Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Gingrich Proclaims The Right To Bear Arms Is A Universal Right And - Canada And USA War On Drugs Incarcerating 10s of thousands For Using Marijuana

“The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not our government,” Gingrich said. The NRA “has been too timid” in promoting its agenda beyond American borders. The Bill of Rights was not written only for Americans, he said. “It is a universal document.”

“A Gingrich presidency will submit to the UN a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet.” Every world citizen, he said, “deserves the right to defend themselves from those who exploit, imprison, or kill them.” For his latest big idea, Gingrich earned a standing ovation from the crowd of roughly 5,000.

“We don’t need to go across the planet trying to impose American values, but we do need to go across the planet spreading human values,” Gingrich said. “The Second Amendment is a right for all mankind.”  Newt Gingrich speech on the right to bear arms at NRA, April 13, 2012.

Newt Gingrich at NRA Conference says The Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right for All People Everywhere Not just The USA.

So in response to recent cases of homicides such as the Trayvon Martin homicide Gingrich proposes the abolition of most or all government Gun Control laws.
So if Trayvon had been carrying a gun then his confrontation with George Zimmerman would have turned out differently. Zimmerman could have been the one killed or both would have been wounded or killed in their High Noon style shoot out.
What is disturbing about Gingrich's speech is that the NRA crowd went wild cheering for Gingrich's solution to violent crimes.
But Gingrich went a bit further by suggesting the way to end all tyranny in America or other nations is by arming the civilian populations so they could take down tyrants and dictators by force of arms.
So we can assume given Gingrich's argument that if the current or future government can be characterized in such a way that it is going beyond its legal and constitutional mandate it is therefore the right of all Americans to remove that government and its leaders by an armed insurrection.
So all those who argue that Obama's regime is tyrannical then the people have the right to overthrow it by force of arms.
Taking this a step further Gingrich the NRA, the GOP and Conservatives if in November Obama is re-elected they can call foul and argue the Obama re-election to be ill-legitimate and therefore can be overthrown not by legal means but by an armed insurrection.
Is this what Newt Gingrich is now laying the ground work for that is an armed revolution ???
This is utter-madness and is a case of a not so veiled threat against the Obama government and the elitists who support president Obama.
But if we take Gingrich at his word then it would also be legitimate for those who support the Occupy Movement to also arm themselves to over-throw the Wall Street super-rich and the current or future government which acts on behalf of the rich and powerful rather than on the behalf of average American citizens.
Is Gingrich calling for the storming of the Bastille ie the White House if the Obama administration continues with policies that Gingrich and the GOP object to???

For instance see: Stupidity is a human right, too by David Atkins
Newt Gingrich wants a worldwide treaty declaring gun ownership to be a universal human right. No, really by David Atkins at Hullabaloo ,April 17, 2012

and : Newt Gingrich Calls for Universal Right to Bear Arms at NRA Forum
by Michael Ames Apr 13, 2012 7:05 PM EDT The flagging candidate got a standing ovation with his proposed ‘Gingrich Doctrine’—a promise for a UN treaty to give everyone on the planet the right to bear arms.by Michael Ames at the Daily Beast, April 13, 2012

and : When Newt lectures the NRA, hilarity ensues by Jay Bookman April 14,2012

and: Newt: Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right at Boudica BPI Weblog, April 13,2012

Drug War Facts
Above Banner from Drug War Facts .org

(marijuana - gateway to other drugs) "Analysis of the demographic and social characteristics of a large sample of applicants seeking approval to use marijuana medically in California supports an interpretation of long term non problematic use by many who had first tried it as adolescents, and then either continued to use it or later resumed its use as adults. In general, they have used it at modest levels and in consistent patterns which anecdotally-often assisted their educational achievement, employment performance, and establishment of a more stable life-style. These data suggest that rather than acting as a gateway to other drugs, (which many had also tried), cannabis has been exerting a beneficial influence on most."

Source: Thomas J O'Connell and Ché B Bou-Matar, "Long term marijuana users seeking medical cannabis in California (2001–2007): demographics, social characteristics, patterns of cannabis and other drug use of 4117 applicants," Harm Reduction Journal, (November 2007).

(marijuana - failure of cannabis prohibition) "Increased funding for cannabis prohibition has increased cannabis seizures and arrests, but the assumption that this reduces cannabis potency, increases price or meaningfully reduces availability or use is inconsistent with surveillance data the US federal government has itself collected."

Source: International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, "Tools for Debate: US Federal Government Data on Cannabis Prohibition" (Vancouver, British Columbia: 2010), p. 21

(economics - effects of marijuana prohibition) "Prohibition has two effects: on one hand it raises supplier costs, disrupts market functioning and prevents open promotion of the product; on the other, it sacrifices the authorities’ ability to tax transactions and regulate operation of the market, product characteristics and promotional activity of suppliers. The cannabis prevalence rates presented in Figure 1 show clearly that prohibition has failed to prevent widespread use of the drug and leaves open the possibility that it might be easier to control the harmful use of cannabis by regulation of a legal market than to control illicit consumption under prohibition. The contrast between the general welcome for tobacco regulation (including bans on smoking in public places) and the deep suspicion of prohibition policy on cannabis is striking and suggests that a middle course of legalised but limited consumption may find a public consensus."

Source: "Pudney, Stephen, "Drugs Policy – What Should We Do About Cannabis?" Centre for Economic Policy Research (London, United Kingdom: April 2009), p. 23.

More lies and hypocrisy from Obama
Willing to debate legalization of drugs and yet has already made up his mind to defend the status quo.
He too believes all the urban right wing unscientific propaganda about the evils of drugs.
The main evil connected to Marijuana for instance is that the state can lock up millions for smoking pot.
Odd nobody cares if someone drinks themselves to death .
I forgot alcohol has no negative side effects.
Legalizing may lead to fewer military contracts with Latin American country.
Obama claims to support democracy but not when the rulers win a legitimate election are more to the left than the right.
His governmentsupports countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Kuwait, Uzbeckistan etc. which do not uphold the basic rights of all of its citizens.
That's why he went after Qaddafi because he was a nationalist , aleftist and believed that African nations should join together to counteract the power of the West and the USA in the region.

Many of Obama's 2008 campaign supporters have come to the realization that Obama is not interested in changing the laws of the USA except when it involves giving him and massive security and intelligence complex more power to interfere in the business of average citizen . At times Obama acts as if these various issues dealing with fairness and real justice but in fact he has shown himself to be a captive of the status quo and big money .

So Obama does next to nothing to rein in Wall Street and Big Corporations .
So Wall St. and the corporations are permitted to fleece average citizens and preach about the sanctity of Capitalism and the evils of any form of socialism.
So they hate the poor, and those on welfare while berating the unemployed for lacking initiate while they hang out at posh restaurants and on Golf Courses or Skiing in the Alps .
So when they get into financial trouble suddenly they favor government interference and beg for their Trillion dollar Welfare Check signed by president Obama the guy they all claimed to hate -not so much now.
So Obama gives another Trillion dollars to the US military while citizens lose their homes, their jobs while towns and cities cut back on essential services including schools and teachers and firefighters .
So Obama empathizes with Trayvon Martin's parents but he will probably not do anything to nullify these hunt and kill shoot first law known as "Stand Your Ground" Many legal experts say these laws are motivated by bigotry and racism.
So Obama could also use the occasion to pass legislation for stricter gun control laws.
So in these cases is Obama too afraid to lose the votes of the gun crazed bigots.
So why is it that Obama has turned on and berates those in favor of policies which he once paid lip service too.
So he denigrates and is dismissive of any one suggesting legalization of marijuana whether they are an average citizen or medical experts or economists .

President Obama "does not mind" debating the legalization of drugs

What Obama should be doing is not pandering to the law and Order crowd but rather listen to experts concerning these laws including those who have studied the economic losses of the War on Drugs versus the economic benefits of legalization.

Pot Legalization Could Save U.S. $13.7 Billion Per Year, 300 Economists Say at Huffington Post, April 17,2012

More than 300 economists, including three nobel laureates, have signed a petition calling attention to the findings of a paper by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, which suggests that if the government legalized marijuana it would save $7.7 billion annually by not having to enforce the current prohibition on the drug. The report added that legalization would save an additional $6 billion per year if the government taxed marijuana at rates similar to alcohol and tobacco.

That's as much as $13.7 billion per year, but it's still minimal when compared to the federal deficit, which hit $1.5 trillion last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

While the economists don't directly call for pot legalization, the petition asks advocates on both sides to engage in an "open and honest debate" about the benefits of pot prohibition.

"At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition," the petition states.

The economic benefits of pushing pot into mainstream commerce have long been cited as a reason to make the drug legal, and the economists' petition comes as government officials at both the federal and local levels are looking for ways to raise funds. The majority of Americans say they prefer cutting programs to increasing taxes as a way to deal with the nation’s budget deficit -- marijuana legalization would seemingly give the government money wtihout doing either.

Too many cops? - Canada - Macleans.ca

...that falling crime rate, which comes at a time when policing costs are climbing relentlessly and the number of sworn officers in Canada is at its highest level in almost 30 years. It may simply be that with less overall crime, police have the time, staffing and inclination to focus on minor drug arrests. The vast majority of those arrested are younger than 24, and mostly male, if past findings hold true. And the majority of those arrests are for pot possession, “the low-lying fruit,” as Dalhousie University criminologist Christopher Murphy puts it.
Heavy policing levels may also explain the preponderance of manpower-intensive RIDE and other roadside screening programs searching for impaired drivers or seat belt infractions, as well as the semi-permanent speed-traps established in Toronto and other cities, and the steady police-generated rise in traffic ticket revenue.
Whether such priorities make for a safer Canada is open to debate. Certainly, many question the wisdom of saddling some 57,000 people last year with arrest records for cannabis possession, limiting their chances to cross borders or gain employment. “The reality is, most of the people who are charged are relatively young people who are just starting out in life,” says Neil Boyd, a criminologist at Simon Fraser University, who estimates there are close to one million Canadians with cannabis convictions. “So, they are being handicapped for something that I would suggest more than half of Canadians over the age of 30 have at one time or another engaged in—and that’s conservative.”
The counter-cyclical nature of drug arrests and overall crime, like strangers passing on up and down escalators, was noted in a 2009 analysis by Statistics Canada. “For example, targeted initiatives to ‘crack down’ on drugs may result in more incidents being identified by police, rather than more incidents actually occurring,” said the report by StatsCan analyst Mia Dauvergne. “Likewise, police may focus law enforcement efforts more on addressing drug-related crimes when time, resources and priorities permit; in other words, when other types of crime decline.” StatsCan said effectively the same thing this summer when it released its report on 2010 crime rates. Indeed, there’s evidence pot use fell last year, even as arrests soared. Health Canada’s alcohol and drug monitoring survey showed marijuana use by Canadians 15 and older dropped to 10.7 per cent in 2010 from 14.1 per cent in 2004. It begs the question: are soaring pot arrests and traffic violations a manufactured crisis created by too many police chasing too little crime?

No comments: