Rand Paul wants Obama to go after Colorado and Washington.

[lemongrove]

Rand Paul in Don Quixote rides again.

 

[Jhhnn]

"To the best of his ability"? He obviously has the ability.......

As I stated waaaay back at the start of this thread, the enforcement of federal mj laws is completely incidental to what Paul is trying to achieve - Obama is picking and choosing which laws to enforce, and when, and how much, and the benign neglect currently being directed toward mj just happens to fall into the same category as a bunch of other laws that he has chosen not to "execute".

This failure is in opposition to what the Constitution states his job is - whether or not we agree with the law, whether or not it is a good law, etc, etc, etc, have nothing to do with it. If he wants to make a lasting change in the mj arena, this is not how to go about it. For example, we are signatory to innumerable international treaties, which we initiated, that will be a hell of an impediment to anything other than medical legalization. The post-Anslinger Gordian knot of interwoven drug laws is going to take a long, long time and a concerted effort by the legislature and the executive branch to get straightened out. Obama doesn't have it in him to undertake a task of that nature.

Like I offered, your Hate-Um Obama! agenda is showing. You can honestly call for the admin to enforce federal marijuana law, or not. You cannot honestly advocate both simultaneously, nor legitimately criticize the admin when they take the position you advocate. There is no legitimate in between. Now that the choice has been forced upon the Admin by voters in CO & WA, which do you advocate? Does application of such principles extend to you, or just to everybody else?

Federal law makes no distinction between medical & recreational cannabis, does it? Do those treaties you mention?

The answer to both questions is No. In that context, the US govt has failed to enforce federal MJ law & to uphold those treaties since 1996. This isn't just about Obama, but rather about a favorable change in public opinion fostered by largely ignoring federal law for 18 years. Had every Admin crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's since 1996, as you seem to advocate, MMJ never would have existed in this country. It violates federal law in exactly the same way as recreational MJ.

Or should the DEA be tasked with breaking the balls off of every MMJ shop & grower in the country? What would it take to create an enforcement scenario providing equal protection as an exercise in due process? Has Congress allocated the funding to make such enforcement more than random acts, like sharks eating a few swimmers at a public beach? Are you advocating that they should, or not?

I'll agree that the current situation is transitional, that further action will be necessary to obtain congruence between the law & the will of the people, no doubt. OTOH, insisting that federal law be universally upheld in the meanwhile is nothing more than the usual Catch22- you can't get there from here. In the case of Obama haters, it's just the expression of the idea that whatever he does is wrong, simply because he's the one doing it.

Make no mistake about it, Colorado voters have forced a choice upon the Obama Admin, the same choice that would have been forced upon any Admin in office at the time of passage of A64. You can be the judge of your own integrity by considering what your reaction would have been had any other Admin done the same thing, particularly considering that they already have since 1996.

As much as I detested the financial elite lootocracy & war mongering of the Bush Admin, I'd have praised them for doing the same thing as Obama wrt MJ legalization. It's unfortunate that Colorado voters didn't provide the opportunity for change back then so that you could have supported it.

It's pure partisan bullshit, something that will likely be discredited & pushed aside as Colorado's success story unfolds. If Congress wants to claim some credit in the process, they'll re-classify MJ or adopt an even more pro legalization stance like the one offered by Jared Polis in the HOR. If not, then the Obama Admin will very likely do so themselves once that success is a proven & tangible fact. At which point Obama haters will just move the goalposts again, assert that he's usurping the power of Congress, even after voices from that quarter have asserted his right & responsibility to do so at any time of his choosing.

Rand Paul? In Harry Reid's place, I'd call upon the DEA & other federal enforcement agencies to lay out a plan for universal effective enforcement of federal MJ laws in their entirety, including MMJ, craft a funding bill to that effect, see how long it takes for a dishonest & pandering Rand Biatch & his supporters to choke on it.

 

[rives]

You are leaping to conclusions. I have no partisan axe to grind, and disliked Bush very nearly as much as Obama but for vastly different reasons. And yes, I can certainly criticize the administration for failing to do their constitutionally-mandated job while enjoying the results thereof. As I've said, repeatedly, giving the administration carte blanche to pick and choose which laws they feel need to be enforced not only bypasses congress and, theoretically, the wishes of the electorate, but it also gives them a basis for other extra-legal actions that I might not find as pleasant.

Yes, as a matter of fact, the treaties do specifically include verbiage regarding the allowance of medical treatment and scientific research. In fact, they do so repeatedly and in great detail. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which is the device used to make cannabis illegal throughout the world, states in it's preamble - "Desiring to conclude a generally acceptable international convention replacing existing treaties on narcotic drugs, limiting such drugs to medical and scientific use, and providing for continuous international co-operation and control for the achievement of such aims and objectives". Other mentions of the allowance for medical and scientific purposes permeate the document.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf

 

[Jhhnn]

You are leaping to conclusions. I have no partisan axe to grind, and disliked Bush very nearly as much as Obama but for vastly different reasons. And yes, I can certainly criticize the administration for failing to do their constitutionally-mandated job while enjoying the results thereof. As I've said, repeatedly, giving the administration carte blanche to pick and choose which laws they feel need to be enforced not only bypasses congress and, theoretically, the wishes of the electorate, but it also gives them a basis for other extra-legal actions that I might not find as pleasant.

