With eight states legalizing recreational cannabis and 26 other states legalizing medical cannabis use, federal government is the biggest obstacle to freedom – despite more and more U.S. lawmakers pushing for medical access and even complete decriminalization.
By far the biggest obstruction to a fact-based approach to cannabis is the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), which maintains cannabis as a Schedule 1 narcotic. This most restrictive category, which includes heroin and methamphetamine, is described as having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
By now most everyone knows this classification is patently absurd for cannabis, as studies are piling up showing the medical benefits of cannabis, in addition to real-world evidence in medical use states. If that weren’t enough, the National Academies of Science just published a monumental study with nearly 100 conclusions, including the therapeutic benefits of cannabis.
The DEA had a chance to correct its ignorance in 2016 by rescheduling cannabis on the advice of the FDA, but somehow kept a straight face when it announced in August it would keep the plant under Schedule 1. One explanation for this defiance of reality is the DEA’s allegiance to Big Pharma, which has admitted cannabis poses a threat to its profits.
Some aren’t taking the DEA’s disinformation lying down.
Americans for Safe Access (ASA) found 25 falsehoods about cannabis still being peddled by the DEA on its website, and has filed a petition to force their removal. ASA points out that DEA is violating federal law called the Information Quality Act which requires agencies to ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” when developing guidelines.
One reason we know their information is false is because the DEA contradicted those very falsehoods – with references to studies – when it refused to reschedule cannabis in 2016. Even though DEA accepted these studies, it somehow concluded ‘more research is needed’ to show cannabis has medical value.
According to the petition:
“DEA continues to disseminate certain statements about the health risks of medical cannabis use that have been incontrovertibly refuted by the DEA itself in its recent “Denial of Petition to Initiate Proceedings to Reschedule Marijuana”, issued August 12, 2016. In fact, the DEA’s recent statements confirm scientific facts about medical cannabis that have long been accepted by a majority of the scientific community.”
ASA groups the false claims into four categories: 1) “cannabis’ alleged capacity to induce psychosis, 2) “cannabis’ alleged capacity to induce lung cancer and cause damage comparable to that caused by tobacco use, 3) the “gateway theory” to use of other drugs, 4) “alleged permanency of cannabis-associated cognitive deficits.”
For each category, ASA lists the specific statements and then provides contradicting statements from the DEA itself, referencing scientific studies that refute the false statements still on their website.
“The overwhelming majority of the objective scientific studies – including studies cited by the DEA in the DPR – disprove the inaccurate DEA statements described in Section II (a)-(d). Because the DEA itself made statements in the DPR that directly contradict information in “The Dangers and Consequences of Marijuana Abuse” and “Drugs of Abuse,” it is undeniable that the DEA information at issue lacks utility and objectivity.”
Given DEA’s demented stance that can only be described as a throwback to Reefer Madness, we are unlikely to see any progress made in this tyrannical agency that thrives on the criminalization of the miraculous cannabis plant. We can only hope that Congress continues to gather more supporters for the cause of freedom and medical access.
Justin Gardner writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.
Show me in the US Constitution, the contract that ALL who serve within our governments are under, Oath bound to, where those that served/serve have the delegated authority to even create a DEA.
It is not there. The only crimes assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations. Not drug enforcement. This is in writing for all to see, go read it.
All it takes to bring our nation back to where it is supposed is for President Trump to keep his Oath to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the US Constitution. then see to it that all others, whatever the position they occupy, do the same as part of his “preserve” and “Protect” the US Constitution.
Of course that will take enforcement. May I recommend that our new President follow the US Constitution there also, by requiring the people to train to be the Militia as is constitutionally required so that the states and the federal government can use them as required.
George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.“
Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.
Basically the Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
— Enforce the US Constitution (supreme law) and each state’s Constitution (highest law of the state),
— Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
— Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
— “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
President Nixon formed the DEA in 1973.
Cause the Golden Triangle was going to loose its lucrative drug business by ending the Vietname war.
So after a while and after South America “anti-drug” adventures the Deep State found new and rich plantations and they are all these years defending like crazy “the interests of the United States”. One wonders.
The Plantations are called: Afghanistan and with special protection from Marines, Army, Air Force, Special Forces and everything that is able to fire a gun.
The profits are massive, hugh.
You might find this amusing, but there is NO US President higher then the US Constitution, which gives them the authority to do specific duties, and it all is in writing. That is why you see on Executive Orders the words, or something similar, “By the Authority vested in the Office of the President by the US Constitution…”.
No person, whatever position they serve in, has any power in their own right, instead they are ALLOWED to use the authority that was delegated to a branch or office within a branch. They do not have that authority coming into the position or office, nor do they keep that authority when they leave – be it a day later, or 20 years later. They are only LAWFULLY allowed to use that authority when they are doing the duties assigned by the US Constitution, in a constitutional manner. Other then that they are totally illegitimate, null and void; a usurpation of power ONLY because the people are too dumbed down to know what is allowed or not allowed. Too dumbed down to bother to read a VERY short document so that they can recognize unlawfulness, *”color of law”, when it is being used against them. Or, if not dumbed down, came from a country where a PERSON is the government – king, tyrant, etc – instead of documents – the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution. Where the very enforcers are no longer taught the document that they are sworn to, Oath bound to before the orders of superiors – any superior, even a president; and before the duties of the position they occupy.
Presidential duties…
US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2: “he President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”
Section 3: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors
and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.”
So, once again, show me where the Office of the President was delegated that power/authority.
tl;dr
Ahh. You are one of the ones that is too dumbed down to read. YOU let them bring you back to the level of cavemen where grunts, etc, simple pictures (emotes) was the language. Congratulations on your aiding and abetting the reversal of what intelligence potential you had at birth instead of increasing it.
Now let’s see if you can reverse the damage done to you or if it is permanent. Start by reading a book, a small one will do. You can do it if you will try.
I’m not dumbed down at all, I just get tired of people like you putting out mile-long re-posted garbage of founding father quotes, huge blocks of C&P’ed Constitution sections and thinking that is relevant or useful for any politics going on today. It’s not worth the 50 thousandth eyeball scan-through.
Had you half the intellect you condemn me for not having, then you’d realize that all this legal-beagle’ing you are doing is foolishness. The system cannot be fixed because it was designed to do exactly what we find despicable in its operation! Yet in your puffed-up wisdom you somehow think that a fraudulent piece of paper is going to make us all free and happy again. It won’t. Just remember, the common people NEVER voted or agreed to live under the Constitution, yet it was crammed down people’s throats back then. No change there. Why then is your re-post of that uselessly vague document necessary for my intellectual growth? I’ve read the Constitution enough times to know that I could write a better document for a nation to live under. That either means I am super- wise and intelligent, OR it means those who drafted the Constitution purposely made it unclear and manipulable. Go with second option here.
Goodbye Cal. Go check your assumptions and discover what you really believe in and why. And while you’re doing that, I’ll go read a book. I’ve got one I bought off Amazon and haven’t cracked the cover of it: Soil Microbiology. I’m afraid I’ll get a dirty mind… 😉
Good, you can think. But if you have read the US Constitution so many times as you have said then why do you not realize the problem?
WHO does the US Constitution assign the duties of
— Enforcing the US Constitution (supreme law of this nation that all other legislation must be in Pursuance thereof) and each state’s Constitution (highest law of the state, with only the US Constitution -not those who serve directly under it – is higher),
— Enforcing and keeping the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
— Protecting the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
— “suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions”?
Not any governmental enforcement agency.
Here is a hint, the three branches of the government of the USA are
1) “We the People of the united States of America”
2) the states
3) the general government (federal)
George Washington”: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington)
Basically, when one branch of the government is not doing its duty, when it no longer even knows what our government is, how to LAWFULLY enforce it, then the government is unlawfully changed from within by domestic enemies and traitors. When you add to the mix those who serve within our governments telling us what they can do, even if it is forbidden to them in writing, you get what we have here today.
Ask yourself what makes the US Constitution so dangerous to those who wish to rule? Consider that since it’s conception there have been foreign nations, and those inside our nation, working to destroy America. Today you do not here one politician or media refer to our type of government as what it is, a constitutional republic where the people who SERVE WITHIN are NOT the government, but are put into place to do certain duties that are in writing, but that the document – the highest law of our land, plus each state’s Constitution is our government. Again, not the people who serve within it.
So those of us who wish to enforce the US Constitution as is required of us in writing are the biggest danger to those who wish to destroy our nation and rule it themselves.
Realize it took decades of planning to dumb down the people. Why did they choose to call our country a “democracy”? Because if the people can be deceived long enough, then they will GIVE our nation away. Why so many illegals from not just third world countries being imported here, but countries RULED by tyrants and corruption? Because it is important that the people, the great unwashed masses, the deplorables, be so dumbed down that they do not know what to do to stop the corruption within our nation. Why was everything printed in every language? Why were immigrants and illegals encouraged to remain in little pockets of their own nation that they came from, and to not learn English? There are people who have been here for 30 years or so, are citizens, and do not speak the language of our country, the language of the US Constitution.
