The What "IF'" in American History .

I would like my readers to ponder a little about our  nations "history" .  In 200 years or so . Our so called great nation had a lot of issues,  that maybe our Founding Fathers left  those issues in the lurch for future generations to deal with . As questions go, it is monumental . We have had too many consequences . Here below are some major examples , after a quick list of minor ones that are too long to comment , but a summery is needed.

"What if?"
*****

The question of slavery .

The American civil war , tragic , bloody . Was not
just about slavery , but one of the
errors of the foundation of
this nation .

 As examples , that if the founders of our nation would have done away with slavery first  we would never had a civil war . well, despite what people think the entire world would be different. (1.1)>>~700,000 Americans died fighting the Civil War. No one, to be sure, could rightly dispute the powerful role that more than 250 years of black enslavement in America has played in shaping the nation's character and culture.At the time of the founding of the Republic in 1776, slavery existed literally everywhere on earth and had been an accepted aspect of human history from the very beginning of organized societies. With everyone bearing in mind that we're speculating on a hypothetical alternate timeline of history, I could think of a few things. Let's assume that the West Africans that were slaves (remember a lot of them were slaves before they ever had white masters) were simply never picked up and shipped to the colonies/United States.There would be significant societal and cultural differences between our world and that world. Yes, there could had been such a different America . Conversely, the culture war would be far different as the left wouldn’t have a large, impoverished minority group to lead it. All of the racial issues we see today also wouldn’t exist due to no large minority group for the left to create friction with. How could the framers of the constitution have missed this ? Obviously many of the founding fathers grappled with the notion of slavery . George Washington in his many letters discussed freeing the slaves as early as (1)>>1787. How would America been culturally ? This nation as such would be totally unrecognizable as it is today. There would be no jazz, no Civil Rights Movement, etc., etc., etc.  like many European and Asians did. I don't think slavery did anything to advance the African race. You can make the arguments that "chains or not -- we got them here to the greatest nation on earth." Yeah. Bull.    In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson tried to blame King George III for using the Atlantic slave trade to impose slavery on the colonies. , just look at a society which did not have its own form of exploitation, hierarchyor slavery… I can’t think of one of the top of my head - as far as I am aware there isn’t one [on this planet anyway lol].From ancient societies – based on the exploitation of legally tied slaves (e.g. Ancient Egypt, the European colonial era)… fast forward allllll the way to this capitalist society, laborers exploited by the capitalist class. It seems like its just ‘human nature’ to exploit an underclass for benefit/gain. Equity and equality – they seem like unsubstantiated ideologies and impossible concepts rather than something which can ever truly be achieved… But that’s just my opinion

 Women's right to vote 

Besides the Civil War , another American problem was (2)>>the right to vote for women , it vary much   runs parallel with the question of slavery . AND WHY and WHY it was like this for women ? .Voting rights in America in the early 1800s was a complex process because many politicians and government leaders supported slavery, limiting voting rights to those who were legally free. Women weren’t treated as equals with men, so their civil liberties, such as the right to vote, didn’t receive a fair amount of attention. Socioeconomics and land ownership were also big factors in determining who could vote, so the poor working class didn’t have many political freedoms either. Voting privileges were primarily granted to wealthy, white men. Also of notice that black -African American "men"  were ahead as in voting rights over women , both white and black. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1870, granted African-American men the right to vote. The Amendment states that the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” However, some Southern states imposed poll taxes and literacy tests that made it nearly impossible for black men to qualify for voting privileges. Black women, regardless of their ability to pass voting prerequisite tests, were not allowed to vote. ODDLY enough before the American Revolution,  women in colonial government had some "rights" to vote .  Although women had been voting in some states since the colonial era, other states denied women that right. As early as 1756 in Massachusetts, Lydia Chapin Taft cast a ballot in the local town hall meeting in place of her deceased husband. However, she and other women lost the right to vote when the new Massachusetts state constitution took effect on March 2, 1780. Women also lost the right to cast their ballot in New York in 1777 and in New Hampshire in 1784.  

The War of 1812.

The War of 1812 was a unnecessary war
in American history . What if  our new
nation lost the war ?