Yes, as a matter of fact, the treaties do specifically include verbiage regarding the allowance of medical treatment and scientific research. In fact, they do so repeatedly and in great detail. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which is the device used to make cannabis illegal throughout the world, states in it's preamble - "Desiring to conclude a generally acceptable international convention replacing existing treaties on narcotic drugs, limiting such drugs to medical and scientific use, and providing for continuous international co-operation and control for the achievement of such aims and objectives". Other mentions of the allowance for medical and scientific purposes permeate the document.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf

The treaty compels no Govt to assign any medical or scientific value to cannabis, nor does it assert that any exist. Therefore, it's been banned worldwide for any purpose whatsoever, with few exceptions, largely to curry favor with the USA. Those treaties have been used to obtain the compliance of other weaker nations to our will. They've gone along with it, or at least pretended, because the money was right.

Treaties are the creation of mutual consent. Any nation can withdraw from any treaty at any time, and may or may not suffer any consequences from doing so. WTF are they gonna do when we legalize cannabis? Scold us? Snicker at the DEA? Rub our noses in our own shit a little bit? Leave Uncle Sam with a little more of it on his nose than he picked up in Iraq & Afghanistan? Turn down our money? Trade sanctions? Invade? What?

I mean, I'm quivering in my fucking boots, ya know, because the consequences lie somewhere between jack & shit. That's what happened when Nixon abrogated the Taiwan mutual defense treaty & GWB abrogated the world court treaty, as well- extensive whining, and that's it. I'm sure it's been done other times, as well.

Try moving the goalposts anywhere you want- it doesn't mean you can get anybody to go for 'em where you put 'em. They're still in the same place, the exact same place where WA & CO scored goals.

 

[rives]

Ah yes, far better that we trust in the Executive Office to follow only the laws that are reasonable and just - after all, they always have our best interests in mind, even when we don't know what's best.

Of course, you plan on maintaining this stance the next time a scion of the Bush clan is holding that office, correct? Jeezus........

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah yes, far better that we trust in the Executive Office to follow only the laws that are reasonable and just - after all, they always have our best interests in mind, even when we don't know what's best.

Of course, you plan on maintaining this stance the next time a scion of the Bush clan is holding that office, correct? Jeezus........

I haven't put words in your mouth, and I''d appreciate the same courtesy.

I didn't say that, and you're really reaching to claim that it's anywhere close to what I intended.

By the time that possibility exists, 2017, I figure it'll be all but over with several other states having come onboard, cannabis re-scheduled, one way or another. It would best be done by Congress, making it even more difficult to reverse than an executive order, but that'll probably do just fine.

If the whole treaty thing bothers anybody, we can reclassify it as an over the counter mood elevator, anti-depressant & sleep aid, declare all cannabis to be "medicinal".

We're comin' through, like water flowing down the rows of corn when the irrigation gate is opened. It'll be unstoppable, in a very gentle way, thanks to the sheer brilliance of A64, Colorado voters, and, yes, the Obama Admin, too. We win.

Thank you all.

 

[rives]

I haven't put words in your mouth, and I''d appreciate the same courtesy.

I didn't say that, and you're really reaching to claim that it's anywhere close to what I intended.

Actually, you have put words in my mouth repeatedly, as well as miscasting the intent of the legislation, and denied the existence of both a constitutional mandate for Obama to enforce existing laws and the existence of provisions for medical usage in the international drug treaties.

Contrary to the thoughts of one-issue voters, this legislation does not target legal mj in Colorado or Washington. There are issues of far greater national importance that they do target, and unfortunately, this is on the periphery.

It's a damn scary proposition when the portion of the government that is charged with enforcing the laws as written decides to change their reason for being into something far different than was intended by the framer's of the Constitution. That is what this legislation is about. I would think that even the most ardent Obamaphile would shudder at the precedent being set for future Presidents.

 

[festerous]

We're comin' through, like water flowing down the rows of corn when the irrigation gate is opened. It'll be unstoppable, in a very gentle way, thanks to the sheer brilliance of A64, Colorado voters, and, yes, the Obama Admin, too. We win.

You make it sound like the devil is moving in.

 

[bentom187]

...............................

 

[LargePrime]

No I really didn't.

If you wish to counter the idea that Property rights come from a source other than Governments then I'll ask you to state that source.

Ok so we know your premise is diluted to think natural rights don't exist.

1) one cannot DILUTE a premise. your language is fail.
2)Natural rights arguments = MAGIC SOULS, so you did say it. If someone kills those babies do there MAGIC SOULS unkill them?
Given two cases, the babies have natural rights and they do not, with no DISCERNIBLE difference between the two, then Occam's razor says they don't.