It is divide and conquer.
So, what makes the US Constitution, and the people understanding our way of government – and that is not what we have today – to the rest of the world? Why did they dumb down the people enough to be able to use them as the enforcement arm of the UN?
It is nice to actually have someone who can debate, are you willing?
It is nice to actually have someone who can debate, are you willing?
I am willing to engage you on this topic for a moment. Anyways, let’s dig in…
What I lack in memory about the Constitution, I make up for by having a copy of it for reference. But you ask why I do not recognize the problem. I daresay you are framing the argument that problems exist with how the Constitution is ENFORCED and INTERPRETED instead of having a problem with the Constitution itself. I contend that the very concept of that constitution being “the Law of the Land” maligns our Creator who already gave us flawless principles to govern the affairs of men. The Constitution seeks to place authority to govern into the hands of MEN and man-made legalities, not GOD and Natural Law. Therefore, when men are put into God’s place, disaster and misery follow.
The enforcement of the Constitution is immoral. It is fraudulent in it’s intent, and moreso now that the US is a corporation (incorporated in the 1800’s). Where does this authority to govern come from? Not me! Not my parents! Not my great-grandparents! When it was stuffed down the throats of the early American colonists, they did not agree to be governed by it. It just happened. Fast forward= even now it is pulled over our eyes as if it is gospel, when in reality it is enforced EXACTLY how those in power want it enforced. (the inversion would LACK of enforcement on a point)
The interpreting of the Constitution is also immoral. It makes no damned sense. It is worded so only an eggheaded legalist can grasp its finer points. To force people under the rule of law they do not understand is immoral because it is social slavery AND HYPOCRITICAL (‘ignorance is no excuse of the law’? ever head that?) God’s law is simple: dont steal, don’t murder others, don’t be a striker, dont be a liar or a pervert, don’t be a blasphemer, don’t be an idiot and worship material things’idolatry’. EVEN CHILDREN UNDERSTAND THIS! How does our Constitution stack up against that? Sucky-like. In fact, you idolize the constitution! Rut roh…
Had the “Constitution” really been meant to be THE LAW OF THE LAND, then it would have been written where the average John Q. Public would understand each and every component of that “law of the land”. Yet we find inveigling language in its clause constructions, and deliberately omitted language that emphatically denies or supports a thing. Our Constitution does NEITHER. Yet you call the problem with our constitution to be enforcement and interpretation. We can see that it is being enforced vigorously against US and interpreted to not be enforced against THEM.
Furthermore, I did not agree to be governed by these murderous psychopathic statists. Our Constitution DOES NOT PROTECT US. That is my first point of argument with you, Cal. You, like many others, hang a hat on a piece of paper. I know that freedom comes through CHOICE and ACTION. Not paper. No second amendment gives anyone ‘the right’ to self preservation and self defense. God gave me that. I don’t need a piece of paper to tell me that I can remain silent if I want to. And no piece of paper is going to stop government thugs with guns from doing whatever they want to you if you do not resist them with deadly force. I have a right to sell whatever I make anywhere my market is, yet your ‘paper’ enslaves my capacity for entrepreneurship because you put ‘congress’ in charge of my daily business! (interstate commerce clause). Your resistance with deadly force stops them, not a piece of paper and not a whole truckload of well-wishes and good ideologies.
Ask yourself what makes the US Constitution so dangerous to those who wish to rule?
Strawman. I never said the US Constitution is dangerous to anyone, much less those really do “rule”. I do not believe that the constitution stops evil men from doing anything. GOOD MEN stop evil men, not paper and not good ideas, but action. Critical thinkers are dangerous to those who wish to rule, not paper. The Constitution is NOT dangerous to them. If it were, we would not have it in place.
“I daresay you are framing the argument that problems exist with how the
c””:Constitution is ENFORCED and INTERPRETED instead of having a problem
with the Constitution itself.”
With enforcement I do have a problem, but only because it is the people who is required to enforce it, etc. I have no problem with interpretation as the US Constitution means exactly what it says using the meaning of the words at the time it was written. There is no interpretation needed, and if understanding better is desired, then one only has to read the debates – pro and con – of the time. Read the meanings used at the time. It is in writing, because like most contracts, the written word is stronger; backed by required Oaths makes it stronger yet.
Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction”.
James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government”.
“I contend that the very concept of that constitution being “the Law of the Land” maligns our Creator who already gave us flawless principles to govern the affairs of men.”
