Adams offers a what-if scenario
: stockholders learn that a successful CEO had murdered a guy to get ahead in his career.
[T]he CEO doesn't get convicted because his clever attorney gets him off
on a technicality. Assume in this hypothetical situation that the public
correctly believes the CEO killed a guy to advance his career. Should
the board of directors allow the superstar CEO to keep his job? Or is
killing a guy to advance your career always a firing offense?
In a second hypothetical, Adams replaces the CEO with with Barack Obama. Afterward, he makes this assertion:
I predict that every one of you favored firing the hypothetical CEO for killing a guy to get ahead. My second prediction is that every Republican reader of this blog favored firing President Obama in the hypothetical and imaginary case of him murdering a citizen to get elected. My third prediction is that supporters of President Obama will quibble with the hypothetical example, or my comparison to the CEO, or say President Obama is still a better option than Romney. In other words, for most supporters of President Obama, I don't think there is such a thing as a "firing offense."
excerpts this portion of Adams' article:
Personally, I’d prefer death to spending
the final decades of my life in prison. So while President Obama didn’t
technically kill a citizen, he is certainly ruining this fellow’s life,
and his family’s lives, and the lives of countless other minor drug
offenders. And he is doing it to advance his career. If that’s not a
firing offense, what the hell is?
Who is this fellow doing jail time for the sake of Obama's career? I immediately thought Adams was reacting to the arrest of Innocence of Muslims
producer Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. But that's not it.
Back to Adams' article:
For the record, President Obama did not technically kill anyone to get elected. That was just a hypothetical example. But he is putting an American citizen in jail for 10 years to life for operating medical marijuana dispensaries in California where it is legal under state law. And I assume the President - who has a well-documented history of extensive marijuana use in his youth - is clamping down on California dispensaries for political reasons, i.e. to get reelected. What other reason could there be?
The citizen is Aaron Sandusky (not likely to be related to America's most evil sports figure), owner of G3 Holistic, which was prosecuted by Federal authorities. This excerpt from the linked HuffPo article is relevant to Adams' outrage (emphasis added):
Throughout his first campaign, Obama had said he wouldn't use federal resources to circumvent state laws about medical marijuana. During a 2009 press conference, Holder followed up on that promise, saying that federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries would be coming to an end unless the shops violated both state and federal law.
It appears that the State of California didn't press any charges, but to be absolutely sure on that score that's the the first question I'd ask an FBI spokesperson. I'd follow up with more questions. Did the federal charges stem from activities that G3 engaged in that other dispensaries do not? If so, what were those activities? If not, are all California-licensed dispensaries vulnerable to federal prosecution?
It will be difficult for many Romney supporters to sympathize with a medical marijuana grower. A lot of folks have a hard time imagining that a) marijuana really does have medical benefits, and/or b) California's system adequately keeps medical marijuana away from recreational outlets. Neither of those is the issue at hand. Sandusky was assured by public remarks by Candidate Obama and later by his Attorney General that his line of work would not get him into federal trouble. If there's some issue unique to G3 Holistic we need to hear about it. In any case, Obama and Holder have a lot of 'splainin to do. Government officials, especially those charged with prosecuting it, must be honest about what the law is and isn't. For either of them to lie about a citizen's standing with the law would be utterly evil.
Labels: Crime, Politics