Rush 2012/2112

Had the pleasure of seeing the world's greatest band once again last evening.  RUSH visited Dallas.

These three guys filled the AAC with an incredible sound presence.  As so many have observed, it is hard to believe that a 3 piece band can produce such a full, powerful sound.  For this, their Clockwork Angels Tour, they had an 8 piece string section accompanying them, to accurately reproduce the songs on that album - which they played in its entirety.

These three middle aged guys (Geddy and Alex are 59, Neil is 60) played for 3 hours.  Numerous selections from their '80s albums sandwiched the end to end rendition of Clockwork Angels - which is in itself one of the best albums they have ever produced.

The encore was a powerful performance of the 2112 overture - first time I have seen them do it live.  Appropriate, since 2012 is the 100th pre-nniversary of 2112.  If that doesn't make sense, you simply need to know more about RUSH.

The only drawback was the Ga-nomes.  Although funny, it didn't come close to the hilarity of Gershon's House of Sausages.  (again, if you aren't 'down' with that, you need to be more of a Rushie!)

The concert was recorded on video.  There were cameras all over the place, including one just above my right shoulder.  A DVD will be produced next year from what I saw last night, plus the concert in Phoenix a few days ago.  So, look in Section 115, row X, and you'll see me in my official RASH shirt.

Our local newspaper (Dallas Morning News) started its review of the concert with 'EPIC'. 

Geddy, Alex, and Neil - thanks guys, enjoyed seeing you immensely, and hope you make it back here sometime in the future.

Fiscal Cliff - We're Being Lied To

The fiscal cliff approaching us is on pretty much everyone's mind (except for the free shit generation).  We're getting close to the deadline for legislation to avoid the myriad of tax hikes and automatic budget cuts that are supposed to trigger on Jan. 2.

You would think that Congress and Obama would be hard at work trying to head off the impending disaster.  That isn't necessarily the case ...

Obama just this week appointed Tim Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury and tax cheater, to be his representative in negotiations with Republicans on the issue.  JUST NOW!!!!!!

(This same Tim Geithner, the person who is supposed to the be fiscal guide for the country, the expert on fiscal policy, came out early this week and stated that the Debt Ceiling Limit should be abolished - so the government can spend how ever much money it wants, and drive us as deep into debt as it wants, with no legal restraint.  How's that for responsible fiscal policy?)

Democrat leaders in both the House and Senate have been blurting out their talking points on the subject to any camera they can find.  Budget cuts are off the table, unless they are Defense.  Social Security reform can't even be talked about.  Obamacare is unapproachable. 

HIs Highness, instead of being right in the thick of negotiations, is out blowing a lot of taxpayer money on a campaign tour to prop up his 'soak the rich' message.

Geithner had his first meeting with John Boehner, Speaker of the House, today on the emergency.  Boehner came out of the meeting frustrated and angry that Geithner had presented absolutely nothing in the way of proposals except for their months old line of 'raise taxes on the rich' ... no reform, no budget cuts, no tax code changes - nothing.

Here are the facts of what Democrats are proposing at this point to come up with the required 1.2 Trillion dollar amount of cuts/revenue required to keep the automatic Jan.2 cuts from happeneing;

1)  Raise the tax rate on the rich from 35% to 39%.

2)  Count on savings from Medicare and Medicaid, that will supposedly provide savings ... BUT in no way can be allowed to impact any amount of benefits delivered to anyone.  (How this is supposed to happen is beyond me.  Obamacare already counts on robbing 761 billion dollars from these two program in order to fund 'free Obamacare shit'.  How in the hell are they going to find more than 761 billion in waste and fraud in those programs, and if they do, how much is that going to be?)

That's it.

Those are the only things Democrats have been willing to consider.  Someone who knows 'liberal math' needs to explain to me how raising the tax rate (which will result in slightly less than 80 billion in additional revenue per year) is supposed to solve a 1.2 trillion dollar requirement.  Anyone have that answer for me?

Someone who understands liberal economics need to explain how this tiny drop in the deficit bucket is supposed to outweigh the devastating effect the higher tax rate will have on small business (the largest employer in the country), cause hundreds of thousands more people to lose their jobs (the layoffs have already begun), and push the country further down into a general recession.  Someone please explain the logic of that tradeoff.

Given the facts of what Democrats are (or are not would be a better portrayal) proposing, you would think the public outcry would be massive.  Well, most of the public doesn't know about it, for the mainstream media is busy portraying Republicans as the roadblock to an agreement.

