Ye shall be deceived and deceit shall make ye free?


by Don Hank

The Chinese Daoguang emperor in 1838 tried to oppose the British in their attempt to force opium on the Chinese people. One could say that, in doing so, the emperor was an anti-democratic despot, but he saw that the opium dens were destroying lives and families and turning productive Chinese into blobs of useless humanity — slaves to addiction.

One could also see the British as liberators, but they were anything but: they wanted to force the drug on the Chinese.

This story presents a dilemma for the libertarian because, while they can see the emperor as a despot who should have been overthrown, they can hardly see the British as bearers of the torch of liberty, since they were using force to drug another nation.

Incredibly, today, we have a similar situation. The libertarians have marshaled their forces and vast amounts of money to deceive unsuspecting people into accepting drugs.

The use of deceit is no less undemocratic and despotic than the use of other kinds of force. In fact libertarians decry the use of deceit by the media and major political parties, and they are right to do so. For example, there was a general perception in America after 9-11 that the Iraqis had attacked us. The press had not actually said that, but they implied it by focusing on WMDs and Saddam’s brutality. Libertarians and other thinking citizens cried foul. War based on deceit has left us with a mess in the Middle East.

Yet libertarians use the same deceitful tactics when pushing their pro-drug agenda.

As soon as Holland loosened up its drug laws, libertarians like Gov. Gary Johnson declared Holland to be a model for us all. Yet the truth was that many Dutch were dismayed at the aftermath of this great experiment. Their school kids started to drug themselves and the experiment got out of hand.

So much so that libertarian leaders backed away from the Dutch model and looked for another. They settled on Portugal, and the libertarian Cato Institute precipitously seized upon a dubious “study” by the Portuguese government that was published a few years into the experiment, claiming that all had worked out fine as planned and drug use was down. Gullible Cato jumped on this without a trace of critical analysis or further research and the world “learned” that drug legalization solves all our drug problems.

It was a lie, and if Cato had wanted to be honest with us, it would have listened to the Portuguese medical doctors who published a study of their own.

When any group pretends to be for liberty, but deceives people in order to accomplish its goals, it is doing what the Left and the neocons have always done. Deceit is no substitute for the truth and none of our political parties are actually for freedom.

You, Fellow Citizen, are on your own.

Be careful out there!

Further on drugs:

Breakthrough study suggests not smoking pot or drinking alcohol correlated with better college grades

by Don Hank

 No, actually no such study has made headlines lately. But there is a new study on pot that mediocre students will love.

According to UAB News, Associate professor Stefan Kertesz of the University of Alabama has discovered, in a longitudinal study of over 5000 marijuana smokers aged 18-30 years, that “marijuana smoke is not as damaging to lungs as cigarette smoke.” In fact, the research also supposedly showed that occasionally inhaling small amounts of the combustion products of this dried weed can even enhance lung capacity.

That will be good news for our sons and daughters struggling against the ignorance and superstition of our benighted generation in their efforts to supplement their alcohol intake this semester and do so without guilt.

But for me, after reading through the hype and comparing it with the actual abstract of the study, it looks like just another example of research methodology on campus used to achieve a desired result. I am not necessarily impugning the researcher as much as those who seized upon the report with enthusiasm and an uncanny display of uncritical thought. As I have shown here and here, the scientific method (that is, actually looking at data objectively for the sole purpose of finding out the truth, no matter what that may be) has long been out of favor with the media. But as evidenced by the “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, it is none too popular even among a surprising percentage of scientists.

With this realization in mind, and also having read, translated and published (here, for example) a report by Portuguese doctors debunking that government’s study fueling a Cato report “demonstrating” that drug decriminalization “works,” and further, having had a pot-smoking friend – who did not use tobacco – die of lung cancer, I immediately smelled a rat.

Now, let me tell you a little about the profession of foreign language translation, which I have plied successfully full-time for over 40 years. In that time, I have translated medical and scientific texts for about 200 clients, including the American Cancer Society (translating reports from various countries in Europe on smoking and its effects in the induction of cancer, emphysema, “smoker’s leg” and other maladies) and a fair number of drug companies (series of reports on assorted drugs). One of my clients was also the NIH (National Institutes of Health). If you guessed that that agency’s assignments were predominantly medical in nature, you are correct. For a few years of my career, reports on medical studies were the main topic. Caution: I cannot operate on your brain or prescribe liver pills for you. But I will tell you with full confidence: I know the methodology of medical studies. And I know when a research report is pulling my leg.

I can tell you with all sincerity that the media reports on Stefan Kertesz’ studies on marijuana are misleading, and that is being overly generous. Sadly, the report on these studies in UAB News, a publication generally touting successes of persons affiliated with the University of Alabama, is also misleading to say the least. (Which is not necessarily to say that the researcher himself is at fault in this regard).

The headline proclaims: “Marijuana Smoke not as Damaging to Lungs as Cigarette Smoke.” Now, did you immediately assume that the study shows equal amounts of marijuana smoke to be less damaging than equal amounts of tobacco smoke?

I did. Well, I didn’t, but I would have if I had trusted such studies on illegal drugs since I read the Cato report and its thorough rebuttal by the Portuguese MDs who have studied the issue hands-on and met the actual patients (drug users). I have yet to see such a pro-drug study that is not a wide-eyed attempt to justify a bad habit generally endorsed by libertarians and political leftists – who righteously declare drug use of any kind to be a human right that is trampled by most governments generally recognized as legitimate (they think banning anything they like to do is unconstitutional).

So I decided to get a scientific report on the study. Not being a member of AMA, I am not privileged to download articles from JAMA.

However, I was able to obtain for free an abstract of the study from their site.

And lo and behold, what did I find that did not surprise me in the least?

It seems the author has come up with a creative new concept for measuring marijuana smoke exposure. He calls it the “joint year,” and he defines a joint year as 365 joints or filled pipe bowls. He calls this a “moderately high use level.”

Now, of course, in the course of his study, Kertesz no doubt encountered a few subjects who smoked more than these 365 joints per year. But you can see from this definition of a “joint year” that the assumption was for many subjects to have smoked about one joint a day, give or take a few.

One media report quoted the Associated Press as saying that the study:

“…has concluded that smoking cannabis once a week or even more does not harm the lungs.”

The term “even more” is not defined and is therefore meaningless, except as propaganda. But aside from that, if only smoking cannabis once a week is to be compared with what smokers ordinarily do, then the conclusion trumpeted in UAB News (“marijuana smoke is not as damaging to lungs as cigarette smoke”) does not fly. (Most cigarette smokers smoke more than one cigarette a day. You probably knew that).

Of course, there is an outside chance that Kertesz actually did compare the results of smoking 1 joint a day for year-long periods with the results of smoking 1 cigarette a day for year-long periods, but I found no evidence of that. And I can’t imagine where he would have gotten those one-a-day smokers as test subjects.

But here is the most serious flaw in the report that cannabis is less harmful than cigarette smoke: What do we fear most about smoking? Why, cancer, right? Now, the most convincing studies done by cancer researchers are longitudinal studies done on people over a period long enough to induce cancer. Most are seniors when they are stricken–not in the range of 18-30 as used in the Alabama study. In the papers I translated from the Cancer Society, the most feared carcinogen (cancer causing agent) in cigarette smoke was always said to be benzo(a)pyrene.  Mice whose shaved backs were painted with the stuff got cancer. So if marijuana smoke contains benzo(a)pyrene, then it is carcinogenic, right? Well, to find out, I did a search. One of the sites I brought up was run by people who liked to experiment with drugs. It showed a study by the Institute of Medicine and Health.

It showed results of a chemical analysis of cigarette and marijuana smokes. You’ll never guess which smoke contained the most benzo(a)pyrene.

No, not cigarette smoke, which prompted the government to sue the cigarette industry for billions. It was the smoke that Bill Clinton said he never inhaled. Here are the results:


marijuana: 31 ng

tobacco: 22 ng

Gee, marijuana contains about a third more of the chief carcinogen than cigarettes and our University of Alabama news letter declares marijuana smoke to the “less damaging.”

I predict that sometime in the not-too-distant future, after all this hype about the harmlessness of marijuana has taken its toll, persuading legions of gullible young people to indulge in this “safe” habit, someone in medical science with high powers of observation and the courage to swim upstream will do a study on marijuana smokers and cancer and discover that the older heavier users are getting lung cancer right and left. 

At any rate, I will not be advising either of my kids to smoke a joint a day while in college. However, I may tell them to study as hard as they can in a down economy when an alarmingly high percentage of graduates are failing to find jobs in their professions and are saddled for years with college loan payments.

You’d think some researcher somewhere would find the time to study the correlation between not smoking anything at all and not drinking alcohol on student grade levels and chances of graduating from college, as contrasted with a control group of students who indulge in these practices.

I won’t hold my breath for such a breakthrough study. Nor will I expect much improvement in the academic performance of US students over the next few years. At least not judging by their role models on campus.

You can contact Dr. Stefan Kertesz, the author of the Alabama pot report and encourage him to do a study among elderly persons who have smoked pot most of their lives. Tell him you would expect to see a strong correlation between lung cancer and heavy pot use:

And you can contact the writer of the above mentioned article on marijuana at U. of Alabama and let her know your thoughts (or send her a link to this article):


If you like my stuff on here, you may want to be added to my regular list receiving my unpublished commentary and reader responses thereto, which goes out once or several times a day. If so, just email me at:


Decriminalization of drugs in Portugal

Decriminalization of drugs in Portugal

by Manuel Pinto Coelho 

I have seen the national, and particularly the foreign, press trumpet with strange insistence, on the eve of electoral processes in Portugal, the “resounding success” of the decriminalization of drugs initiated in 2001 by the Socialist government, — ignored by all other European countries and to the detriment of the guidelines and conventions of the United Nations to which the country is a signatory.

Respect for the true facts obliges the Association for a Drug-Free Portugal (APLD) to inform the Portuguese of the true consequences of implementing the current policy, independently of party affiliations. Portugal adopted a rather original and undoubtedly questionable solution (?) for managing the scourge of drugs.

The recent articles of the British weekly The Economist and of the Cato Institute in Washington promoted the governmental options. It is a legitimate, perhaps politically correct right. The problem is the rest: the vexing manipulation of the facts and the figures is unacceptable.

1 – [reportedly] In Portugal in 2006, the total number of deaths from overdose did not increase radically relative to 2000 and the percentage of drug addicts with AIDS decreased (from 57% to 43%). Exactly the opposite happened. We are witnessing a worrisome deterioration of the situation. The facts demonstrate this: “with 219 deaths by overdose per year, Portugal has one of the worst outcomes, with one death every two days. Like Greece, Austria and Finland, it is one of the countries registering an increase of more than 30% in 2005,” and “Portugal continues to be a country with the highest incidence of AIDS related to the consumption of injected drugs (85 new cases per million inhabitants in 2005, when the majority do not exceed five cases) and the only one that registered a recent increase, with 36 new cases estimated per million inhabitants in 2005, when in 2004 there were only 30” (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction–EMCDDA, 2007). Further, according to the European report, Portugal registered 703 new cases of infection in 2006, corresponding to a rate eight times higher than the European average!

2 — The decriminalization of drugs in Portugal in no way reduced the levels of consumption, on the contrary. In reality, “consumption in Portugal increased 4.2% — the percentage of persons who took drugs at any time in their life rose from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007 (IDT – Instituto de Droga e da Toxicodependencia / Institute of Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2008).

3 – As for cocaine use, “the new data (found for 2005-2007) confirm the growing tendency registered last year in France, Ireland, Spain, United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark and Portugal” (EMCDDA, 2008). As for the rate of cocaine and amphetamine use, these doubled in Portugal; the confiscations of the latter drug increased seven times between 2001 and 2006, the sixth highest in the world (WDR — World Drug Report, 2009).

4 — with regard to hashish: — “it is difficult to evaluate the intensive consumption trends for cannabis in Europe, but among the countries that participated in both studies in the field, between 2004 and 2007 (France, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal), there was a mean increase of about 20%” (EMCDDA, 2008).

5 — in Portugal, since decriminalization was implemented, the number of drug-related homicides increased 40%. “It was the only country in Europe to show a significant increase in homicides between 2001 and 2006 (WDR, 2009).

6 — a recent study sponsored by the IDT to the Centre for Opinion Research and Surveys (CESOP) of the Catholic University of Portugal, based on direct interviews on the attitudes of Portuguese relating to drug addiction (which strangely, was never published), reveals that 83.7% of the respondents consider that the number drug addicts in Portugal increased over the last four years, 66.8% consider that accessibility of drugs in their neighborhoods was easy or very easy, and 77.3% said that drug-related crime had increased (“Toxicodependencias” No. 3, 2007).