Did you have to ask permission to exist ? no ? then its your right to exist and defend your existence I would hope you can understand that much. Guess how you got that right ? its inherent in your being a part of nature

1) non sequitur.
2) assumes facts not in evidence.
3) tautological. If one has to exist before one can ask to exist, then your foundation cannot be falsified. Also it is
3) is circular. You invoking your causal premise in your conclusion.

Also makes no fucking sense at all. So no I don't understand it. Infact it can be proven to be not understandable.

Equal ,meaning they are all human,if you or anyone chooses to treat babies or any disabled person differently its more of a intellectual flaw on the part of the person doing the judging.They are human beings not sub human they own their selves which means its a right, and yes rights are violated sometimes but that is not the victims fault nor does it negate their existence.

Again you are confusing very different things and are pulling us off topic. Yes in an abstract legal/government/moral/political way they are assigned equality. But in real ways they are very different and absolutely not equal, and should not be treated as such.

Who are the parties to the contract? "The People" the people are the states, not any of us.Quoting from case law.

Brown vs board of education. So you are wrong on all of that.

To be a man is a personal matter by contract.

Oh god. did you even read your own reference!
It says that according to the ANGLO-SAXON government/legal system to call one self 'lord HIGHANDMIGHY's man' meant that you and lord HIGHANDMIGHY have a mutual contract/understanding with each other. So i repeat...

But quoting a LEGAL contract ,<edit>[by a] GOVERNMENT is a silly place for a "all da gubberment is bad" philosopher to look for a primary source of facts, right?

I just covered why.

And failed.

Well please point to one place where the state/government did not exist. I'll be waiting.

Hey now, this is your 'philosophy'. Why should I do your homework?
But really? Paradise? Your saying I have to find a govenment that has created a paradise, when you can't even find a non government event?
Ok fine. Denmark. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1

Because you posited that I believe in a libertarian paradise and its benefits, you failed to show a libertarian paradise anywhere,because it has never existed in recorded history.Meaning show me a place where no state has existed and someone didn't claim to rule over others. That is libertarian paradise ,or sanity as I like to call it.

so in review, I did not posit anything. You asked me to get you sources for your philosophy. Then you point out that your own philosophy on the organization of man, has never worked, or even been seen, in the entire history of mankind.

So the thing you, and a good portion of the republican party, vehemently adhere to as your guiding ideal has never even ever been seen or heard of in the history of man?
How exactally are you different from religious extremists?

Hey now, this is your 'philosophy'. Why should I do your homework? Or are you ASSERTING that it has NEVER existed, as a fact? Cause then i'll say 'Somalia' and show you your error.

What you would be pointing to is not libertarianism its ruled by dictators, and that's your error, and assumption it would be ruled by warlords.

Ya, but that is what NATURALLY happens when there is no government. We could posit that a libertarian paradise has happened all the time in the history of man. And every time without fail one of thoes babies grows up and decided to kill people and take their stuff.

So the natural response to that is the people who don't want to be killed, AND who don't want to kill, form a collective GOVERNMENT that fends off the killers.

What you are advocating is collective HOPING that people wont kill each other and take each others stuff.

No, whom do they turn themselves in to for murdering their own child, they have to face the fact that they are dumb immoral savages.

If your philosophy has no consequences for baby killers then it will fall to one that does. Also it is a very shitty philosophy.

yes you do ,because you assume government paradise exits

No, you SAID

Show me a place where the state/government created paradise.

So it was YOU who made up that standard.
I just pointed to the fact that here is a government that EXSISTS HERE AND NOW, that has pretty much the happiest, healthy and most productive people that have ever been on earth. And you say they are ruled by criminals? Bit of a slander that, no?

Could it be better? I imagine every citizen would say yes. But it a hell of a lot better than the US, which is a hell of a lot better than Somalia. Which no sane person would ever choose.

But how do you explain how well they are doing vs all of human history. Especially as they seem to be doing the very opposite of the things advocated by your philosophy? And how does that compare in REAL TERMS to seeking an imaginary system that has not and never may exist. Or has all the time and always ends up like Somalia.

And how would you respond to accusations that libertarianism is a well funded right wing extremist project to keep people from pursuing the well understood and well worn path of policies that actually make their and their childrens lives better, in order to keep the rich guy from paying more taxes.?

 

[LargePrime]

I'll just address a couple of these that came up after I logged off for the night.

I don't want to fight with you. I like you a lot and I think some of these things come across this screen in a way that would not come across if we were having a beer or a bowl, so I'll bow out on this one. If I said a thing that is a problem for you, I unreservedly apologize.

The commander-in-chief asking a field-level operative to stand down isn't going to happen, nor do I believe that he can "fire every single one of them".

I know you value facts. I ask you to ask any of them who serve if the Commander in Chief can give direct orders to any of them, and how those orders would be treated.

 

[dddaver]

"Mama always told me, Forrest, never argue politics or religion. Everybody's right meanwhile everybody's wrong."

 

[LargePrime]

"Mama always told me, Forrest, never argue politics or religion. Everybody's right meanwhile everybody's wrong."

Alexis de Tocqueville said that American's would go everywhere with a bible in one hand and blacks law in the other. Even in the most back woods, the people had a firm grasp of international, national, and local issues and the meaning of all of them.

I think it is to Americas great determent that we do not engage discussions of politics and religion/morality far more than we do. Apathy or lack of engagement on politics specifically is what has caused so much pain now for so many.

 

[Jhhnn]

You make it sound like the devil is moving in.

Not at all. The corn loves the water.

 

[buttbrain]

Wow and his dad's the one I thought would be in favor.. maybe Rand is adopted??
BB

 

[Pinball Wizard]

Wow and his dad's the one I thought would be in favor.. maybe Rand is adopted??
BB

not adopted...hatched & transplanted

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, you have put words in my mouth repeatedly, as well as miscasting the intent of the legislation, and denied the existence of both a constitutional mandate for Obama to enforce existing laws and the existence of provisions for medical usage in the international drug treaties.

Contrary to the thoughts of one-issue voters, this legislation does not target legal mj in Colorado or Washington. There are issues of far greater national importance that they do target, and unfortunately, this is on the periphery.

It's a damn scary proposition when the portion of the government that is charged with enforcing the laws as written decides to change their reason for being into something far different than was intended by the framer's of the Constitution. That is what this legislation is about. I would think that even the most ardent Obamaphile would shudder at the precedent being set for future Presidents.

1. International drug treaties are immaterial to the discussion at hand, regardless of their provisions. It's a red herring argument, an attempt to set up a whole different set of imaginary goalposts. The negative consequences of rejected that portion dealing with cannabis are insignificant, unless you're the DEA guy getting the snickers at the international conference.

2. Congress expresses intent in the actual wording of bills, not in anything stated otherwise. If the bill demands that Obama enforce all federal laws, that obviously includes shutting down legal cannabis in any State that creates it prior to changes in federal law.

3. Law enforcement at any level is always a matter of resource allocation, of priorities. It's the same as in any other dept of govt or business. In the aftermath of 9/11, for example, FBI resources were shifted away from financial crimes to the WoT. We could argue about the benefits of that, but sources faulting Obama today sure as Hell didn't fault Bush back then. It's perfectly normal to do things that way, simply because Congress refuses to spend the money to enforce all the laws all the time. I'm not saying they should. Rand Paul knows this all too well.

So the people at the top have to make choices while facing reality on a lot of different levels. They can even use those choices to promote other goals when given the opportunity, like how to deal with cannabis legalization in Co & WA, or how to deal with 9/11. Events are often used to serve agendas- right, wrong & indifferent.

The situation in CO is an opportunity to drive the legalization agenda, a rather delicate one. On the one hand, it's truly popular & relatively benign. On the other, opponents have a disproportionate share of power outside of CO. Above all of that, I believe, is that it represents a healing opportunity for the nation, a way forward to resolve one of the most divisive issues of our lifetimes in a way that enhances personal security & freedom. That's beyond the resources wasted in the failed war on marijuana, the lives damaged by capricious & irrational incarceration, the lack of respect engendered both towards people and govt. Obviously, many Coloradans not involved in cannabis think the same way. It's not just about single issue voters, at all.

Opponents of that use a variety of rhetorical concepts to thwart that initiative, including the Constitutional arguments you offer. While those arguments may be emotionally attractive, particularly if you're predisposed to accept any that attack the current Admin, I see them as bogus, hastily gathered props in support of the insupportable. I see the sense of outrage as misguided, intentionally manufactured with the usual FUD used as a template & underlayment for the pitch.

4. Delays in implementation of any new federal program are not uncommon, I suspect. The situation with Swiss banks & offshore accounts is one, for example. The IRS has forced Swiss bankers to divulge a lot more information than previously, leaving well-heeled American depositors subject to greater reporting scrutiny than they'd ever considered possible. US laws have been in place for many years, but this is an entirely new enforcement opportunity. They could be breaking balls today, but there's been a partial & popular amnesty, no criminal penalties for those who comply voluntarily.

To my knowledge, none of the information generating sources financed by billionaires have complained about that, but they're howling when ACA implementation is delayed to ease the burden on individuals & businesses, just the same way they're going on about legalization.

Go figure. I sense a hidden agenda that perhaps you haven't noticed.

 

[bentom187]

If you wish to counter the idea that Property rights come from a source other than Governments then I'll ask you to state that source.1) one cannot DILUTE a premise. your language is fail..?

No your comprehension is fail. You can own what you want without permission, imagine that. Fact, I own clothing, no permission granted.

2)Natural rights arguments = MAGIC SOULS, so you did say it. If someone kills those babies do there MAGIC SOULS unkill them?
Given two cases, the babies have natural rights and they do not, with no DISCERNIBLE difference between the two, then Occam's razor says they don't..?

