ICE Operation to Deport Illegal Migrants to be Delayed

by Daveda Gruber:

On Saturday President Trump gave a clear warning to illegal immigrants. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be doing their job and apprehending migrants who are here illegally and they will be sending them home.

Needless to say, Democratic politicians were opposed to this.

Trump was not hiding his intentions. “They will be removed as fast as they come,” Trump said.

Trump took to Twitter today and tweeted this today:

While outside the White House on his way to travel to Camp David Trump said that “everybody who came into the country illegally will be brought out of the country very legally.”

It has been reported by The Washington Post that ICE is expected to target 2,000 families in up to 10 cities, including Chicago, New York, Houston and Los Angeles.

Earlier this week, Trump stated that ICE will “begin the process of removing millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States.”

ICE did put out a statement on Friday. They said that “due to law-enforcement sensitivities and the safety and security of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, the agency will not offer specific details related to enforcement operations.”

ICE spokeswoman Carol Danko declined to discuss the operation but she did say that “as a law enforcement agency, ICE’s mission is to uphold the rule of law; operations targeting violators of immigration laws are not only standard practice, but within the statutory authority prescribed by Congress.”

ICE prioritizes arresting and removing illegal immigrants “who pose a threat to national security, public safety and border security.”

The statement from ICE also says, “In fact, 90 percent of aliens arrested by ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations component in FY2018 had either a criminal conviction(s), pending criminal charge(s), were an ICE fugitive, or illegally re-entered the country after previously being removed.”

The Miami Herald reported:

“Miami will be one of the first cities where U.S. immigration authorities will target people for deportation as early as this Sunday, according to sources who were briefed on the enforcement action.

Immigration agents will target Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York City, and San Francisco this weekend, sources from congressional offices and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told the Miami Herald.”

ICE, apparently, has been getting ready for this operation for some time now. Allegedly, ICE will start the operation on Sunday and then continue.

Of course, Democratic local officials are calling to abolish ICE. Many are opposing the operation and not planning to assist ICE agents.

In one case, the Mayor of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot, made it very clear that CPD has terminated ICE’s access to CPD’s databases related to federal immigration enforcement activities.

Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, D.C. made sure to announce that the city “remains a proud sanctuary city, and we are committed to protecting the rights of all our immigrant families in the face of these disturbing threats.”

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom called the up-coming raids “cruel” while Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said that his city and local law enforcement will not participate in the operation.

An LAPD statement said, “The Department is not participating or assisting in any of these enforcement actions.”

Federal law enforcement will be on their own in Democrat cities and areas. Trump has called them mostly “high crime” cities.

Later things changed. Trump announced that the mass roundup would be delayed for two weeks. The delay would hopefully give Congress time for a bipartisan solution to the border crisis to be reached.

Trump Tweeted:

On a personal note, I don’t use Roundup Weed Killer because, in my opinion, it contains dangerous chemicals.

Now, if there’s going to be a roundup of illegal migrants, it’s going to be targeting people who could be dangerous to the community.

The show is getting more interesting and the popcorn smells good.

Supreme Court Rules to Let Peace Cross Stand

by Daveda Gruber:

On Thursday the Supreme Court ruled that a World War One memorial in the shape of a cross can stand.

It was determined by a 7 to 2 vote that the Bladensburg Peace Cross, as it is known, is not religious in nature and does not violate the Constitution.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s opinion, “For nearly a century, the Bladensburg Cross has expressed the community’s grief at the loss of the young men who perished, its thanks for their sacrifice, and its dedication to the ideals for which they fought.”

He went on to say in the opinion while quoting Justice Breyer’s concurrence in the 2005 decision in Van Orden v. Perry, “It has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of ‘a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions’.”

The supporters of the cross, which include the Trump administration, said it was created solely to honor those heroes and is secular in nature.

In opposition to the cross standing are three area residents and the District of Columbia-based American Humanist Association. These include atheists and agnostics.

Those opposing believe that the cross should have been moved to private property or modified into a nonreligious monument such as a slab or obelisk.

Since the cross and land it sits on is controlled and cared for by a Maryland parks commission, the side in opposition says that it is an impermissible overlap of church and state.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the cross was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has reversed that ruling.

The Supreme Court has struggled to lay out clear rules governing when religious symbols are permissible on public land.

AOC Says Border Detention Centers are Concentration Camps

by Daveda Gruber:

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., has likened southern  border facilities to concentration camps.

National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) Vice President Art Del Cueto, was not going to sit back and listen to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s opinion without criticizing her.

Ocasio-Cortez posted to Instagram and said in her video,  “The fact that concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the land of the free is extraordinarily disturbing.”

See the video here:

Del Cueto was on “America’s Newsroom” on Tuesday morning and he expressed his frustration with her statements.

Del Cueto then offered to personally escort the freshman lawmaker around a facility to prove his point about the humane treatment given to migrants.

He also made a point to offer advice to Ocasio-Cortez by stating that she should “crack open a history book” about the Holocaust before making such comparisons.

Del Cueto said, “It is definitely a slap in the face to a lot of those people who had family members who actually went through concentration camps.”

Ocasio-Cortez has proven not to be fan of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement or ICE to be abolished.

In February AOC claimed that “Latino people are descendants of Native people” and should not be subject to U.S. immigration laws.

AOC tweeted this last year:

These are recent tweets from AOC:

AOC got some feedback tweets, this is one of them:

President Trump has actually responded in a very different way. Trump apparently has a plan of his own to stop illegal immigration. ICE will now be returning illegal immigrants to their own countries.

If we don’t keep the illegal migrants here in the U.S., we won’t have to detain them in detention centers. Problem solved. Case closed.

Well, this has been a long time coming. ICE agents will now be allowed to do their jobs.

Trump tweeted this:

 

Protecting Southern Border Making Border Agents Sick

by Daveda Gruber:

Border Patrol agents on our southern border not only have to worry about protecting themselves from illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S. but also they are getting sick from diseases that the migrants carry.

Recently, Ebola was brought into the U.S. by a migrant fleeing the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Border agents are in constant danger of being exposed to this and other diseases.

The holding facilities on the southern border are over-loaded with sick detainees and now sick agents. Most Congolese are arriving through the Del Rio and El Paso sectors, or regions, which includes Eagle Pass.

Jon Anfinsen is a National Border Patrol Council vice president and based in Del Rio. He has been an agent for twelve years and said the number of people in custody and subsequent illnesses among that population is “unprecedented.”

Anfinsen said, “Scabies, chickenpox — we had one case of the mumps here in Uvalde. I wanna say we had measles — plenty of the flu, plenty of colds, body lice, just assorted. And some of these things, they spread like wildfires when you get into a cramped holding cell. It happens.”

He also said, “It’s not so much the workload. It’s the constant illnesses. We have a lot of agents who are sick. The other day I talked to agents from four different stations. And every single one of them had a cough.”

Anfinsen continued, “I’ll go and I’ll help process. There was one day I spent processing and we had like 40 Guatemalans and Hondurans, and most of them had some kind of cough. And sure enough the next day, I’m sick — for a week. It’s become the new normal, and you gotta just keep going and do your job because you can’t just not process them.”

Overcrowded conditions makes for a breeding ground of disease. It is rather difficult to quarantine the diseases as they are determined and so the cycle continues as illegal immigrants and border agents keep getting sick.

Measles was declared eliminated (absence of continuous disease transmission for greater than 12 months) from the United States in 2000. This was thanks to a highly effective vaccination program in the United States.

So now, besides having illegal invaders committing petty crimes and felony crimes, they are bringing diseases into the U.S. that could possibly kill us. There is no cure for Ebola.

According to the Daily Caller, there are at least 22 million people here illegally, which is double the number of previous estimates.

President Trump has made some progress in connection with Mexican and South American governments. Some invaders are actually getting stopped at Mexico’s southern border. Guatemala is taking some migrants in to reduce the numbers of people traveling to reach the U.S. border.

Even with the help of other governments taking in some of these migrants, the cost to the U.S. is overwhelming. The people crossing into the U.S. do not come here with their own money. We all know that it cost money to be housed and to eat. Now, bring healthcare into the mix and the price goes up. On top of this, add in the care for the diseases that these illegal migrants have and spread to U.S. citizens and you have a disaster waiting to happen.

