L
lemongrove
Rand Paul in Don Quixote rides again.
Last edited:
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.No I really didn't.
1) one cannot DILUTE a premise. your language is fail.Ok so we know your premise is diluted to think natural rights don't exist.
1) non sequitur.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
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.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.
Brown vs board of education. So you are wrong on all of that.Who are the parties to the contract? "The People" the people are the states, not any of us.Quoting from case law.
Oh god. did you even read your own reference!To be a man is a personal matter by contract.
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?
And failed.I just covered why.
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.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.Hey now, this is your 'philosophy'. Why should I do your homework?Well please point to one place where the state/government did not exist. I'll be waiting.
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
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.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.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.
If your philosophy has no consequences for baby killers then it will fall to one that does. Also it is a very shitty philosophy.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.
No, you SAIDyes you do ,because you assume government paradise exits
So it was YOU who made up that standard.Show me a place where the state/government created paradise.
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.I'll just address a couple of these that came up after I logged off for the night.
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.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".
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."Mama always told me, Forrest, never argue politics or religion. Everybody's right meanwhile everybody's wrong."
You make it sound like the devil is moving in.
Wow and his dad's the one I thought would be in favor.. maybe Rand is adopted??
BB
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.
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..?
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..?
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.
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.
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.Brown vs board of education. So you are wrong on all of that.
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...
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.
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?.?
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.
If your philosophy has no consequences for baby killers then it will fall to one that does. Also it is a very shitty philosophy.
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?.?
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.
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.?
(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!!