’t intimidating. He’s too big as a Marvel character. There are many reasons people have dismissed the notion of Tom Hiddleston playing the role of James Bond in the famed series. All of these reasons can be dismissed by watching The Night Manager.

Available on Amazon, the AMC-BBC collaboration is six episodes long. There are reports that it could be brought back for another series, but if it never comes back, rest assured the single series is still worth a watch. The funny part is that Hiddleston might be the main draw, but he’s not even the best overall performance. That honor goes to Hugh Laurie, the well-mannered villain of the show.

As usual, no spoilers.

Much effort is put into making the beautiful people look as beautiful as possible in lovely settings even when things get crazy. It opens with Hiddleston cutting through a crowd of protesters just prior to the ousting of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011. He’s on his way to work to engage in his craft as a manager at a high-end hotel in Cairo. Even through the chaos, Hiddleston holds an air of separation from both the protesters and the military holding them back. And he does all this while wearing cargo pants and an untucked linen dress shirt.

This is where the presence of Hiddleston comes into play and demonstrates why he would be able to play James Bond. His sharp eyes announce he’s not to be reckoned with while simultaneously charming the observer. As one character later notes, “Everybody is attracted to you.”

The men want to be on his side and the women (and one man) want him to be by their side.

His impish grin may have been perfect for playing Loki in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it takes a more menacing turn in The Night Manager. We realize there’s grit behind his boyish looks that betrays two tours in Iraq and a personal grudge he’s held with him for years. If Daniel Craig brought emotionless chills to the Bond character, Hiddleston would bring an emotional fortitude. He’s only truly happy when he’s doing the right thing, which may go against the stereotypes associated with a world-class assassin, but luckily we’re in a world where stereotypes are being broken.

There’s another reason Hiddleston would be the right person for the role. Unfortunately, it’s a political one. Some are pushing for a minority or a woman to take the role to the next level. There’s nothing wrong with this as long as it’s done with the most qualified person in mind and not just to make a political statement about inclusion. With Hiddleston, it’s an opportunity to use the same formula while mitigating the damage that is sure to come if they don’t select a minority or a woman. Everyone likes Hiddleston. He’ll make the passing on a controversial choice easier to swallow.

There’s even a scene when he orders a vodka martini at a bar in Cairo. It was the most obvious nod to the Bond franchise they could have made without asking for the drink to be shaken.

If you only watch The Night Manager to verify my Bond assertions, so be it. If you watch it for its great acting, engaging espionage, and brilliant storyline, well that’s even better. Either way, get your six-hour binging snacks ready.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

The Russian investigation was never about Russia. It was cover to find dirt on the President.

Published

on

The Russian investigation was never about Russia It was cover to find dirt on the President

President Trump is almost certainly never going to be caught committing the types of crimes that initially prompted the Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller. That was never the goal of the investigation. It was a cover story concocted to give Mueller unimpeded access to the President and his staff.

As I’ve said on multiple occasions, the Russian collusion angle was simply an excuse to justify digging into the affairs of the President, his campaign staff, and everyone associated with them. They knew the chances of finding true collusion were slim, but they needed a reason to try to uncover potentially impeachable offenses. Now, Democrats and mainstream media think they’ve found them in the form of hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougal.

The sentencing recommendation documents for Michael Cohen, the President’s former attorney, revealed the investigation is now focused on proving that “Individual-1” ordered the hush money be paid to cover up affairs the President had with the two women. Many experts, including Trump supporters like Chris Christy and Andrew McCarthy, believe there’s a case that can be made against President Trump for campaign finance violations.

There are two questions that must be answered. Did candidate Trump order Michael Cohen to pay hush money? If he did, was it a violation of campaign finance laws?

The answer to the first one is almost certainly yes. It’s hard to imagine Cohen acting on his own. In fact, it’s ludicrous to think that Trump, who is known for micromanaging his affairs, would not be made aware of any threats or perceived threats of these women at the height of the campaign.

The second question has a murkier answer. Arguments can be made in both directions. Was it an effort to stifle potentially damaging revelations that could hurt the campaign? Yes. Was it a personal matter, in which case paying off people for their silence is not against the law? Yes.

The timing of the payoffs may be the best argument the prosecution will be able to make to demonstrate these were campaign finance violations. Because these would be considered damaging to the campaign, one can easily make the connection that they were intended to influence the outcome of the election. On the other hand, the argument can also be made that the threats came out because of the election, but the decision to pay hush money was a personal one. This could be easily corroborated if past payments were revealed.

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations, but he won’t like it

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/09/president-sure-fire-way-disprove-campaign-finance-violations-wont-like/By showing past payoffs to women, the President can go with the story that he didn’t want to damage his marriage or business dealings. This play might hurt his reputation, but it would likely quash attempts to indict him.

This is all assuming there were past payoffs. If there weren’t, then it would be difficult for his defense to claim the two payoffs in question were not politically motivated.

It may not be the most elegant solution for the President, but if the investigation continues to build a case that he committed campaign finance violations, he may have no choice but to reveal past payoffs that show he’s immoral, but not a criminal.

If President Trump never paid hush money to women before announcing his candidacy, then he’s truly in a pickle. It’s hard to argue this was a personal issue devoid of political motivations because his past is checkered with scandals that mirror or even supersede such claims. Most damaging is the fact that he’s bragged about affairs in books he’s published.

The President’s opponents were willing to take him down regardless of the cost. That’s why they concocted the Russia collusion investigation in the first place. This whole mess stinks and will be a stain on our political system for years to come.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations, but he won’t like it

Published

on

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations but he wont like it

As the President becomes more embroiled in Michael Cohen’s payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougal, it’s becoming increasingly likely he will be indicted for campaign finance violations. While it’s unlikely this will affect his first term as President, it could mean charges are brought against him the moment he’s no longer in office. This could also add fuel to the fire for Democrats to win in 2020, as it would open the door for charges to be filed.

There’s a way the President can stop the charges before they’re filed, but it’s a step the President likely won’t want to take. If he has paid hush money to other women in the past, before he announced his run for President, he can demonstrate the hush money was paid to protect his personal reputation. If that’s the case, then this no longer falls under campaign finance laws.

It isn’t illegal to pay hush money to people.

The case that prosecutors will try to make is that then-candidate Trump ordered his attorney, Cohen, to facilitate payments to women whose stories could damage his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election. If they can prove that the President ordered the payoffs, they then have to prove the reason for the payoffs was to influence the election.

By showing past payoffs to women, the President can go with the story that he didn’t want to damage his marriage or business dealings. This play might hurt his reputation, but it would likely quash attempts to indict him.

This is all assuming there were past payoffs. If there weren’t, then it would be difficult for his defense to claim the two payoffs in question were not politically motivated.

It may not be the most elegant solution for the President, but if the investigation continues to build a case that he committed campaign finance violations, he may have no choice but to reveal past payoffs that show he’s immoral, but not a criminal.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report