World News

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Re: The 40-Year War on Freedom

Actually from everything I've read over the years drug addiction was
not a big problem when the stuff was legal. The crime associated with
it was also minuscule by comparison. Just how does one equate fewer
addicts, and less crime with the expenditures made by the multitude of
agencies, charities and victims of this "war" and the laws of the
early 20th century that were passed solely to please the Puritanical
sensibilities that permeate the USA ??

On Jun 15, 3:08 pm, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I always love this argument....I would much rather be smoking pot and paying
> taxes on it than pissing away billions of dollars to keep up this futile
> effort. Can you see the coffee houses all set up like Starbucks? They
> could be called "CannibusHuts" and equipped with drive thrus. Then we can
> be the United States of Americadam and follow the lead of the Dutch. The
> redlight district can be placed in Weiner's district so we will have Vegas
> on the West, and Weinerworld on the East. Everyone will be a little calmer
> and the men that like to venture out can get the fixes legally rather than
> compromising thier politcal stature and sending photos to strange women.
>
> S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > *"The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. For
> > the first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against
> > any drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. Tobacco
> > kills more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal
> > drugs in the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce
> > the demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking
> > marijuana is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is the
> > cause of our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, not
> > drug abuse, is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United
> > States. The war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. More
> > people in America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by
> > physicians than from illegal drugs."
>
> > **The 40-Year War on Freedom
> > *by Laurence M. Vance, June 15, 2011
>
> > Although the U.S. government's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken
> > center stage for the better part of the last ten years, there is another
> > failed war that has been waged by the federal government for the past forty
> > years.
>
> > The war on drugs was declared by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.
>
> > Speaking at a press conference<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3047&st=&st1=>in the Briefing Room at the White House, Nixon announced his plan:
>
> > I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had with
> > the bipartisan leaders which began at 8 o'clock and was completed 2 hours
> > later. I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think needs to
> > be made to the Nation: America's public enemy number one in the United
> > States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is
> > necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.
>
> > Nixon left no doubt as to the scope of his offensive:
>
> > This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources
> > of supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they
> > are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine
> > different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is
> > now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational
> > program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.
>
> > He went on to say how "essential it was for the American people to be
> > alerted to this danger."
>
> > In a special message <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3048> to the
> > Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control on the same day, Nixon
> > declared drug use to be a "menace," an "increasing grave threat," and a
> > "national emergency."
>
> > He also continued his military rhetoric:
>
> > I am transmitting legislation to the Congress to consolidate at the
> > highest level a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America.
> > The problems of drug abuse must be faced on many fronts.
> > To wage an effective war against heroin addiction, we must have
> > international cooperation. In order to secure such cooperation, I am
> > initiating a worldwide escalation in our existing programs for the control
> > of narcotics traffic, and I am proposing a number of new steps for this
> > purpose.
> > The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 provides a
> > sound base for the attack on the problem of the availability of narcotics in
> > America.
>
> > Nixon then issued Executive Order No. 11599 establishing the Special Action
> > Office of Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) in the Executive Office of the
> > President. He also appointed the first drug czar, Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, as
> > Special Consultant to the President for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
>
> > Nixon's war on drugs really took off after the formation of the Drug
> > Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1973 and the declaration of an "all-out global
> > war on the drug menace."
>
> > This does not mean that the federal government didn't fight against drugs
> > before Nixon declared his war. To the contrary, the feds have waged war on
> > personal freedom via the drug war since the passage in 1905 of the first
> > federal anti-narcotics law aimed at ending the opium trade in the
> > Philippines.
>
> > This was followed by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Opium
> > Exclusion Act of 1909, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, the Marijuana
> > Tax Act of 1937, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, and the Comprehensive
> > Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
>
> > And since the beginning of Nixon's war, we have had the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
> > of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Chemical Diversion and
> > Trafficking Act of 1988, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003,
> > and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.
>
> > And who can forget the D.A.R.E. school-lecture program, "Just Say No"
> > clubs, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America's television ad featuring
> > a hot skillet, an egg, and the phrase, "This is your brain on drugs."
>
> > The case against the drug war has been made so many times that, at the risk
> > of sounding like a broken record, I will limit myself to ten key points:
>
> > The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. For the
> > first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against any
> > drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. Tobacco kills
> > more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal drugs in
> > the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce the
> > demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking marijuana
> > is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is the cause of
> > our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, not drug abuse,
> > is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States. The
> > war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. More people in
> > America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by physicians
> > than from illegal drugs.
>
> > To drug warriors, these things don't matter: Because taking drugs is bad
> > for one's health and morally corrupting, the state has the duty to regulate
> > and ban them.
>
> > But as true and important as these things are, the drug-warrior statists
> > are right about dismissing them for in the end they really don't matter. And
> > there are many other things that don't matter as well.
>
> > It doesn't matter if the drug war can or can't be "won." It doesn't matter
> > if drug addiction destroys or doesn't destroy lives and families. It doesn't
> > matter if marijuana is or isn't a gateway drug. It doesn't matter if the
> > majority of Americans support or don't support the drug war. It doesn't
> > matter if marijuana is or isn't beneficial for pain management. It doesn't
> > matter if fighting the drug war is or isn't a bipartisan issue. It doesn't
> > matter if cocaine and heroin are or aren't addictive. It doesn't matter if
> > drug use would or wouldn't increase if drugs were legalized. It doesn't
> > matter if advocates for drug decriminalization want or don't want to get
> > high. It doesn't matter if smoking crack is or isn't dangerous. It doesn't
> > matter if drug use is or isn't immoral. It doesn't matter if the war on
> > drugs is or isn't "worth it."
>
> > What matters is personal freedom, private property, personal
> > responsibility, individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, free
> > markets, limited government, and the natural right to be left alone if one
> > is not aggressing against his someone and is doing "anything that's
> > peaceful."
>
> > Ending the war on drugs is not an esoteric issue of libertarians or a pet
> > issue of those who want to get high. Once the government claims control over
> > what a man smokes, snorts, sniffs, inhales, or otherwise ingests into his
> > body, there is no limit to its power. As the economist Ludwig von Mises so
> > eloquently said: "As soon as we surrender the principle that the state
> > should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual's mode of
> > life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest
> > detail." The war on drugs is incompatible with a free society.
>
> >http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106o.asp
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Politically-Incorrect Right Wing Humor

