Posted on 05/21/2012 7:31:52 AM PDT by Altariel
At 5:30 a.m. on May 10, armed men broke into the bedroom of Kirk Kyle Farrar’s 12 year-old daughter and shook her awake. The men led her downstairs at gunpoint and forced her to lie on the floor next to her mother and father, with her hands behind her head. Another armed man took Farrar’s two-year-old son from his crib, and would not let his parents hold him. “My son screamed for his mother for what seemed like an eternity,” Farrar wrote in an email to friends, obtained by Reason. “I will never forget the hopeless feeling of not being able to comfort my son or daughter.”
The armed men who broke into Farrar’s home were officers with the Meridian, Idaho, Police Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration. They were executing a federal warrant for Farrar’s arrest for the crime of selling bongs.
Farrar’s wasn’t the only family traumatized that morning. Agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Idaho National Guard, and four Idaho police departments raided the homes of 13 other headshop owners and employees on May 10. All of the headshops had their inventory seized. One shop lost more than $80,000 worth of merchandise (bongs and pipes marketed as “tobacco water pipes”). Another headshop owner had his and and his employees' vehicles seized.
The investigation into these 13 shops and their employees (two of which are still at large) for selling drug paraphernalia was led by U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson, a Barack Obama appointee. Nine of the shops were also accused of selling "spice," a synthetic alternative to the prohibited and significantly safer drug marijuana.
In his email, Farrar denies selling spice. "Piece of Mind Boise has never carried these products EVER! We made a commitment from the start not to carry it because we believe it is dangerous and not being used in a legal fashion."
He also notes that his cousin, "[who] has never previously committed a crime and has absolutely no criminal record," has been charged with "with 4 Federal felony charges stemming from selling tobacco products."
“The open sale of drug paraphernalia promotes unlawful drug use and helps drug traffickers thrive,” Olson said at a press conference on May 10. “These indictments show federal, state and local law enforcement partners will attack drug trafficking on all fronts.”
During a speech at the Center for American Progress earlier this month, Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske said that the law enforcement-only approach to America's drug problem was not "humane, compassionate" or "realistic." He also said that the Obama administration does not believe it can "arrest its way out of the drug problem."
Reason spoke to one headshop owner. At his attorney’s behest, this owner declined to go on the record, but did say that local police had been aware of the store’s existence and sales of glass pipes for years, but had never threatened charges or discouraged the business from operating. The owner believes that the raids came at the behest of federal law enforcement officials.
According to the Idaho Statesman, “the DEA, Idaho National Guard, IRS and the U.S. Marshals and Attorney’s offices worked on the case,” which the agencies built over the course of an entire year.
As if more evidence were needed that President Obama's drug war looks a lot like George W. Bush's: The charges against Farrar and the other Idaho headshop owners are reminiscent of the federal prosecution of actor Tommy Chong under Bush's DOJ. Chong was convicted in 2003 for distributing paraphernalia through his company Nice Dreams Enterprises. Chong was fined $20,000, and made to forfeit his domain name, all of his inventory, and $103,514 in cash.
Rather, I am saddened by those who defend the practice.
Those who fear God do not threatened to murder small children.
Those who defend the practice only embolden them to “up” their “threats” by doing so.
“If you hadn’t done “X”, little Tommy could have lived.....”
In the end, God will deal with those who oppressed the innocent along with the guilty (or instead of the guilty), as he will deal with those who did not condemn those who threatened the innocent.
If you read the entire Book, my FRiend, you would find that God is rescuing those who do not deserve rescue, He is redeeming the elect not because of a "righteousness derived from Law", but because of His exceedingly merciful grace. If you believe you represent the "good enough to be deserving heaven", I caution you to re-read the text. Even Paul did not view himself this way. Your gospel suffers from the same misunderstanding that the Judaizers taught.
Yes, of course, the problem is with the enforcers...not your druggie buddies who break the law, kill the innocent, ruin the cities, tear apart families, destroy the fabric of America, cause the public to live in fear, poison the folks who use their products. Yes, now we understand what you want.
You've just summarized prohibition in a nutshell. Well done.
So what about the fact that the Dutch have some of the most tolerant drug laws in the world, but their murder rate is among the lowest? You never addressed that point.
Now tell me, do you support the Tenth Amendment... YES or NO?
If you read the entire Book, my FRiend, you would find that God is rescuing those who do not deserve rescue, He is redeeming the elect not because of a "righteousness derived from Law", but because of His exceedingly merciful grace. If you believe you represent the "good enough to be deserving heaven"
You can't save yourself with good works - but you can condemn yourself with bad works plus lack of repentance. I agree with Altariel that oppressing the innocent or failing to condemn such oppression, and not repenting of same, will earn God's wrath; what's your view?
Rumrunners did the same during Prohibition of the drug alcohol; we stopped them by ending Prohibition.
