The largest hearing room the Senate has in the Hart Building was standing-room only on Tuesday when the Senate Judiciary Committee held its hearing on the resolution proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would amend the First Amendment and give Congress unlimited, plenary power to restrict political speech and political activity.

In a historic and unprecedented event, both majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appeared as the first two witnesses.  They had starkly different presentations, with Reid complaining about so-called “dark money” and corporations and special interests “meddling” in congressional races.  He clearly doesn’t like the fact that Americans have the ability to criticize him and his policies.

McConnell went back to first principles, talking about the First Amendment and the fundamental importance of protecting political speech, as did Floyd Abrams, the well-known First Amendment lawyer who won the historic New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case.  As Abrams said, the purpose of this proposed amendment is clearly “limiting speech intended to affect elections.”  He observed that the title of the amendment, “Restore Democracy to the American People,” is based on the false notion that our democracy has already been lost.  According to Abrams, “the notion that democracy would be advanced – saved, ‘restored’ – by limiting speech is nothing but a perversion of the English language.”

The Democratic witnesses in favor of the amendment seemed obsessed with the Koch brothers, including a state senator from North Carolina who made bizarre claims about supposed Koch-financed efforts to implement a voter ID law to “suppress” the votes of racial minorities.

It was almost funny – Democrats can’t even hold a hearing about the First Amendment without working in their talking points about voter ID and “vote suppression.”  All of the Republican senators who spoke, including Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), made stirring statement about the importance of preserving the Bill of Rights.  I won’t summarize their statements but they are worth watching (here and here).

What was most interesting was something that happened before the hearing started that shows just how dangerous it would be to give Congress the power Udall, Reid and 39 other Democratic senators are seeking (there are 41 cosponsors of this resolution) and how they don’t believe the rules should apply to them.  I was standing in line outside the hearing room waiting to get in and get a seat.  There was a sign prominently taped to the wall where we were all standing that warned attendees of all of the things not allowed in the hearing room, like standing, shouting, applauding, and most importantly, “no signs.”

I was at the head of the line when a large cart loaded with boxes came down the hallway, accompanied by six or seven individuals, many holding protest signs like “Restore the First Amendment – Get Oil Money out of Elections” and “Big $$ out of Politics.”  The boxes had prominently pasted on their side the names of liberal advocacy groups and PACs including People for the American Way, the Daily Kos, Public Citizen, Wolf PAC, Moveon.org, the Coffee Party, and Common Cause.  The boxes were apparently full of petitions supporting Udall’s censorship amendment.  As the cart headed into the hearing room with the protest signs held high, I reminded the Democratic committee staffer supervising entry that these individuals were violating the posted rules about no signs and no protests.  She just ignored me and looked away.

About thirty photographers and reporters facing the entry started snapping pictures of the advocacy group representatives the moment they came in as the cart was trundled up to the front of the hearing room.  Several of the advocacy representatives went to sit down, but not before standing up with their signs held high and posing for more photos from the media.

I have no doubt that if I had attempted to walk into the hearing room with signs protesting this amendment, as opposed to supporting it, I would have been stopped by the committee staffer, and if I had persisted, she would have called over the Capitol policeman who was also standing at the entrance studiously not seeing the liberal protestors violating the posted rules.

It is true that Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) warned the attendees after the hearing started about no sign waiving or protests and one individual was eventually ejected; however, Leahy only did that after the cameras were turned on for anyone watching the hearing on the committee website.  It was his committee staff who, after all, allowed their supporters to come in early with their protest signs and helped to stage-manage protests prior to the start of the hearing for the benefit of the photographers in the hearing room.  You can see one of those photos here – notice there are no staffers or Capitol Police hurrying over to eject the CodePink demonstrators from the hearing room.

So it seems that some Democratic senators want to amend the Constitution so that the American people give them the power to set the rules for raising and spending money on political campaigns and independent expenditures that speak in support of, or opposition to, candidates.  However, at the very hearing at which this amendment was introduced, some of these senators were prepared to apply the Senate’s own rules to only one side of the debate.  Not something that inspires confidence that any such rules on political activity and political speech would ever be enforced in a nonpartisan, unbiased, and objective manner.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.  Along with John Fund, he is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” (Encounter 2012) and the upcoming “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside June 2014).

Tea Party Patriots filed an ethics complaint against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., alleging he has abused his power in a campaign to smear conservative donors.

The complaint, filed Monday with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, alleges Reid has purposely tried to damage the names of Charles and David Koch, prominent conservative donors whom Reid has publicly criticized for running advertisements attacking Democrats. It also cites Reid’s partisan campaign activities, which allegedly violate Senate rules and federal law.

Tea Party Patriots filed a separate complaint against Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., for his alleged role in influencing the Internal Revenue Service to scrutinize conservative nonprofit groups.

“Whitehouse exerted pressure on federal agencies to target tea party non-profits and to criminally prosecute groups such as ours,” the complaint reads.

Whitehouse was the main sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would have forced nonprofits who make campaign donations to disclose their donors.

Cleta Mitchell, an attorney representing the Tea Party Patriots, says the complaints were timed to coincide with a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday, where congressional leaders, including Reid, clashed over a proposed constitutional amendment to curb political spending.

“We are tired of Reid, Democratic senators, and the White House bullying conservatives and conservative donors,” Mitchell said. “They do not respect the First Amendment rights of citizens and we are sick of it, so we are fighting back.”

Speaking at the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Reid defended the proposed amendment, a plan that Democrats plan to vote on this year.

“I support this constitutional amendment,” Reid said. “Our involvement in government should not be dependent on bank account balances. It’s bad for America. What the nation needs is to bring sanity back to campaigns.”

Upon receiving a complaint, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., will initiate a preliminary inquiry to review the case.

If the committee finds substantial evidence, it can issue a public or private letter of admonition, or initiate an adjudicatory review. It can then recommend the Senate take disciplinary action.

In another, unrelated complaint filed Tuesday with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, the Center for Competitive Politics, another conservative nonprofit, charges nine Democratic senators with “interfering with the administrative proceedings of the IRS.”

06-02-2014 Date-Stamped Senate Ethics Complaint Re Sen Reid by John Hinderaker

By Josh Siegel / @JoshDailySignal

On Thursday, the day before a double resignation at the White House, ABC’s Jon Karl grilled Jay Carney over Barack Obama’s confidence in Eric Shinseki. Less than 24 hours later, the press secretary and Veterans Administration head had both quit. During the back-and-forth, Karl pressed, “But does the President right now have confidence in Sec. Shinseki, yes or no? It’s a very simple yes or no question. You told us last week he did have confidence, does he have confidence now?” [See video below.]

Carney dodged and responded, “Jon, the President addressed this question from the podium.” The journalist pointed out, ” But he wasn’t asked directly if he had confidence in him.” The now-ex-press secretary dismissed this as “word play.” Karl continued to push, insisting, “It’s a basic question. It’s not wordplay. Its a central question: Does he have confidence in a member of his cabinet?”

Next week, the Obama administration is planning to unveil a climate action plan that it intends to implement without legislative approval. It’s a creative approach to governing, not unlike other executive actions President Obama has taken to bypass Congress.

When lawmakers refused to pass cap-and-trade legislation, Obama announced there was more than one way to skin the cat. Through climate plans, executive orders and regulatory action, he directed his agencies to find ways to curb the country’s carbon dioxide output and commit to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Leading the charge, unsurprisingly, is the Environmental Protection Agency, which will release its carbon-dioxide regulations for existing power plants on Monday. The plan will drive up energy prices for American families and businesses without making a dent in global temperatures.

Our infographic explains what it means for jobs, incomes and the states hurt most.

By Nicolas Loris and Nicole Rusenko

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday reluctantly picked her team for a GOP-led Benghazi investigative committee, saying that Democrats’ participation was the only way to assure Americans of a “fair process.”

Pelosi appointed five fellow Democrats to the 12-member House select committee on Benghazi, including Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings as the ranking member of the panel.

“We’ve already been there,” Pelosi said in naming the members, continuing to voice concerns about the probe while also ending weeks of speculation about whether her party would participate.

“Eight reviews have been conducted in the House and Senate, 25,000 documents released, millions of taxpayer dollars spent. It was not necessary to put the families or our country through this partisan exercise once again,” the California Democrat continued. “I could have argued either way.”

Cummings is also the top Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and is known to publicly spar with the chairman of that committee, GOP Rep. Darrell Issa. Pelosi also named Washington Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee; California Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the House Committee on Appropriations; California Rep. Linda Sanchez, a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means; and Illinois Rep. Tammy Duckworth, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

“I believe we need someone in the room to simply defend the truth,” Cummings said.