Now, here's a little secret ...

Congress passed the law that will trigger the automatic cuts.  Congress passed the laws that will cause the automatic tax increases and the same time.

Congress can just as easily pass a law negating those earlier laws.  There is no such thing as a permanent, untouchable law (even though Democrats tried to write that provision into Obamacare, in order to keep any future Congress from repealing it - that effort failed). 

Congress can also pass laws undoing the fiscal damage after the fact, if they want to.

So why all the hubbub, why all the outrage?  Because 'Fiscal Cliff' is a headline, and it is an issue that Democrats are using to bash Republicans over the head.  Dems and the manistream media are barraging the public constantly with 'rich, white Republicans hate you, and they're only interested in keeping their money'.  It is effective.  For their target audience, it is like chumming the shark infested waters.

A side benefit to Democrats is IF the automatic cuts are triggered, the Defense Department gets eviscerated - and that makes liberals orgasmic in anticipation.

The Fiscal Cliff is a win/win for Democrats.  It is a lose/lose for Republicans, for no matter what bad option happens, mainstream media will blame the GOP for it.

Update - Geithner's meeting with Congressional Republican leadership went less than well, that's for certain.  Not unexpected, I guess.

Geithner brought the President's proposal and laid it out - 85 billion in increased revenue per year by allowing the Bush tax cuts for 'the rich' to expire (which is a tax increase).  1.6 trillion in unspecified new taxes over the next 10 years.  Hopefully some additional savings can be found in Medicare, but no cuts, no commitments.  AND, Obama takes complete control of the debt ceiling, raising it whenever he wants to - not when Congress (which has the Constitutional authority) approves.

Not a single budget cut or reduction in the proposal - nothing but tax increases - plus an unprecedented power grab.

Unbelievable that a President, who is out there right now campaigning on how bad the Republicans are, and how they are preventing any kind of deal, has the gall to roll out such a pile of bullshit, and then get indignant when Republicans go WTF? 

Update II - More details of Obama's 'opening offer', presented by Geithner.  It included INCREASED spending in the form of another stimulus bill.  The amount, 85 billion dollars, is more than the expected revenue gain from their raising the tax rates on 'the rich'. 

If this doesn't expose their attack on the rich as what it is - an attack based on FAIRNESS ... uh, I mean HATRED, made to please Obama's base.  That's all it is - it isn't about the money at all.

Obama has decided to punt and make the Republicans come up with a plan.  Then he can sit back and shoot it down, without ever having to put forward anything serious himself.  Lazy, calculating f**k ...

And, please don't believe that he's going to be hard at work trying to find aq compromise right down to the wire.  No, Dear Leader is spending the time between Dec. 17th and Jan. 6th in Hawaii, on an all expense paid (by the taxpayer) 5 Star beadch front vacation for him, family, and several dozen of their friends.  I wonder how the 99% feel about paying for that?  Being in Hawaii keeps him away form Washington, and away from any actual work on this issue.

Obama is hell bent on driving us over the cliff, and all he will do is blame Republicans.

Update - Figures released by the CBO indicate that Obama is lying.  Wow ... how surprising.

Obama states that those rich white bastards have to be soaked for more taxes, in order to cut the deficit and pay down the debt.  He's stated that he MUST havbe 1.6 trillion in new tax revenue in order to do it.  1.6 trillion ... our debt is 16 trillion.  Seems like there is a synergy there, doesn't it?  The normal, brain dead idiot who voted for him will believe him when he says he's going to cut spending and fix our fiscal problems with all this money taken from the evil rich.

Well, guess what?  The vast majrotiy of that 1.6 trillion is earmarked by Obama towards NEW spending, above and beyond what he's already burning through;

75% of what Obama is demanding, 1.2 trillion dollars, will go towards NEW spending.  Not exactly the public message he's spitting out, is it?

The Bullsh*t Of Racial Code Words

Ever since Obama started running for office back in 2006 (yes, all the time he spent in the US Senate was just his campaign for the White House - don't believe me, check his 'absent' voting record), Democrats and other left wing kooks, plus the mainstream media have used a weapon to fight the Right - anything said against His Highness is 'Racist'.

Someone cannot be opposed to anything His Highness does, without that person being a racist.  Anything said in opposition is racist slurs, or worse yet, the dreaded 'Racist Code Words'.