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2011/06/politically-incorrect-right-wing-humor.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Exclusive Preview of Barack Obama's 2012 Campaign Stump Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRFFJrJMIrE&feature=player_embedded

Re: The 40-Year War on Freedom

I always love this argument....I would much rather be smoking pot and paying taxes on it than pissing away billions of dollars to keep up this futile effort. Can you see the coffee houses all set up like Starbucks? They could be called "CannibusHuts" and equipped with drive thrus. Then we can be the United States of Americadam and follow the lead of the Dutch. The redlight district can be placed in Weiner's district so we will have Vegas on the West, and Weinerworld on the East. Everyone will be a little calmer and the men that like to venture out can get the fixes legally rather than compromising thier politcal stature and sending photos to strange women.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. For the first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against any drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. Tobacco kills more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal drugs in the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce the demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking marijuana is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is the cause of our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, not drug abuse, is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States. The war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. More people in America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by physicians than from illegal drugs."

The 40-Year War on Freedom
by Laurence M. Vance, June 15, 2011

Although the U.S. government's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken center stage for the better part of the last ten years, there is another failed war that has been waged by the federal government for the past forty years.

The war on drugs was declared by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.

Speaking at a press conference in the Briefing Room at the White House, Nixon announced his plan:

I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had with the bipartisan leaders which began at 8 o'clock and was completed 2 hours later. I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think needs to be made to the Nation: America's public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.

Nixon left no doubt as to the scope of his offensive:

This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources of supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.

He went on to say how "essential it was for the American people to be alerted to this danger."

In a special message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control on the same day, Nixon declared drug use to be a "menace," an "increasing grave threat," and a "national emergency."

He also continued his military rhetoric:

I am transmitting legislation to the Congress to consolidate at the highest level a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America.

The problems of drug abuse must be faced on many fronts.

To wage an effective war against heroin addiction, we must have international cooperation. In order to secure such cooperation, I am initiating a worldwide escalation in our existing programs for the control of narcotics traffic, and I am proposing a number of new steps for this purpose.

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 provides a sound base for the attack on the problem of the availability of narcotics in America.

Nixon then issued Executive Order No. 11599 establishing the Special Action Office of Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) in the Executive Office of the President. He also appointed the first drug czar, Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, as Special Consultant to the President for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

Nixon's war on drugs really took off after the formation of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1973 and the declaration of an "all-out global war on the drug menace."

This does not mean that the federal government didn't fight against drugs before Nixon declared his war. To the contrary, the feds have waged war on personal freedom via the drug war since the passage in 1905 of the first federal anti-narcotics law aimed at ending the opium trade in the Philippines.

This was followed by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Opium Exclusion Act of 1909, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

And since the beginning of Nixon's war, we have had the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.

And who can forget the D.A.R.E. school-lecture program, "Just Say No" clubs, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America's television ad featuring a hot skillet, an egg, and the phrase, "This is your brain on drugs."

