Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY —
In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race — and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.
The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network — which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws — contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.
Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.
"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.
Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.
Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Proof please. Thank you
Great idea. We'll put him in the same cellblock as every single last person responsible for CFR, including Bush, most of Congress and five SCOTUS members.
There is nothing appropriate, in a self-governing nation, about a govenment agency being charged with making public opinion conform to government policy.
"There is a wide base of the population, probably upwards of 90% of the people who use alcohol, who use it as a food and not as a way of getting high."
What a load of crap. I like a nice glass of red wine with supper sometimes too. It tastes good and it gives me a nice warm buzz (a mild high). There is no way 90% of drinkers just use alcohol as a food and not for its effects. Not everyone likes to get trashed mind you, but most people who drink aren't just having the occasional glass of wine with a meal. They are drinking for the buzz, and a lot of them are doing more than just getting that little buzz. Whether I go to the church carnival (Catholic), a wedding reception, a big fishing trip, a reunion or bar or any other place where people are gathering and drinking, most of the people drinking are at least getting buzzed and some are getting drunk. The people who only drink a little bit just for the flavor are in the distinct minority if such people exist at all.
"With crack or crank, roughly 100% use it solely to get whacked out of their minds.
And roughly 100% of people who use these drugs are addicted to them."
A hate these drugs and would never argue that they should be legal. But it's not true that 100% of people who use these drugs are addicted to them. A high percentage do become addicted, but most who try them only do them once or just a few times, maybe even occasionally over the course of several years before they grow up and leave the stuff alone. These users are not addicted. Most people who try these drugs do not become addicted. Most who use them with regularity however probably do become addicted before long.
Again, no argument from me that these drugs should be legal. But I do think that if we want to convince people not to do drugs we shouldn't make false claims and destroy our credibility.
The issue with you is objectivity, which you can't abide.
Why do you insist that the individual states be allowed to undermine and subvert Congress' regulatory efforts under the Commerce Clause? Because you don't like what it is they're regulating? So your solution is to allow the states to ignore federal law?
And you wonder why I call you and your ilk anarchists.
That might not be a bad idea. Quit sneaking around trying to influence the state governments with threats of witholding federal "revenue sharing" money, and get down to brass tacks.
"Certainly the street dealer knows the laws. Yet he deals. That's New York's fault?"
Well, let's just kill them! It's THEIR fault for doing something we don't like.
Aha! Soros wants drug laws weakened!
Here's why big-money players want (some) drugs legalized. So they can become major growers/dealers without fear of prosecution. Plain and simple.
I have this from the horse's mouth, not Soros, but a very wealthy Arab businessman who fumes about the wonderful drug crop in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley going to waste. He probably won't do anything illegal, but has paid someone to write a book in favor of legalizing drugs. Perhaps he's even bought up acreage in Bekaa and other promising drug areas, but that's speculation on my part.
The point is, Soros wants drug laws weakened so he can make billions on drugs. Period. No lofty motive drives him. It's all about money.
"The whole tendency over these years has been to view the interstate commerce clause in the light of present-day civilization. The country was in the horse-and-buggy age when that clause was written."
- FDR
Anarchist = anyone who disagrees with authoritarians on federal control of all things.
I expect that some who argued for repealing Prohibition did so in the hopes of profiting from legal alcohol. So what?
How many references to the original intend of the Commerce Clause do you have to ignore to accept the court rulings as proper?
Why do you insist that the individual states be allowed to undermine and subvert Congress' regulatory efforts under the Commerce Clause?
Because their regulatory efforts are not within the scope of power granted to them by the states. It is within their pervue.
Because you don't like what it is they're regulating?
See above.
So your solution is to allow the states to ignore federal law?
Not my solution. See the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence.
And you wonder why I call you and your ilk anarchists.
No, I don't. I know exactly why you do it.
AGAIN the only campaign finance reform that is needed is simple:
IF YOU CAN'T WALK INTO A VOTING BOOTH AND VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE YOU CAN DONATE TO THEIR CAMPAIGN, PERIOD.
No corporate donations, no union donations, no nothing. Voters and voters who can vote for the candidate only may contribute.
"Use enough dynamite there, Butch?"
Oh, sorry. I fogot. Anything remotely resembling hyperbole is only acceptable in the "right" context.
"If you live in NYC like I do, you see potheads all the time, and you see drunk people all the time, and there's no question that of the two, the drunk people are the ones you want to avoid."
Boy, you got that right!!! I'm 46 and never done any drug. But, back in the day, it was pleasant to go to a concert and smell the dope. Nowadays, when I go to a show, nobody dares do that because of the smoke Nazis. Instead, all these middle aged people get drunk in the parking lot, then come into the arena, get totally trashed on $15 margaritas and raise hell. In the past three years I've been to about 8 shows and almost every one is ruined by drunken middle-aged women screaming and singing as loud as they can until they pass out.
Which is totally off topic, but you touched a nerve!
Thanks,
PaleoPal
I reject your suggestion while recognising the frustration which inspired it.
It would mean you and I could not pool our money to off set Soros types.
And his RABID hostility to God, Christians, etc.
I am beginning to think that he must also be a satanist else he'd not be so rabidly hostile.
May God cause Soros to fall into his own pit ASAP.
Not without a trial first.
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.