Racist Code Words are an invention of the mainstream media, who had to find a way of attacking people on the Right, even when they didn't have anything to attack them with.  Anything said becomes a code word that is supposed to trigger visceral racial hatred in the sub-conscious of all white people.

What a load of bullshit.

Dispicable, dirty, underhanded, dishonest, evil ... and it works.  Look at how many times anything a Republican said was lambasted by His Highness' minions on MSNBC, CNN, NPR, etc., as a racist attack.  A Republican literally could not disagree with anything Obama did or said without being labeled a racist.  This wasn't by accident - it was calculated, and it will continue.

The example playing out in front of us right now is how John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte (all Republican Senators) are being savaged for their racial attack on Susan Rice, Obama's Ambassador to the UN.  Rice's outright lies to the public in the wake of the Libya scandal have caused serious doubt as to her 'worthiness' to assume the office of Secretary of State (which Obama seems to be positioning her for).  Not one of these Senators has said a single word about Rice's skin color, or her color having anything to do with her job her qualifications, or her being guilty of lying to us.  Yet - they are all racists to be hated and despised for their KKK like attack on Obama's pet. How dare they attack one of His Highness' followers?

Get used to it.  This will be the continuing tactic for the next 4 years.  It works, and Democrats are never called to task for it by their media lapdogs.   No one brought onto TV or the internet to attack those on the Right for using Racial Code is EVER asked to explain exactly how it is racist code.

For the life of me, I can't figure out what a Racist Code Word is actually supposed to be.  To me, if you use a racist word directed at someone, it's a pretty obvious word.

There is one Racist Code Word that we have been hearing and will continue to hear constantly from the left;

Fair   ... or Fairness.

This word is racist code that means only one thing to its target audience;

Take it all from rich whitey, and give it to the bruthas and sistas ...


To the Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, etc, out there who don't understand this, you NEED to understand - your races are a sideshow to Obama and the people behind him.  You are being used to deliver a counted upon voting block - that's all.  If you think Obama is fighting for you, you need to look at his record a lot closer.  You have delivered your votes to him, now he has no need to pander to you and your causes anymore.

To all those 'middle class' white people, the ones Obama's staff wrote off a year ago - do you think he's fighting for you?  Seriously?  Now that he's gotten your vote and doesn't need you anymore, do you think he's going to bat for you?  Yeah, you just keep believing that as your taxes go up, and up ... and up ... and up.  Keep singing His praises as you watch more and more of your money being taken away and given to someone else.  Stay at His altar while you stand in line to see some bureaucrat to get permission to see a nameless, generic doctor 3 months from now.

I hate racism.  I believe everyone should stand up and be judged for what they are, not by their skin color.  It pains me to see our country embroiled in racism to an extent that hasn't been seen since the early days of the Civil Rights movement.  It pains me even more to see the leader of our country, the man who promised to get us beyond racial barriers, purposely feeding the fires of racism to strenghten his position.  It hurts to see fabricated racial wedges driven between our people, ON PURPOSE, in order to further a left wing political agenda.  It is really painful to see the mainstream media, the people who are supposed to hold the government, all government, accountable for the people, gleefully participating in this destructive effort.

Here It Comes, Part V

One of the biggest dangers over the next 4 years of Obama's reign is what might happen to the Supreme Court.  Obama and his followers are salivating for the day when they can add another far left liberal to the bench.

The court is now evenly split between conservative and liberal.  4 hard core liberals, 3 consistent conservatives, a middle of the road waffler, and a Chief Justice who seems willing to put his own reputation in the media above the actual law.  This current mix is somewhat balanced, and results in not too many controversial decisions (the absolute horror of Obamacare being a notable exception).

Once a judge is apponted to the court, they are there for life, or until they choose to retire.  I am sure there is some mechanism for removing a judge, but it would have to be a VERY unusual circumstance (and I don't think it has ever happened).  When a judge leaves (or dies), the current President gets to nominate a replacement - anyone they want.  The Senate gets to sit in judgement of that nominee and approve or disapprove of them.  Rarely does a candidate fail to pass the Senate review - especially when the Senate belongs to the President's Party.

