He was a pretty heavy pot smoker. Which a couple minutes of googling will verify.

Right, "regulations." But, even here we have to be careful and clarify some things. It's somewhat analogous to, "taxes." I believe cutting taxes would be a good thing. But, I would restrict it to those for whom it would be most beneficial, to themselves, and the country. Cutting taxes for small businesses and folks living paycheck to paycheck would be an immediate boost to the economy. Cutting taxes for the very rich do absolutely nothing for the country. As we've seen, thanks to our FED and a corrupt Congress, most profits from Corporations (not paid out in dividends) go to "buybacks," that is, buying the corporation's own stock on the open market. This, of course, reduces the amount of stocks in circulation, reducing supply, and increasing the per-share price of the company's stock. So, profits these days go to increase the CEO'S obscene bonuses, not to research & development, growth, new plant & equipment, expansion, higher wages, or creating more jobs.

The same goes for regulations. We've already gotten rid of regulations, de facto. In what sane world, what world that, supposedly enjoys anti-trust regulations, would a government allow the merging of the two largest, most powerful oil companies on earth to merge? Exxon/Mobil. So, a huge benefit for our country and economy would be to, simply, enforce the rules we've already got. In case you ever wondered what the 15,000 Lobbyists in D.C. do, the answer is, bribe our Congressmen and Senators. "Tweaking" regulations is a favorite tool-of-the-trade. Since most Lobbyists are former politicians a college degree is not required to understand why Washington has been dubbed, "The Swamp."

Finally, there is a case to be made for some intelligent "pruning" of some regulations. That just makes common sense. Unfortunately, in our current, bought & paid for Government, it's the Corporations themselves that get to do the pruning. It's kind of like having the pharmaceutical companies writing the ACA regs. That worked out great!

This is going to cost you a lot, too, a couple of decades from now.

"Korematsu v. United States represents a compelling lesson in law but an untaught tragedy in history."
- Susan Kiyomi Serrano and David Minami, "Korematsu v. United States: A Constant Caution in a Time of Crisis," Asian American Law Journal, Volume 10, Issue 1 (January 2003)

... has not been explicitly overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court itself and thus remains on the books as case law, its potential impact as a legal precedent has since likely been mitigated and even blunted by subsequent legal decisions and actions in the federal courts.

In December 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court originally ruled by a 6-3 decision in Korematsu v. United States that the plaintiff's conviction for evading internment in expressed violation of Executive Order 9066 was perfectly valid, and in full accordance with the military necessity faced by the United States along the Pacific coast during the Second World War.

However, in November 1983 Fred Korematsu once again challenged the original lower court decision by filing a writ of coram nobis, which requested that the Court void his original conviction on the grounds that the federal government both omitted exculpatory evidence and submitted fabricated evidence in its case before the U.S. Supreme Court, regarding the actual reality of the threat which Japanese-Americans then purportedly posed to national security -- which, of course, was none at all.

In April 1984, Federal Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granted the writ in full, noting that a "manifest injustice" had been done to the plaintiff and other internees in 1944. The Solicitor General's willful actions in Korematsu v. United States, Judge Patel ruled, had knowingly and intentionally misled the High Court, and thus had a material effect on its subsequent decision by the justices to uphold the plaintiff's original conviction under Executive Order 9066. She concluded:

"Korematsu remains on the pages of our legal and political history. As a legal precedent it is now recognized as having very limited application. As historical precedent it stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutions must be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees. It stands as a caution that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a caution that in times of international hostility and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused." (Emphasis is mine.)

Further, in 2011 then-Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal filed an official notice with the Court conceding that his earlier predecessor's original defense of Executive Order 9066 before the Supreme Court in October 1944 had been in rather egregious error and further constituted gross misconduct:

"Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States uprooted more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent, most of them American citizens, and confined them in internment camps. The Solicitor General was largely responsible for the defense of those policies.

"By the time the cases of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu reached the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General had learned of a key intelligence report that undermined the rationale behind the internment. The Ringle Report, from the Office of Naval Intelligence, found that only a small percentage of Japanese Americans posed a potential security threat, and that the most dangerous were already known or in custody.

"But the Solicitor General did not inform the Court of the report, despite warnings from Department of Justice attorneys that failing to alert the Court 'might approximate the suppression of evidence.'  Instead, he argued that it was impossible to segregate loyal Japanese Americans from disloyal ones.

"Nor did he inform the Court that a key set of allegations used to justify the internment, that Japanese Americans were using radio transmitters to communicate with enemy submarines off the West Coast, had been discredited by the FBI and FCC.  And to make matters worse, he relied on gross generalizations about Japanese Americans, such as that they were disloyal and motivated by 'racial solidarity.'

"The Supreme Court upheld Hirabayashi's and Korematsu's convictions.  And it took nearly a half century for courts to overturn these decisions.  One court decision in the 1980s that did so highlighted the role played by the Solicitor General, emphasizing that the Supreme Court gave 'special credence' to the Solicitor General’s representations. The court thought it unlikely that the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way had the Solicitor General exhibited complete candor.

(NOTE: That court decision referenced here by the Acting Solicitor General was the aforementioned 1983 decision authored by Federal Judge Marilyn Hall Patal, which had granted Fred Korematsu's writ of coram nobis and vacated his original conviction.)  

"Yet those decisions still stand today as a reminder of the mistakes of that era. Today, our Office takes this history as an important reminder that the 'special credence' the Solicitor General enjoys before the Supreme Court requires great responsibility and a duty of absolute candor in our representations to the Court. Only then can we fulfill our responsibility to defend the United States and its Constitution, and to protect the rights of all Americans."

Finally, lest we allow ourselves to let this argument about the applicability of Korematsu as legal precedent devolve thoroughly into partisan rancor, we ought to consider thoughtfully the late Justice Antonin Scalia's observations about that case, which he offered a year ago at the University of Santa Clara.

When asked by a law student to cite a particular SCOTUS ruling he most admired, Scalia surprised everyone in the audience by instead referencing Justice Robert Jackson's principled dissent in the original 1944 Korematsu case. "It was nice to know that at least somebody on the court realized that [the wartime internment of Japanese Americans] was wrong," he said.

"Much is said of the danger to liberty from the Army program for deporting and detaining these citizens of Japanese extraction. But a judicial construction of the due process clause that will sustain this order is a far more subtle blow to liberty than the promulgation of the order itself. A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period, a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes. All who observe the work of courts are familiar with what Judge Cardozo described as 'the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.' A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image. Nothing better illustrates this danger than does the Court's opinion in this case." (Emphasis is mine.)
- Associate Justice Robert Jackson, in dissent, Korematsu v. United States (323 U.S. 214), December 18, 1944

The alt-left while not stating as being anti-gay etc. is pretty much about people subsuming those issues in favor of the same economic goals as the alt-right.

Just toss out the bragging and hold on to the real truth:

"The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f--ed over.

And it had better, or the national debt will accelerate just as it did the past 8 years.