First, some background. Proposition 19 in the State of California would “allow Californians age 21 and older to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana and possess up to an ounce. It also allows cities and counties to authorize cultivation and sales, and to tax them.”
“Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”
So does this mean that Obama’s justice department will begin enforcing federal drug laws once again in California? Yes, it appears it does.
This goes right back to the nullification debate. Do states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws? Given this news it appears that Obama’s justice department’s Constitution goes right from Amendment 9 to Amendment 11.
It appears that a certain California Sheriff has a similar version of the Constitution:
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who is a co-chairman of the main opposition committee, released the letter at a news conference at his headquarters Friday, flanked by two former DEA heads, the district attorney and the Los Angeles city attorney.
“He is saying it is an unenforceable law and the federal government will not allow California to become a rogue state on this issue,” Baca said. “You can’t make a law in contradiction to federal law as a state. Therefore Proposition 19 is null and void and dead on arrival.”
Wow. Baca’s ignorance would be astounding if it wasn’t for Obama through Holder saying basically the same thing. This directly contradicts our Founders. Obama is King and anyone who disagrees with him are peasants or worse, racists. I suppose we can thank Abraham Lincoln for this.
The America we live in is one where the National Government can nullify state laws and “F%*@ the Founders” sing the Statists.
Earlier this year J. Christian Adams resigned his Justice Department position and began discussing the new administration’s policy of inequality under the rule of law. This story, which should have been national news, petered out over the past few months. However, there’s a new whistleblower in town corroborating everything Adams said. And it’s not just anyone, it is Christopher Coates, the former Justice Department Voting Rights section chief.
Despite news coverage of this lack of response thanks Eric Holder’s discriminatory direction. New Blank Panthers who threatened voters and verbalized racial slurs, clearly in violation of the law, were never charged. Not only was Chris Adams characterized as a disgruntled employee, but he was forbidden by his former employer to testify if subpoenaed by the US Commission on Civil Rights. Adams left and the story died. Adams was quoted as accusing fellow employees as making comments such as , “this is payback.”
Now Chris Coates, Section Chief, and a vigorous, award winning, litigator for the DOJ, his career has spanned more than three decades, now intends to testify against his former employer. Coates resigned months ago unable to rationalize politicizing his department’s primary purpose. In opposition to the blatant conflict of interest that has been orchestrated by Eric Holder, Chris will appear in court despite obvious pressure exerted upon him to remain silent.
This crucial testimony will uncover the illegal abandonment of duty based upon racial bias and in violation of civil rights laws. Coates testimony will necessitate proceedings against the Department of Justice. As before with Christian Adams, their defense strategy will probably entail trying to discredit Coates by portraying him as yet just one more disgruntled attorney who is making unfounded allegations. The only other possible defense would be to feign ignorance of the internal policy of the DOJ that had dictated an illegal leniency for black offenders. Either defense will prove preposterous. To depict Chris Coates, one of the most prolific defenders of civil rights as a right wing protester to an ideological argument will not bode well for Obama or Eric Holder. It will expose them!
Will the main stream media cover this new development in this story? Shouldn’t this be something the American people are made aware of? There are a few reasons they could sweep this under the rug again.
Could it be that the media is just liberal-leaning and delivers the news much like today’s Justice Department selectively litigates cases? Could “white guilt” be the culprit? Where is the objectivity? Whatever the reason for the media stonewall, the age-old axiom of “blind justice” does not apply to Eric Holder’s Justice Department.
Ron Paul appeared on Anderson Cooper 360 last night to discuss his own position on the building of a mosque near ground zero. The interview gets interesting when the host delves into the differences between Ron Paul’s views and his son Rand’s views on the building of the mosque.
Ron Paul’s views could not be more in line with my own and represent the most purely consistent view on the matter.
“…the side show, which is what I call this..” – Ron Paul on the ground zero mosque
And so it continues. The Associated Press released an article attacking Rand Paul for receiving donations from “pornographers”. This latest attack just happens to coincide with the second day of his 2 day money bomb commemorating his father Ron Paul’s birthday. Over $250,000 was raised, but instead, let’s talk a bit about what is pornography and what isn’t.
First, the contributors run a web site called Zivity.com. It’s an adult social media site where models, photographers, and users unite to create and appreciate artsy photography of the mostly non-nude female form. In the minds of some this may pass for “pornography”, but I’d say most people would agree this is more art than porn. Have a look yourself.
Despite the fact that the donations weren’t from Zivity, and that Zivity would barely fall under the definition of pornography, people are calling for Rand to return the money. Says someone who has no idea what he’s talking about:
“A lot of Kentuckians would have a problem with a candidate accepting money from organizations that are tearing down the culture,” said Martin Cothran, a policy analyst for The Family Foundation of Kentucky. “And we assume that the Paul campaign understands that.”
Schreiner himself seems to have little knowledge of Zivity either. By phone yesterday he asked me if I could tell him more about the site. He had not, apparently, ventured farther than the home page.
The fact is Zivity is nowhere near as graphic as mainstream television. Sexual acts are never shown, and often the models aren’t even undressed. A typical Saturday evening on Showtime or HBO would be far more likely to “tear down our culture,” in the words of whoever that guy is. And I doubt the AP would be trying to make a big deal out of a HBO employee making a donation to a campaign.
It’s pretty safe to chalk this one up to the recent trend of the left media’s attempts to spread dirt on Rand Paul every chance they get. Oh and by the way, Martin Cothran quoted above, still plans on voting for Rand Paul as he makes clear in an article of his own.
Now what follows is what the media should be talking about. To me this passes as far more pornographic than what the folks of Zivity are doing…
Once again Rand Paul was kind enough to agree to be interviewed by Liberty Maven as the latest and perhaps greatest money bomb of his campaign approaches.
LM: With the overblown “Aqua Buddha” story spreading around the media like wildfire, it’s obvious your opponent’s attack machine is in full gear. How beneficial is it to respond to attacks of this kind? If your campaign staff find any “dirt” about Jack Conway’s past, will you respond in kind?
Rand Paul: No matter how the drive by media tries to distract from the issues in this race – the real issues facing Americans every day – we are committed to running a campaign of substance and real issues, and we will not engage in the politics of character assassination.
LM: When you become the next U.S. Senator from Kentucky what specific legislation would you introduce in your first year in office? How will that legislation benefit Kentuckians?
Rand Paul: There are a few things I want to do, for one I will propose and force a vote on an Enumerated Powers Act, to force Congress to point to the part of the Constitution that justifies their bills. That would benefit not only Kentuckians but everyone who has been affected by this out-of-control government forcing unconstitutional laws on us like Obamacare. Another will be a Balanced Budget Amendment with strict tax and spending limits.
No, this isn’t the punchline to a joke. The Institute For Justice has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a group of monks from Saint Joseph Abbey to permit them to participate in an unfettered market for selling caskets in Louisiana.
Mark Meranta from IJ writes:
To sell caskets legally, the monks would have to abandon their calling for one full year to apprentice at a licensed funeral home, learn unnecessary skills and take a funeral industry test. They would also have to convert their monastery into a “funeral establishment” by, among other things, installing equipment for embalming human remains.
The monks face crippling fines and up to 180 days in jail. This is classic economic protectionism, and this case has a great chance of making it to the Supreme Court.
VALLEY CENTER, Kansas – He was cuffed, fingerprinted, booked into the Sedgwick County Jail and released on bail. His crime: putting up a yard sign critical of the Valley Center city administrator.
Jarrod West is out on bail, facing criminal defamation charges for a sign he put in his front yard about persistent flooding issues he says cost him over $50,000 over the last three years. The sign says, “Dear Valley Center, I did not buy Lake Front Property! Fix this problem. This is what I pay taxes for. PS. Joel this means you!” Joel being City Administrator Joel Pile.
“They want me to shut up and go away,” said West. “I’ve got a home to protect. It’s nothing fancy, but it’s mine.”
When City Administrator Joel Pile saw the sign, West was arrested and booked into the Sedgwick County Jail on a criminal charge of defamation. He spent the night behind bars and is now free on a $10,000 bond.
In the name of “fighting terrorism,” President Obama wants to give the FBI more powers to monitor Internet activities without a judge’s approval.
You may think this wouldn’t apply to you because you’re not a terrorist. You would be wrong. It could apply to anyone and anything that the FBI deems “related” to a terrorism investigation. FBI agents don’t even have to go before a court to explain themselves. The FBI alone gets to decide.
Obama wants this new power even though the FBI has abused the powers it already has!
Do you want Big Brother knowing the people you email or the sites you visit?
Last week the Campaign For Liberty sponsored a a foreign policy debate between Bruce Fein and conservative radio talk show host Jeff Kuhner. Fein has recently released a book published by the Campaign for Liberty called “American Empire: Before the Fall“.
Please take some time to watch video of the debate embedded below. It truly demonstrates the dividing line between non-intervention and intervention. Both Fein and Kuhner provide excellent arguments, however I feel that Fein missed an opportunity to point out a serious flaw in Kuhner’s interventionist logic.
First, Kuhner does not dispute and therefore admits Fein’s assertion that the war on terror is a perpetual war. Later, Kuhner cites putting the Japanese in interment camps during WWII was a necessary and temporary evil. He argues that during times of war we must be willing to sacrifice some of our liberties so that we can be more free down the road once the fighting is over.
Fein could have jumped on this point by asking Kuhner the following question:
If we are in a perpetual war aren’t the civil liberties sacrifices we are making also permanent?
Equating the war on terror with WWII is like saying Coca-cola and orange soda taste the same. I bet Kuhner and his interventionist peers would be unhappy if they ordered a Coke and were brought orange soda instead.
Interestingly, on Election Day November 2008, the members of the New Black Panthers raised cane with voters at a polling place in Philadelphia wearing uniforms and brandishing billy clubs. The same Justice Department, after looking into the matter, dropped prosecution of the people involved, leading federal prosecutor J. Christian Adams to resign from the Justice Department in protest.
If it had been white supremacists intimidating voters by waving Bibles in the air they would have prosecuted them; if it had been Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragons (the late Robert Byrd excluded) intimidating voters with burning crosses they would have prosecuted them; if it had been Aryan Nation members toting guns they would have prosecuted them. But it wasn’t, it was an angry horde of black supremacists intimidating voters and trying to distract poll workers so that A.C.O.R.N. members could vote illegally, and that was okay.
By practicing federal intimidation of states, our Justice Department, led by Eric Holder, is using its own form of racial profiling – or should I say racist profiling – to decide who and who not to prosecute.
Liberty Maven
“.
Loading ...