It does not do that at all. What governmental actions you see today is NOT a constitutional republic, but a usurpation, an attempted takeover of our legitimate government. As Patrick Henry said: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
Many of the principles found in the US Constitution come directly from the bible. But what it does do is not allow those who serve within our government to FORCE a religion on the American people. They knew that many bad things are done under the guise of “religion”, and instead wanted the people to be able to decide for their selves what religion suites/ed their needs best. That is what natural law is, what God put here on this earth. All plants and animals defend themselves the best way they can; etc. That is why using water is a natural right, as is growing things to eat/etc, traveling, fishing, hunting, etc. A natural right is something that existed before governments.
“The enforcement of the Constitution is immoral. It is fraudulent in it’s intent, and moreso now that the US is a corporation (incorporated in the 1800’s). Where does this authority to govern come from?”
No, the enforcement of the Constitution is right, and let me tell you way, actually how about from Michael LeMieux as his explanation is easy to understand.
Michael LeMieux: “The Constitution has very little to do with the American citizen. It was written to establish a Federal Government and to place the boundaries by which that government would operate. The constitution was never designed to provide or enumerate the rights of the citizens but to restrain the federal government from meddling in state and ultimately citizen affairs.”
The US Constitution lists some of the things that are PROTECTED from, not under the authority of, those that serve within the federal government of any branch.
Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights.
The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It
has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction. … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An
unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability. ” (end Dr. Vieira quote)
“When it was stuffed down the throats of the early American colonists, they did not agree to be governed by it.”
Yes they did. They sent their state representatives to change what was going on in the government as it was not working very well. Somewhere I have a list for a few of the delegates directly from the people – so let me know if you need to see them and I will find them to post or you can research it if not scrubbed from the net. They did not expect what they got, but accepted it. Pretty much every home had a Constitution and a bible. Even the homes that were distant from towns.
What I think most do not understand is that the general (federal) government was created to be a representative government for the states in dealing with mostly foreign affairs. Domestic affairs were to be dealt with at the state and county level. The states did not loose there sovereignty, they are still states (nations), but what they did do is agree to abide by certain treaties, etc if done in the specific manner described in writing. The protection is that the people are a part of the government – the armed and trained part; plus that that it is the people (in a lawful jury trial) that not only decide guilt or innocence, but are to decide of the law is a good or bad law/or if it should be applied in this specific case. The other things informed jurors are to decide is if a judge is using the constitutionally required “good Behaviour” while in office. Good behavior is doing the duties as constitutionally required, taking and KEEPING the Oath.
Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes – delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to
itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” (the people also kept much of their own power over their lives as is made clear in the Tenth Amendment which is why it finishes with “…, or OR to the people” instead of leaving out the people or using “and” instead of “or”. )
St. George Tucker: “The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it – the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge of the extent of his own powers, without reference to his constituent?” (Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in his edition of ‘Blackstone’s Commentaries On The Law’ (1803))
(some more modern voices on this) Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”
Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”
The problem is that we have been allowing the employees -elected, hired, contracted, etc – tell us what they are going to do, where they are going to spend the money, etc. They even put in a FORBIDDEN Federal Reserve and we allowed it. But misappropriation of Funds, plus the Oath means that every single person who allowed this to happen, but also did not do their duty while serving and end it, are personally responsible and can have everything they have seized by the people.
“Our Constitution DOES NOT PROTECT US.”
No, that is true. What it does do is put into writing exactly what those who serve within our government are allowed to do, required to do, allowed to do ONLY if certain circumstances are met and then only in a required way, forbidden to do, etc. It also specifies that those that serve within our government may not create different powers for themselves, nor are the above the law. (It took DECADES of dumbing down for the people to accept that!)
But what good is a contract that cannot be enforced so in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 they said that it is the people as the Militia who will…
— Enforce the US Constitution (supreme law that all legislation MUST follow) and each state’s Constitution (highest law of the state),
— Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
— Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
— “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
This was done because the framers well knew from history, and as Mao Tse-tung, 1938, put voice to these words (inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment): “Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33: “…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they
have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….”
Joel Barlow, “Advice to the Privileged Orders”: “The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.”
Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, First Senate (which passed the Bill of Rights): “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. (lower case “r” in republicans)”
George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)
Thomas Jefferson: “For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.” (organized or regulated meaning today = trained)
“No second amendment gives anyone ‘the right’ to self preservation and self defense. God gave me that. I don’t need a piece of paper to tell me that I can remain silent if I want to. And no piece of paper is going to stop government thugs with guns from doing whatever they want to you if you do not resist them with deadly force.”