This is the pungent Portuguese reality with relation to drugs and drug addiction.

For the Portuguese government, drug addicts are seen essentially as sick people. It is an inexpensive and suicidal attitude for the public treasury. They pretend to be sick and the government pretends to treat them!

Decriminalization of use, possession and acquisition for use means penalization only when another crime is added to the charge of consumption, which almost always has a mitigating effect. Legalizing the crime committed by “drugged” persons (or by “sick people” – sic) does not seem to be the most efficient way to combat crime, as witnessed by the exceptional rate of drug-related homicides compared to other European countries. Facilitating access to the drug will not be the way to reduce consumption or reduce drug addiction and associated criminality.

It is really curious what is happening in Portugal: drug addicts, with the tacit support of the government, invoke their status as “sick people” in order not to be punished for their crimes but then forget that they are “sick” and pose as free responsible persons who decide whether or not to be treated!

To deem the drug addict a sick person and not a criminal, by the route of decriminalization, the state cannot opt to feed the “sickness” instead of curing it, through a policy that prioritizes “harm reduction”!

Resounding success? The results are right in front of your nose!

 Translated by Don Hank

Manuel Pinto Colho, President of the APLD (Association for a Drug-Free Portugal)

Original Portuguese language article:

My email to the Cato Institute re. Cato study on “Portugal model”

The following email went out to several Cato Institute fellows and other associates at these addresses:
The first 4 are listed as experts in either medicine or insurance. I figured they would be interested in what the medical doctors in Portugal are saying about the Cato study purporting to show how decriminalizing drugs is reducing drug use. I will let readers know whether these Cato reps have responded and what they say in their own defense, if anything.
I also sent a brief email to Cato at their generic address for reader comments, providing a link to my article including a full translation of the MDs’ web site debunking the Cato study.
Here is my email:
Dear Cato Institute representative,
My own newsletter Laigle’s Forum is friendly to libertarian ideas on economics. Indeed, we were the first in the Anglo-Saxon world to publish a translation of a commentary by Vincent Bénard, President of the Hayek Institute in Brussels.
I learned of the “Portuguese model” for combatting drug use by reading an article on it on Mises Daily, to which I subscribe. You will forgive me for saying this, but something did not smell right about the “resoundingly successful” portrayal and the undisguised exuberance of your report.
I did some intensive investigation and indeed uncovered a major problem with this model.
Let me point out that first, libertarians had held up the “Dutch model” to prove their counterintuitive hypothesis that decriminalizing narcotics use actually reduces narcotic use. It turned out not to be true. When the Dutch themselves backed away, the libertarians were forced to do likewise. The exit strategy was the mantra “Holland never legalized drugs.”
Shortly thereafter, the Portuguese government issued amazing statistics demonstrating what the Dutch model was supposed to demonstrate.
Cato apparently forwarded the report to the world without much further-reaching investigation, whereupon others imitated. Scientific American followed suit, greatly boosting the credibility of your narrative.
As a technical translator, however, I am accustomed to doing online searches in various languages to verify facts and findings. I realized that there may well be some research in Portugal that discredited the “Portuguese model” and did an online search in Portuguese.
Indeed, I found, to my surprise, that medical doctors in Portugal consider the government report ‘pure disinformation.’
I am writing you to alert you to this because eventually you will be confronted by the statistics published by these doctors on their web site.
Here is my account of that, which I believe may be the first of its kind directed toward the Anglo-Saxon world:
I have seen that political groups often enthusiastically seize upon statistics like the Portuguese government’s in an effort to support their platform or ideology, and yours is no exception. There is, of course, an obvious risk inherent in this practice, and I am afraid this lack of caution may become an albatross for Cato. My report went out to my list of several thousand policy makers and activists around the world.
Nonetheless, I think you deserve a chance to respond to this rather serious disclosure and would be very happy to publish your response to this.
You may email me at the above address.
Best Regards,
Don Hank
PS: A friend recently said the CIA was the biggest drug runner in the world. It gave me pause. I don’t swallow stories like that easily. But yet, putting 2 and 2 together, it is obvious the US and the Western powers in general do not want to stop or slow the drug flow into their nations.
Here is a news item that strongly supports this and shows the depths of depravity into which we have fallen:

Moral Keynesianism and the war on drugs

The government is waging a war on you, not on drugs

Don Hank

First, if you have an opinion on the legalization of narcotics, let us know at the link below (but please make sure you have read the associated articles on this, and note in particular the article — the first in the Anglo-Saxon world — showing that the “Portuguese model” is based on false reports):

I have not ever seen this much passion, on both sides of an issue, as I am seeing at this site. I want to thank those who participated or will participate. Note: If you are new to the forum, your post will take time for approval (I am not here all the time). Please check back later.

Let me try to sum up my position:

My main thrust is not so much whether we “have a right to do with my body as I please.” That is just too adolescent for me. Sorry.

My position is independent of whether we are winning or losing the “war on drugs.”

My position is that the Left is planning another sneak attack on the West, just as it did in the 60s when it sold us the sexual revolution. As some will recall, the whole “revolution” seemed like a grass roots movement. It was planned to seem that way. But it came off the Left’s drawing board. The Frankfurt school specialized in “education” (read: social Marxist propaganda) was heavily invested in that movement, famously promulgating the slogan “make love, not war.”

The method was Fabian stealth, and if you have investigated the origins of the Fabian Society in London, in the 1880s, you will recall that there was an essentially two-pronged assault:

1— Destroy the Christian roots of the West (that’s been accomplished)

2— Subtly program people to accept Marxian socialism, or in other words, communism (that is right around the corner. Even euroskeptics as a group are not necessarily inclined to oppose socialism as long as it is a national kind. Where have we heard of that before? Oh, yes, Nationalsozialismus. I had almost forgotten).

Then there were academic reports and news items and editorials hyping what amounted to a moral breakdown. Today there are stories like the wholly contrived report of the “successful” Portuguese model as reported by the Cato Institute and later in Scientific American, but debunked by the Portuguese doctors.

Let me suggest that what we are now accepting if we accept legalization of narcotics is in effect a kind of “moral Keynesianism.” Now Keynesianism is the economic teaching that the economy needs government to thrive and, more specifically, needs governments to do things that are counterintuitive and contrary to common sense and logic, such as “stimulating” the economy by spending tax payer money on projects, whether necessary ones or not (John Maynard Keynes once famously stated that if workers were hired by the government to dig ditches and then fill them up again, that would stimulate the economy. That one statement encapsulates all we need to know about this “scholar”).

