Same goes for gay marriage. It doesn’t matter if you are for or against it. It’s not your decision to make, end of discussion.

1. The San Wakeen Valley is very flat, receives plentiful sunshine, and is very close to San Fransisco. (Perfect for Windmills, Solar Arrays, and Solar Concentrators)

2. It is (was) some of the most expensive farm land in America.

3. Departments of the Federal Government were responsible for turning off the water supposedly to protect the delta smelt and commercial salmon fishing.

4. Van Jones (Oakland / San Fransisco) – Founded Green For All promoting “environmental justice”, Green-Collar Jobs Campaign, Green For All, a NGO to create “green” pathways out of poverty, and Obama’s (former) green czar. Who will replace him? Is he really gone or just out of sight?

5. Obama 2004 – “I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, ‘We’ve paid our debt,’ and to avoid the much harder work.”

6. 5th Amendment – Federal Government has the right of Eminent Domain in which they will provide “fair market” compensation for land
which must be used in a way to the “benefit” of the public welfare or interest. At that point, how much will an abandoned “dust bowl” be worth? (The 10th Amendment could be a important issue here depending upon final ownership contrasted with the Federal Government’s enumerated powers.)

7. Nancy Pelosi, 8th District California and Speaker of the House. Arnold is rarely outgunned in the movies but I think he is here by the power in Washington.

8. And finally, is anyone trying to find a solution that will provide a new source of fresh water or “filter” the little fish from the pumps? How about a Federally funded desalination plant solution to create new and save old jobs? My bet is No to both.

9. Who would be the “new” land owners in the valley and our new energy controllers?

Put all that together and I can see why the farmer’s days might be numbered. What do you think?

Reparation Ref: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=483402

Me – 2009 “Progressives, in finding solutions to our problems, generate revenue and tax streams to advance the cause of Socialism.”

We are all watching as the California Enviro Wackos change one of the most veritle growing regions in central California into a desert over a 2 inch minnow.

As Paul Rodriguez stated, “FISH DON’T VOTE!!”

When Prohibition happened, we didn’t just pass the Volstead Act. We knew that the federal government didn’t have that power, that it was a matter of state jurisdiction. We first had to pass the Eighteenth Amendment that gave Congress the power to ban it — that is, shifted jurisdiction of alcohol from the state to the federal government — and only then passed the Volstead Act, which banned alcohol.

In the case of drugs, pro-War-on-Drugs types have completely ignored this constitutional and legislative precedent and simply asserted that they can ban whatever substances they want. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court bent itself over backwards to guarantee the federal government its claimed ability to ban drugs, making such absurd claims as that any commerce, even that which involves only one state, is covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause. As Justice Thomas pointed out, this is effectively an almost unlimited grant of power to the federal government, and makes a mockery of the idea that federal powers are at all restricted.

http://thdumboleasttexasboy.blogspot.com/

The issue can be reverse contrasted to the case of tort reform in which the Federal government has chosen to “overlook” or not engage in HR-3200. It would seem to make logical sense to reform this area of health care since malpractice insurance costs each and every licensed health care provider between $25,000 and $160,000 yearly depending on risks with brain surgeon being on the top of the heap but have you ever heard of anyone filing a malpractice suit in Federal Court? No, and why not? Medical practitioners are enabled and licensed by the states and not by the feds. States still maintain control over this (probably because of lawyers). Unless state control is usurped, the Federal government does not have jurisdiction over medical actions and cases which are currently settled in local or state courtrooms. A major infringement of the 10th Amendment would occur if tort reform were attempted at the Federal level. This needs to stay with the states. By doing so, it opens the opportunity for states to compete for the very limited supply of Doctors and medical professionals (before Texas gets them all). So, if you have it, you can make a good case to keep it but once you loose it, it’s a hard road to ever get it back.

The 10th Amendment may be of help to California. This is basically a drug issue and, if California were to assert it’s power to control the usage of any and all drugs within its borders, notwithstanding the FDA, it would then have the legal control it needs to determine the suitability and fitness of drugs in general. This is a little stronger than the Montana / Tennessee firearm act and could possibly impact the Medicare drug plan but it does appear to be the necessary first step in order to make sure the people and government of California are really ready to support the freedom to decide for themselves about marijuana.

After that, the next issue of course is the legality of sale and the Commerce Clause. If Californians were to only use marijuana grown within their borders they might have a case. It would still, no doubt, be illegal to export to other states or cross state lines while in possession but that might not be that bad. As for trade with Mexico, since Mexico is not a state of the union, it would appear that the Commerce Clause would not apply.