Posted on 09/30/2014 1:22:18 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
In a sympathetic profile just before his resignation, Politico said Eric Holder's biggest legacy may be "his quiet dismantling of the War on Drugs...." How he could have "accomplished" this without legislative authority from Congress – which is supposed to make and pass laws – is never really explained. He was an Attorney General described by President Barack Obama as "the people's lawyer." Anybody familiar with Marxist jargon knew exactly what Obama meant.
At home and abroad, the Obama administration distributed weapons to America's enemies. Holder's area of expertise was facilitating weapons shipments to Mexican drug cartels, in a scandal that came to be known as "Fast & Furious."
John Fund, co-author of the book Obama's Enforcer, about the Holder record, told me the other day that "No cover-up is perfect," and that it appears a batch of incriminating documents in the scandal will soon be released, thanks to legal action from Judicial Watch.
Equally scandalous, the Obama/Holder administration made an announcement that it wouldn't enforce money-laundering laws against banks doing business with marijuana stores.
But Politico insisted that Holder's criminal approach to the enforcement of drug laws was something in his favor, because the "Reagan-era crusade" against drugs that he opposed at every turn "hasn't eradicated drug use...."
Have laws against murder eradicated murder? Have laws against shoplifting eradicated shoplifting?
The Reagan approach was mostly carried through subsequent administrations, to the point where David Evans, a special advisor to the Drug Free America Foundation, notes that marijuana use went down among young people by 25 percent. "If we had had a reduction in any other health problem in the U.S. of 25 percent, we would consider it an outstanding success," he said. But marijuana use has been going up under the Obama administration. This is not an accident.
Politico goes on, saying those Reagan policies "filled U.S. prisons past the breaking point and wrecked the lives of millions of Americans, a disproportionate number of them African-American." So Reagan is blamed for blacks using drugs and going to prison.
Ethan Nadelmann followed up with a Politico column entitled "Eric Holder Was Great on Drugs." The title has a double meaning, which was apparently lost on the editors who came up with that clever use of words. Nadelmann, of course, is the head of the Drug Policy Alliance, the group funded by billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros as a means of undermining laws against the use of dangerous drugs. Politico is part of that effort.
Politico writes that "Sensing a consensus shifting in his favor, Holder has unveiled a raft of sensible proposals to roll back overly harsh sentencing laws that would have been radioactive only years earlier but won him applause on the left and right. And instead of fighting states like Colorado and Washington when they liberalized their drug laws, as another AG might have done, he has effectively declared a cease-fire."
There is a lot of bias packed into these two sentences. The use of the terms "sensible" and "overly harsh" tip the scales against enforcing drug laws. Plus, legal dope has become just "liberalized drug laws." There was never any applause "on the right," except among libertarians who promote and use drugs.
It must be noted that Colorado and Washington violated national, and even international, drug control laws, also known as treaties. That didn't bother Holder.
Despite what Politico says, real conservatives oppose the Soros-funded drive to legalize drugs. At the recent Values Voter Summit, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), a medical doctor, exploded many of the pro-drug myths offered by Obama and Holder and their allies at Politico. He took issue with his "libertarian friends." The Focus on the Family magazine "Citizen" has an excellent September cover story, "Growing Like a Weed," on the damage being done.
Fleming mentioned two cases out of Colorado – one in which a husband stoned on marijuana shot and killed his wife, and another involving a student who jumped to his death after getting high.
Fleming didn't mention it, but an Alaska television reporter just announced on the air that she ran a marijuana club that she had been reporting on. She used an obscenity on the air and walked off the set. This was a vivid example of the dangers from the marijuana industry and the media that promote it.
This former reporter, Charlo Greene, has now appeared on a television show sponsored by The Huffington Post, where she lit up a marijuana cigarette on the air.
Greene is a poster girl not only for the marijuana culture but for modern journalism. She admits she violated commonly accepted notions of journalistic ethics because she wanted to keep her job. "I have a journalism degree," she said. "I know in journalism there's a line that you're not supposed to cross, and the minute that I bought my business license [for the marijuana club] on 4/20 of this year, I shouldn't have reported on any marijuana stories. But if I had gone to my boss and said, 'Hey, I just bought this company,' I would have been fired, period. I wasn't ready for that to happen."
In other words, she lied and deceived her viewers, just so she could hang on to her job for a while. This is an argument for drug tests.
Greene said she lied for the benefit of "my people" in Alaska, who deserve access to dope.
The Huffington Post TV interviewer, the Russian-born former Russia Today (RT) host Alyona Minkovski, was amused by the whole interview, including the spectacle of Greene smoking dope on the air.
In an obvious understatement, Greene said, "I am not the only journalist that smokes weed."
"I certainly am a supporter of legalization of marijuana," Minkovski quickly added. We're sure she is.
As the Joel Gilbert film "There's No Place Like Utopia" shows, the game plan behind marijuana legalization has been to create another "progressive" constituency in need of something government can provide – in this case dope to "cure" problems like high arches.
It is a terrible scam that results in many wrecked lives. Holder has helped make it possible.
Nothing but evil has come out of the Obama regime and Holder’s certainly no exception. History will royally trash Obama and Holder once the world comes to it’s senses.... If ever.
I did the trip from liberal or more precisely, ignorant, to libertarian to conservative. Libertarian had lot of intellectual appeal to me 25 years ago, but I was still clueless. Lately (for about 25 years) I have reading Chronicles, the magazine that documents the decline of American culture. Drug legalization is part and parcel of that decline.
But it didn't hit home until the past couple of years where I had to deal with stoners both juvenile and juvenile-adult. Some might think the worst thing stoners can do is forget to go vote and sit out the election. But the worst problem is the long term effect of excessive medication. Ultimately I would expect Obamacare to cover "medical" marijuana as long as it is inexpensive (the only criteria for coverage). As with "medical" abortion, morality is not a consideration.
They have made it the “Just Us” Dept!!!
Nixon deleted just a few minutes from his tapes. How much do you think Holder is going to delete from the Fast and Furious files before they are released. The shredders are working at full speed as we speak.
Did anyone else see the Antony Bourdain episode on CNN when he goes to Mexico? I haven’t liked him for years due to his Dem support, but on this episode he spends time with an investigative reporter in hiding due to threats from her own government. Turns out a large part of the “War on Drugs” partnership with Mexico involved promoting the Sinaloa Cartel and going after their enemies. That explains the guns being funneled by our own ATF to the Sinaloa, and our reluctance to prosecute their members on our own turf.
Holder makes Saul Goodman look honest. He’s an embittered, white-hating, right-hating, wicked, weasel-faced radical leftist criminal in a tailored suit.
Just look at the cultures that have used Cannabis as an intoxicant for thousands of years, and how they resemble a stoner’s life, versus Western Civilization which refused to adopt Cannabis as an intoxicant during those same thousands of years.
Real conservatives don't find states rights "scandalous."
Have laws against murder eradicated murder?
Two-thirds of murders get solved - it's a safe bet that not two in 3000 drug "crimes" even get detected.
Real conservatives don’t call for the legalization of drugs.
Sure they do - real conservatives correctly opposed the Progressives' criminalization of the drug alcohol.
I know with you dope fiends it always comes to alcohol, the ban of which was not by progressives.
If you are pretending to be a conservative, intelligent people can see you attacking conservatives here, instead of Eric Holder.
Wrong.
"Although the Eighteenth Amendment would probably never have materialized except for the [Anti-Saloon] league," observed James H. Timberlake, a perceptive historian of the prohibition movement in the 1910s, "it is equally certain that the league would never have attained its success had not temperance reform been caught up in the progressive spirit itself."' Progressivism and prohibition were, in his view, closely related middle-class reform movements seeking to deal with social and economic problems through the use of governmental power. They drew on the same broad base of support and moral idealism, and they proposed similar solutions to society's ills. Examinations of temperance campaigns in such varied states as Texas, Washington, Tennessee, New Mexico, Virginia, California, and Missouri support Timberlake's conclusion that "prohibition was actually written into the Constitution as a progressive reform."' [...] The brief debate over the prohibition-amendment resolution repeated long-standing arguments and centered around four issues: revenue, property rights, the effectiveness of statutory prohibition, and the wisdom of increasing the power of the federal government. The debate proceeded along conservative-progressive lines. [...] Destroying the value of liquor-industry property without compensation was criticized as unjust and as setting a bad precedent. [...] Some southern conservatives expressed concern about the growing power of the federal government and the intervention of that government into local affairs.
Repealing National Prohibition, David Kyvig, Copyright 1979 by the University of Chicago
Most important, however, the failed effort to remove Clinton appears to have encouraged the belief of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that impeachment is an ineffective constitutional restraint and that a president seeking to accumulate authority in the White House could do so without effective challenge. Ironically, Kenneth Starr's effort to topple one president has helped empower another. Ten years later, the consequences of the Starr report are still unfolding.
David E. Kyvig, distinguished research professor at Northern Illinois University
Btw ConservingStupidity, what were you ZOTTED for 6 months ago?
Can you quote a historian you consider reliable to the effect that Prohibition was not supported by Progressives?
If you want to discuss prohibition start a thread for that, freak.
'Progressives weren’t the only actors cast in the prohibitionist drama. But they played the starring role.
'The muckrakers writing for McClure’s and Colliers averted their downward gaze from Big Oil and Big Railroads towards Big Booze, with Upton Sinclair’s The Wet Parade seeking to caricature liquor interests the way The Jungle had undermined Chicago meatpackers. The Wobblies, countering most of organized labor, pushed prohibition. So did The Masses, the journal of the supposedly gay and carefree Greenwich Village Left. Its hard-Left successor, The New Masses, peddled prohibitionist literature. Dry articles in The New Republic and The Nation exponentially outnumbered wet ones. Proponents of the Social Gospel, such as Jane Addams and the Federal Council of Churches, might have jailed an early 20th-century Jesus had he dared turn water into wine.
'Woodrow Wilson’s secretary of the navy banned booze aboard ships. Wilson’s Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, the populist rock star who famously implored Democrats to ditch the gold standard, refused to serve booze at diplomatic functions (perhaps helping to explain the subsequent diplomatic breakdown). He later even suggested revoking the passports of Americans who imbibed abroad. Although Bryan’s boss vetoed the Volstead Act, he signed the law making the District of Columbia dry.
'More unequivocal on the question were the capital “P” Progressives, whose state parties endorsed national prohibition in Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, North Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, New Mexico, Vermont, Maine, and points beyond. “The Progressive Party,” its Ohio affiliate boasted in 1914, “is the only political party this year that stands for State and Nation-wide Prohibition.”'
- Human Events: "Progressives’ Prohibition" by Daniel J. Flynn
Politico writes that "Sensing a consensus shifting in his favor, Holder has unveiled a raft of sensible proposals to roll back overly harsh sentencing laws that would have been radioactive only years earlier but won him applause on the left and right. And instead of fighting states like Colorado and Washington when they liberalized their drug laws, as another AG might have done, he has effectively declared a cease-fire."There is a lot of bias packed into these two sentences. The use of the terms "sensible" and "overly harsh" tip the scales against enforcing drug laws. Plus, legal dope has become just "liberalized drug laws." There was never any applause "on the right," except among libertarians who promote and use drugs.
Kincaid is wrong as usual:
“The sentencing reductions will go into effect unless Congress decides to block them. But with support from leading tea party Republicans such as [...] Utah Sen. Mike Lee, Congressional opposition seems unlikely. [...] even Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently expressed enthusiasm for drug sentencing reduction during a speech at CPAC last week.”
Legalizing drugs is not a conservative issue, you utterly insane person. I destroyed all your deranged arguments 6+ months ago (including your endless bs that is both anti-alcohol and pro-alcohol as the situation suits you) before your last ZOT. I am not further spending my freep time in the morning and evening giving you a do-over till your next ZOT and retread.
The equivalent stupidity would be for me to post on liberal forums trying to convince them that being anti-legalization of drugs is actually a liberal position.
With the way society is rapidly going down the toilet - I don't even know why you are so desperate to have us believe conservatives should be happy about it. Take advantage of Obama's neglect of oath of office and abuse of power and move your welfare check to Colorado like the rest of the crazies (who can now use welfare to buy pot) and let's see how that works out. You won't be surrounded by conservatives.
Fleming said that the social experiment of Colorado allowing recreational pot sales has not "brought an avalanche of revenue." Instead, Fleming said, it's caused an increase in "the number of homeless people" moving to Colorado.Enough with you, hopeless case.
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.