This idea was tried by FDR, and historians at the time failed to note that it was not the “stimulus” (in the form of war spending) that got us out of the Great Depression but rather a robust and resilient essentially free economic system and strong moral fabric along with a strong manufacturing base thanks to a still-dormant China and finally, a very limited entitlement system. Calculations by a group of UCLA economists show that, far from “getting us out of the depression,” FDR actually slowed the recovery by about 7 years.

So, long story short, Keynesianism is harmful to economies. That is bad news for us today because most US presidents of both parties, and most famously Obama and Bush (who promoted TARP and the bank bailouts), have operated on the premise that shoveling enormous amounts of public money into the economy speeds recovery and is generally beneficial to everyone. European “leaders” did likewise, despite the total lack of evidence that such Keyenesian policies help and the strong evidence (not to mention common sense and logic) showing they are harmful.

In its broadest sense, Keynesianism is a teaching analogous to the old expression “a little hair of the dog that bit you.” This is the belief held by hard drinkers and alcoholics that consuming a little alcohol the morning after will cure your hangover. It is merely an excuse to follow your compulsion to harm your body even more because you don’t have the self discipline to stop. In other words, it is the counterintuitive degradation of any system (body, economy, etc) in the hope of deriving benefit from this degradation.

So in fact, Keynesianism goes far beyond economics and has seeped into our psyche in every area vital to life and to a healthy society. This is because Keynesianism as an academic teaching was only the effect, not the cause, of this widespread belief in doing the wrong thing to achieve a benefit. Moral bankruptcy does not need Keynesianism to proceed. Keynesianism is only a catalyst that speeds the reaction. Not surprisingly, John Maynard Keynes was himself a drug user (BTW, I am not the first to liken Keyenesianism to drug addiction. It’s been done here).

The notion that legalizing drugs will somehow help reduce drug use belongs in the category of moral Keyenesianism.  As I have shown here and  here, while libertarians and the Left present reports of drug models based on legalization (first Holland, and then when that went sour, Portugal) purporting to show legalization of narcotics as beneficial, the reports are patently false – analogously to historical treatises purporting to show that FDR “got us out” of the Great Depression.

Now, let me clarify my position on the War on Drugs.

This is a patently phony war and, like all conflicts in which the US has been involved since WW II, the government does not sincerely intend to win it.

This is as plain as the nose on your face. How in heaven’s name could any nation hope to stop the sale and use of narcotics by keeping open the border with the country through which the lion’s share of these drugs pass into ours? Despite the hype, we have not sincerely tried to close the border. Quite the opposite. While hypocritically condemning the cartels, the US government has in fact opened the doors to them and their product. As reported by Fox News, there are no less than 5 federal lands at the Mexican border that have travel warnings in place to alert travelers of possible violence. From that report:

Dennis Godfrey, a spokesman for the Bureau of Land Management’s Arizona office, said roughly a dozen signs were posted earlier this month along the Sonoran Desert National Monument advising that travel in the area is not recommended due to “active drug and human” smuggling.

It should be abundantly clear that the US government, which so far has not hesitated to spend well over $1 trillion on wars that have failed their mission of bringing lasting peace or democracy to the Middle East, refuses to spend even a fraction of that to build adequate fencing and hire enough border patrol agents and/or national guard personnel to stop the flow of drugs.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please read this carefully:

The US government does not want to stop or slow the flow of drugs into the US. Most lawmakers and presidents (all of them) only want to make a show, do a bare minimum in an effort to placate constituencies.

They are thumbing their noses at their constituents while catering to the corrupt Mexican government and the cartels, which are their main clients in this illegal and immoral enterprise.

And now that their failure is manifest, they are subtly suggesting that, instead of doing the rational thing and closing the border, we need to legalize drugs, thereby expanding the market for their friends, these vicious killers selling a dangerous product that destroys our people and our children.

Here comes the avalanche. Open your eyes before it is too late. Don’t let them flatter you into the thought that legalization was your idea. It most certainly was not.

Finally, for my European readers:

Do you really believe the EU or any European nation wants to stop the flow of drugs into your region? Here in Latin America, it is common knowledge that Spain and Portugal are the portals for drug traffic in Europe. I believe that your airports have so far been successful in preventing terrorist attacks. How is it possible that they are not also stopping the flow of drugs into your country? Here is something to ponder: Portugal is not only a major drug flow artery into Europe, it is also the only nation to have legalized narcotic use. Is there a possible connection here that ought to be explored? That is, if Portugal is winking at drug use, then it may have been winking for many years at drug smugglers passing through their airports. Just a little food for thought.

Again, if you have an opinion on the legalization of narcotics, let us know here:

Arguments in favor of drug legalization and analysis of them

The following are some of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization and/or decriminalization, followed by my debunking:

1–The fact that narcotic drug decriminalization has been tried successfully in Portugal is proof that this works.

That’s what you once said about Holland. Remember the story of the boy who cried ‘wolf.’ It was successful only according to the Portuguese government, which had been responsible for the ill-advised decriminalizing in the first place, and according to the Cato Institute, which has a vested interest in believing the experiment was successful and in promulgating the myth that it was. As for Scientific American, which swallowed it whole and then regurgitated it upon their pages, they will have to answer for themselves someday.

According to the doctors in Portugal, the government story is ‘pure disinformation.’

2—No one is advocating decriminalization of narcotic drugs, just the sale of drugs.

Pardon me, but if it is not harmful to let people take any drug they please, then it is not morally wrong to sell these drugs either. So why the hypocrisy?

There is only one reason for prosecuting dealers: The advocates of drug legalization know full well that decriminalization is not good for society. If it is wrong to sell drugs it is wrong to use them.

3—Libertarian groups all agree that taking drugs is a “right.” They can misquote von Mises and Friedman to sort of support this.