No again you are the only one mentioning souls of any kind, again your implying it.If you go back a few posts you can see it was you ,no joke.
There is one case , in which a living breathing human baby has a right to its life ,as opposed to being dead. There is no second case you are simply unaware of the difference between privileges and rights, go back a few posts.

1) non sequitur.
2) assumes facts not in evidence.
3) tautological. If one has to exist before one can ask to exist, then your foundation cannot be falsified. Also it is
3) is circular. You invoking your causal premise in your conclusion.

1)It isn't, you just don't understand.

2) Like mentioning magic souls ? Debunking things people didn't say is pretty easy.

3) I don't know if you exist before you exist I just know I didn't ask permission to. How about you?

4) My premises are always casual especially on Friday, but seriously if you don't know what living and dead are and the difference then I have nothing more to say about it, you're just deflecting the obvious.
One naturally follows the other so of course it is going to be in the conclusion especially when you have to spell the obvious out.

Also makes no fucking sense at all. So no I don't understand it.

Im sure it has to do with me trying to explain the difference between what you are asserting and what I am saying.

Infact it can be proven to be not understandable.
Again you are confusing very different things and are pulling us off topic. Yes in an abstract legal/government/moral/political way they are assigned equality.But in real ways they are very different and absolutely not equal, and should not be treated as such.

No one is assigned rights or equality.
Meaning they are here weather you say so or not, they are free to do as they wish anyone saying different is violating their rights.
If you mess with babies or anyone for their difference in appearance then you are making some errors in judgment. Do you need someone to tell you not to violate someone's rights or do you just generally get along with people until they try to assert themselves against your rights ?

protecting your rights and that of your baby is ok ,but you don't need a government for that and even then the government in not a guarantee of anything. They have laws against murder, people are murdered every day including by government.
It equivocal to saying, im going to pass a law, those bears will not be shitting in my woods any more.

Brown vs board of education. So you are wrong on all of that.

What I was pointing out is that lack of a lawyer licensed by the state, means you can not be heard in court on a basis of breach of the constitution. Not that two layers from the state cant be heard which was the case there and do the same.
So the states are sovereign according to the document called the constitution.

Oh god. did you even read your own reference!
It says that according to the ANGLO-SAXON government/legal system to call one self 'lord HIGHANDMIGHY's man' meant that you and lord HIGHANDMIGHY have a mutual contract/understanding with each other.

((((( By contract)))))) Is the way you enter into the feudal/legal system. IN THAT SYSTEM a sovereign is the feudal lord the states. OUTSIDE OF THAT SYSTEM YOU ARE A SOVEREIGN YOURSELF. So yes I have read it and understand it.

So i repeat...
And failed.so in review, I did not posit anything. You asked me to get you sources for your philosophy. Then you point out that your own philosophy on the organization of man, has never worked, or even been seen, in the entire history of mankind.

Dude my philosophy is that it (libertarianism) has never existed, not that it has not worked, it has never been tried.

The state has been tried ,and fails every time. see the difference ?

So the thing you, and a good portion of the republican party, vehemently adhere to as your guiding ideal has never even ever been seen or heard of in the history of man?
How exactally are you different from religious extremists?.?

Well me and the party have our own ideas to lump everyone into stereotypes is helping your argument but in no way reflects the reality of the situation.
Extreme and violence are two different things. Some people are violent when they express their views some are not.
The state is also a religion if you believe it, it has proponents that think if they can enact laws to address lifes problems the problems go away. That is not the case obviously but they do it anyway because hey its the best system we got right ? "faith".

Ya, but that is what NATURALLY happens when there is no government. We could posit that a libertarian paradise has happened all the time in the history of man. And every time without fail one of thoes babies grows up and decided to kill people and take their stuff.

So the natural response to that is the people who don't want to be killed, AND who don't want to kill, form a collective GOVERNMENT that fends off the killers.

Ok you need to realize that the state has more of a propensity for violence than the needs of smaller groups of people trying to live freely without a state.
No government has come together without violence and ,you cant leave afterward.
The argument I am making is that war and violence is less likely ,not eliminated.
If they are enlightened enough to see that violence is bad, then they would not set up a coercive state. They would defend themselves and be done with it.

What you are advocating is collective HOPING that people wont kill each other and take each others stuff.
If your philosophy has no consequences for baby killers then it will fall to one that does. Also it is a very shitty philosophy.

Yes instead of forcing them to obey me or you and taking their stuff which would make us no different than the state.

I didn't say there were no consequences ,there are from the parents, but if its their own kid they have to live with it, again you should read what I post not infer what you want and then call it my argument.

No, you SAIDSo it was YOU who made up that standard.
I just pointed to the fact that here is a government that EXSISTS HERE AND NOW, that has pretty much the happiest, healthy and most productive people that have ever been on earth. And you say they are ruled by criminals? Bit of a slander that, no?.?

yes if slavery is criminal so is a government who thinks it rules you. Its the same as mob rule. Especially without the consent of the individual which is required even by feudal law as I pointed out before. If you don't know how you are contracted ,then it is fraud.