The committee will investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Pelosi also said she agreed to have Democrats join the investigation to make it a “fair process” and to bring “openness and transparency” to the investigation.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has already named the seven Republicans who will serve on the committee, including South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy as chairman.

“The Republican members of the … committee welcome our colleagues,” Gowdy said after Pelosi’s announcement. “I respect Mr. Cummings and his work in Congress. I look forward to working with him and the members of the committee toward an investigation and a process worthy of the American people and the four brave Americans who lost their lives.”

The committee will have special subpoena and investigative powers. There is no time frame for when the hearings will begin, but Republican committee members are scheduled to meet Thursday morning in part to discuss hiring staff.

Some Democrats have called the new inquiry a political sham to energize core GOP voters for the midterm elections, embarrass the Obama administration and rough up former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

Pelosi all along was reluctant to bring Democrats on board.

“Why give any validity to this effort?” Pelosi asked Tuesday. “I do think it is important for the American people to have the pursuit of these questions done in as fair and open and balanced way as possible.  … By the way, two families have communicated with us saying don’t take us down this path again.”

The Benghazi attack has become a conservative rallying cry, with Republicans accusing the Obama administration of intentionally misleading the public about the nature of the attack and stonewalling congressional investigators.

The special investigation means high-profile hearings in the months leading up to the elections, with Republicans likely to target current and former administration officials. Almost certain to be called to testify is Clinton.

The panel is authorized to work through the end of the year. In the 20 months since the attack, multiple independent, bipartisan and GOP-led probes have faulted the State Department for inadequate security in Benghazi, leading to four demotions. No attacker has yet been brought to justice.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

When it comes to Washington controversies, most American voters think Benghazi, the IRS and the government’s electronic surveillance program are serious matters. A Fox News poll also finds that less than four in 10 voters trust the federal government.

The new poll, released Thursday, finds 37 percent of voters answer “yes” when asked: “would you say you generally trust the federal government?” Six in 10 say they don’t trust the government, down a touch from a high of 62 percent (June 2013 and July 2011).

CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS

One thing that is sure to erode trust is a scandal, and 78 percent of voters consider the Obama administration’s handling of the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi a serious matter, including 52 percent who say “very serious.” Just over half (53 percent) see government surveillance of everyday Americans as “very serious” and 44 percent feel that way about the IRS targeting conservative groups.

Partisanship also shapes views on trustworthiness. In 2002, the first time this question was asked on a Fox News poll, 47 percent of Democrats said yes, they trust the government. That increased to 53 percent in February 2009, about a month after President Obama was inaugurated, and it stands at 55 percent in the new poll. The trend is reversed and more dramatic among Republicans: 63 percent trusted the government in 2002, while 32 percent felt that way in 2009 and just 19 percent trust Uncle Sam today.

For independents, trust was 53 percent in 2002, 35 percent in 2009 and 31 percent now.

In all, that’s an increase in trust of eight percentage points among Democrats from the days of the George W. Bush administration, and a decrease of 44 points among Republicans and 22 points among independents.

Only about a quarter of voters think the Obama administration has lived up to the promise of being the most transparent White House in history.

About a third of voters think the Obama administration has been less open and transparent than previous administrations (34 percent). That’s up nine points since early in Obama’s presidency when 25 percent felt that way (August 2010).

The poll finds 27 percent of voters agree with the president that this White House is more open than others, down from a high of 32 percent (2010 and 2012). Comparing sentiment today to that early in the Obama administration, the decline in those saying this White House is more open than others comes mostly from Democrats (-10 points) and independents (-11 points).

Overall, the largest number of voters — 38 percent — believes the transparency of the Obama White House is about the same as previous administrations. And 40 percent felt that way in 2010.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,025 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from May 10, 12-13, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

By Dana Blanton

Conservative pundit George Will delivered a fierce attack on Common Core last night, characterizing the educational standards as a way for progressives to further promote their political views.

“This is a thin end of an enormous wedge of federal power that will be wielded for the constant progressive purpose of concentrating power in Washington so that it can impose continental solutions to problems nationwide,” Will said on Fox News’ “Special Report.”

He also warned Americans that the federal standards posed a significant threat to local autonomy.

“The advocates of the Common Core say, if you like local control of your schools, you can keep it, period. If you like your local curriculum you can keep it, period, and people don’t believe them for very good reasons,” Will remarked.