The many what ifs' . What if there was no war of 1812 , or even worse , if  the United States lost the war of 1812 ?In the immediate aftermath of the war, American commentators painted the battles of 1812-15 as part of a glorious (3)>>“second war for independence.”  Had the British won, they likely would have maintained a policy of forced exclusion from the Louisiana Purchase for white settlers. They would likely have discouraged immigration from other European nations--or at least declined to encourage it as the Americans did. The British wouldn't have seen much purpose in fighting Mexico to gain the Rockies, as their colony would have comprised their original American territory, the Lousiana Purchase, and Canada. Mexico would have been the beneficiary of the gold rushes in California and the Rockies. Slavery would have ended earlier and without a war.  As the 19th century progressed, this view changed into a more general story about the “birth of American freedom” and the founding of the Union.In 1812, Congress declared a war that the nation was unprepared to fight, and, in many actions, U.S. forces outnumbered the British enemy but still failed to win decisively. The final outcome was a stalemate that resulted in a negotiated peace for the nearly bankrupt and divided nation. The results of the war also demonstrated that the nation's founders and their successors had seriously miscalculated the efficacy of American military institutions as they had evolved in the years 1783-1812. At the opening of the War of 1812, U.S. forces invaded Upper and Lower Canada. Americans expected a relatively easy going; the notion that Canada represented the soft underbelly of the British empire had been popular among American statesmen for some time. Civilian and military leaders alike expected a quick capitulation, forced in part by the support of the local population. But Americans overestimated their support among Canadians, overestimated their military capabilities, and underestimated British power. Instead of an easy victory, the British handed the Americans a devastating defeat.American forces (largely consisting of recently mobilized militias) prepared to invade Canada on three axes of advance, but did not attack simultaneously and could not support one another. American forces were inexperienced at fighting against a professional army and lacked good logistics. This limited their ability to concentrate forces against British weak points. The Americans also lacked a good backup plan for the reverses that the British soon handed them. None of the American commanders (led by William Hull, veteran of the Revolutionary War) displayed any enthusiasm for the fight, or any willingness to take the risks necessary to press advantages.The real disaster of the campaign became apparent at Detroit in August, when a combined British and Native American army forced Hull to surrender, despite superior numbers. The British followed up their victory by seizing and burning several American frontier outposts, although they lacked the numbers and logistical tail to probe very deeply into American territory. The other two prongs of the invasion failed to march much beyond their jumping off points. American forces won several notable successes later in the war, restoring their position along the border, but never effectively threatened British Canada.The failure of the invasion turned what Americans had imagined as an easy, lucrative offensive war into a defensive struggle. It dealt a major setback to the vision, cherished by Americans, of a North America completely under the domination of the United States. Britain would hold its position on the continent, eventually ensuring the independence of Canada from Washington.As it was, the US stopped its goal of conquering Canada, Great Britain was able to move much-needed forces to Europe to finish things over there, Canada didn't get the privilege of being part of the US of A and the whole affair would probably be forgotten now if the British didn't burn down our Presidential home and then get defeated by some pirates an cutthroats down in New Orleans. The War of 1812 was a questionable conflict that ended questionably and probably would best left as the minor footnote in history that it was.
What if September 11th , 2001 never happened ?

We would have had a slightly different picture
if the September  attacks never
were .

Here is an even tougher question of "what ifs" . What our nation would have been like if (4)>>September11th, 2001 never took place. Imagine that the twin towers still dominated the Manhattan skyline. Imagine that the Pentagon’s western facade had remained intact. Imagine that there was no reason to build a memorial in Shanksville, Pa. And imagine that the numbers 9 and 11 meant nothing more than an emergency telephone call. Suddenly on that warm September morning, the US was struck with the most deadly attack on US soil in the nation's history.  The 24x7 news cycle brought the unspeakable horror into every heart and home.  Most vivid of the images were those of the individuals that decided to jump from great heights rather than face the flames.  The recordings of phone calls from doomed passengers were gut wrenching.  Let's go to the national state of mind on September 10, 2001:  The US media was obsessed with the disappearance of Chandra Levy and the possible involvement of Congressman Gary Condit. President Bush had been sworn in after the contentious 2000 election, where the candidate with the most popular votes lost in the Supreme Court.  Hence, Mr. Bush's detractors found almost anything he did to be an outrage [read: too much vacation time in Crawford, TX, etc.].  Without the catalyst of the attacks, Congress would not have undertaken the greatest reorganization of the national security bureaucracy since the Truman years, stitching together the Department of Homeland Security from nearly two dozen agencies. Airline travel would still have its annoyances, but massively intrusive security screening might not be one of them.No Sept. 11 means no invasion of Afghanistan, and possibly no invasion of Iraq. At most, we might have seen covert actions and more cruise missile attacks, such as those the Clinton administration launched in 1998, against countries harboring bin Laden and his allies. And terms such as “IED” (improvised explosive device) and “TBI” (traumatic brain injury) would not have become the defining reality for a generation of American troops.Without the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there would have been no effort to reorient the U.S. armed forces toward counterinsurgency operations. No 9/11, no COIN. America’s defense planners might have spent the first decade of the 21st century focusing on possible high-tech naval and air combat in Asia, rather than on policing and nation-building in occupied Muslim countries.Had the attacks not occurred, George W. Bush might  still have won a second term.  He would be a much better President than he is remembered now If John Kerry had been elected president, we would deal  with the John Edwards VP presidential scandal ,  Barack Obama might still be in the Senate. That said, the best guess is that September 11th accelerated the effects of a dramatically changing international system. And today would not necessarily be safer absent September 11th.

What would America be like today if Mitt Romney had won the 2012 election?

Trying to paint an alternative picture for our country come to this last "what if" .Shortly before he lost his second U.S. Senate race in as many years, Republican Scott Brown presented a curious argument to New Hampshire voters: (5)>>if Mitt Romney had won in 2012, Brown said, “I guarantee you we would not be worrying about Ebola right now.”----so in 2016 we probably would not be faced with the obvious choices of Hillary R Clinton , or Donald Trump . Its hard to digest how the American voters were thrown a curb ball in reelecting Mr. Obama in 2012 . A whole lot had to do with the Occupy movement , the 99%er's against the 1%er's . Still a Romney presidency would have been difficult , with a Federal deficit , cuts would come across the board .VP Paul Ryan would have  made devastating cuts to education and social programs while advocating helping the poor. With no unemployment assistance, Affordable Health Care repealed, little help from food stamps, and no educational or employment opportunities available; many Americans, especially the young and poor, have nowhere to turn but the military. Flush with taxpayer cash, America’s armed forces always needs people lately, considering the multiple battlefields it’s fighting on. The Tea Party would have made inroads in Congress , perhaps the religious right . These are serious alternatives to consider if like what we have now in 2016 --- some of the alternatives had me cheering and some screaming , beating my head .  It is easy to speculate how much better off the country would be IF the Republicans had not done everything in their power to make sure Obama was only a one term president. The Loss of Mitt Romney is no apologies ......

OTHER "WHAT Ifs" that are too long .

I can go on and on with this on my blog , but I have other things to write about , so I listed them , wished that they never happened .

(1) .No  Rise of the Nazi's in Germany , no Holocaust . It's Like saying Hitler never born . But maybe he became a artist in Vienna Austria . if Hitler had taken a different turn in the arts . Oh well !
(2) No assassination attempt against John F Kennedy . President Kennedy lived , what a world of speculation here . The Cold war would have ended early , we probably would be still sending men to  the moon with our partners the Russians .

(3)  OJ Simpson admitted to killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown months after being acquitted of her murder claims the football star's former agent.In the final installment of the ESPN documentary OJ: Made In America, Mike Gilbert claimed that Simpson told him he had not planned to kill his wife when he went to her home on June 12, 1994, and that she might still be alive if she had not answered the door with a knife in her hand. Other wise if OJ would have not been so headstrong , he and wife would be still married . In this alternative , OJ would be  sportscaster on ESPN rather than being in sing sing . 

(4). The American invasion of Iraq , the overthrow of Saddam Hussian . A Huge waste of American military resources . Called Gulf War 2 in some media . Unlike Gulf War 1 which was a "coalition of nations" to get rid of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait . For the most part of American wars , regime change , this war was farcical as it gets under both Bush's presidencies . It set the stage for our current amalgamated mess in our politics , it became the major catalyst  for the wide spread of terrorism in the middle-east . 

Any more what if's I guess not . Adieu !

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1.1)>>~700,000 Americans died fighting the Civil War. Recent scholarship has also cast new light on the scale and horror of the nation's sacrifice. Soldiers in the 1860s didn't wear dog tags, the burial site of most was unknown, and casualty records were sketchy and often lost. Those tallying the dead in the late 19th century relied on estimates and assumptions to arrive at a figure of 618,000, a toll that seemed etched in stone until just a few years ago. (1)>>1787.In the first US census there were 700,000 slaves and 3.2 million whites in the US in 1790, making slaves about 18% of the population. As almost no whites considered them equals it would have been almost impossible for them become more than paid servants and laborers to whites and a legal system of apartheid would no doubt have been introduced across the country. Some ex-slaves may have been relocated to Africa, and may have desired to do so as their experience in the America had at that time been relatively short lived and unpleasant. Waves of would immigrants would continue from Europe, further diluting American blacks as a percentage of the population. There wouldn't have been a Civil War.(2)>>the right to vote for women . At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners–was eligible to vote. The Fifteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to former male slaves in 1870; American Indians gained the vote under a law passed by Congress in 1924; and women gained the vote with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. (3)>>“second war for independence.” Although the war was colloquially considered the "Second War of Independence," in all likelihood a British victory would not have resulted in the return of the US to colonial status. The British would have likely imposed some harsh reparations on the US to help recoup the costs of the Napoleonic Wars, and then perhaps limited the US' further expansion into the continent. Specifically, it might have forced the US to relinquish its claims on the Oregon Country, and then maybe forced the US to cede territory in an alternate Treaty of 1818 (and later hold on to the northern half of Maine versus negotiating an alternate Webster–Ashburton Treaty).Although, if it were a truly crushing defeat that was piled on with absolutely humiliating reparations and/or terms of peace, perhaps radical elements in New England could have forced the issue of secession in the US 50 years ahead of schedule.(4)>>September11th, 2001 never took place. There is no doubt that the September 11th terrorist attacks (or 9/11) changed the world.  It spawned the War on Terror, the invasion of Afghanistan, the Department of Homeland Security, the USA PATRIOT Act, the war in Iraq, anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States, anti-American sentiment across the globe, Guantanamo Bay, mass surveillance of Americans by their own government...the list goes on and on.  Now a whole post-9/11 generation is starting to grow up, and to them this is all they have ever known.Many of the consequences of those attacks and subsequent U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the global war on terror have been tragic. Chaos in Iraq has infected Syria. An Islamic State (IS) that combines the most evil and vile elements of radical Islam has staked claims to great swaths of those states. Afghanistan totters on the brink of civil war. And massive amounts of American dollars have been wasted on these bitter and losing causes. (5)>>if Mitt Romney had won in 2012.   If Romney had won we would have had a competent, smart and moral leader. International leaders would have new respect for the USA. He wouldn't be complicating racial problems by speaking out on the Martin/Zimmerman case. Business would have greater confidence in the government. He would lead instead of blame. And he would be able to work with both parties. Obamacare would be dead. How, in the name of God, did half the country vote for Obama after his performance in the 2012 election! How the hell did those ignorant democrats not see exactly what every single republican saw in the election. All Obama did throughout the entire presidential debate was criticize every single foreign and domestic plan put forth by Mitt Romney. The basis of Obama's argument throughout the entire election was "That is not a recipe for America." 

Puzzling questions about Huma Abedin .

Huma and Hillary is there
something more going on?

Huma Abedin may have been completely forgotten had it not been for two people in her life . First, her husband (1.1)>>Anthony Weiner ,  former member of the United States House of Representatives from New York City, has been involved in two sexual scandals related to sexting, or sending explicit sexual material by cell phone. No one would ever guess that his wife was hiding anything . Recently with Clinton's e-mail scandal, Huma Abedin has hit center stage for the bizarre . Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Monday went after former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner (D), calling the husband of a top Hillary Clinton aide a "pervert sleaze."

 "What about the fact that Huma Abedin — who knows every single thing about Hillary Clinton, she knows more about Hillary than Hillary knows — and she's married to a pervert sleaze named Anthony Weiner, who will send anything that he has out over Twitter," Trump said on "Fox and Friends."
 "I mean, she's married to Anthony Weiner. She knows everything that Hillary Clinton is doing, and she's married to a guy that has no control over himself," Trump said.

 In June, Trump accused Abedin of sharing sensitive information with her husband, saying at the time, "Who the hell wants that? It's not right." Huma Abedin was known for a long time to be connected to the (1.2)>>Muslim Brotherhood , but these so called "allegations"  may have roosted away from media attention ,since the "focus" was Mrs. Clinton . Now some bio on Abedin is how long she was associated with the Clinton's. While a student at George Washington University, Abedin began working as an intern in the White House in 1996, assigned to then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. In 1998, she was also an assistant editor of JMMA. For several years, she served as the back-up to Clinton's personal aide. She officially took over as Clinton’s aide and personal advisor during Clinton's successful 2000 U.S. Senate campaign in New York and later worked as traveling chief of staff and "body woman" during Clinton's unsuccessful campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Writing in Vogue during the 2007 campaign, Rebecca Johnson called her (2)>>"Hillary's secret weapon" and noted that what seemed to motivate Abedin was

not the details of policy or political horse-racing, but rather "the way that politicians are uniquely invested with the power to help individuals—as with, say, the woman whose legs were badly broken by a piece of plane fuselage on September 11," whom Abedin and Clinton visited in the hospital. Abedin told Johnson, "To me, that’s one of the blessings of this job. In some tiny, tiny way I am part of history, but I am also able to help people. According to a number of Clinton associates, Abedin is also a trusted advisor to Clinton, particularly on the Middle East, and has become known for that expertise. “She is a person of enormous intellect with in-depth knowledge on a number of issues—especially issues pertaining to the Middle East,” said Senator John McCain.

Is she the Mole ?

Gohmert tried to get her security clearance pulled in 2012, had hearings and nothing happened. Breitbart has raised it again and again and again. nothing happened (see Notes and Comments) .With only 76 days until American voters go to the polls, the email trouble Clinton has tried, unsuccessfully, to put to rest simply refuses to go away. It seems that her security clearance gave access to Clinton's e-mails . The 35 pages of emails released Monday include detailed schedules of Clinton's high-level phone calls – and her movements.The detailed schedules also contain a warning: 'The information contained in this email is not to be shared, forwarded or duplicated.'One of them was a minute-by-minute schedule for Hillary's day on January 31, 2013.But Abedins email threads lived on Hillary Clinton's private email server, not on her official 'state.gov' acdress. Abedin had a private account through the 'clintonemails.com' domain.That raises new questions about how Hillary's government aides – not just Clinton herself – may have exposed her to needless risk through the use of an unsanctioned private email account for official business.Hillary Clinton’s health was a serious concern among friends as far back as 2009, recent emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit reveal.In another email, sick Hillary tells her aide Huma Abedin (who was recently revealed to have ties to an anti-gay, pro-terrorism journal) that she is too exhausted to take a bus and instead must be flown via Air Force Once. The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin’s June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of “Clinton family matters.”

Hillary's girlfriend ?

Huma looks on over Hillary .

Hillary's relationship with Huma is strange , but I don't know how much is hearsay , but its peculiar enough is their always seen together  . Huma is not a secret agent . Though you could imagine her as one . I think she is another kinda of "agent" . According to the National Enquirer, some of those infamous “deleted” emails that Hillary has been so desperately trying to hide include many lesbian references as well as a list of female lovers she has had.While reporters haven’t published names from the list yet, the lesbian lovers reportedly includes a woman in her early 30s who travels with Hillary a lot, a popular movie star, and the daughter of a major government official. There’s even an international supermodel whose career was launched after she slept with Hillary. Apparently, Hillary made the major mistake of mixing private and public emails on her personal email account.The Politico website had a interesting piece , One of its most-read stories is a 2013 slideshow called "How Close Are Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton?" whose thumbnail promo image is a picture of Abedin (a longtime Clinton aide) leaning in close to Clinton's ear as Clinton expresses what might be interpreted as lightly mischievious amusement. You might say its idle gossip  , but something else could be going on, PERSONALLY I don't care what sexual orientation otherwise is going on . It's not our "business" , my reservations are that (2.2>>Abedin was a intern during the Bill Clinton administration , she was right in the theater of the Monica Lewinsky scandal .   Of course, the Hillary-Huma "whispers" existed well before 2013. Michael Musto of the Village Voice wrote about them in 2007, as did the London Times and Drudge. (You can read more about the history of the faux-smear—which ties in with the right-wing-lunatic conspiracy theory that Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood—in Gawker here.) It's hard to believe that the various editorial employees of a politics-only news site who were involved in compiling and publishing the images had no idea that there were sexuality-related rumors about Abedin and Clinton. Interestingly, this seeming conflict-of-interest scenario continued even as Huma followed Hillary to the Obama State Department as Mrs. Clinton’s Personal Adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff. Everywhere Hillary Clinton went throughout the world as Secretary of State, Huma Abadin was there as well. By this time, the two women had never left each other’s side for thirteen years.Once whispered rumors were quickly turning to shouts. Obama staffers would openly joke about the Hillary-Huma relationship as did various State Department officials. The name “Huma Clinton” became a particular favorite as the two women were largely considered to be a single, functioning unit.The FBI is expected to interview Clinton and Abedin in the coming months about their use of private email to process classified information at the department. If a court agrees to a discovery request related to the issue by nonprofit group Judicial Watch, both could also be called to provide public testimony about their email.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1.1)>>Anthony Weiner . Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin appear in a new documentary trying to work through the aftermath of his 2011 downfall - only for a new scandal to shake up their lives. 'Weiner', which was released on May 20th  in theaters, chronicles his disastrous 2013 mayoral run and his attempt to stage a political comeback, two years after his first scandal.

(1)>>Muslim Brotherhood . In a letter dated June 13, 2012, to the State Department Inspector General, five Republican members of Congress—Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Thomas J. Rooney of Florida, and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia—claimed that Abedin "has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations." The five members of Congress alleged that Abedin had "immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations" which they said were "potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance" and questioned why Abedin had not been "disqualified for a security clearance."The claims in the letter were generally rejected, and were labeled by some as conspiracy theories. The Washington Post editorial board called the allegations "paranoid," a "baseless attack," and a "smear." The letter was also criticized by, among others, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, the first Muslim member of Congress, who called the allegation "reprehensible."Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also rejected the allegations, saying "The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government....These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit." Bachmann's former campaign manager Ed Rollins said the allegations were "extreme and dishonest" and called for Bachmann to apologize to Abedin. The Anti-Defamation League condemned the letter, calling upon the Representatives involved to "stop trafficking in anti-Muslim conspiracy theories." (2)>>"Hillary's secret weapon". Apart from their working relationship, Abedin and Mrs. Clinton have also developed a close personal bond over their years together, as reflected in Clinton's 2010 assertion that: “I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would [be] Huma.” In 2011, Secretary Clinton paid a friendly visit to Abedin's mother, Saleha, in Saudi Arabia. On that occasion, Mrs. Clinton publicly described her aide's position as “very important and sensitive.” (2.2>>Abedin was a intern during the Bill Clinton administration . Therein we find the long-whispered about relationship between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin, a relationship that began at the very same time Bill Clinton began his own involvement with Monika Lewinsky. Hillary and Huma have been inseparable for nearly a quarter century and yet, remarkably, Huma Abedin remains a name the vast majority of Americans have never heard of. Abedin must have been close enough to have heard rumors regarding Bill.

Marijuana Wars.

The "UP'S and Downs" of legalization .

Turning a new leaf as we would say , the DEA came down hard this week  on any such hopes on a "medicinal" value to the plant . Even though there has been substantial research that medical cannabis has some value in treating illness . Marijuana (0)>>will  still remain a Schedule l controlled substance, which declares it has "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse," the Drug Enforcement Administration said Thursday. This keeps the drug in the same category as heroin, LSD and Ecstasy. Dangerous, addictive, and without medical merit.Chuck Rosenberg, the acting head of the D.E.A., wrote in the decision . The federal government has sponsored negative propaganda about marijuana while allowing booze to be the national drug of choice. A large part of our prison population involves non-violent recreational and medical users, despite new findings with independent research that demonstrated cannabis was a powerful medical tool for even cancer.Here's the irony of all ironies. In 1974, the DEA decided on a study to prove marijuana kills brain cells as more “proof” for their anti-pot propaganda.  The NIH (National Institutes of Health) funded the Virginia Medical College to study the effects on brain cells with an animal study. As the study progressed, what was leaked was not what the DEA wanted.  Now I am just speculating that the DEA and it's decision is pretty much inlined with the new  (1.1)>>incoming administration in Washington  D.C. I mean Hillary R Clinton . Its a curious stance that is so full of hypocrisy , while the DEA and the FDA have long "approved" dangerous drugs that have killed people such as (1.2)>>Opioids - For now, Washington appears ready to allow opioid prescriptions to remain widely accessible, a victory for pharmacies, drug makers and, lawmakers say, consumers — and instead focus on the treatment of addiction, not its source. Still, the U.S. Justice Department's , and the DEA is unwilling to take such action, then it is incumbent that members of Congress act swiftly to amend cannabis’ criminal status in a way that comports with both public and scientific opinion. (2)>>But for Big Pharma and Big Tobacco – who fund these anti-marijuana efforts – it’s really about the bottom line. For years, large corporations and well-heeled lobbyists have blocked the legalization of marijuana for medical use or recreational use in order to protect their own profits.Reflecting the increasing acceptance of the drug, and in direct conflict with the DEA’s conclusion, some states have dialed down their marijuana laws in recent years. Prohibited across the country less than five years ago, marijuana is now legal and regulated in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The four states that have legalized recreational marijuana use have done so through ballot initiatives. And this November, voters in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada will also vote on ballot initiatives that would repeal prohibition of the drug. Indeed, as legalized pot grows in state after state, so has the industrial complex around it. This year, though, marks the first time this new legal pot industry has significantly contributed to making itself bigger.The public is split, however, on marijuana’s potential dangers. In Pew’s poll, among those who favored legalization, the belief that marijuana is not as dangerous as other drugs was the second most often cited reason for legalization, following its “medicinal benefits.” But those who thought marijuana shouldn’t be legal cited “dangerous, addictive” potential almost as frequently among their reasons against legalization.  The shift in public opinion has been dramatic. According to annual Gallup polls, only a quarter of Americans supported marijuana legalization when California voted for medical marijuana in 1996, with that number gradually, but steadily, increasing to 44 percent in 2009, before spiking upward ever since then to sit at 58 percent now. California isn't the only state riding the wave this year . November 9th will be a big year for legalization in California , whether to legalize the use of recreational marijuana in the nation's most populous state.California's secretary of state announced  that the measure had obtained enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. Its supporters have raised $3.53 million,The Sacramento Bee reports — nearly 31 times more than what opponents have raised.

POSSIBLE DANGERS HOWEVER .

I Joked at one time that the first people in line to buy Marijuana would be the politicians , and government officials . Now we have to have some serious talk about the stuff . I feel that there are (3)>>PROBLEMS with legalization . Most obvious is that people will mix cannabis with alcohol .  And if your smoke cigarettes , Nicotine is the only drug that eclipses alcohol and marijuana as the most commonly used drugs in the U.S., according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. So, it makes sense that the latter two are also the most common drugs to be used together. Although most people probably have a preference of which drug they prefer, you most likely wouldn’t have to go very far to get a firsthand account of what it’s like to be high on alcohol and marijuana at the same time. What many don’t understand is the biology behind the side effects that follow using these drugs concurrently.Today's marijuana is more potent by far than the weed sold a generation ago, according to new data being presented. American Chemical Society (ACS).The research comes from Charas Scientific, one of a handful of labs certified to test the potency of marijuana in Colorado, where recreational use of the drug became legal last year. Compared to the 1980s, when federal officials say the level was about 4 percent, "that's a dramatic increase in the part that gets you high, of the samples his lab has tested in recent months.potency values close to 30 percent THC, which is huge.But the real question is whether marijuana use causes or increases the likelihood that someone uses other drugs. On that front researchers  found that “there is no evidence to suggest that the use of cannabis causes or increases the risk that an individual will move on to use other drugs.” However on its own it is less "harmless" ? , knowing our population the potential of real harm. As more states consider decriminalizing marijuana, the scientific and public health communities are beginning to catch up with answers to some of the tough research questions about broad usage of the drug in the general population.

