Posted on 08/08/2002 4:18:21 PM PDT by Libertarian Billy Graham
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:58 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Firefighters retreat from flames as a wildfire edges closer to homes in Ranchita, California, a community in the northeastern part of San Diego County.
JULIAN, California (AP) -- More than 3,000 firefighters worked Wednesday to prevent the further spread of a wildfire that has burned across more than 80 square miles of mountainous terrain east of San Diego.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
In this thread all of my comments on the CNN article have been directed toward the "silent majority" of Americans (as Tricky used to call them) who empower the drug soldiers--although the order takers certainly have blood on their hands and their souls are equally in jeopardy.
You may not think so now, but the day is approaching when you will find out that the libertarians were right about personal responsibility.
You may think that you can skate right through the Judgement by telling your Creator:
"I didn't know the difference between vice and crime. I didn't know that it was a crime (with victims) when I helped install into power a ruthless coalition of Bootleggers and Baptists. How can you put responsibility on me and expect me to do the logic and figure out that the police state I helped create was in fact a huge crime and not a 'noble experiment.'"
I was on a drug interdiction mission in April
There's still time to repent.
A few San Diego soccer moms may now be able to do the cost/benefit analysis comparing the value of having the "village" protect their little Johnny from inanimate objects with the cost of burning their village.
But the big question is how many of them will ever be able to this cost/benefit analysis: "Let's see, what shall it profit a soccer mom if she commits great crimes and gains the whole drug free utopian world and loses her own eternal soul?"
What is your suggestion? Should I and others in uniform openly defy our leadership? Should I risk court martial and prison time so you can smoke weed? Is it more important to you to be stoned than for me to protect and raise my family?
If you want to implement societal change, you should go after the legislative branch of our federal government. You instead choose to go after the executive branch, of which I am a part. This tactic is wrong and dangerous.
If you think that military members that follow the orders of our civilian government disgrace our uniform, then you should equally think this of police officers who enforce the laws of our civilian government. So, if you get rid of the military and the police, what would America look like? A bunch of whacked out stoners? Whatever.
I don't follow your logic. The soldiers that died defending our freedom during the Clinton presidency are not heroes in your mind, they are only as good as Bill Clinton?
What morons? The government officials that ordered the reservists to conduct this mission? Or are you implying that reservists themselves are morons and should be jailed? I'll come out swinging if you attempt to blame the military members.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1971 gave the power to determine the scheduling and enforcement policy to the AG and the head of the DEA, both political appointees, and members of the executive branch. The whole process seems designed to enable both branches to engage in a lot of round-robin finger pointing that insures that nothing gets done, and nobody gets the blame.
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.