President Trump tweeted out this in December of 2018:

Florida Gov. DeSantis Signs ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Ban into Law

by Daveda Gruber:

On Friday a controversial bill was signed into law, by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, to ban “sanctuary cities” in Florida.

The bill, which complies with a campaign promise by DeSantis, would mandate that counties cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The policy is expected to draw a legal clash over its constitutionality as it goes into effect next month.

In a statement given on Friday, DeSantis said, “I am proud to sign the bill presented to me by the Florida Legislature to uphold the rule of law and ensure that no city or county jurisdiction can get in the way of Florida’s cooperation with our federal partners to enforce immigration law.”

The statement went on to say, “This is about public safety, not about politics. We must do everything within our power, and use all the tools available to us, to ensure that our communities are safe.”

The bill, SB 168, requires local and state law enforcement officials and entities to honor federal “immigration detainer” requests. The requests ask law enforcement agencies to detain someone on probable cause that they are “removable” under federal immigration laws.

When put into law the bill would prohibit local officials from implementing “sanctuary” policies. That aspect of the law had not been defined previously. The law also gives the governor the authority to remove anyone if they do not comply with the law.

States and localities across the nation have ignored holding of prisoners who have a criminal record as directed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers.

At the new bill signing, DeSantis and several lawmakers touted the progress the Legislature made on several Republican issues during the session. More than 300 people were crowded into the room to show support for the governor and the new law.

Still, Florida is a state of my immigrants and not all residents of Florida have the same ideals.  Should the ACLU and others sue, it would serve up another potential case for the nation’s courts to look at on this issue.

The ACLU of Florida tweeted:

 

Here are the states that are Anti-Sanctuary:

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

Florida

Georgia

Iowa

Mississippi

Missouri

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

 

Here are the states that are Pro-Sanctuary:

California

Connecticut

Illinois

Massachusetts

New York

Oregon

Rhode Island

Vermont

Washington

 

See a report here:

 

Virginia Beach Shooting Victim Considered Taking a Gun to Work

by Daveda Gruber:

Twelve people were murdered by a Virginia Beach man and one of the victims, Kate Nixon, had a premonition that something bad might happen.

The night before the horrific shooting on May 31, Nixon had spoken to her husband about bringing a gun to work for self-defense. Unfortunately, she could not act on her impulse because of the city’s ban on employees carrying firearms at work.

Nixon’s family is calling for an independent investigation into the events that led up to the shooting.

DeWayne Craddock, the shooter, was on Nixon’s radar before she was murdered along with eleven of her colleagues.

Kevin Martingayle, the Nixon family’s attorney, spoke on WHRV’s “HearSay with Cathy Lewis” radio show and said, “Kate expressed to her husband concerns about this individual in particular, as well as one other person. In fact, they had a discussion the night before about whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag ˗ and decided not to, ultimately, because there’s a policy apparently against having any kind of weapons that are concealed in the building.”

The city policy states, “Employees who violate this policy will be subject to discipline, up to and including dismissal.”

Martingayle is focused on figuring how the shooting could have been prevented. He told the radio station, “We’ve heard a lot of information out there suggesting there were a lot of concerns about the shooter well before this happened. We need to know more about that. An outside investigation is the perfect vehicle to get to the truth. That’s it. This is a search for truth by a grieving family.”

Martingayle also said, “She was president of her civic league, she was involved with the swim team… she would have been celebrating her 20th Anniversary next month.”

Nixon left behind a husband and three young daughters.

Since the media is so opposed to guns, nothing was mentioned in the media about one of the victims wanting to carry a gun for protection.

I cannot speculate what the difference would have been if Nixon had been allowed to carry a weapon to defend herself when she felt that she could be in danger.

One person with a gun may not have stopped every death on that fatal day but if Nixon had been able to get to her gun, how many might have been saved from this horrendous slaughter of human lives?

 

Mosque Leader Teaches ‘Wife Beating’ to Remind Women Who ‘Misbehaved’

by Daveda Gruber:

The Middle East Media Research Institute, known to some as MEMRI, has released a video on “wife-beating” with the speaker being Imam Bassem al-Sheraa.

The Imam was “educating” students on the role of “wife-beating” while telling the class at the Az-Zahraa Islamic Center in Detroit, Michigan exactly how the act should be performed.

Referencing the the video, the Imam tells that when the Quran references such a physical act toward one’s wife, it is a “beating” that should be conducted without causing pain or any red markings.

He says that it is a reminder to the woman that she “misbehaved in cases when words (of admonishment) do not make her change her ways.”

The Imam goes on to say, “It is just like when your child reaches to touch the electrical socket or a fire, what do you do? You go like that. It is just like when your child picks up something dangerous and is about to eat it. You hit his hand like that as a reminder. That is what ‘beating’ means.”

You can see the video here:

Sheraa has made comments in the past that have brought about concern.

He claimed that Jews have distorted sacred texts and sanctioned the killing of prophets.

“He accused the Jews of employing tricks and fraud in matters of religion and morality, and of amassing gold and spreading usury.”

He is hear saying that Jews have used their “peculiar philosophy” to attain power and control the modern banking system, and that Jewish women have long founded and managed “dens of female iniquity” and ran European brothels.

Here is the video:

The video was tweeted out. Check this out:

Sheraa immigrated to the U.S. from Iraq, but it is unclear when and is the founder of the Scholarly Najaf Hawza in Michigan. He also refers to himself as Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, which means a Shiite source of authority.

The group now known as Sunnis chose Abu Bakr, the prophet Muhammad’s adviser, to become the first successor, or caliph, to lead the Muslim state. Shiites favored Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law. Ali and his successors are called Imams, who not only lead the Shiites but are considered to be descendants of Muhammad.

Political division began the Sunni-Shia split. The Sunnis prevailed and chose a successor to be the first Caliph. Eventually, Ali was chosen as the fourth Caliph, but not before violent conflict broke out. Two of the earliest caliphs were murdered.

The two religious groups chose sides following the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in AD 632.

Sunnis greatly outnumber Shiites, constituting nearly 90% of the global community of Muslims. The governments of some Persian Gulf countries that include Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are Sunni. Iran and Iraq are ruled by Shiites. Syria’s regime is Alawite which is a Shiite offshoot.

These facts give light to why Saudi Arabia doesn’t get along with Iran.

There are two distinct sides of Islam and Muslims are usually born into the side that they are labeled. The different sides are considered enemies of each other. Their religious thinking is enough to build a hatred of the other.

First, if Muslims can’t even agree with each other, how will they ever compromise or assimilate into non-Muslim countries?

Next, if their leaders are teaching the Quran in American schools, what are they learning?

We’ve seen the videos of children learning about be-headings and other violence. We’ve seen changes in most of our American communities. All one has to do is go to New York City on a Friday during the ‘Muslim call for prayer’.

Good luck getting through the traffic jams caused by our Muslim neighbors.

Is Pelosi Done with Trump?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Tuesday Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was not backing claims on impeachment but rather implying that her caucus has more support for not pushing for it than it has members who do want to roll with it.

Pelosi was speaking at the Fiscal Summit in Washington hosted by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation when she made the comment, “It’s not even close in our caucus.”

Pelosi’s comment was in response to a question directed at her about if she would move on impeachment if a majority of her caucus supported it. She also added, “Why are we speculating on hypothetical’s?”

Madame Speaker, despite calls from her fellow Democrats, has so far resisted impeachment proceedings. The progressive wing of her party is not on the same track as their leader.

Pelosi is trying to cover all corners and would not rule out impeachment. She said, “It’s not off the table. I don’t think you should impeach for political reasons and I don’t think you should not impeach for political reasons.”

The Speaker then added, “It’s not about politics. It’s not about Democrats and Republicans. It’s not about partisanship. It’s about patriotism to our country.”

When Special Counsel Robert Mueller gave his public statement, he did emphasize that his report did not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice accusations. Many Democrats took this to mean that it was a call to action by Congress.

Some of us did not seem to feel the same way. Even Pelosi is reluctant to fall behind the strategy her progressive members want to go for. She’s did, however, she did say that she ultimately wants to see Trump “in prison.”

As you can well imagine, President Trump did not take Pelosi’s comments lightly.