But since neither of these early libertarians or adopted libertarians (like Friedman) ever lived in a society where drugs were legal (because no society in the world allowed the sale and use of hard narcotics), any intellectual support they may have had for drug legalization was purely hypothetical and not provable. So, lacking the proof that drug decriminalization is not a net negative for society, it is clear that many who advocate decriminalization or legalization of narcotics (most being libertarian or ‘progressive’) are simply bowing to what they consider “authorities” or hewing to the libertarian or progressive party line. But since the “authorities” have not used the scientific method (analysis of hard evidence) to prove the soundness of their hypotheses, and in fact, since the Dutch and Portuguese experiments failed to pan out (as I have shown, despite worldwide hype), it is a question of the blind leading the blind.

4—When the Dutch experiment with legalization of narcotics in coffee houses failed, the pro-legalization crowd quickly declared “Holland never legalized drugs.”

This was disingenuous. Firstly, the Portuguese never legalized them either in the strict sense. They merely decriminalized their use, while maintaining stiff penalties for dealers. Secondly, the Dutch had certainly stopped enforcing drug laws to the extent that specially licensed coffee houses could allow open soft narcotic use on their premises – resulting in “drug tourism.” The reason legalization advocates suddenly backed off of Holland as a model was because the Dutch themselves backed off, seeing the abject failure of their model. They began to see “drug tourism” as an albatross, for example, and started to discourage it. They also started to see kids selling drugs in the schools, to an alarming degree.

One web site, operated by Schoolguard, a group of Dutch activists for safer schools, recently reports:

“According to researchers, drug use is on the increase. They find that 39% of 17 year olds have tried cannabis (hash or weed) at least once, and 9% have tried hard drugs once.


In 89% of secondary schools, drugs are sold by students. In virtually all secondary schools, you can find hash. Further, ecstasy can be had in 61% of schools, cocaine in 40% and speed in 19%.” [my translation]

It was reports like these that spoiled the Dutch model for the libertarians and leftist or faux conservative legalization advocates. This forced them to look for a new model while trashing the old model by suddenly claiming, in retrospect, that the Dutch “never legalized drugs.” Remember that bona fide information about the Dutch experiment was initially hard to find in the Anglo press because of the language barrier.  However, I did publish an eye-opening report a while back based on my translation of a Dutch article. My blog on this went to hundreds of policy makers and journalists. Once the truth came out, it was hard for legalization advocates to maintain the facade. I believe the dissemination of such information in the media is the main reason legalization advocates switched to Portugal, a nation that also speaks an obscure enough language to keep the world in the dark long enough to achieve political inroads to legalization.

Here again, as before, I intend to be a spoiler.

It needs to be noted that while the Mises Institute article touts the ‘resounding success’ of the Portuguese model, it also admits that the “success” (consisting mainly of a reported higher survival rate among hard drug users) is due in part to government programs through which addicts can acquire free needles and surrogate drugs. This is hypocritical when you consider that the Von Mises Institute elsewhere renounces all government intervention in social affairs. Yet here, it supports what amounts to a Big Government approach. Obviously, drug legalization is more important than their free market ideological underpinnings.

The picture that emerges here is that, despite its emphasis on the “free market,” libertarianism is probably no better for the West than is progressivism, communism or any of the other zippy-sounding isms.

The bombastic libertarian claim that drug legalization will help solve our economic problems, as will open borders and amnesty, is smoke and mirrors obscuring the fact that drugs – not the enforcement of drug laws – and open borders/amnesty – not immigration enforcement – are some of the main causes of our current economic malaise.

Ironically, there is one very promising solution to these two problems, and it is the one most maligned by libertarians and ‘progressives’ alike, namely, closing the border and banishing illegal-alien criminals (including as many illegal entrants as can be caught — of course, we can’t catch them all. Who said we could?) to their homelands following incarceration (I had shown here that, incredibly, released illegal-alien felons are in fact given government assistance with the acquisition of green cards. Any fool can see why we have a drug smuggling problem, and any fool can see how easily it could be stopped if our government wanted it stopped).

If we stopped meddling in the affairs of Middle Easterners in a way that promotes terror (as I have shown for all but the hardiest of deniers here, here, here and here), we could bring home our ill-stationed troops serving the political purposes of a usurper in a war effort with no constitutional basis whatsoever, and send many of them to the border states, armed as they are now, and specially trained, and entrust them with the safeguarding of our borders.

In so doing, we could immediately:

1-significantly bolster our flagging economy

2-almost completely stop the flow of drugs into our country

3-greatly reduce the need to fight terror, by ending our indirect support for terror in the Middle East, and simultaneously, by keeping out non-Mexican aliens at the border.

People have a bad habit of letting their ideology trump their common sense, intuition and observational skills. Even conservatives like me can be guilty of this at times.

But the Mises article proudly reports that Rep. Ron Paul, a medical doctor with decidedly libertarian views, is in favor of legalizing narcotics and wants to join Barney Frank in drafting such a law.

If libertarians can ever manage to get down off their sacrosanct ivory towers and humbly look at real world facts, they may eventually be able to gain our confidence again.

But most representatives of the movement, like Mark Thornton and Ron Paul, to name but a few, have a long way to go and it’s all uphill.

Von Mises and Rand for open borders:

Milton Friedman: “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.”

LP is for open borders, amnesty:

Ron Paul has changed on immigration

More proof of higher drug use in Portugal


Don Hank


In the previous article, one of my readers questioned the translated excerpt from the article in the Portuguese medical journal Saude. He pointed out that when drugs are first legalized, people who once were afraid to report their drug use were emboldened enough to admit it and this was a factor that skewed the statistics, making it look as if drug use had increased when in fact it had not.

He was sure that if I translated the rest, he would be able to deduce such a skewing from the rest of the article.

This challenged me to translate the rest in case others may have had the same suspicion. As you can see from the translation below, however, there are considerable data on increased drug related mortalities, which are not dependent on subjective reporting by the drug users themselves. The significant increase in drug-related homicides is also independent of reports by the users themselves.

Therefore, at least for these data, we can pretty much discount the above-mentioned skewing factor.

The long time – about 6 years – from the time of decriminalization to the end of the study also militates against such an explanation.

My full translation of the Saude article is found here:

Ideology bound libertarians look a lot like leftists

Ideology-bound Libertarians look suspiciously like leftists


Don Hank


Mark Thornton, writing for the libertarian Mises Daily, points out that “drug reform” is a hot issue. By drug reform, he means decriminalization or legalization of drug use.