So, if an opening on the Court happens in the next four years, Obama is going to choose another hard core liberal to fill it, and the Senate will confirm the selection.  If that judge is replacing one of the conservative judges, the court will become a hard left wing rubber stamp for Obama's policies.  Liberals may disagree with that, but look at the history - tell me ONE example of a case where a liberal judge sided with the conservatives on anything approaching a controversial case.  If we end up with 5 liberals on the bench, we might as well shut the court down and save the money spent to operate it - since every decision will be rendered before the cases are even heard.

Here's who is sitting on the bench right now:

Chief Justice John Roberts.  Appointed by George W. Bush.  Thought to have been a consistent conservative, until he sided with liberals on Obamacare.  His vote on any specific case is unpredictable.  57 years old, appointed to the bench in 2005.

Justice Antonin Scalia.  Appointed by Ronald Reagan.  Consistently conservative.  Predictably conservative votes on almost all cases.  76 years old, appointed to the bench in 1986.

Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Appointed by Ronald Reagan.  Kennedy is regarded as the one true swing vote on the court, he can't be predicted to land on one side or the other on any case.  78 years old, appointed to the bench in 1988. 

Justice Clarence Thomas.  Appointed by George H. W. Bush.  Consistently conservative.  Predictably conservative votes on almost all cases.  Considered by most to the be most conservative member  of the court.  64 years old, appointed to the bench in 1991.

Justice Samuel Alito.  Appointed by George W. Bush.  For the most part conservative, though not as much as he indicated he would be during his Senate hearings.  62 years old, appointed to the bench in 2006.

Justice Stephen Breyer.  Appointed by Bill Clinton.  Consistently liberal.  Predictable liberal vote on almost all cases.  74 years old, appointed to the bench in 1994. 

Justice Ruth Ginsburg.  Appointed by Bill Clinton.  Staunch liberal.  Predictable liberal vote on almost all cases.  79 years old, appointed to the bench in 1993. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  Appointed by Barack Obama.  Staunch liberal.  Predictable liberal vote on all cases.  58 years old, appointed to the bench in 2009.

Justice Elena Kagan.  Appointed by Barack Obama.  Staunch liberal, was Obama's White House lawyer and a staff lawyer for Bill Clinton.  No judicial experience whatsoever.  Predictable liberal vote on all issues and cases.  52 years old, appointed to the bench in 2010. 

Pundits have predicted there may be as many as three retirements during Obama's second term, due to age.

If  (age 76) Scalia retires, Obama scores a coup.  He will replace one of the most conservative judges, and tilt the court to the far left.

If  (age 79) Ginsburg goes, it is a push.  One liberal will be replaced with another.

If  (age 74) Breyer hangs it up, it is also a push - liberal for liberal.

So, for conservatives, we have to hope and pray that Antonin Scalia holds on for another 4 years, to prevent us from being saddled with a far left Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia has recently written a book.  During his press tour for the book, he hinted strongly that he is getting to the point of wanting to retire.

For liberals, replacing Scalia would be akin to hitting the jackpot.  Likewise, dumping Ginsburg and Breyer would be very desirable - replacing old liberals with younger liberals would guarantee those seats will remain liberal for many years to come.

Justice Scalia ... for the sake of our country and the conservative principles you have so strongly supported ... PLEASE DON'T GO!

A Christmas Contest For You

Here's the latest craze in Christmas lighting.  Two examples for you to consider.  I am sure many more will appear once these are seen, and copycat lighters appear - each wanting to cash in on Youtube glory... Which do you think is the best?







I'll tell you my vote - both of these fine candidates FAIL!  Anyone who does anything to this stupid, annoying piece of crap assault on the ears is metally defective (or a Democrat!) This is so stupid, it is almost not worth the electrons to post it!

What Do They Have In Common?

I've seen this collage making the rounds of liberal talk.  The not very well hidden insinuation is that all Republicans are racist for daring to oppose His Higness and His minions.

For all of you liberals out there, I will tell you what these four people have in common ...

They Are All Incompetent Idiots!

VICTORY For Unions, Obama

Hostess Bakeries, makers of Twinkies and hundreds of other baked goods under various brand names, is closing its doors.

The company had been in bad financial shape for years, and is currently under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  As part of its reorganization, new labor contracts were required, to cut operating costs down to where the company would at least break even.

The Teamsters, strangely enough, agreed to new terms and signed a contract.  A smaller union, the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International (BCTWGM) rejected the company's new terms, and went on strike.  The strike shut down 12 of the company's 33 plants.  The company gave them an ultimatum, agree to terms and end the strike, or the company would go under and be liquidated.