The tweets from Trump were rather clear:

Pelosi also sad that she has had it with the president. She said, “I’m done with him.”

Pelosi mocked Trump on his tariff fight with Mexico. She also called him the “diverter of attention in chief.”

Pelosi declared that Trump doesn’t deserve attention for backing off his threat to impose escalating tariffs on Mexico. She also cast doubt on the idea that Trump struck a substantive deal that will benefit the United States.

Pelosi was in full force and mocked Trump’s tariff threats. She said, “They were designed to take your attention away from the Mueller report.”

On Tuesday the Democrats are pushing a resolution through the House that would make it easier to sue the Trump administration. They would also make it easier to sue potential witnesses. This would pave the way for legal action against those who defy subpoenas in Congress’ Russia probe and other investigations.

The Democratic members of the House, through their resolution, would authorize lawsuits against Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn for defying subpoenas pertaining to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Not that committee chairmen don’t have enough authority, but the resolution would empower committee chairmen to take legal action to enforce subpoenas without a vote of the full House, as long as they have approval from a bipartisan group of House leaders.

What is the next move by the Democrats after they approve the resolution? It may be dealt with depending on what kind of a mood Pelosi is in.

On Monday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler stated that they will hold off on suing Barr. The panel struck a deal with the Justice Department to receive some important documents from Mueller’s report and Nadler pushed the pause button.

All members of the committee will be able to view the material.

Did Nadler Hit Pause on Contempt by Barr?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Monday Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has announced that he had reached a deal with the Justice Department over access to evidence related to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report.

The chairman had said he would hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt. That vote had been scheduled for today but it appears that a pause has been taken.

Nadler, in a statement, announced an agreement with the Justice Department agreeing to turn over some crucial evidence.

Nadler said, “I am pleased to announce that the Department of Justice has agreed to begin complying with our committee’s subpoena by opening Robert Mueller’s most important files to us, providing us with key evidence that the Special Counsel used to assess whether the President and others obstructed justice or were engaged in other misconduct. These documents will allow us to perform our constitutional duties and decide how to respond to the allegations laid out against the President by the Special Counsel.”

Both Democrats and Republicans will have access and probably start sharing documents late Monday.

Nadler said, “Given our conversations with the Department, I will hold the criminal contempt process in abeyance for now. We have agreed to allow the Department time to demonstrate compliance with this agreement. If the Department proceeds in good faith and we are able to obtain everything we need, then there will be no need to take further steps.”

The full House is still expected to vote Tuesday on a resolution that would authorize Nadler to go to court to enforce the subpoena issued to Barr for special counsel’s full report and underlying evidence.

Nadler’s Monday statement more or less says that he will not go to court immediately to enforce the subpoena.

Nadler cautioned that if “important information is held back,” then the committee would have “no choice but to enforce our subpoena in court and consider other remedies.”

Last week the DOJ said it would revive negotiations with Nadler’s panel over the subpoenaed materials if he removed “any threat of an imminent vote by the House of Representatives to hold the Attorney General in contempt.”

Nadler is playing hard ball and it appears that he rejected the appeal and urged the Justice Department to return to the negotiating table “without conditions.”

The Judiciary Committee voted to hold Barr in contempt last month. This came after the Justice Department did not comply with a subpoena seeking access to an unredacted version of Mueller’s Russia report, which would include underlying documents and evidence.

President Trump used executive privilege over the files in order to protect them from release.

House Democrats are still preparing to move forward on a separate contempt-related resolution to enforce subpoenas. Barr and former White House Counsel Don McGahn’s names would be on the subpoenas.

The measure is still scheduled to be prepared late Monday in the House Rules Committee and then possible floor action could be taken on Tuesday, if the plan doesn’t change.

Democrats are divided among themselves about what action to take while Republicans appear to be on the same train of thought.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga., praised the Justice Department for making the accommodations. Collins’ did not give Nadler the same credit.

In a statement Collins said, “The Justice Department has yet again offered accommodations to House Democrats, and I am glad Chairman Nadler — for the first time in months — has finally met them at the negotiating table.”

He continued, “Is the chairman prepared to rescind his baseless recommendation to hold the attorney general in contempt, or do House Democrats still plan to green light lawsuits against the attorney general and former White House counsel tomorrow?”

