Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

Menu

Subscriptions

Drudge Retort RSS feed RSS Feed

Links

Recent Comments

Recent comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

Related:

"Trump plan to send 1,000 DOJ monitors to the polls could jeopardize the election,' NAACP lawsuit warns

DOJ is planning to deploy 1,000 federal agents to observe the polls on Election Day, drawing fears of voter intimidation

Joe Biden's former civil rights chief is leading a lawsuit against plans for Donald Trump's administration to deploy hundreds of federal agents to polling places during the midterm elections.

Kristen Clarke, who oversaw the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice under Biden, is leading the NAACP's case against her successor Harmeet Dhillon, who is planning what she calls the "biggest DOJ election observer effort in history."

The NAACP is seeking a judge's urgent intervention to force the Trump administration to share plans for the unprecedented deployment, a plan that Clarke says could "jeopardize the election and interfere with the right of voters to participate in the election free from intimidation."

Following the organization's request for records about the , the Justice Department has continued to "take steps to bring about its menacing threats of an unprecedented federal intrusion into elections this Election Day," including "aggressively recruiting a record number of poll monitors," according to the NAACP.

On Sunday, Attorney General Todd Blanche told Fox News that the Civil Rights Division plans to send "a thousand or more" Justice Department personnel to "every state" on November 3. He accused critics of "fearmongering."

www.the-independent.com

;;

But they aren't Fascists, ask JeffyB.

Not if you live in California. I have pointed out 3 times where the people voted for propositions only to-be turned down and ignored by the executive and judicial branches.

The current rules on housing were also never voted upon.

#136 | Posted by oneironaut
Buckle up buttercup:

1. Utah (Medical Cannabis, 2018)

What Voters Passed: Voters approved Proposition 2 to establish a state-regulated medical marijuana system allowing licensed dispensaries and giving patients direct access.

Legislative Action: Before the voter-passed proposition could be fully implemented, Republican state leaders convened a special legislative session to pass a compromise bill (House Bill 3001). The legislature replaced the proposition's regulatory frame, removed the provision for individual home cultivation, limited allowable product formats (eliminating edible gummy options in favor of non-gelatin capsules or blister packs), and restricted the list of qualifying medical conditions.

2. South Dakota (Recreational Cannabis, 2020)

What Voters Passed: Voters approved Constitutional Amendment A, legalizing recreational marijuana for adults 21 and older, alongside Initiated Measure 26 for medical marijuana.

Executive & Judicial Opposition: Republican Governor Kristi Noem supported a legal challenge targeting Amendment A. A circuit judge ruled the amendment unconstitutional, and the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld that decision in 2021 on procedural grounds (finding it violated the state's "single-subject" requirement for constitutional amendments). The voter-approved recreational initiative was completely invalidated before taking effect.

3. Mississippi (Medical Cannabis, 2020)

What Voters Passed: Mississippi voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 65, a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment establishing a medical marijuana program.

Judicial & Legislative Invalidation: State political leadership challenged the process used to place the measure on the ballot. In 2021, the Mississippi Supreme Court struck down Initiative 65, ruling that the state's ballot initiative rules were outdated and technically impossible to satisfy under current district boundaries. The legislature later drafted its own, more restrictive medical cannabis statute in 2022 to replace what voters had originally approved.

4. Montana (Medical & Recreational Regulations, 2011 & 2021)

What Voters Passed: Montana voters legalized medical marijuana via Initiative 148 in 2004 and recreational marijuana via Initiative 190 in 2020.

Legislative Alterations:

2011 (Medical): The legislature passed Senate Bill 423, which drastically overhauled the voter-approved 2004 medical framework by limiting caregivers to serving a maximum of three patients, effectively closing large-scale dispensaries. (Voters later repealed these legislative restrictions through another ballot initiative in 2016).

2021 (Recreational): Following the 2020 approval of recreational cannabis, conservative lawmakers enacted House Bill 701, altering how revenue from cannabis taxes would be allocated and adding additional local option oversight rules.

5. Ohio (Recreational Cannabis, 2023)

What Voters Passed: Ohio voters approved Issue 2, a statutory ballot initiative legalizing adult-use cannabis, establishing a regulatory framework, and permitting home cultivation.

Legislative Action: Because Issue 2 was an initiated statute (not a constitutional amendment), conservative lawmakers in the state senate immediately proposed legislation aimed at changing tax rates, capping THC potency levels, restricting home cultivation rules, and redirecting tax revenues away from community equity funds and toward law enforcement and state construction projects.

Is Red Diesel Legal Now? What The New Executive Order Means
www.dieselarmy.com

... President Donald Trump signed an executive order on October 5, 2026, temporarily opening the door for red-dyed diesel fuel to be sold for and used in highway vehicles through the end of the year.

The move is aimed at reducing fuel costs for truckers, farmers, and other diesel users as restricted global diesel supplies and refining constraints continue to push prices higher. But despite some of the headlines circulating online, the order does not permanently make red diesel legal for highway use, nor does it automatically erase every federal and state tax associated with the fuel.

Instead, the executive order creates a temporary window of federal tax and penalty relief running from October 5 through December 31, 2026, while directing the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service to put the details into place. ...

How Much Could Diesel Owners Save?

The immediate federal savings potentially available are straightforward.

The federal highway diesel tax is 24.4 cents per gallon. That means eliminating or deferring that charge represents nearly $25 on every 100 gallons purchased.

For a commercial truck taking on 250 gallons, the White House estimates the federal portion alone represents roughly $60 per fill-up.

For owners of diesel pickups, the numbers are obviously smaller per tank but can still add up. A 30-gallon fill represents about $7.32 in federal diesel tax, while 50 gallons works out to approximately $12.20.

Those figures address only the federal side of the equation.

States impose their own fuel taxes and maintain their own dyed-diesel rules, and the executive order cannot simply eliminate those requirements nationwide. The administration is instead directing federal officials to work with states and encourage them to enact corresponding relief. ...

Is The Federal Tax Actually Gone?

This is where the distinction between the announcement and the underlying executive order becomes important. The order does not simply repeal the federal diesel excise tax through December 31.

Instead, Trump directed Treasury to determine whether existing law allows payment of certain taxes associated with highway use of dyed diesel to be deferred. If Treasury determines that authority exists, those payments are to be postponed without interest or penalties to the extent allowed by law.

Treasury is also directed to explore options for eliminating the eventual obligation to pay those deferred taxes, including possible legislative action.

So, while the White House is promoting the program as immediate tax relief, "deferred" and "eliminated" are not necessarily the same thing. ...


Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy