Friday, December 14, 2012


President Obama on marijuana.

“This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law,” Obama said. “I head up the executive branch; we’re supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we’re going to need to have is a conversation about how do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it’s legal?”

Well, federal law only recognizes marriage as a union of a man and a woman and yet there are state laws that allow same-sex marriages.

Geeze, how to reconcile that.


Anonymous said...

There are laws against Wall Street fraud, and Obama looked the other way. Still is: HSBC anyone?

There are laws against torture, and Obama looked the other way, and ordered Americans to stop talking about it. "Look forward not back." So much for a "conversation."

There's a Constitution that forbides indefinite detention and warrantless surveillance, and Obama overrode the Constitution and ordered people to stop talking about his actions. Hell, he's even got another new illegal agency monitoring us: the "National Counterterrorism Center" (sic).

There's even Constitutional clauses, laws, and treaties against Presidentially declared wars, targeting non-combatants and first-responders, and murdering American citizens. But hey, no conversation needed about those, right Mr. President.

But hey, the former pothead loves to lock away people for doing exactly what he got away with. That's not a conversation, that's diversion, manipulation, and threat.

Folks who knowingly voted for Democrat-Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

Anonymous said...

Good thing we're having a conversation about people smoking pot in their own homes rather than gunmen shooting down children in school.

Way to go, political elites.

What we mean when we talk about talking said...

Mr. Obama talked about starting “a broader conversation” about reducing gun violence. The best place to start is in Congress, which has been grossly negligent toward constituent safety for the past 20 years as it bows to the demands of the gun lobby. New York Times, 11/23/12

Isn't it interesting that when Obama says we need a "conversation" on pot, he means to distract attention from anti-pot laws and enforcement, but when he says we need a "conversation" about guns, he means to distract from the lack of laws and enforcement.

Gun control should have been an issue in the last election, but the Republicans and Democrats (and corporate media) agreed not to talk about it in the fake election.

Anonymous said...

Well, what can we expect from a President who himself pulls the trigger on drones, specifically to kill children abroad? unnamed marine corps official...questioned the 'innocence' of Afghan children, particularly three who were killed in a US rocket strike in October. Last month, the New York Times quoted local officials who said Borjan, 12, Sardar Wali, 10, and Khan Bibi, eight, from Helmand's Nawa district had been killed while gathering dung for fuel. The Guardian, UK.

That's Obama: kill children abroad. Kill children at home.

Countdown to the White House statement of sympathy...

President Choom Club said...

So, now the President can give direction to the AG?

Previously, Obama said he couldn't interfere with the Justice Department on Gitmo, torture, Wall Street, and yes guns etc.

Also, the President made similar promises on pot in 08, but let local federal attorneys run wild, including in Eastern Washington.

Believe it when I see it.

Anonymous said...

The White House said President Obama was notified of the shooting and his spokesman Jay Carney said the president had “enormous sympathy for families that are affected.”

Also Friday, Carney told reporters that it was not the time to discuss gun control legislation.
Washington Post

Right. Got it. No conversation. Not during the election. Not after the election. And not now.

How about never? Does never work for you Mr President?

Leni Riefenstahl said...

Don't worry. Obama will eventually allow a conversation on gun control.

He's just waiting until Kathryn Bigelow has time to direct it.

See, the militaristic shooter was actually a misunderstood hero...

Now is the time to talk said...

Adam Lanza dressed like a US combat soldier or SWAT officer in black camo and armor vest.

Lanza used a knockoff of the M4, a US military rifle. He carried a Glock pistol favored by cops and soldiers, and Sig Sauer pistol. The US military uses at least one model of Sig.

Lanza passed on taking his mother's hunting rifles.

Lanza targeted women and children.

There are no reports that Lanza was a soldier, or a cop. But, can we talk about the militarized culture that produced him?

The US torture program routinely threatens violence against torture victims' mothers and children.

The US tortured and imprisoned at least one teenage boy at Gitmo, in retaliation against his family.

The US killed at least one teenage boy, a US citizen, in retaliation against his family, using a drone.

The US routinely terrorizes and kills women and children as a tactic in the so-called War on Terror, not just with drones.

The US routinely portrays and counts dead children as combatants, not victims. Even infants.

Obama recently praised Israel for "defending itself," praise that included Israel's killing of Palestinian children.

The militarization of US society is so pervasive as to be unremarkable. You can buy Lanza's M4 at Walmart (literally, users rate it highly). Police department urban SWAT teams dress in camo to, y'know, blend into the jungle or something. Cops show up at bluegrass festivals driving tanks.

The media says they can't get inside Lanza's psychotic brain. Why don't they talk to Petreus or Panetta? Same brain. Or Holder or Napolitano for the civilian knockoff model.

Lanza is a chicken come home to roost.

Don't expect gun control. Expect the elites to use Sandy Hook as an excuse to further militarize US society.

Anonymous said...

Even gun control advocates (including Bloomberg) are calling on Obama as "Commander-in-Chief of the United States" to address shootings.

But Obama is President of the United States. He is Commander in Chief only of the armed forces. A military solution can only apply to shootings such as Fort Hood, and only with limitations of process even there.

The NRA and others go even further, demanding a marine or paramilitarized police officer on every corner, in every school, even in every church.

Meanwhile, public tributes to the Newtown victims often include displays of firepower. What are we thinking?

While Congressional gun control measures are welcome, we still seem unable to address the underlying militarization of our mentality.

If you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you only have a gun every problem, even gun control, looks like target practice.

Is the answer to guns really more guns?

Glockenspiel said...

Mayor Bloomburg opposes the entire Bill of Rights, routinely defends police violence, conducts illegal surveillance in partnership with the CIA, has a stop-and-frisk racial profiling program that is inherently anti-civil rights, and a draconian approach to minor pot offenses to boot. He routinely refers to the NYPD as "my army."

The NRA could not have asked for a more self-defeating gun control advocate. Bloomburg is exactly the kind of egotistical, anti-rights, authoritarian the gun-nuts have warned us against.

The only saving grace for the gun control movement in this crucial week is that the NRA itself is self-destructing. The media totally missed the real story in LaPierre's speech--he basically undermined the small-government, paranoid, us vs Uncle Sam milita-style interpretation of the Second Amendment. If the NRA wants to be PAID by the feds, they ARE the Feds. The NRA is staggering from a self-administered wound.

Gun control advocates have defeated the NRA without, um, firing a rhetorical shot.

Now it's on to defeat Bloomburgian military posturing.

Amendment XXVIII said...

Federal or state governments shall be the sole suppliers of weaponry to militias. Militia members may not take possession of militia weapons. Governments may not allow militia members to use personal weapons.

Citizens will maintain the right to keep and bear arms.

Congress shall have the power to pass bills which specify the types and quantity of weapons and ammunition that citizens may keep and bear for their own use.

Congress shall also have the power to regulate the market and manner in which weapons and
ammunition are sold, traded, or otherwise exchanged.

Congress may delegate its powers in this section to state or local governments.

Under no circumstances shall the Senate or House, or any other body, require more than a simple majority to pass any bills related to these subjects.

The President shall have the authority to sign such bills into law and the responsibility to enforce them, except where responsibility for enforcement reasonably lies with state or local governments.

Anonymous said...

It's too bad that aging liberals like Garry Wills are controlling the Constitutional debate over gun control. They fail to see the opportunities provided by recent Second Amendment jurisprudence establishing an individual right to gun ownership apart from providing militia weaponry.

We need overturn neither the individual right or the militia clause. We need only improve on the separation. With an alternate and exclusive source of militia weapons (should such militias be found), there can be no need for citizens to keep or bear a wide range of weapons, and Congress, rather than the courts, can decide what weapons are permissable.

Old timey liberals would instead have us play into right wing fantasies of state militias, manned by soldiers in tricorner hats toting M4s. Let's instead appeal to those who realize that either a)no such legal state militias have existed for a hundred years or b) they have long since become our state supplied national guards. Let's not again allow elites,right or left, scare us with militia molochs made of nothing more than sheepskin and ink.

As with pot legalization, the wisdom lies with the people and the Constitution, not with the courts, and not with the elites.

Anonymous said...

Obama's lies about the federal role in pot prosecutions are small potatoes to his lies about Homeland Security's role in shutting down the Occupy Movement.

The FBI now admits that, despite Napolitano's denials at the time, Homeland Security, including the FBI, were collaborating with Obama's big donor banks and other private corporations to infiltrate and harass the movement.

That's pretty much Obama in a nutshell. Rather than use the FBI to investigate fraud on Wall Street, he instead illegally used the FBI to intimidate those of us who bailed out Wall Street, and lost jobs, houses, benefits and retirement.

Obama called Occupy "terrorists." Then took even more money from Wall Street.

Defend that, Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the FBI makes it official: Hank is a "domestic terrorist" for his Occupy involvement.

Meanwhile, DC seems less interested in banning assault rifles than expanding "behavioral" surveillance and Bloomburgian stop-and-frisk to the nation as a whole.

Don't worry Hank, the FBI will classify us all as terrorists soon.

If we live so long.

Merry Christmas from the Obama administration...

Anonymous said...

I'm just catching up on FBI-gate, and it reads very bad. Nixon-level cointellpro bad. No wonder Obama tried to bury it during the slowest newsweek.

The Aryan Nations slur really stands out as something Hoover-esque.

If half of what the papers are reporting is true, particularly regarding FBI sharing of illegally obtained information with private corporations, an impeachment proceeding would be the norm.

At the very least, a House committee needs to ask what the President knew, and when he knew it.