Remember, I believe that Illinois has a world class medical marijuana law for 30 years, right? Remember that I have tried to advocate for the DHS (the welfare people) to actually do something with this law (that hasn't been done for 17 years-since the "Reagan Storm Troopers" came in and closed down the Dangerous Drug Commission, that was "finally getting cannabis into the hands of cancer doctors to help their cancer patients with nausea", right?) Remember that Senator Grotberg testified about that on 5/8/80, and now the DHS has told me they have "no record of having authorized marijuana" ever, and they have "no record of any of the activities of the DDC", meaning that when the troopers came in they destroyed all the evidence. Remember that I have lost my law license to try to do this thing (for myself-I found after 15 other pills that this stuff best helped to ameliorate the depression at night when ritalin would leave my system, right?)

Just remember all of these things, because if someone (no names) actually came in and unplugged my web site, just because they did not like the "content" of the message I like to speak about, that probably means they think that they can just do that and nobody will ever 1) know, 2) care, 3) stop them, 4) force them to pay damages, 5) of far worse, they think they will have taken such control of this country that this sort of thing will start happening with more and more frequency and clarity of purpose.

Just remember these things when more and more web sites start to suddenly disappear. When beacons of freedom stop reporting any dissent. When dissent starts to look worse and worse, and more discredited and less emboldened to speak. We may just have witnessed the high point of our First Amendment, where more and more (even judges) were willing to come together, in fours no less, to speak about these things.

Right now, Illinois is working towards passage of a law to ban internet dissemination of ideas (where the "ideas" are proven to "provoke" illegal behavior, like thinking about how pot might just help some poor person that needs these chemicals for pain, wasting or neurological symptoms-like moi). I have recently sent a flyer to various law enforcement agencies offering to "educate" them as to "medical marijuana sensitivity training". I'm thinking that got somebody in Washington thinking about thinking about stopping the dissemination of these ideas, and pronto. And pronto, my web site is gone. I will post messages each day for the next week or so, in case they want to pinch me and get me outa the way, eh? I might be delusional, of course, but I say to you all, I did not remove my own web site, no I didn't! If it is still there, I can't find it. Let me know if you see it, OK? Someone at the door....

What gets less attention, however, is that the Society is accomplishing in the courts what Republicans canıt achieve politically. There is nothing like the Federalist Society on the left.

Why should a physician risk career and freedom treating someone of a political persuasion different than their own? Who would? Is this the type of society the Feds want? If so, they have no conception of the world they seek to create. It might appeal to the totalitarian minority, but to no one else. (Emphasis mine -k.)

Indeed it is, Doc. Indeed it is...

The Federalist Society The Conservative Cabal That's Transforming American Law By Jerry Landay http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html

from the article:

Who are they?

With 25,000 members plus scores of close affiliates nationwide--including Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, and University of Chicago brain-boxes Richard Epstein and Frank Easterbrook (also a federal appellate judge)--the Federalist Society is quite simply the best-organized, best-funded, and most effective legal network operating in this country. Its rank-and-file include conservative lawyers, law students, law professors, bureaucrats, activists, and judges. They meet at law schools and function rooms across the country to discuss and debate the finer points of legal theory and substance on panels that often include liberals--providing friction, stimulus, and the illusion of balance. What gets less attention, however, is that the Society is accomplishing in the courts what Republicans canıt achieve politically. There is nothing like the Federalist Society on the left.

The Societyıs origins can be traced back to 1979--the year before Ronald Reaganıs victory--when a legal scholar named Michael Horowitz published a tract on the public-interest law movement, exhorting conservatives to overturn a half-century of liberal dominance of the legal establishment. This could be done, he wrote, by indoctrinating or winning over succeeding generations of law students, lawyers, and judges. By definition, the campaign had to be rooted in the fertile ground of law schools. To Horowitzıs good fortune, Reagan was elected in 1980, and his administration set to work filling the sails of the Federalist movement.

Horowitzıs concept was taken up with relish by senior members of the new Administration. They operated on two tracks--designed to insure that the Reagan Revolution would well outlast the Reagan Presidency. The first, to reclaim the Federal courts from liberals, swept an array of conservative scholars and judges from law schools and state courts onto the Federal bench: the likes of Robert Bork, Ralph Winter, Antonin Scalia, Richard Posner, Sandra Day OıConnor, and Anthony Kennedy.

The second track was even more forward looking and involved the apprenticing of a new generation of conservative lawyer-intellectuals-under-30 to the Reagan apparat. This second track required fresh meat, which is where the Federalist Society came in. The founding chapters of the Society were established at Yale, where Bork taught before Reagan nominated him to the bench, and at the University of Chicago, where Scalia was faculty advisor and from whose ranks he would later recruit former student-Federalists to prestigious Supreme Court clerkships. Originally the chapters were little more than a debating circle and comfort station for young conservatives who felt themselves victimized by liberal persecution. The Societyıs executive director Eugene Meyer recalls of his experience at Yale Law School that "someone was writing 'fascistı on our posters, or taking them down. Then cooler faculty heads [such as Bork] channeled our angers and frustrations into organizational activity." Keen self-promoters, they made a mascot of James Madison (on the debatable grounds that he favored decentralized government in his later years) and took the name of Madisonıs 18th-century Federalist Party as their own.

Note something interesting? They say they are for reduced governmental influence in our lives...yet are practically slavering to prosecute MMJ users...whose only real enemy is the government apparatus that these so-called Fedarlists purportedly disdain. They are supposed to be favoring State's Rights...but look what happens as soon as they get into power.

Why should a physician risk career and freedom treating someone of a political persuasion different than their own? Who would? Is this the type of society the Feds want? If so, they have no conception of the world they seek to create. It might appeal to the totalitarian minority, but to no one else.