By Katrina Trinko

Jay Leno sees a small silver lining in the recent collapse of U.S.-backed Mideast peace talks: It should make his job just a little easier when he performs in front of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later this month.

“I guess any American that’s not John Kerry is more than welcome there right now,” Leno said.

Kerry recently caused an uproar when he warned that Israel could become an “apartheid state” if it doesn’t reach a peace deal with the Palestinians.

The late night legend is heading to Israel on May 22 to host the awards ceremony of the $1 million Genesis Prize in Jerusalem. Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is being honored as the first recipient of what has been dubbed “the Jewish Nobel Prize” for his years of public service and philanthropy.

Netanyahu will headline a list of more than 400 dignitaries in the audience that will include business leaders, Nobel laureates, philanthropists and entertainers. Grammy-winning pianist Evgeny Kissin will also perform.

Leno said he will run his jokes by the “appropriate people” ahead of time to avoid saying anything inappropriate. But he said Netanyahu and Bloomberg, one of the world’s richest men, can expect to be the target of some of his zingers.

“I think everybody around the world appreciates self-deprecating humor, and I think you can do jokes about the prime minister, and Michael Bloomberg getting the award certainly,” Leno said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles. “They’re giving him $1 million. Wow. That’s going to change his life.”

For Leno, the trip will be his first to Israel. At a time when pro-Palestinian activists are urging entertainers to boycott the Jewish state, he said he didn’t have “any problem” with his decision to perform. “It’s a great honor. It’s a great country. It’s a great people,” he said.

While said he sees both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said he considers himself to be “very pro-Jewish, very pro-Israeli.” Leno himself is not Jewish.

“At some point in your life, you have to sort of take sides. I tend to side with the Jewish point of view on many things, especially issues like this one. I realize how important Israel is,” he said.

Leno hosted NBC’s late-night talk show “The Tonight Show” for more than two decades before retiring in February. He was replaced by former “Saturday Night Live” star Jimmy Fallon.

Leno said he keeps busy by performing his standup routine five nights a week and taking trips that would have been impossible during his “Tonight Show” years. He recently performed in China and will make stops in London and Rome during his upcoming trip to Israel.

Leno said Fallon is doing a “great job.”

“You have to know when to step down on these jobs,” he said. “After a while, when you’re 64 and you’re talking to the 25-year-old supermodel, you’re the creepy guy now. So you have to know when.”

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

First we have Hillary (OK, only a New Yorker in a carpetbagging sort of way, but still . . .) wanting to “rein in” our notions that we have real Second Amendment rights. But that’s the Second Amendment. That’s not as important as the First, right? So for that one, we need Chuck Schumer, Hillary’s senior as a senator before and after her tenure, to launch the attack.

And he is:

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowing unions and corporations to donate to independent political groups has driven liberals to such fits that they now want to amend the First Amendment. At a Senate Rules Committee meeting last week, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer announced a proposal to amend the Constitution to empower government to regulate political speech.

“The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections,” Mr. Schumer said. The Senate will vote this year on the amendment to “once and for all allow Congress to make laws to regulate our system, without the risk of them being eviscerated by a conservative Supreme Court.” He even rolled out retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to pronounce his unhappiness with freedom’s bedrock document.

According to the text of the proposed revision to James Madison’s 1791 handiwork, sponsored by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, the states and federal government would have the power to regulate the “raising and spending of money” through a wide range of means “to advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all.”

A Chuck Schumer attack on free speech is hardly a big surprise. He’s one of the senators who goaded the IRS into going after Tea Party groups based on the rationale that they were undermining confidence in government. Oh no, not that!

To amend the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress and the ratification of 38 states. That is not going to happen. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be concerned about here. When a U.S. senator is willing to be so brazen as to propose we amend the Constitution to weaken the First Amendment – and specifically to empower Congress to restrict free speech – what that really tells us is where the political landscape stands. Not long ago it would have been inconceivable that mainstream politician hoping to remain in office would propose to take away basic First Amendment rights for the purpose of empowering politicians to impose new restrictions on same. At least in the reading of Sen. Schumer and others who back this proposed amendment, the political landscape has changed and it is now possible to propose such a thing without being flogged by the voters as a result.

This is all cloaked, of course, in language about “dark money” and so forth. You know what that’s about, right? What has been the leading Democrat theme this year? It’s sure as hell not how wonderful ObamaCare is. It’s attacking the diabolical Koch Brothers. Democrats have decided to turn major donors to conservative causes and candidates into objects of public disdain, and they don’t like it when they can’t do so. They also don’t like it when they can’t put any restrictions on such individuals, groups or corporations.