Exactly. That is why all Americans are required to be trained and armed, so that there can be NO governmental thugs to be used against the American people. If it is the American people themselves that are enforcing the laws, the duties of those who serve within our governments do you think that all this corruption would be ongoing? Or that police or the military could be used against us?
The only lawful powers that those that serve within our governments – state and federal – have are in writing, in the Constitutions. Anything they do beyond that is a corrupt act, a crime. Thugs are a good word to use here, they are thugs when they do those things not delegated in writing – and it matters not what branch they are in, or what office within a branch they occupy.
I think you max’ed out the buffer of what Disqus comment box protocol something or other allows and you got cut off.
Keep it simple. I’m lost. What are you trying to say in less than 500 words?
The length of your commentary definitely beat Cal’s. Competition is good for America.
The war on drugs is a complete failure and in a free land they are attempting to tell people what is not good for you and they will kill you to get their point across.
The DEA is there to ensure the little guy does not get rich or infringe on the real owners of the drug routes.
suggested reads: John D. Coleman ‘the Committee of 300′ hint : drug routes have been owned by the royals for hundreds of years.
Barry and the Boys’ by Dennis Hopsicker hint: poor ol’ guns for drugs CIA Barry…rip…Bush 1 was the CIA director. Pushing drugs out in large duffel bags over Mena, Arkansas at night without lights and a beeper inside the bags.
The greatest fortunes in the world were made from the trade in slaves and the trade in drugs, from opium to heroin. What the Navy of England did to protect the British trade in drugs is the model for the use of America’s military to protect the trade in drugs and the fortune to be made therefrom. Major universities were founded from the profits of these trades.
After 16+ years as clinical director and administrator of international drug rehab programs, I have an opinion. The “war on drugs” is a cover-up of the Bush-CIA drug smuggling that used USMilitary vehicles to smuggle drugs into the US as early as the political-industrial-military debacle in Viet Nam. Perhaps earlier.
Cannabis has a healthy effect on folk who use it, which is why it was selected as a scapegoat by the leaders of the medicine and paper industries. The fact that its increasing legality – control – is increasingly assigned to the allopathic medicine industry reflects the control initiated by the John D. Rockeller family. Profit decrease for the allopathic medicine industry, with the increase of cannabis legalization, is planned to be compensated by cannabis revenue.
Yet, government control should be removed, and cannabis considered as any other natural herb.
I wonder who decided to use Guzman of Mexico as the scapegoat to offset the Bush-CIA drug smuggling that uses the USMilitary to guard the poppy production in Afghanistan?
Another question, who made the decision to assassinate Army Ranger, Pat Tillman in Afghanistan in 2004, to prevent him from revealing the Bush family drug operation in Afghanistan?
Thanks for your comments. Right on, and thanks for mentioning Pat Tillman. The video on his life and death is excellent. Their willingness to take him out shows how dependent the Bush Crime Family is on the illegal sources of their wealth. Just a note on why cannabis was prohibited back in 1937. The emerging chemical industry wanted hemp gone. The true story has been well covered. They didn’t think it would be possible to eliminate industrial hemp without focusing on the cover story, cannabis, which they renamed “Mary Jane” in Espanol.
Thanks. Marijuana.
I am aware of the remove the hemp so we can get the trees and make paper products, etc. I didnt want to take up the space, so just provided a few ideas from my experience.
Yes, industrial hemp for paper products such as toilet paper! Why do we cut down trees which take 30 yrs to grow, to make toilet paper when hemp takes 3 months to grow! It is insane!
I can’t afford my pain medicine suboxone, that is like 15 bucks a strip with out insurance. Marijuana which I know will help me, I can’t obtain legally in Ga. I have never tried It , but Big Pharma prey’s on me and my family, by making us pay extortion prices for meds we truly need. My wife just had to pay 450 Dollar’s for 60 lousy pills of Provigil, a med to keep her up right, because her other meds keep her so very tired. Also My special Ed adult son is on expensive meds. So anyone out there that reads this, beware the government is simply protecting big pharma profits, The DEA, CIA , ICE all of them are crooked as The Politicians are. We have to eat TV dinner’s or not eat at all, just to survive. I suppose i could have written this better, but being In pain and sick all the time, I just type what comes to mind the quickest and easiest. I was a avid trump supporter, but I wonder will he do anything to help people like me? I sure hope so! anyone that wishes to contact me, please do so, [email protected]
well said.