He writes:

“Political candidates, politicians, former presidents, interest groups, and even the Global Commission on Drug Policy are all calling for drug-policy reform”

He rhetorically asks “why the interest in this reform?” and then answers his own question:

“…. the more important reason for the interest in this issue is economic sense. Drug prohibition is a burden on taxpayers. It is a burden on government budgets. It is a burden on the criminal-justice system. It is a burden on the healthcare system. The economic crisis has intensified the pain from all these burdens. Legalization reduces or eliminates all of these burdens. It should be no surprise that alcohol prohibition was repealed at the deepest depths of the Great Depression.”


Mark is as wrong as he can be. Firstly, alcohol does not pose the same problems as addictive narcotics and is not comparable. Secondly, drug prohibition is not the burden. Illegal drug sales and use, and the cartels that commit the crime of selling illegal drugs, are a burden — a burden that is exacerbated by an administration that refuses to stop smugglers. Mark is blaming the victims for the crime. Thirdly, he is relying on false figures released by an incompetent Portuguese government trying to cover up a flawed policy.

The economic burden he mentions is intensified exponentially by our open borders policy and tolerance of illegal immigration. Thousands of Mexicans are now crossing the border into the US with huge shipments of narcotics in vehicles, as shown here, or bales of marijuana strapped to their backs, as shown here.

Yet this same Mark Thornton who advocates legalizing illegal drugs precisely on economic grounds, also criticizes those of us who want to keep illegal aliens out and keep the borders closed for economic reasons – i.e., to protect American jobs in a time of record unemployment. Thus, through convoluted logic worthy of a mental contortionist, he wants us to believe that two of the main contributors to the Western economic malaise are in fact beneficial.

He is right when he states that one main problem with immigration is government largesse extended to them. But it is unrealistic to advocate for illegal immigrants at a time when our welfare state has never been more generous with your money and when jobs have never been more scarce. According to Milton Friedman, whom libertarians like to consider one of their own when such is convenient, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.”

In a perfect world, we could open the borders and legalize drugs without fear because no one would use drugs to the extent of causing anyone harm, and immigrants would not be lured by free schools and hospitals and other social assistance but rather by a drive to earn money honestly by the sweat of their brow.

But we don’t have that world – quite the opposite. So why talk about hypothetical policies that might word in a utopia that simply will never be?

But Mark is worse than just a Polyanna. He is either disingenuous or self-deceived when he refers to the Cato report showing that Portugal’s “success” with their drug decriminalization experiment. The fact that it was the libertarian Cato Institute that released the report should raise a red flag because their clientele all support drug legalization/decriminalization and have already bought into the highly suspect hypothesis that drug liberalization will automatically redound to everyone’s good. They should also raise an eyebrow at the thought that it was the nearly bankrupt Portuguese government that released the fishy-sounding facts on which it rests – a government that has a vested (financial) interest in wanting the world to believe in it now that the risk rating agencies no longer do.

This was my line of reasoning when I set about doing an online search for a web site in Portugal that would shed some light on this. Now not every American can search the foreign press in a variety of languages, and this language barrier is one of the setbacks for US scholars and journalists. But because of my translation background, non-English foreign reports are one of my specialites and a good reason to visit Laigle’s Forum, where language is not a barrier to accessing truth.

What I found in my Portuguese-language search (I would never have found it in English) went beyond my wildest dreams, and I published a preliminary article on it here.

Some of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization and/or decriminalization, followed by my analysis thereof, are found here:

Cato’s Portugal drug study based on false/distorted government data?

Don Hank

The libertarian Cato Institute recently ran a study of the drug situation in Portugal, which legalized drugs de facto in 2001. It published some figures showing how deaths among drug users and some other parameters went down, apparently signaling positive results for the legalization experiment. Scientific American published details on this study and now it is being quoted throughout the world in what seems to be a mammoth push for legalization of drugs everywhere.

But all is not as meets the eye.

Cato is a libertarian institute and part of its agenda is to support the counter-intuitive hypothesis that drug legalization helps reduce the ill effects of drug use.

However, Cato is not known to be a professional medical or scientific group, whose agenda is the health and welfare of their clients.

By contrast, there is an online journal called Saude in Portugal published purely by medical doctors.

Not so surprisingly, their findings differ from those of Cato, which has ignored the negatives and concludes:

“The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success.”

Below is my translation of an excerpt from the Saude article, written by Manuel Pinto Coelho, President of the APLD. The world press, always eager to follow the latest trends, has ignored the Portuguese doctors and prefers to disseminate the report of the ideologically based Cato Institute.

It looks like a new policy may again be forged on the basis of statements by political activists rather than professionals who are closest to the problem.

Heroine consumption rose 57.5% in recent years

Model for combating drugs is ‘pure disinformation’ – APLD President

At variance with what official agencies have recently disclosed, the problem of drug dependence in Portugal has never been more serious: Between 2001, the year the decriminalization law went into effect, and 2007, continued consumption of narcotics rose, in absolute terms, by 66%.  

In this period In this period consumption increased 215% for cocaine, 85% for ecstasy, 57.5%  for heroine and 37% for cannabis. These data are from a report of the Institute of Drugs and Drug Dependence (IDT), published in 2008.

Since decriminalization there has been a 50% increase in drug use among young people between the ages of 20 and 24. On the other hand, the number of persons who have experimented with illicit drugs at least once rose from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007 (IDT Report of Activities of Nov 2008).

End of translation

Saude is an online journal published by medical doctors. Who are you going to believe? Doctors or the government that has driven its government to the brink of bankruptcy?

It is no surprise that journalists the world over would fall for the government data and conclusions. But it is sad to note that Scientific American would take the Cato study at face value without doing any further research. How hard would it have been to ask the doctors of Portugal?

Of course, after hackers found out how scientists at the University of East Anglia falsified meteorological data for political reasons, no one should be surprised. The scientific method has been falling into disuse in academe, even among scientists.

Full Portuguese language text:

Commentary opposing decriminalization of drugs
Demise of the scientific method:

Global “leaders” want felons decriminalized

Fling open the gates of the Bastille! Free them all!

by Don Hank

The title of the report linked below, and appearing on the Yahoo home page under the innocuous sounding title “Global leaders call for major shift to decriminalize drugs,” is part of a sinister propaganda campaign, relying on unbacked statements by out-of-work politicians who want to legalize criminals.

The first prong of this campaign is to promote global governance by suggesting that there are such things as “global leaders,” i.e., unelected self-anointed technocrats, who play an important role in the lives of ordinary people. Actually, there is no such thing as a “global leader” because, so far, the world does not have a sovereign global government. Nations are, so far, still free and sovereign, but are threatened by such propaganda as this, which is a subtle suggestion that a global central government (a technocracy) is acceptable. Actually, the experiments with global government have all failed or, as in the case of the latest attempt, the EU, are in the process of disintegrating (triggered by the Greek collapse) and lead inevitably to dictatorships because the people pushing global governance are not democratically minded. To understand why I say that, just read this article by UK politician Sonya Porter. They also lack technical and real-world knowledge needed to solve problems, all the while displaying exceptional persuasive skills — obviously a dismal set of circumstances for everyone whose lives they touch with their ineptitude.

The second prong of the campaign is aimed at decriminalizing criminals. Drug dealers have waged war on their own people in Mexico and Colombia and kill indiscriminately (but note: only stable, anti-terror leaders in the Middle East are condemned by Western “leaders” for doing this). The cartels have grown so much in power that the government fears them. In Mexico, they have infiltrated major sectors of the national police and armed forces. These are inhumanly cruel, savage thugs who must be caught and dealt with harshly. Yet “world leaders” want to set them free. Regarding decriminalization and its results, Holland is a prime example of the failure of this plan. Holland’s experiment, initiated under the banner of legalization as a way to reduce drug use, has actually led to increased crime and drug use. Permissive drug policies in the US, beginning under Carter, also led to increased drug use, including among young people who should be studying. The result was a crackdown in the 80s.

The third prong is support for open borders. The subtle suggestion is that the real culprit in the cartel crime and gang violence that has swept the US Southwest and threatens major US cities everywhere, is not the notoriously porous border with Mexico but rather the fact that foolish Americans continue to criminalize drugs, which in fact are perfectly harmless for us and our children.

The linked Yahoo article tells only one side of the story and includes none of the results of the drug legalization experiments alluded to above. Gullible people reading the Yahoo article will reason that Obama’s open border policies are not a factor in America’s burgeoning crime rate, blaming instead our insistence on criminalizing drug sales. Yes, if only these benighted Americans could accept these drug shipments and the consequences of drug use on their children, then everything would be fine.

What the mainstream media, as well as the elitists in “education,” the universities, professionals and, yes, the churches (not only are they not an exception, they are ringleaders in stealth propaganda) have done is not only criminal, it is an assault on independent human cognition (thought) itself.

The article linked above, omits any detail on the consequences of drug legalization, presenting instead the opinions of supposed leaders who are nowhere quoted as providing evidence of their views.

And this article is typical of today’s editorials. Westerners everywhere are being trained not to think but rather to imitate a consensus of pseudo-scientific “thought” or rather propaganda. Thus, what many “educated” professionals in the schools, colleges, pulpits, media and so on have taught you to do over the last 50 years or so is not to think but to accept without question the opinions of so-called “scientists” and “experts” who themselves only regurgitate the opinions of their bosses and the rest of their community using thinly veiled pseudo-scientific language and psycho-babble.

But note that accepting the opinions of people wearing an aura of “science” (many of whom are not scientists at all but in fact, journalists, psychologists and the like “professionals” who are trained chiefly in the art of propaganda) isn’t the only problem. The problem is the public, which still accepts this propaganda as the genuine article, without question. And they are very good at persuading the public. Or rather, I should say, they have trained the public to follow them to such an extent that the public no longer knows how to think independently of them.

And yet, like an old college pal I ran into recently, people quote these propagandists and claim that in so doing, they are using “science” to reach conclusions and make decisions. Ordinary people are duped into believing that they are intellectuals, superior beings at the top of the evolutionary chain, when in fact, they haven’t used a scintilla of independent thinking. Thus, they substitute a consensus of the “educated” for science. My pal told me he uses science to refute Christianity and suggested I was unscientific. Yet when I asked him by what cognitive mechanism he had arrived at his conclusions, and why he thought my thinking was inferior, he was stymied.

If he could have articulated his cognitive method, it would no doubt have been something like this:

Academics said it, I believe it and that settles it.

And yet, for him I was the fanatic because I believe in God.

The “experts” tell us that if we disagree with Obama’s policies, we are racists. If we don’t accept the “climate change” theory, we are polluters and enemies of the earth.

And many believe this tripe because they don’t know what independent scientific thinking (human cognition) is. They haven’t a clue.

Well, for those who don’t know, true scientific thinking, in a nutshell, is always based on the scientific method, which has been developed in some form or other since Aristotle and was perfected in the Middle Ages. Simply put, this method of thinking, consists of


2—deriving a hypothesis (guess) based on that observation (using inductive reasoning),

3—testing the hypothesis by further observation (in the lab, this means experimentation) under controlled conditions.

4—drawing conclusions from this testing (using deductive reasoning) to derive a working theory that can be verified independently by others.

Before this method was developed, the sophists would sit around and argue issues without ever consulting the evidence. They believed pure reason (with no supporting facts) was superior to facts. This supremely unscientific method is illustrated by the parable of wise men arguing about the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth. The debate went on for years and the participants whose reasoning power was the most brilliant vaunted their skill and patted themselves on the back for their oratory excellence.

Until one day, an humble laborer brought them the news: he had actually counted the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth.

That was the end of the erudite discussion.

In real life, you can apply this in a modified form, for example, by on-line research, personal observations, or reading results of testing or observations of unbiased reporters.

For example, to test the hypothesis that opposing Obama’s policies makes people racist, you can find writings by blacks who oppose Obama’s ideas and see what they say.

You can also choose from among your friends or famous people individuals you know not to be racist and look at what they say about Obama’s ideas and policies.

Finally, you can easily find reading matter about how socialism has failed in the past everywhere it has been tried, including in black African countries like Zimbabwe, or how welfare and affirmative action, for example, have hurt blacks in inner cities.

You can look at unemployment statistics, crime rates, school dropout rates, etc, for black people before and after the institution of welfare.

All of these methods are scientific because they depend on your skills in analyzing raw data and not on a consensus of the “educated.”

It is almost surrealistic that mankind is returning to those primitive sophist methods where brilliance of oratory is replacing actual scientific research in the most vital areas of our lives and where the most polished politicians with the greatest skills in mendacity rule over intelligent people.

As evidence of this sinister development, modern philosophers and propagandists tell us that we are in a post-modern world where traditional methods of scientific inquiry are obsolete. They further tell us that there is no such thing as objective truth.