Union leaders (thugs in charge) told their membership that this was a bluff, and that there were better alternatives available (although the judge presiding over the bankruptcy insisted that no other alternatives were on the table).  Based on that, 90% of the union's members voted down the proposal.

Guess what, union thugs - it wasn't a bluff. 

Hostess has received permission from the judge to close up shop completely and liquidate its assets.  All 18,500 employees of the company will lose their jobs.  Since the company is bankrupt, very few of the now unemployed workers will receive any seperation compensation.

Company officials, understandably bitter, lambasted the union and its membership.  In a shocking show of non-solidarity, Teamster leaders also laid into BCTWGN.

The 82 year old company will now disappear.  33 plants, 565 distribution centers, 570 bakery outlets, 5550 delivery routes, and 18,500 employess are lost.

Congratulations, unions.  You stood tall, and defended your membership  You really showed those rich bastard owners, didn't you?

I can see in my mind's eye ... Obama in the Oval Office, feet propped up on the desk, cigarette dangling from his chuckling lips ...

The New American Dream

I was really hoping that this election would get us back to the place where this was the embodiment of the American Dream ...

Unfortunately, the 'Free Shit' generation has decided that this, Obama's vision of life in America, is the new American Dream.  May each and every moron who voted for the man achieve this lofty goal ...

Here It Comes, Part IV

Immigration 'Reform'.

Expect this to be tackled by Obama during 2013.  This was an issue he couldn't address during his first term, since his desired goal would not have passed through Congress, and would have pissed off a majority of the voters.

Obama and the Democrat let Senate will push for immediate amnesty for all 20 million or so illegals in this country.  Their target will be the vast majority of those illegals who are from south of the border.  Amnesty will require nothing, or next to nothing from the illegals to achieve.  They certainly won't be required to do anything close to what is required of legal immigrants who go through the current process to become citizens.  In fine print at the bottom of this amnesty proposal will be the right of all of these amnestified illegals to get voting priviledges.  After all, the only reason Democrats want them in the country is as a guaranteed Democrat voting bloc.

Democrats will also fight any attempt to actually tighten border control.  Why?  Because they want their pipeline of guaranteed voters to continue.  No way they'll cut that resource off.

Republicans in the House MUST realize what this is all about (and they do, even if they don't discuss it publicly).  They must fight full amnesty, must require some reasonable process for these people to become citizens.  They must not allow anyone given amnesty without earning citizenship to gain the right to vote.  They must fight for meaningful, enforceable border control to be a part of any agreement on immigration.

Two side notes:

First, Republican talking heads are freaking out about the lack of Hispanic voting for Romney.  They are declaring that Republicans MUST embrace amnesty, and welcome Hispanics by acting as Democrat Lites.  That's a mistaken approach, and hopefully the GOP will think a lot before adopting it.

Exit polling, combined with extensive research by polling professionals, indicate that Hispanics who voted, legally or illegally, don't care about immigration nearly as much as they do about getting free shit from the government. 

Republicans could beg Obama to make every illegal in the US a full citizen immediately, no questions asked, no fines, no tests, no nothing.  Republicans could plead for completely open southern borders, with automatic citizenship for anyone who shows up at the door.  It wouldn't matter.  They will still vote Democrat.  Why?  Because Democrats promise more free shit.

There is impirical evidence of this.  Ronald Reagan won 37% of the Hispanic vote in his reelection of 1984.  Reagan pushed through amnesty in 1986, making 3 million illegals instant citizens.  George H W Bush, running as the third term of Ronald Reagan and a staunch supporter of amnesty, won election in 1988, but only got 30% of the Hispanic vote.  Amensty didn't mean a damn thing, didn't get Republicans a single vote.

As a side note to this side note, the agreement between Reagan and Congress that allowed amnesty to happen included an agreement for tightening border security so the massive illegal problem wouldn't happen again.  Obviously, Congress didn't hold up its end of that deal. 

Second, if Rebublicans think that putting a Hispanic on the 2016 ticket, like Marco Rubio, is going to get them a large Hispanic vote, think again.  Hispanic heritage will help him be accepted as a candidate, surely, but the fact his heritage is Cuban isn't going to help draw in Mexican votes.  Its also about the message, and Rubio isn't going to deliver free shit - so they're not going to vote for him.

