Drug Czar gives speech

… says absolutely nothing.

Inroads made in drug war, panel told

The last two decades have seen a strengthening global resolve to address the issue of drug production, trafficking and use, Kerlikowske testified during a hearing of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

What does that mean?

Time to clean out the deadwood and eliminate the ONDCP.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Drug Czar gives speech

  1. Paul says:

    The Devil take them all.

    This administration and congress have accelerated our day of financial reckoning by several years. The only silver lining will be the end of the ONDCP and all the other useless federal agencies when all the money runs out.

  2. DavesNotHere says:

    I think what Gil is saying is that American taxpayers have thrown around billions of dollars to the world as carrots to get them to resolve to do what federal bureaucrats tell them to do regarding some drugs.

    (From the article I’m glad you posted about.)
    “We must also do the same with our non-law enforcement efforts, such as capacity building of democratic institutions, improving justice systems, strengthening community capacity to resist and prevent substance abuse, and providing opportunities to at-risk youth so they do not become involved in either drug abuse or the drug trade,” Kerlikowske said.

    In other words, Gil would quadruple his budget if he could to spread “drug free democracy” to the world.

    Speaking of speeches, here’s some of the President’s at his inauguration.

    Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.

    What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

    The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

    Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

    And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

    Now that Cash for Clunkers has ended without helping Government Motors, why not the ONDCP?

  3. DavesNotHere says:

    BTW the first two paragraphs of the quote from Obama’s inauguration speech are very inspirational if your “ambitions” are to end the entire drug war.

    What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply. This is so true for the drug war.

    The wars on terror and drugs both at home and abroad came to mind reading this Justin Raimondo column from AntiWar.com. (Sorry if 5 paragraphs are too much. Justin would remember me and I hope he wouldn’t mind. Its a good read. I don’t care if Obama remembers me, lol)

    The Road to Dictatorship

    Did you know that a recipient of a “National Security Letter” – say, your Internet provider – must not only hand over all records, documents, and what-have-you to the Feds, but must also refrain from talking about or otherwise revealing the existence of the letter? Just like they can simply take you in the dead of night, throw you in a cell– and, yes, even torture you, if they feel like it – and no one need ever know.

    Accepting this as a fait accompli is now “normal” in Washington, D.C. No wonder the majority of Americans consider the federal government a dangerous enemy – and they’re all too right about that.

    The question is: what do we do about it? Here’s where the confusion comes in. While there are many indications that Americans are waking up to the main danger to their liberty and livelihoods – a danger that doesn’t reside in a cave somewhere, overseas, but right here in the good ol’ US of A – the political class in this country is deeply ensconced, and won’t be pried out of power with a crowbar. It will take something with a lot more explosive power.

    No, I’m not talking about an ordinary bomb – violence would only embolden them. I’m talking about the debt bomb, which is scheduled to go off in the very near future. We won’t have to defeat the army of federal occupation militarily – because they’re about to go bankrupt. Just wait until they can’t pay their SWAT teams, their Homeland Security goons, their multitudinous minions in every snooping federal agency: do they imagine that these people will stay on out of loyalty or ideological fervor? Or out of “patriotism”? Well of course they don’t imagine that, which is why, these days, they’re notably nervous.

    This nervousness pervades elite circles in this country, and is expressed in a peevish impatience with any sort of dissidence, on any subject: if you fall out of line, they swat you – and you stay down, if they can help it. The tea-partiers, the antiwar protesters (such as they are), the stray politician who dares speak truth to power – anyone who expresses an opinion deemed outside the very narrow range of the permissible is automatically attacked as a “extremist,” a dangerous “radical,” and very possibly a potentially violent person whose every move is rightfully being mapped by the authorities.

    What do we do about it? I haven’t found that answer yet. I know I’d rather have Pete for US Senate from Illinois than the two idiots the Rs and Ds are putting up. Not to put you on the spot Pete, sorry. Just to point out there is an open US Senate seat and Senators have the power to get rid of the ONDCP. There are many positions of power up for grabs this fall. That is what we probably should do about it.

  4. claygooding says:

    Lets see,marijuana production is up 35% in Mexico this year,public land grows are up,indoor grow ops are up,
    domestic grow ops are up,teenage pot use is up,marijuana seizures are up and the ONDCP budget is,,,,you guessed it,up.
    I mean,how can anyone doubt the efficiency and strategy of our drug warriors when every chart you look at is UP?

  5. Just me says:

    Davesnothere..Thanks for the post. All very true. Hey Pete, hows that sound? Senator Guither ! Well sounds better than what we have. Id rather have a random trucker for a senator than what we have, at least a regular fella could feel our pain out here and maybe give a damn.

    As for the story ,

    War ,war ,war and more war.

    Ain’t got no money for schoolin’
    Ain’t got nno money for the poor,
    Ain’t got no mo’ney for the sick,

    We got money for what was that ya say?
    We’ll steal you kids money for..YES!
    WAR ! WAR !WAR ! WAR!
    WAR ! WAR !WAR ! WAR!
    WAR ! WAR !WAR ! WAR!
    Ain’t got no money to fix the roads,
    Aint got no money to bail you out,
    Ain’t got no mo’ney for your future.

    But we got mo’ney for wall street !
    And we got mo’ney for…you guessed it,
    We’ll steal your graaa’nd kids mo’ney for …yes you got it!
    WAR ! WAR !WAR ! WAR!
    WAR ! WAR !WAR ! WAR!
    What war go for anyway but killin an makin’ you and me poor?

    See it! Signit! End it!


  6. Just me says:

    *Whats war good for anyway but killin an makin’ you and me poor?*

    Damn fingers to slow!

  7. claygooding says:

    WAR,,,,what is it good for,,,,ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
    A great song and so true it hurts.

  8. ezrydn says:

    Bear with me on this idea. Hopefully, I can fit it into sentences. LOL

    I was just reading the Oral Arguements of SCOTUS in the Chicago Gun Case. They say that Heller overturned the DC gun ban because DC was “Federal Territory.” Ok.

    Next, in reading, you see that the Justices say they have a problem “incorporating” the 2nd Amendment into the States because they are NOT “Federal Territory.”

    My question would be: How could this view of the Justices be applied to the CSA?

  9. Just me says:

    Ok if the states are not federal territory why are the feds enforcing laws in the states?

    • Pete says:

      Ok if the states are not federal territory why are the feds enforcing laws in the states?

      Well, you see it’s like this… The federal government has no domestic policing authority at all in the Constitution, except for this itty, bitty, little clause that says they have the power to: “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.

      Now, at first, people took that to mean that they had the power to regulate commerce between states. Why they thought that is probably because that’s what it says. So when it came to alcohol prohibition, they had no power to regulate within the states and had to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.

      Later (see Wickard v. Filburn), they got the bright idea that what the Constitution really meant was that they had the power to regulate anything that had any significant affect on inter-state commerce even if it took place completely within a state.

      Then, (see Raich v. Gonzales) they decided that someone growing marijuana completely within a state under state law in a cooperative where no money changed hands still fell under the inter-state commerce clause powers because if they hadn’t done so, they might have ended up purchasing marijuana from a criminal who transported it over state lines, so their failure to purchase it from a criminal affected interstate commerce. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled, the federal government had the authority under the commerce clause to regulate pretty much anything they wish, including your bowels.

Comments are closed.