NOTES AND COMMENTS: 
(0)>>will  still remain a Schedule l .All drugs, both legal and illegal, are listed in various categories known as schedules, placed in Schedule I, are the most restrictive. Schedule I also includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy.Drugs listed in Schedule II include some illegal substances, including cocaine, but also such legal (though carefully controlled) drugs such as Demerol, Vicodin, Ritalin, and OxyContin. Most prescription drugs with a lower potential for abuse are in Schedules III to V — the higher the number, the fewer the restrictions.(1.1)>>incoming administration in Washington  D.C. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to have changed her mind when it comes to marijuana policy, according to National Journal. Clinton had previously expressed that she did not want marijuana decriminalized, but thought research ought to be done into its benefits. On Tuesday, she appeared to be more acquiescent to a change in the law. Clinton called for more research to be done, without doubting the medical benefits. Hillary stopped short of making an endorsement, saying, “I think we need to be very clear about the benefits of marijuana use for medicinal purposes. I don’t think we’ve done enough research yet.”When she came to the issue of whether it should be legal for adults to use, Clinton said that states like Colorado and Washington have already reformed and that they are “laboratories of democracy.” Clinton claims to be holding out on forming her opinion until she has the evidence from the two states. Her change of heart mirrors that of the Democratic Party, which, as of late, has become more amenable to the case for making marijuana legal for adults to use, medically or otherwise.
(1.2)>>Opioids. Medications that fall within this class include hydrocodone (e.g., Vicodin), oxycodone (e.g., OxyContin, Percocet), morphine (e.g., Kadian, Avinza), codeine, and related drugs. Hydrocodone products are the most commonly prescribed for a variety of painful conditions, including dental and injury-related pain.Morphine is often used before and after surgical procedures to alleviate severe pain. Codeine, on the other hand, is often prescribed for mild pain. In addition to their pain relieving properties, some of these drugs—codeine and diphenoxylate (Lomotil) for example—can be used to relieve coughs and severe diarrhea. According to a 2015 National Bureau of Economic Research study, “States permitting medical marijuana dispensaries experience a relative decrease in both opioid addictions and opioid overdose deaths compared to states that do not.”Separate studies also find that cannabis is associated with better treatment outcomes in opioid-dependent subjects. Writing this year in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, researchers at Columbia University reported a “beneficial effect of marijuana smoking on treatment retention.”They added, “Participants who smoked marijuana had less difficulty with sleep and anxiety and were more likely to remain in treatment as compared to those who were not using marijuana.”Opioids were responsible for over 2,000 deaths in New England over the last year, while cannabis is incapable of causing death by overdose. Politicians should welcome the opportunity to bring necessary and long-overdue regulatory controls to the marijuana market. (2)>>But for Big Pharma and Big Tobacco .The crusaders against weed constitute a long list of suspiciously self-interested folks.Lobbyists work hard to secure for police departments millions of dollars in federal grants towards eradicating weed. Pharmaceutical companies compensate leading anti-marijuana researchers in order to keep their customers on painkillers over cannabis, which is cheaper. The prison-industrial complex would like to keep making money on building more prisons to fill with non-violent grass-smokers.The alcohol and beer industries have also lobbied for years to keep marijuana illegal because they fear the competition that legalized weed would bring. Howard Wooldridge, an anti-drug war activist and retired cop told the online publication Republic Report: “Marijuana and alcohol compete right today as a product to take the edge off the day at six o’clock.” (3)>>PROBLEMS.   Using alcohol and marijuana at the same time is often referred to as "cross fading." Some people will mix the two because they enjoy the unique high it gives them. For others, they are already so intoxicated with alcohol that they are no longer making rational decisions. To them, taking a toke of a joint seems like a good idea at the time, although some may regret it later. When people smoke marijuana and drink alcohol at the same time they can experience nausea and/or vomiting or they can react with panic, anxiety or paranoia. Mixing marijuana with alcohol can increase the risk of vulnerable people experiencing psychotic symptoms.There is some evidence to support that having alcohol in your blood causes a faster absorption of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana that causes intoxication). This can lead to the marijuana having a much stronger effect than it would normally have and could result in ‘greening out’.Greening out is a term commonly referred to in a situation where people feel sick after smoking marijuana. They can go pale and sweaty, feel dizzy, nauseous and may even start vomiting. They usually feel they have to lie down straight away.It appears that this is more likely to happen if a person has been drinking alcohol before smoking marijuana rather than the other way around.