But they fall into a trap of their own making, for if one can say with certainty that there is no such thing as objectivity, then the universities lose their raison d’être and may as well shut their doors. No statement made by anyone amounts to a hill of beans. Indeed, as universities are completely taken over by “progressives” who deny the existence of objective knowledge, it is getting harder and harder for them to find enough gullible students to pay the bills.

Without government largesse, many would no longer be standing.

I say let them close their doors until they restore the missing ingredient: independent human cognition.

Yahoo Propaganda:

Holland experiment

Glenn Beck and how Americans got the way we are

Glenn Beck and how Americans got this way

By Don Hank

Recently, a lot has been written about Glenn Beck and his refusal to look at the eligibility issue and his disdain for those of us who care about it.

First, let me be clear: I am a birther. By that I don’t mean that I am claiming Obama was definitely born in Kenya (where they have erected a monument at the place where he was born). I mean that I don’t know if Obama is a natural born citizen because he has never proven it. Therefore Beck is remiss to dismiss birthers’ concerns. We have a constitutional right to know, and judges who say otherwise are derelict in their duties and don’t deserve to be called judges any more than those judges who in 1973 decided that humans in the womb aren’t humans.

Ironically, though, despite Beck’s vexing unwillingness to admit what an increasing number of Americans know or sense about Obama’s eligibility to be president, no one has taught to the broad masses the sources of Marxist brainwashing – how we got to where we are – better than Glenn Beck. Others have written books that changed the way scholarly conservatives think, but Beck popularized this knowledge in ways that made scholars of ordinary people. He went into detail on the origins of “progressivism” and that is important. Without a comprehensive knowledge of how millions of ordinary decent Americans have been turned into glassy-eyed liberals, we are easy prey both to the propaganda itself and to those who accuse us watchdogs of McCarthyism.

Even if you are put off by Glenn’s histrionics, his shows have been a classroom for a long time – especially his TV show, where he has reviewed important eye-opening books night after night. He did his homework. If Patriots view Beck with a jaundiced eye today it is partly because he fails to see the importance of the eligibility issue but also in part because they have underestimated the role of propagandists in turning America leftward and they fail to see how much Beck has pulled back the curtain for millions of us, providing us a glimpse into the sordid world of Marxist disinformation in which we find ourselves.

Further, without Beck, there would not have been the Washington tea party. Like him or hate him, Beck has changed the nation.

This is as good an opportunity as any for a quick review of how we got where we are today, and we can start with a video of an interview with ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, who shows how Americans were brainwashed through KGB methods such as demoralization and manipulation of and by the media. One thing that sticks in my mind from Yuri’s talks is that people brainwashed by these methods refuse to believe the truth and are essentially dead to the truth. “These people cannot be changed by logic. The change is complete and irreversible,” as Yuri puts it.

Remember the last time you tried to debate with a “liberal” zombie? The change that zombie underwent at some time in his life was complete and irreversible, wasn’t it? Facts are irrelevant.

Only a nucleus of people who read history, keep up with talk radio and web sites like Laigle’s Forum have even a pinch of understanding of what is going on around us and why. The average American will look you in the eye and tell you with a straight face that our “liberalization” is a result of a natural evolution process. We just keep getting smarter and more sensitive to the needs of others. Praise be to Darwin!

The Soviet propaganda source laid bare in the above-linked video is only one of many. Our education system, as Yuri mentions, has undermined us almost to the point of no return. But the influence came not only from Soviet operatives. Another powerful agency was the Frankfurt School, a group of German Marxists who came to America to escape Hitler and showed their gratitude by teaching their host country to hate its founders, its traditions and its culture. Herbert Marcuse, a famous 60s radical and member of our pseudo-intelligentsia, was a scion of that group. Still another group was the more-or-less home-grown communist agents like Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven, who taught other leftists how to manipulate us. Then there were our early educational theorists like John Dewey and his myriad clones. Reaching way back, there were psychologists like Freud and Pavlov, and later the “sexologists” Masters and Johnson who taught that sexual promiscuity is our reason for living. Then there was Dr. Spock who taught us how to spoil kids, and Timothy Leary, who taught spoiled kids how to do drugs. Radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin, pushed for welfare and abortion and aided in breaking up families by redefining “abuse” of women, making it include things as prosaic as “giving your wife the silent treatment,” and hypocritically warned of child abuse while endorsing pedophilia. Thanks to their efforts, the institution of “no-fault divorce” was born, which converted the marriage contract into a worthless piece of paper for millions of husbands, who were often rendered penniless in “family” court in the headlong national effort to “protect women and children.” Similar agents of change were pedophiles like NAMBLA founder Allen Ginsberg, and homosexual activists who introduced and pushed for “gay” marriage to further undermine what was left of the American family. The Liberation Theologists made minorities feel oppressed and helpless and urged them to “strike back” at whites, their “oppressors,” rather than raise themselves out of poverty and ignorance through hard work and study, the only way to raise oneself out of poverty and ignorance. The net effect of these hate mongering racists, working in tandem with the educational left, was to create walls of ignorance, prejudice and hatred that will take decades to tear down. Likewise, the developers of the Delphi method, whether wittingly or unwittingly, made a significant contribution to mind control, manipulating participants to accept ideas – even dangerous ones – by “mainstreaming” them. Finally, as David Kupelian reminds us, Madison Avenue advertisers have contributed mightily to plunging us into a bottomless moral abyss where good is evil and vice-versa. (I’m sure you can think of many more such contributors to the brainwashing of America).

If you look at the sleaze surrounding Obama in his college days you get an idea of who many of the other movers and shakers were in the movement to destroy traditional America and replace it with Marxist utopian ideals.

We find that almost all of the ideas promulgated by these “agents of change” are now chillingly mainstream or close to it. Likewise you will find very few liberals who care that the White House resident has communists among his czars or his past mentors. In the ghetto, you’ll find almost no one who objects.

The Dems have them firmly in place down on their plantation.

So where does this leave Glenn Beck?

If I had Glenn Beck in front of me I would say:

You have focused bravely on monumental issues and I admire you for it. In the final analysis, every single one of these issues – from socialist health care to welfare for rich bankers – stems from the unwillingness of American politicians and judges to honor the Constitution. But the Constitution also has rules governing who can be president and who can’t.

I am therefore asking you to focus fairly on the eligibility issue. Give it its just due and please respect truth seekers whose quest has taken them down other trails than yours. They are your potential allies and you can win them back with a little extra effort.