The case against the drug war has been made so many times that, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will limit myself to ten key points:

The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. For the first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against any drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. Tobacco kills more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal drugs in the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce the demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking marijuana is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is the cause of our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, not drug abuse, is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States. The war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. More people in America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by physicians than from illegal drugs.

To drug warriors, these things don't matter: Because taking drugs is bad for one's health and morally corrupting, the state has the duty to regulate and ban them.

But as true and important as these things are, the drug-warrior statists are right about dismissing them for in the end they really don't matter. And there are many other things that don't matter as well.

It doesn't matter if the drug war can or can't be "won." It doesn't matter if drug addiction destroys or doesn't destroy lives and families. It doesn't matter if marijuana is or isn't a gateway drug. It doesn't matter if the majority of Americans support or don't support the drug war. It doesn't matter if marijuana is or isn't beneficial for pain management. It doesn't matter if fighting the drug war is or isn't a bipartisan issue. It doesn't matter if cocaine and heroin are or aren't addictive. It doesn't matter if drug use would or wouldn't increase if drugs were legalized. It doesn't matter if advocates for drug decriminalization want or don't want to get high. It doesn't matter if smoking crack is or isn't dangerous. It doesn't matter if drug use is or isn't immoral. It doesn't matter if the war on drugs is or isn't "worth it."

What matters is personal freedom, private property, personal responsibility, individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, free markets, limited government, and the natural right to be left alone if one is not aggressing against his someone and is doing "anything that's peaceful."

Ending the war on drugs is not an esoteric issue of libertarians or a pet issue of those who want to get high. Once the government claims control over what a man smokes, snorts, sniffs, inhales, or otherwise ingests into his body, there is no limit to its power. As the economist Ludwig von Mises so eloquently said: "As soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual's mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail." The war on drugs is incompatible with a free society.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106o.asp

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Impeach Obama

MJ...Can you please remind me if Congress voted to declare war on Iraq during the second invasion? I think I remember them voting. But did not Clinton do the same when he attacked the camps in Lebanon trying to squelch hisbola and Bin Laden? Thanks S.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"So, I say: Impeach him. In fact, I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be impeached. He has broken the law -- the people's law -- the law of the Constitution, and he has done so knowingly, intentionally, and willfully."

Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Impeach Obama
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution states in part:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Article I, Section 8, states in part:

"The Congress shall have Power To Declare War…."

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the law that the citizenry of the United States imposed on federal officials as a condition to calling the federal government into existence.

Since the Framers delegated the power to declare war to Congress, the Constitution prohibits the president from waging war without first securing a declaration of war from Congress.

Everyone acknowledges that President Obama has waged war against Libya without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. By ordering U.S. armed forces to attack Libya, Obama intentionally, knowingly, and willingly violated the law the law of the Constitution.

Obama's war on Libya has resulted in the deaths of untold number of people who have never attacked the United States. His war of aggression has also exposed the American people to the increased threat of terrorism, which federal officials commonly cite as the justification for further infringements on the civil liberties of the American people.

Obama's war on Libya clearly falls within the category of a "high crime or misdemeanor." In fact, given the death and destruction and the real and potential harm to the safety and freedom of the American people, Obama's war is akin to a political felony.

So, I say: Impeach him. In fact, I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be impeached. He has broken the law -- the people's law -- the law of the Constitution, and he has done so knowingly, intentionally, and willfully.

What would be Obama's defense at his impeachment trial? Unable to deny the charge, his only claim would be that since other presidents have violated the same law and nothing was done to them, he should be let off the hook too.

But is that a valid defense? It certainly isn't permitted in criminal cases in which the feds charge citizens with violations of their laws. If a citizen is charged with illegal possession of drugs, for example, he isn't permitted to defend against the charge by claiming that others similarly situated weren't charged.

So, why should Obama's "defense" be treated any differently?

Even if Obama were to be acquitted, wouldn't it be constructive to finally bring a president to account for his willful violation of this particular provision of the Constitution? At the very least, a powerful message would be sent to Obama and all future presidents: Try this again and you will be removed from office.

Given that the U.S. Supreme Court long ago signaled that it would not enforce this particular provision of the Constitution no matter how important it was, it's up to Congress to do so. If presidents can ignore the law, then what's the point of having a Constitution?

It's time for Congress to enforce our law -- the law of the Constitution -- the law that we the people have imposed on federal officials. What better way to do that than by impeaching President Obama for the high crime or misdemeanor of waging war on Libya without the congressional declaration of war required by the Constitution?

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-06-15.asp

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.