But the Constitution was not written for the political protection of incumbent politicians. It was written to protect the rights of the people who have to live under the governance of such people. If that’s creating problems for Chuck Schumer, then I’d say it’s doing exactly what it was supposed to do. I hope enough of the citizenry still understands that sufficient to recognize what an obscene power grab Schumer and his allies are attempting.

By: Dan Calabrese

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress Wednesday for refusing to testify about her role in the targeting of Tea Party groups.

The vote was 231-187, with six Democrats joining Republicans in favor of contempt.

The House also voted to call for a special prosecutor to investigate the affair, 250-168. At the same time, the House Rules Committee prepared for a vote Thursday to establish a Select Committee on Benghazi — ensuring that investigations of the Obama administration would dominate the House’s workweek.

Lerner has twice refused to answer questions to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about her role in the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups. She repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Republicans say she waived that right when she claimed her innocence and answered a question.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of that committee, said a judge should settle the question.

“I regret that we have to be here today. If it is within my power, if at any time l comes forward to answer our questions, I’m fully prepared to hear what she has to say, and I will ask that the criminal charges against her be dropped,” Issa said. “It may not be within my power after today.”

Democrats said the Republican-led committee “botched” the contempt proceedings and tried unsuccessfully to send the contempt resolution back to committee.

“I am not defending Ms. Lerner. I wanted to hear from her,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. “I have questions about why she was unaware of the inappropriate criteria for more than a year after they were created. I want to know why she did not mention the inappropriate criteria in her letters to Congress. But I cannot vote to violate an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights just because I want to hear what she has to say.”

Lerner’s attorney said she did not waive her rights.

“Today’s vote has nothing to do with the facts or the law. Its only purpose is to keep the baseless IRS ‘conspiracy’ alive through the mid-term elections,” said William W. Taylor III. “It is unfortunate that the majority party in the House has put politics before a citizen’s constitutional rights.”

What happens next? Unlike a bill, a contempt resolution does not have to pass the Senate or be signed by the president. Under the law, the resolution is automatically referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who must present it to a grand jury. Refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena is a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

The House of Representatives could also go to court to get a judge to order Lerner to testify. Or, it could send its sergeant-at-arms to arrest Lerner and bring her to the floor of the House for a trial, but Congress hasn’t used that “inherent contempt” power since 1934.

The vote comes almost one year after Lerner first admitted that the IRS held up applications for tax exemptions based on nothing more than the group having the words “Tea Party” or “Patriots” in their names. Answering a planted question at an American Bar Association conference, she apologized, saying, “that was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive and inappropriate.”

Gregory Korte, USA TODAY Follow @gregorykorte on Twitter.

Don’t believe the hype: marijuana legalization poses too many risks to public health and public safety. Based on almost two decades of research, community-based work, and policy practice across three presidential administrations, my new book “Reefer Sanity” discusses some widely held myths about marijuana:

Myth No. 1: “Marijuana is harmless and non-addictive”

No, marijuana is not as dangerous as cocaine or heroin, but calling it harmless or non-addictive denies very clear science embraced by every major medical association that has studied the issue. Scientists now know that the average strength of today’s marijuana is some 5–6 times what it was in the 1960s and 1970s, and some strains are upwards of 10–20 times stronger than in the past—especially if one extracts THC through a butane process. This increased potency has translated to more than 400,000 emergency room visits every year due to things like acute psychotic episodes and panic attacks.

Mental health researchers are also noting the significant marijuana connection with schizophrenia, and educators are seeing how persistent marijuana use can blunt academic motivation and significantly reduce IQ by up to eight points, according to a very large recent study in New Zealand. Add to these side-effects new research now finding that even casual marijuana use can result in observable differences in brain structure, specifically parts of the brain that regulate emotional processing, motivation and reward. Indeed, marijuana use hurts our ability to learn and compete in a competitive global workplace.

Additionally, marijuana users pose dangers on the road, despite popular myth. According to the British Medical Journal, marijuana intoxication doubles your risk of a car crash.

Myth No. 2: “Smoked or eaten marijuana is medicine.”