The House Intelligence Committee and the Justice Department had an agreement last month. At the time, the Justice Department agreed to share some documents with Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) committee.

Collins went on to say, “Today’s good faith provision from the administration further debunks claims that the White House is stonewalling Congress, which Chairman Schiff’s successful negotiations with the Justice Department already showed.”

The antics that seem to be swirling around impeachment talks and subpoenas, are taking a lot of time and cost money. If look at Congress, it would appear that members on two sides of the aisle are seeing and hearing the same scenarios but are coming to opposite conclusions.

We all got to see and hear Barr and Mueller speak. Apparently, Democrats and Republicans really do have brains that function differently. I for one do not see any collusion or obstruction screaming out to be heard and dealt with. On the other hand, Democrats seem to think that there is something in the second half of the Mueller report  that they can clutch onto.

AOC Pushing for Magic Mushroom Research

by Daveda Gruber:

On Friday Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., filed legislation to make it easier and possibly legal for researchers to study the therapeutic and medical benefits of psychedelic drugs. The drugs would include “magic mushrooms” in the study.

An appropriations bill, as far as Ocasio-Cortez is concerned, needs the amendment to end the rider that prohibits federal money being spent on “any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance in Schedule I” of the Controlled Substances Act.

There has been research at several universities into their effectiveness in treating mental health issues and addiction with the use of psychedelic drugs.

The Mushrooms were made illegal across the globe during the 1960s and 1970s.

Psilocybin is the active component of so-called “magic mushrooms,” and MDMA, commonly referred to as “ecstasy.” The drug has “shown promise in end of life therapy and treating PTSD,” a summary of Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal says.

The summary states that “Academics and scientists report that provisions like this create [stigma] and insurmountable logistical hurdles to researching Schedule I drugs.”

Mushrooms and peyote are entheogenic substances and have been widely used by Native Americans for centuries. Now it seems that people are looking at them differently.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University recommended that psilocybin be reclassified for medical use. Its benefits include helping treat PTSD, depression and anxiety and helping people stop smoking.

Matthew Johnson, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins told the New York Times, “In the 1960s, they were on the cutting edge of neuroscience research and understanding how the brain worked. But then it got out of the lab.”

Johnson went on to say that as the substances gain more mainstream acceptance for their medical uses, it could be a game changer for treating mental illness.

He said, “I see this as a new era in medicine. The data suggests that psychedelics are powerful behavioral agents.”

AOC could give researchers a way to study the possibilities that the drug has.

She tweeted this:

Okay, I won’t go into all the responses to the tweet but a few were suggesting that maybe AOC has taken LSD. While noting the other statements and tweets that the freshman House Rep. has said or posted in the past, This was not such a wild accusation.

One Twitter user tweeted this:

Voters in Denver passed a measure in May that makes the personal use and possession of psilocybin mushrooms by those 21 years of age or older Denver’s “lowest law-enforcement priority.” People seem to be for this in certain areas of the country. Denver’s cannabis businesses are not permitted to sale of this drug but its users are not arrested or prosecuted.

This past Tuesday, Oakland City Council passed a resolution to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms.

This vote would make the investigation and arrest of adults who grow, possess, use or distribute entheogenic plants one of the lowest priorities for police. No more city funds could be used to enforce laws which criminalize the substances. The Alameda County district attorney would stop prosecuting people who have been apprehended for use or possession.

Coming up on Monday, the House Rules Committee, which prepares bills for action on the floor, will decide whether either or both of the drug policy reform amendments will be allowed for votes when the full body considers the funding legislation later in the week.

Altogether, more than 500 amendments have been submitted to the spending bill so far..

Let me be clear that I don’t know the sensation that people get when ingesting ‘magic mushrooms’ but I hope that it helps with mental illness, including depression.

I do know, by way of research, that similar to an LSD trip, tripping on magic mushrooms can cause a distorted sense of space, time and reality. Like LSD, magic mushrooms don’t technically cause hallucinations, or visions of things that aren’t actually there. Instead, they distort the perception of actual objects.

Some people may enjoy a distorted perception but I for one, will not try the drug.