Giving amnesty AND voting rights to 20 or so million people who are hostile to Republicans will make it tremendously more difficult to win national office, such as the White House - and its going to drastically impact Republican representation in border states.  Democrats in Texas are already crowing about how the coming influx of Hispanics from south of the border are going to change Texas from reliably Republican to purple, and then blue.

Senator Feinstein, We're Watching ...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Her committee will begin hearings this week on what happened in Libya.  The first meeting is scheduled for Thursday.  She has just announced that her inquiry will expand to include why the FBI did not notify her committee that it was investigating David Patreus' affair.

There are some practical problems to this inquiry.  Patreus' resignation means he will not have to testify as head of the CIA, unless he choses to, or is subpoened by the committee.  Hillary Clinton is conveniently out of the country during the first days of the hearing, and has informed the committee that she is unavailable to testify.

We will find out in short order if the Senator is going to hold a real investigation, or just participate in the Obama Administration's coverup.  If Patreus does not chose to testify, she MUST compel him to do so.  Him being allowed not to participate gives the Administration a huge curtain to hide behind.  Since he is no longer in a position to defend himself, Democrats will blame him for anything they want to.

If she concludes the hearings without hearing testimony from Clinton, we will know it's just a smokescreen for Obama.  Clinton, under oath, would have to be very careful to tell the truth - if she commits perjury and is found out, her future political goals will be toast.

Senator, at times in the past you have shown that you take your responsibilities as head of this committee seriously, to the point of asking sometimes embarrassing questions of your Dear Leader's Administration.  I sincerely hope you do that this time - we deserve the truth.  Even though you've managed to put this off until after the election (so there are no ramifications for Obama himself, no matter the outcome), the truth must come out.

As a control, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, headed by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)  will also begin its own investigation, also commencing on Thursday.  Lets see if the committees come up with the same results.

Give A Pause For Veteran's Day

For most folks, Veterans Day passes without notice.  For most it is just an inconvenience, because it means the post office and banks are closed on Monday.  That is unfortunate, and indicative of how far our society has fallen.

I ask you to please pause a moment and give a thought to the millions of men and women who have worn a military uniform in service of our country.

For myself, I'd like to recognize those who are close to me;

My father, who served in the USAF during the Cold War as a nuclear strike pilot.

My uncle, who served in the USAF before, during, and after the Vietnam War.

My uncle, who served in the USAF during the Cold War.

A cousin, who served in the USMC as a pilot.

My brother in law, who served in the USAF during the Vietnam War.

My father in law, who I never had the pleasure of knowing, who served in the USN during WWII.

A close friend, who served in the US Army for 25 years as an attack helicopter pilot, with three tours in Iraq.

A good friend, who served in the USAF as an A-10, F-4, and F-117 pilot.

A good friend, who served in the USAF during the Vietnam War, was shot down and spent time as a POW.

Thank you, to my relatives, friends, and the millions who I have never met, for your service.

Is Legalized Pot Our Fiscal Answer?

Tuesday's election gave the residents of two states, Colorado and Washington, the right to legally raise, own, and smoke pot, not only for medicinal uses, but for recreational use as well.  So, people in those states can get stoned whenever they want, and the cops can't do anything about it.

There is still some question about exactly what this means, since pot is still illegal under Federal law - but no one expects the Obama Administration to try and prosecute anyone for smoking pot in these two states.  After all, Obama is the Stoner-In-Chief.

Besides the rank stupidity of doing this, it does raise some interesting possibilities for those two states.  Why not tax the hell out of pot, since you've got such a groundswelling of support for its use?  The precedent is there - taxes on cigarettes and liquor are tremendously high (so called sin taxes).  Why not soak pot users as well?

I propose that Colorado and Washington impose a 50% sales tax on legal marijuana sales in their states.  I propose the Feds impose an additional 50% use tax.  So, 100% in taxes, to be collected upon the legal sale of each and every doobie. 

That would pay for a lot of free shit, wouldn't it?

(Oh, don't be surprised when residents of these two states start clamoring for the government to provide them pot at no charge - more of the free shit Obama promised them in exchange for their votes.)

(Also don't be surprised when Democrats start talking about legalizing pot nationwide - a lot of the more far left wingers are already discussing it openly!)

Update - Of course, this won't happen.  Primarily because the people who are going to take advantage of smoking pot legally are the same ones who will expect pot to be part of their free shit shipment each month from the government.  And you don't pay taxes on free shit, do you?