Could it be better? I imagine every citizen would say yes. But it a hell of a lot better than the US, which is a hell of a lot better than Somalia. Which no sane person would ever choose.

Again Somalia is a dictatorship ,they are dealing with the fallout of a failed state not failed libertarianism.
You should read what it is so you don't make the same mistake like 3 more times comparing apples to oranges.

Northern Somalia would remain a protectorate, while southern Somalia became a United Nations Trusteeship in 1949. In 1960, the two regions united to form the independent Somali Republic under a civilian government.[21] Mohamed Siad Barre seized power in 1969 and established the Somali Democratic Republic. In 1991, Barre's government collapsed as the Somali Civil War broke out.

how do you explain how well they are doing vs all of human history. Especially as they seem to be doing the very opposite of the things advocated by your philosophy? And how does that compare in REAL TERMS to seeking an imaginary system that has not and never may exist. Or has all the time and always ends up like Somalia.

And how would you respond to accusations that libertarianism is a well funded right wing extremist project to keep people from pursuing the well understood and well worn path of policies that actually make their and their childrens lives better, in order to keep the rich guy from paying more taxes.?

Well first I would like to explain that what we have is a illusion of wealth based on baking fraud and war and blind consumerism. Keynesian economics and central banking. You can see in that system hitler is a hero but the people are dead. It would be funny if it were not our current system, imposed by government.

Hitler Informed Cartoon Bears Destroyed the Keynesian Multipliers
[YOUTUBEIF]-_ZwvKoDTzo[/YOUTUBEIF]



Second forcing people to do what you want and telling them they are rich and happy does not make it so. You cant see past left or right, you cant see the problem so you are never going to have a solution.
AUTORITARIANISM is the problem not democrats or republicans.

I merely am suggesting that people will volunteer for what is in their best interests ,you don't need violence or economic punishments for them to get a clue, that is what every government does.

 

[bentom187]

 

[bentom187]

Let this be a informative post and not a rant. Although I realize its a slightly separate subject.
If you control the money and what money is defined as then you control everything.
These treatise relate to the environment ,but they are enforced ,willingly by placing front men at the head of the government who willingly just acquiesces. If they go to war or not, is a simple matter convenience.

The world bank/IMF own the UN and the US. And both parties. We need to fight their authoritarian rule. Which comes in all forms of governance you did not consent to.


How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping Up to 30% of the Earth

(Editor's Note: After spending many hours on my latest commentary, I felt compelled to post the following missive which deals with the same subject. It seemed serendipitous to have come across the article today. The illustration to the right features a creature of a reptilian nature. - JSB)

Woe to him that … establisheth a city by iniquity!… that the people shall labor in the very fire, and the people shall weary themselves for very vanity (Habakkuk 2:12-13)

Summary:

After Edmund de Rothschild’s statement, without basis, at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, that CO2 is the cause of a non-existent global warming - and that combating it needs money (our money), he founded the World Conservation Bank for this reason. In 1991 its name was changed to The Global Environment Facility (GEF). The purpose of this facility is to lend money to the poorest countries, printed by the IMF out of thin air, and with the guarantee of our governments. The facility takes wilderness areas with mineral riches as security. The GEF money is then to flow back to our governments as reimbursement for paid loans. I.e. We give away our tax money. For what? When a country cannot repay loans to the GEF it must give up a piece of its territory to the Rothschild banks (GEF, IMF, World Bank) - up to 30% of the Earth are meant. If land cannot be offered as collateral the country must starve (Haiti, Argentina and others). Rothschild´s stroke of genius was that he had his GEF smuggled into the UN system at the Rio UN Summit in 1992 by his friend, Maurice Strong. So now high-ranking ministerial officials from 179 countries are in the the council of the bank - blessing Rothschild grabbing the world! This article brings interviews with a man who was a participant at the 4th World Wilderness Congress,a man who knows what happened there and knew Rothschild personally - as well as David Rockefeller, who tried to threaten him to silence about what he had learned at the Wilderness Congress. The GEF is to manage the money just promised to the developing countries in Copenhagen (100 billion dollars a year from 2020 - 30 bn over the next 3 years) with the help of the World Bank. However, Rothschild does not leave it there. He and his henchmen are now joining the race of certain governments (China, Saudi Arabia), to buy up large areas of farmland in developing countries, having the crops transported back to the home countries. This leaves the locals, already starving, with much less crops available - with food prices rising rapidly - which is exactly Rothschild’s expectation. This makes people flee from Africa to Europe. Food prices have doubled in the past year or so - so that many people in Haiti before the earthquake, could not even afford to buy mud pies with minimal nourishment. And so it goes on. This is the ultimate goal of Rothschild’s New World Order.

Since the 4. World Wilderness Congress in1987, where Earth Charter co-author and illuminist, Mr. Maurice Strong introduced his friend, Edmund de Rothschild, the world never became the same: The Devil – excuse me - CO2 was at large. Rothschild stated that CO2 was the cause of non-existent man-made global warming. CO2, therefore, had to be caught and transported to the poles and into the Sahara to lower the temperatures there! This absurdity was accepted without discussion at the UN Rio Summit in 1992!!