The entire direction of argument is invalid. Nothing has proven that this rises to the level of "oppressing the innocent or failing to condemn such oppression,..." let alone of "...not repenting of same..." This is all his opinion (and perhaps yours), but is not biblical evidence.
That A doesn't like a firm hand by LOE might be interpreted as a self-made righteousness which is far more insidious and demonic than any police action in the US. He believes, "I prefer that government agents are more concerned with basic decency and the Constitutional rights of others than they are about “going home safely”." I prefer that the men go home safely and the bad guy's kids suffer a bad night of fear. Perhaps this will be a reminder of what daddy does wrong.
No one has proven this is "oppressive" or "terrorizing" anyone. And, if he thinks being in the shoes of the LOE is so simple, he should pick up a badge and show us how easy it really is. Until then, it is blather. And such self-important errors have been absolutely described by Jesus as evil. What will God do in His wrath with "whitewashed" tombs? Clean on the outside, filthy on the inside but proud of it.
God will forgive the repentant, absolutely—but these officers are not repentant, so far as we know, about threatening to murder children. Hopefully they will repent of it.
Those who will not repent of oppressing the innocent, but continue to do so—the Lord will deal with them.
Pointing weapons at children is not displaying a “firm hand” but shows a callous disregard for their lives.
I note that you continue to be concerned with defending servants of the government, regardless of their behavior, regardless if they show a lack of fear of God in threatening to murder children.
I note that Christ had a particular concern for children.
Pointing weapons at children is not displaying a “firm hand” but shows a callous disregard for their lives and their well-being—a disregard that can one day may blossom into an open willingness to shoot children even as dogs are now shot.
I note that you continue to be concerned with defending servants of the government, regardless of their behavior, regardless if they show a lack of fear of God in threatening to murder children. Unquestioning devotion to government, even when they do wrong in the sight of the Lord, is worship of government, not of Yahweh.
I note that Christ had a particular concern for children. His attitude is one of which we need more in our society.
Where did I claim that the children were righteous or sinless?
You are deliberately ignoring the point.
I find it fascinating that, failing to provide a reasonable defense for government employees for threatening to murder children torn from their beds, you attempt to change the subject.
Is it because you recognize that there is no defense for what they have done, that it had nothing to do with their safety or the safety of any other American, but was a callous threat to murder the children for that which their parents stood accused, but had not been tried?
Post 189, 190, 191, 192.
You, my FRiend, are flailing about trying to make a case which does not exist. Your spurious theology is laughable and displays a gross misunderstanding of the Gospel. Have a good weekend being forced to recognize some of the “jack booted storm troopers” who gave up their lives to keep your unappreciative rear end safe. Instead, go enjoy that bong. But, remember, the adults are looking for you...
How about here: Perhaps you should make your tagline, “I am a druggie who doesn’t like law enforcement so nanner, nanner, nanner.”
Unacceptable.
You know, you want to take on this poster. Make up stuff, accuse them of criminal activity, libel them all over the thread.
Tell ya what: take ME on, punk.
I have made the same argument throughout; you have continued to defend threatening the lives and causing mental and psychological anguish to young children in the name of “safety”.
Threatening the children of people accused of crimes does not cause anyone to become more “safe”, nor is it righteous in God’s eyes.
Defending those who deliberately insert children into a deadly and stressful situation for the purpose of “punishing” their parents show a callous disregard for the children and for God.
Becoming angered/indignant that one would condemn LEOs for such behavior is evidence of worshiping the State, and not God. Those who do not worship the State and her Agents are not angered when abuses are pointed out, nor do they try to idolize who did not “[give] up their lives” at this raid, but threatened the lives of children.
You have chosen to make the police an idol; it’s entirely within one’s sinful nature to make idols—whether of Mammon or of Man. I hope that you will repent of it, and cease to pressure other Freepers to also sing praises to those who violate God’s commandments for how one should treat not merely children, but their fellow man.
How about the screams of the two year old boy. Was he not terrorized?
Was his twelve year old sister no less terrorized as she woke to realize that armed men were in her house and were not permitting her own brother to be given to his mother to be comforted as best could be done under the circumstances?
Do you think for a moment that she did not wonder whether the men pointing guns at herself and her family would open fire, killing herself and her family?
I’d call that a “terrorizing” situation for adults, much less children.
Only someone who worships Government and her Agents would find such treatment of children justifiable.
Don’t disappoint me. I’m sticking up for you.
I find it unacceptable when someone makes unfounded accusations just because the other person has a particular political point of view.
You are a newer poster, he’s been around since 2007. I don’t normally go to bat for n00bs — they gotta prove their chops first — but this cat was slingin’ a crack pipe at you one-too-many-times.
Crawl back into your “I’d hit it.” hole.
You know, you want to take on this poster. Make up stuff, accuse them of criminal activity, libel them all over the thread.
Tell ya what: take ME on, punk.
<crickets>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.