African Americans are the Racial Group Most Opposed to Immigration.
A new Harvard-Harris poll shows that 85 percent of black Americans want a reduction in immigration levels to 1 million or lower. Also interesting: more Americans favored zero immigration, than wanted to increase immigration levels.
For context, in 2017 over 1.4 million legal immigrants arrived in America, while the number of illegals is unknown.
This means that black Americans—not white as is commonly stated—are the racial group most opposed to immigration. The Washington Free Beaconsummarizes the report’s findings nicely:
The plurality of respondents, 35 percent, think that there should be between 1 and 250,000 legal immigrants arriving to the United States per year. A net 12 percent want to see immigration increased to 1.5 million people per year or more, while nine percent of Americans think that there should be no new legal immigrants.
Plurality preference for between 1 and 250,000 new immigrants a year persists across white, Hispanic, and black Americans, as well as moderates and self-identified Democrats. . .
Americans prefer a system of prioritizing would-be legal immigrants based on their ability to contribute, based on their education and skills, over one based on immigrants having relatives in the United States, 79 to 21 percent. That includes a majority of white (79 percent), Hispanic (72 percent), and black (85 percent) citizens, as well as majorities of Democrats (72 percent), liberals (65 percent), and Clinton voters (72 percent).
The poll clearly shows that the majority of Americans are against mass immigration, and that support for this crosses racial and ideological lines.
This is somewhat surprising, as the Democratic Party has positioned itself as the “immigration party”, and is absolutely dedicated to preserving the doctrine of “open borders” at any cost. However, this position seems untenable in the long run—the voter base eventually catches up to the rhetoric, and at that point the Democrats will be finished.
Of course, these findings are consistent with other polling done on the topic of immigration. For example, research done by Pulse Opinion Research found that voters in “swing states” favored comprehensive immigration reform by a 3:1 margin—immigration reform is the winning-ticket.
[snip]
What the data basically shows is that the majority of immigrants are a net drain on the welfare state. This means that citizens must pay higher taxes in order to support the over-burdened system, and those who already depended upon the system are hurt. Likewise, immigrants compete with Americans for jobs—particularly at the lower end of the employment spectrum, ie. black Americans.
You can have a welfare state, or open borders—never both. Most Americans, black, white, and Hispanic know this. It’s a shame our leaders don’t.
Medical marijuana is now a legal treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in Colorado. Governor John Hickenlooper signed SB17-017 on June 5, 2017, officially giving doctors the green light to prescribe cannabis to patients suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Colorado joins at least 20 other states in allowing cannabis-based treatments for the disorder. [1]
Before doctors can prescribe cannabis for PTSD, patients must sit for a consultation and receive a medical background check. Patients approved for medical marijuana will be able to possess 2 ounces of cannabis and no more than 6 plants at a time, and only 3 of those plants can be mature and flowering. However, patients will be able to petition their doctor for more.
For patients under the age of 18, medical marijuana must be approved by 2 physicians, one of whom must be a board-certified pediatrician, a board-certified family doctor, or a board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist. Additionally, the patient’s parents or guardians living in Colorado will have to consent in writing to the state health agency. [2]
The State Board of Health rejected medical marijuana treatment for PTSD in 2015, saying at the time there was not enough scientific research on how marijuana could affect people with the disorder. It was at least the 4th time the board had rejected the measure. [1]
The state department of health has been studying cannabis treatments for PTSD since 2015, setting aside $3.3 million for the research.
Roger Martin, the founder of Grow For Vets, said:
“What it really does, is it doesn’t get rid of the bad memories that you have, but it kind of just allows you to relax to the point that they’re not right up in front of your head.
Thousands of veterans have told me to my face that cannabis is the only thing that’s ever helped them with PTSD and not one drug that the VA has given has ever helped at all.” [3]
Dr. Larry Wolk, Executive Director of the Colorado Board of Health (which does not support the legislation) said that some doctors have already started recommending medical marijuana for treatment of PTSD.
“At least if a physician is recommending it, and a physician is involved through the medical marijuana program, then that would be presumably better care.”
This is another positive step we’re taking in allowing the population to further utilize a helpful, underrated medicine.
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
Many were anticipating that #ComeyDay would be the most monumental congressional hearing in decades, but the truth is that it turned out to be quite a dud. During two and a half hours of testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI Director James Comey didn’t tell us anything that we don’t already know. Of course liberal news outlets such as CNN are breathlessly proclaiming that we are now “in Nixon territory”, but that isn’t accurate at all. There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump committed any crime, and there is absolutely nothing that warrants impeachment.