[YOUTUBEIF]JUdgiehz9dU#t=1732[/YOUTUBEIF]

More about this on this video, after 28:45 min mark, where Rothschild states : "This needs money!"(our money). He is having it now through a stroke of genius

Left Edmund de Rothschild

Here is Rothschild´s approach to grabbing 30% of the Earth with the consent of our governments/central banks Andrew Hitchcock: “The History of the Money Changers”, 2006:

In 1987, Edmund de Rothschild creates the World Conservation Bank which is designed to transfer debts from third world countries to this bank, and in return those countries would give land to this bank. The idea is for the IMF to create more and more SDR’s backed by nothing, in order for struggling nations to borrow them. These nations will then gradually come under the control of the IMF as they struggle to pay the interest, and have to borrow more and more. The IMF will then decide which nations can borrow more and which will starve. They can also use this as leverage to take state owned assets like utilities as payment against the debt until they eventually own the nation states.

1988: The World Central Bank has three arms, the World Bank, the BIS and the IMF. 2000: How the World bank and the IMF took over Argentina, Tanzania and Bolivia. Terrible reading. The IMF is closely interwoven and here with Rothschild´s BIS Bank, and the BIS, IMF and the World Bank have a common external website.

Ministerial Officials Openly Serve in the Council of Rothschild-founded Global Environmental Bank - and here.

Prison Planet Thursday, February 4th, 2010: “Senior US Treasury Dept. Official William Pizer, the current Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy is simultaneously a sitting council member on the Global Environment Facility, one of the largest funders of projects to "improve the global environment" – i.e. push through fraud-based carbon cap-and-trade programs. This 'Facility', while not claiming to be a bank, at the same time calls it itself "An independent financial organization."

Isn't it illegal (or at the very least unethical) for a senior member of the Treasury Department to openly sit as a member of a huge foreign bank (oops – "facility)?

We need a law passed to stop such a high official holding two such posts and potentially using their influence and position in the US Treasury to move untold millions into the coffers of what is effectively a foreign bank or . . .If there is a law and someone needs to file a federal lawsuit

This is no small matter: I found this organization while researching information given by George Hunt, and George Hunt claims this organzation was founded by Edmond de Rothschild and Maurice Strong (originally to be named the "World Conservation Bank"), and its purpose is to engulf all other banks.

In the interview, George played numerous audio clips proving Edmond De Rothschild, Maurice Strong, as well as former Treas. Sec. James A Baker III, and the then heads of the IMF and World Bank were involvedin promoting this new bank at the Fourth World Wilderness Congress in 1987 in Colorado.

George Washington Hunt here being interviewed by Alex Jones.


"Rothschild wants to take over big chunks of the world via the World Conservation programme – to be the only bank in the world. This is a conspiracy fact." He had social intercourse with the Rothschilds. He was threatened to be silent about his discoveries by David Rockefeller, who also participated in the 4. World Wilderness Congress.

The GEF's verbose and acronymn-laden 2008 annual report brags of the millions of dollars ostensibly transferred from 1st world nations to poorer nations to help clean up their environment, but it offers zero details on where the money came from other than simple pie charts showing broad categories such as "government", "NGO", etc.

Everyone should contact their US senator or congressman, as well as the US Attorney General and demand an investigation into this obvious appearance of impropriety on the part of the US Treasury Department.”

For good reasons, indeed. Here is another interview with George Hunt, who participated at the 4. World Wilderness Congress in 1987.

Rothschild had a "World Conservation Bank" established. This bank would lend money to defaulting countries like Brazil taking the Amazon basin as collateral. In fact 30% of the world´s surface were defined as such "wildernesses" which could be collateralized (i.e. given as security for loans). If the borrowing Nation cannot pay the loan back (and Brazil´s finance minister stated, that Brazil Could not), the wilderness would be forfeited and belong to the World Conservation Bank. And where would this charitable bank have its money from? Wikipedia: The 4. Wilderness Congress proposed the establishment of a World Conservation Bank, which eventually led to the $1.1 billion Global Environment Facility.

This means that the UN countries of the world are donating money and exchange our good money for useless SDRs on the reimbursement of our loans to LDCs for Rothschild to take over up to 30% of the Earth as forfeited security!!!

What is the GEF?

GlobalEnvironmentFacilityThe Global Environment Facility (GEF) unites 179 member governments — in partnership with international institutions, NGOs, and the private sector — to address global environmental issues.

Established in 1991, the GEF is today the largest funder of projects to improve the global environment. The GEF has allocated $8.8 billion, supplemented by more than $38.7 billion in cofinancing, for more than 2,400 projects in more than 165 developing countries.