Just like we don’t smoke opium or inject heroin to get the benefits of morphine, we do not have to smoke marijuana to receive its medical effects. Currently, there is a pill based on marijuana’s active ingredient available at pharmacies, and almost two-dozen countries have approved a new mouth spray based on a marijuana extract. The spray, Sativex, does not get you high, and contains ingredients rarely found in street-grade marijuana. It is likely to be available in the U.S. soon, and today patients can enroll in clinical trials. While the marijuana plant has known medical value, that does not mean smoked or ingested whole marijuana is medicine. This position is in line with the American Medical Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, American Glaucoma Foundation, National MS Society, and American Cancer Society.

Myth No. 3: “Countless people are behind bars simply for smoking marijuana.”

I wholeheartedly support reducing America’s incarceration rate. But legalizing marijuana will not make a significant dent in our imprisonment rates. That is because less than 0.3 percent of all state prison inmates are there for smoking marijuana. Moreover, most people arrested for marijuana use are cited with a ticket—very few serve time behind bars unless it is in the context of a probation or parole violation.

Myth No. 4: “The legality of alcohol and tobacco strengthen the case for legal marijuana.”

“Marijuana is safer than alcohol, so marijuana should be treated like alcohol” is a catchy, often-used mantra in the legalization debate. But this assumes that our alcohol policy is something worth modeling. In fact, because they are used at such high rate due to their wide availability, our two legal intoxicants cause more harm, are the cause of more arrests, and kill more people than all illegal drugs combined. Why add a third drug to our list of legal killers?

Moreover, marijuana legalization will usher in America’s new version of “Big Tobacco.”

• Already, private holding groups and financiers have raised millions of start-up dollars to promote businesses that will sell marijuana and marijuana-related merchandise.
• Cannabis food and candy is being marketed to children and are already responsible for a growing number of marijuana-related ER visits. Edibles with names such as “Ring Pots,” “Pot Tarts,” and “Kif Kat Bars” are inspired by common children candy and dessert products.
• Profitable companies such as Medbox (based in California) has stated its plans to open marijuana vending machines containing products such as marijuana brownies. The former head of Strategy for Microsoft has said that he wants to “mint more millionaires than Microsoft” with marijuana and that he wants to create the “Starbucks of marijuana.”

Myth No. 5: “Legal marijuana will solve the government’s budgetary problems.”

Unfortunately, we can’t expect  societal financial gain from marijuana legalization. For every $1 in revenue the U.S. receives in alcohol and tobacco taxes, we spend more than $10 in social costs. Additionally, two major business lobbies—Big Tobacco and the Liquor Lobby—have emerged to keep taxes on these drugs low and promote use. The last thing we need is the “Marlboroization of Marijuana,” but that is exactly what we would get in this country with legalization.

Myth No. 6:  “Portugal and Holland provide successful models of legalization.”

Contrary to media reports, Portugal and Holland have not legalized drugs. In Portugal, someone caught with a small amount of drugs is sent to a three-person panel and given treatment, a fine, or a warning and release. The result of this policy is less clear. Treatment services were ramped up at the same time the new policy was implemented, and a decade later there are more young people using marijuana, but fewer people dying of opiate and cocaine overdoses. In the Netherlands, officials seem to be scaling back their marijuana non-enforcement policy (lived out in “coffee shops” across that country) after witnessing higher rates of marijuana use and treatment admissions there. The government now only allows residents to use coffee shops. What all of this tells us about how legalization would play out in the U.S. is another point entirely and even less clear.

Myth No. 7: “Prevention, intervention, and treatment are doomed to fail—So why try?”

Less than 8 percent of Americans smoke marijuana versus 52 percent who drink and 27 percent of people that smoke tobacco cigarettes. Coupled with its legal status, efforts to reduce demand for marijuana can work. Communities that implement local strategies implemented by area-wide coalitions of parents, schools, faith communities, businesses, and, yes, law enforcement, can significantly reduce marijuana use. Brief interventions and treatment for marijuana addiction (which affects about 1 in 6 kids who start using, according to the National Institutes of Health) can also work.

And one myth not found in the book: “Colorado and Washington are examples to follow.”

Experience from Colorado’s recent legalization of recreational marijuana is not promising. Since January, THC-positive test results in the workplace have risen, two recent deaths in Denver have been linked to recreational marijuana use, and the number of parents calling the poison control hotline because their kids consumed marijuana products has significantly risen. Additionally, tax revenues fall short of original projections and the black market for marijuana continues to thrive in Colorado. Though Washington State has not yet implemented its marijuana laws, the percentage of cases involving THC-positive drivers has significantly risen.