And I am far from alone in that assessment. For example, an analysis published by CNBC says that nothing in Comey’s testimony was “powerful enough to end the Trump presidency literally or figuratively”…
“Former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony Thursday will indeed have a big political impact in Washington. It will foster more partisan bitterness and more bad feelings about our political process and news media. But none of his testimony rises to the level of anything legally powerful enough to end the Trump presidency literally or figuratively.
The bottom line is that Comey spent a few hours Thursday telling the Senate committee that he felt uncomfortable and even stunned by President Trump’s behavior. And he peppered that narrative with numerous damaging statements about the president’s behavior and character, including basically calling him a liar”
When Comey accused Trump of being a liar, that certainly made a lot of headlines, but unless you are under oath it is not a crime to lie.
Perhaps we should make it a crime for our politicians to lie, because if we did we would clean out the toilet that Washington D.C. has become rather quickly. But as it stands, even if Trump is a low-down dirty liar as Comey is claiming, that would simply put Trump on the same level as most of the current members of Congress.
The much more important question is whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice. Fortunately for Trump, there is a very clear answer to that question.
First of all, we must remember that Trump was Comey’s boss. As chief executive, Trump has constitutional power to direct the activities of his subordinates, and he is free to fire them whenever he chooses. So, as Alan Dershowitz just pointed out on CNN, Trump cannot be impeached for simply exercising his constitutional authority…
Renowned Harvard professor and legal mind Alan Dershowitz sparked quite a reaction during a CNN segment on Wednesday night after he proclaimed that former FBI director James Comey’s prepared testimony indicates that President Donald Trump didn’t commit any crimes.
Dershowitz argued that Trump “could have told Comey, ‘You are commanded, directed to drop the investigation against [Gen. Michael] Flynn,’” but noted that he didn’t do so, according to Comey’s prepared testimony that was published on Wednesday.
The famed attorney also said Trump could have pardoned Flynn as well, but also chose not to do so. In the end, he concluded that there appears to be no criminal activity on the part of the president, particularly when it comes to obstruction of justice claims.
Traditionally, the FBI has operated in a highly independent manner, but there is nothing in the law that gives the FBI independent status.
If Congress wants to pass a law to remove the FBI from being under the president’s authority they can certainly do that, but as it stands what Trump did was fully within the law.
But even if Trump didn’t have the authority, there would still be no obstruction of justice. The two most important federal statutes that cover obstruction of justice are 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505. In both cases, it would be exceedingly difficult for prosecutors to prove that Trump acted “corruptly” in this case. Not only that, there was no “proceeding” that Trump was trying to influence. For a more extended analysis, please see the article that I posted yesterday entitled “Even If Everything James Comey Is Claiming Is True, There Is Still No Evidence That Trump Is Guilty Of Any Crime”.
If Comey is being straight with us, and at this point his credibility is pretty much shot, but if he is being straight with us there is still nothing that is going to end Trump’s presidency.
What Trump did may have been “inappropriate”, but you don’t impeach a president for being “inappropriate”.
President Donald Trump’s private attorney, Marc Kasowitz, on Wednesday said his client felt “completely and totally vindicated” by James Comey’s prepared opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Comey’s remarks, released Wednesday in advance of Thursday’s Senate hearing, confirmed previous statements by Trump that Comey had told him three times that he was not personally being investigated amid the FBI’s wide-ranging inquiry into Russian meddling in the election and the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia.
Personally, I hope that this whole “scandal” will go away now. There never was anything to it in the first place, and the American people want a government that is going to focus on solving problems instead of focusing on investigations that were doomed to go absolutely nowhere from the start.
But even if this Comey angle doesn’t work out, the Democrats will just keep on trying. In fact, the Huffington Post is already starting to promote the theory that Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement is an impeachable offense.
In the end, the Democrats are never going to give up until they find something that they can use against Trump. What I am hearing is that they are going to make an all-out push to take back the House and the Senate in 2018, and if they can do that they plan to use their congressional majorities to get rid of Trump one way or another.
This is just another reason why the 2018 mid-term elections are going to be the most important mid-term elections in modern American history, because if the Democrats have their way Trump will never even make it to 2020.
A recent survey by Yahoo News and The Marist Poll reveals, among other things, that people – regardless of whether they have children or not – are more concerned about kids smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol than they are about kids using marijuana. [1]
For the survey, 1,122 adults age 18 and older were polled from March 1 through March 7, 2017.
Overall, 52% of respondents said that they had tried marijuana at some point in their lives. Among women, 49% said that they’d used marijuana, while 55% of men said that they had done so.
A whopping 83% of those surveyedsaid that they approve of legalizing marijuana for medical treatment, and among men and women, there wasn’t much difference in opinion. Eighty-two percent and 83% said they were in favor of pot legalization for medical purposes, respectively.
Support for recreational marijuana was considerably more tempered. In total, 49% of respondents expressed support for legal recreational pot. That number is far lower compared with those who believe medical marijuana should be legal, but it’s still a good sign; In 2000, just over 30% of Americans supported legalizing recreational marijuana, according to Gallup polls.
When asked if using marijuana was socially acceptable, regardless of whether they believe it should be legal, 56% answered yes. More men (58%) than women (53%) said they consider marijuana use socially acceptable.
The surveyors split that same question up among parents, parents with adult children, parents with children under 18, and parents who use marijuana, and this is what they found, respectively:
Parents – 50%
Parents with adult children – 49%
Parents with children under 18 – 51%
Parents who use marijuana – 75%
One of the most telling signs that pot is going more mainstream is this finding: Among people who said they follow a religion, 45% said consider marijuana use socially acceptable.
The split in opinion over marijuana legalization among political parties is, well, what you would expect to see in a poll. Overall, 54% of registered voters believe marijuana is socially acceptable. The survey found that 65% of Democrats, 38% of Republicans, and 61% of Independents don’t consider marijuana use taboo.
However, when it comes to pregnant mothers, Americans still view marijuana as something to be avoided. Only 21% of respondents overall said it is acceptable for a pregnant woman to use marijuana to reduce nausea or pain. Even among marijuana users, the percentage was relatively low: 40%. More men (23%) than women (19%) support marijuana use for nausea and pain in pregnant women. I would have expected these numbers to be lower.
When broken down into regions, the Western U.S. showed the most support for recreational marijuana, with 55% saying they favor legalization. The finding is unsurprising, since Colorado and Washington were the first U.S. states to regulate sales of recreational cannabis.
California was the first state to legalize medical marijuana. Another 61% of respondents in the Western U.S. said they consider marijuana use to be socially acceptable, the highest percentage of all regions.
When asked whether they consider marijuana use a health risk, 51% of people overall answered yes. But, for the most part, people who’ve tried marijuana or regular users see it as less of a threat than those who never tried pot.
Among those who never smoked cannabis, 64% consider it a health risk.
Among those who tried pot at some point in their lives, just 39% view pot as a health risk.
A mere 24% of regular users see any potential health threat.
Source: Vox
Here’s where things get interesting, and you can truly see the shift in attitude about marijuana in the United States. When asked which they considered a bigger threat, regular marijuana use or regular tobacco use, 76% of respondents said tobacco is more dangerous than pot.
Among millennials, 87% consider tobacco to be riskier than pot. But marijuana continues to get a bad rep from some seniors; 47% of people age 69 and older see pot as the bigger threat. However, 73% of baby boomers (ages 51-69) point to tobacco as a bigger danger than cannabis.
Tobacco use was named as a bigger health risk than tobacco use by far in all regions of the U.S., as well as among parents of children of all ages, not to mention Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
When it comes to alcohol vs. marijuana, parents of all ages of children, both sexes, all four regions of the country, and all registered voters said regular alcohol use was more dangerous than regular marijuana use.
It appears that the nation’s opioid crisis has opened a lot of people’s eyes, as well, with all age groups but those 69 and over answering that a prescription opioid from a doctor is more of a health risk than a prescription for medical marijuana. The same was found in all regions of the country, among all levels of education, and regardless of income.
Even parents and those who practice a religion said they would trust the marijuana plant over a prescription painkiller when it comes to safely treating their ailments.
Source: Weed News
Will the Feds Crack Down on Marijuana with the New Presidency?
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is notoriously anti-legalization, has made comments hinting that the federal government may crack down on states where marijuana is legal. Here’s what respondents think of that:
Overall, 30% of national adults believe the Trump administration should crack down harder on marijuana than the Obama administration.
Overall, 38% of national adults think the Trump administration should be not as tough as the Obama administration.
Overall, 27% of national adults say the current administration should be AS tough on marijuana as the Obama administration.
Across all regions of the country, more people answered that the Trump administration should NOT be as tough on marijuana as the Obama administration.
Finally, respondents were asked what their most significant concern was about marijuana; and, like a Cheech and Chong meme, the #1 concern among national adults is that it’s illegal. Only 14% expressed concern that pot use could lead to harder drugs, and only 7% worry about addiction.
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