The GEF partnership includes 10 agencies: 1. the UN Development Programme (David Rothschild consultant/Nigeria); 2. the UN Environment Programme (UNEP); 3. the World Bank; 4. the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (A Rockefeller-partner organisation) ; 5. the UN Industrial Development Organization; 6. the African Development Bank; 7. the Asian Development Bank; 8. the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; 9. the Inter-American Development Bank (David Rothschild consultant); 10. and the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

Here is how it works: The Telegraph 2. Jan 2010: NM Rothschild is poised to earn tens of millions of pounds … (by).. further strengthening the close bond between the Rothschild family and Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, the bank advising (Deripaska´s firm) Rusal. Deripaska (an intimate friend of Nathan Rothschild´s) was able to tap the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (GEF) for a loan of $150m, to his Basic Element vehicle in 2006. Wikipedia: Deripaska is one of 16 global business leaders who drafted CEO Climate Policy Recommendations to G8 Leaders, a document outlining international business community’s proposals to effectively tackle global warming.

History

The Global Environment Facility was established in October 1991 as a $1 billion pilot program in the World Bank system to assist in the protection of the global environment and to promote environmental sustainable development. The United Nations Development Programme (David Rothschild Sevice Manager), the United Nations Environment Program (Maurice Strong) , and the World Bank were the three initial partners implementing GEF projects.

In 1992, at the Rio Earth Summit, the GEF was restructured and moved out of the World Bank system to become a permanent, separate institution. The decision to make the GEF an independent organization enhanced the involvement of developing countries in the decision-making process and in implementation of the projects. Since 1994, however, the World Bank has served as the Trustee of the GEF Trust Fund and provided administrative services.

As part of the restructuring, the GEF was entrusted to become the financial mechanism for both the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The GEF started funding projects that enable the Russian Federation and nations in Eastern Europeand Central Asia to phase out their use of ozone-destroying chemicals.
Comment: Imagine what collaterals Russia has in Siberia for Rothschild to take over as forfeited security!!

Food Crisis and the Global "Land grab"Arable-land-per-capita

Rothschild´s vested interests – as uttered by his henchmen. George Soros, Rothschild-agent, recently became the largest shareholder in Adecoagro one of the leading agribusiness companies in South America
Jim Rogers (Soros/Rothschild´s Quantum partner, which broke the Bank of England in 1992 and forced South East Asian currencies to devaluate sharply): "I'm convinced that farmland is going to be one of the best investments of our time.

"Lord Jacob Rothschildthinks that "right now is an excellent point of entry for taking a long-term position in agriculture." Rothschild invested $36 million for a 24% stake in Agrifirma Brazil. Lord Jacob Rothschild has bought 100.000 acres in Brazil - and holds an option on another 60.000 acres.

Rothschild has recently formed a co-operation agreement with Rabobank. The agreement covers co-operation for mergers and acquisitions and the equity capital market across a number of sectors including farm inputs and equipment, farm-based commodities, food processing and beverages.

3 Jan. 2010: The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) estimates that globally 15 to 20 million hectares (an area the size of Uruguay) have been under negotiation since 2006. Big buyers are China, Daewoo, South Korea, Saudi Arabia – in particular in Africa, this leaving the Africans with even less food attheir disposal. There have been riots against it in Madagascar and Kenya.

10 June 2010: In the spring of 2008 spiking grain prices caused food shortages and rioting in dozens of countries before falling some 50% by December.

Over the past few years hedge fund gurus like George Soros, investment powerhouses like BlackRock, and retirement plan giants like TIAA-CREF have begun to plow money into farmland – everywhere from the Midwest to Ukraine to Brazil.

Comment


Have you got the point? Rothschild established the CO2–fraud at the 4. World Wilderness Congress as a "fact". "It needs money", he said. In Rio 1992 his friend Maurice Strong made Rothschild´s lie and GEF Bank UN policy. So, he not only cashes in on CO2 at Bluenext and the London -and soon at the Chicago Climate Exchange, if the US Senate approves Rockefeller/Brzezinski puppet Obama´s Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill. Rothschild is making himself the world´s leading CO2–trader now.


No, Rothschild cashes in from all peoples on the planet, letting them toil as his slaves to pay to Rothschild´s GEF bank, in order that Rothschild can fleece the poorest countries of the very same planet – or take their land with all its mineral riches as forfeited collateral!!

Rothschild grabs land. He uses it for food-speculation and prospecting for and extraction of minerals. In Haiti, before the earthquake - people could not even afford to buy mud pies with minimal nourishment, because the price of food doubled - in consequence of the production of bio-fuel as a result Edmund de Rothschild’s unscrupulous but very profitable lie about CO2 as driving global warming .

How it must vex Rothschild, the failure in Copenhagen. It could have led to an enforceable definition of his system to cashing in increasing CO2 taxes globally and gradually towards the “world community´s” ruin, as well as to Rothschild becoming the invisible emperor of the world. But he has got time. He knows his time is near - after 234 years of hard mole work. But it must be a big comfort to Rothschild that rich countries committed themselves to provide $30 billion of climate aid over the next three years and $100 billion a year from 2020 to the never-developing countries. This money is to be paid through Rothschild´s GEF!!