Marijuana policy is not straightforward. Any public policy has costs and benefits. It is true that a policy of saddling users with criminal records and imprisonment does not serve the nation’s best interests. But neither does legalization, which would create the 21st century version of Big Tobacco and reduce our ability to compete and learn. There is a better way to address the marijuana question—one that emphasizes brief interventions, prevention, and treatment, and would prove a far less costly alternative to either the status quo or legalization. That is the path America should be pursuing—call it “Reefer Sanity.”

Kevin A. Sabet is the author of “Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana” and the Director of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana). Sabet appeared at The Heritage Foundation to discuss his new book. Watch his talk here.

Condoleezza Rice announced Saturday that she will not be delivering the commencement address at Rutgers University’s graduation ceremony this month, saying the invitation has become a “distraction.”

Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families. Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time,” the former secretary of state under President George W. Bush said in the statement.

“I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.” – Condoleezza Rice

“I am honored to have served my country. I have defended America’s belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. These values are essential to the health of our democracy. But that is not what is at issue here. As a professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as (its) former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.”

On Monday, roughly 50 Rutgers University students staged a sit-in at a school administration building in New Brunswick to protest the school’s invitation to  Rice to appear at the university’s commencement.

The school’s Board of Governors voted to pay $35,000 for her appearance at the May 18 ceremony. She was going to be awarded an honorary degree.

But several faculty members and students wanted the invitation rescinded because of Rice’s role in the Iraq War. Rutgers’ New Brunswick Faculty Council passed a resolution in March calling on the university’s board of governors to rescind the invitation.

Photos and videos of Monday’s protest posted to Twitter showed students lining a staircase leading to University President Robert Barchi’s office, The Star-Ledger reported.

Some students held up signs reading, “No honors for war criminals,” “War criminals out” and “RU 4 Humanity?” the report said.

The sit-in was one of the largest in Rutgers’ history, according to The Daily Targum, a student newspaper. Police reportedly responded to the site of the protest after a glass door was broken and a student cut their hand.

Barchi and other school leaders had resisted the calls to “disinvite” Rice, saying the university welcomes open discourse on controversial topics.

“We cannot protect free speech or academic freedom by denying others the right to an opposing view, or by excluding those with whom we may disagree. Free speech and academic freedom cannot be determined by any group. They cannot insist on consensus or popularity,” Barchi said in a letter to campus last month.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report

Former White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a tense interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, downplayed the revived controversy over the Benghazi talking points, saying he does not remember his own role in the editing process because: “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

Vietor, the former spokesman for the National Security Council, insisted on “Special Report with Bret Baier” Thursday that emails that link a White House adviser to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice’s controversial Sunday show statements about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate say nothing new.

The Obama administration has been under fire since the emails were released earlier this week, with some Republicans calling them the “smoking gun.” The emails indicate a White House aide helped prep Rice for her appearances and pushed the explanation that the attack was because of an Internet video. The White House is now facing credibility questions, since they had previously downplayed their role in Rice’s talking points.

Vietor repeated the stance of Press Secretary Jay Carney, who has repeatedly tried to claim that the so-called “prep call” with Rice — as it was described in one email — was not about Benghazi. Vietor said the email was referring to ongoing protests around the world against American embassies.

Baier then asked Vietor whether he personally changed the word “attack” to “demonstrations” in the talking points for Rice.

“Maybe, I don’t really remember,” Vietor said.

When pressed by Baier, Vietor said, “Dude, this was like two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane process.”

“Dude it is the thing that everybody’s talking about,” Baier replied.

When asked why it took a Freedom of Information Act request to release those emails, Vietor said he wished they had been released earlier.

“I bet you every single person in that White House wished that email has been released earlier. I wish it too because it tells us nothing new, It tells us what we said privately was what we said publicly, because that is what we thought had occurred,” Vietor said.

When pressed on where President Obama was during the Benghazi attack, Vietor said he was in the Situation Room, but President Obama was not. He said Obama was in the White House.

“It is well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly,” Vietor said, adding he did not know where the president was at all points in the night because he does not have a “tracking device on him.” He said Obama does not have to be in the Situation Room to monitor an ongoing situation.

Before his appearance, Vietor tweeted Baier must have asked him onto his show to ask him about Benghazi for a “Throwback Thursday” thing.

FoxNews.com