Outing Ron Paul

Outing Ron Paul

 

by Sapient

 

Is Ron Paul, “Mr. Constitution,” uniquely channeling the spirit of the Founders of our nation and their thinking as clearly embodied in our founding documents, the Federalist Papers, etc — so much so that his seeming eccentricities are due to OUR having forgotten our own true national principles, perhaps because we naively cling to a party loyalty, are deceived by the media, etc?

Is it true that that there is NO good reason for a Constitutional Conservative to question Ron Paul, let alone reject him?   

This, Ron Paul and his followers would have us believe.  Always sounded a bit elitist even cultish to me, but no matter for now.

May I suggest that you should heed your gut instinct and explore Ron Paul a bit — to come to peace with that sense you have that Ron Paul just might be out of bounds in some way, maybe WAY out of bounds.  Explore the possibility that Ron Paul is even something totally foreign to his persona, that he is actually espousing principles foreign to and even antithetical to those of our Founders, and is cloaking those foreign principles in the authority of the Constitution and Founders — carefully tossing in a majority agreeable issue or two or naming the Constitution to promote acceptance.

Could such a thing be possible?  Could Ron Paul be so out of line with our nation that the idea sin qua non of a government by the people, i.e. “We the people…” upon which our nation rests is antithetical to his vision?  Would that concern you?  Is he perpetuating fraud and deception to gain acceptance?

FWIW: 

An atheist once argued that “Christian / Jew–you say you believe the Bible?  Well, the Bibles explicitly says in Psalm 14:1 ‘there is no God.’  Do you believe the Bible or not?”

One slight problem–the atheist omitted the portion that “The FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART ‘there is no God,'”  and from beginning to end the Bible assumes and confirms the existence of God.  The words the atheist quoted were there, but hardly the truth of it.  We want the consistent truth of it — right?

Context and the consistent whole make all the difference.  Same with Ron Paul and the Constitution and Founders.  A word or two here or there is NOT proof of anything.  A “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is the word for a person who claims to be one thing with a very contrary end in mind.  

As noted previously, Ron Paul embraces the philosophy of voluntaryism, a form of anarchism.  I report that without apology.

That has several flavors of voluntaryism of course, but they are cut from the same bolt of cloth. Make no mistake — Ron Paul admits his embrace of this philosophy in no uncertain terms.  His writings and speeches are consistent with that philosophy,.

Follow the links I am providing and you will get to hear it from his own lips, and read his own words, and written by his own supporters.  

Now, it is our responsibility to understand the significance of that philosophy as someone running for POTUS embraces it and is asking us to entrust him with the power of office, OVER US.  If we have never caught that Paul embraces voluntaryism before, we should do so now.  Decision time approaches.  If we were ignorant of either our Constitution and Founding principles, or ignorant of Voluntaryism, and how they compare,  we should become educated.  Again, this view is asking for power over us:

“If a nation, in a state of civilization, expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. ”  –Thomas Jefferson

So, take a look at what we are dealing with in this Voluntaryism.

First, a video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ybf2L4Guw

Listen to Ron Paul’s words, and take a moment to peruse the comments section for some real flavor of the people who support it.  It seems they thought no one else would read what they are saying.  Compare what Paul said to the “philosophy” link above.  Is this what you believe?  Is this what you believe the Founders believed?  It IS what Ron Paul believes.

Now, from the Mises Institute:  http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/25612.aspx ,  founded and once chaired by Lew Rockwell, former chief of staff to  Ron Paul, and other close associations with him.  So far, I found nothing to prohibit this reproduction.

The purpose of this video at that link is stated:   to illustrate Ron Paul’s voluntaryism, in no uncertain terms, with the caption:

In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.

Notice that Ron Paul has a long term strategy:  to adopt limited government positions and appeals to the Constitution, before the American people, for purpose of implementing  Voluntaryism. Does this concern you?  Remember, this written by people who support him, not his enemies.

Now, watch the video, and then read the comments there on this same page.and note things like whether the readers think promoting this video outside this circle is a good idea and why they have that opinion.

Why, one even compared it to a “coming out of the closet” for Ron Paul. 

  • Right, this might be well for us here [readers of Mises], but I don’t think we should be outwardly promoting that as his [Ron Paul’s] position.  His “anarchism” might not appeal to the voters we need to elect him.

 Read it again, and again until it sinks in what was said there.

That is clear intent to deceive, to twist, to cloak, what Ron Paul is — and they are FINE WITH IT.  It’s their strategy.

Note how elitist it is:  

We [the elite] need the support of the unsuspecting / deceived [voter–non elite] so that we [the elite] can gain power in our Republic-so we {the elite] can do what is actually best for us, and that the voters” [non elite] would never put us [the elite] in office if they knew the truth about us or our intentions–it’s just too far above them…so, we lie.

Pretty bold huh? 

Friends.same old problem, and same basic decision.  I give you Thomas Jefferson:

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”  —Thomas Jefferson

See Jefferson’s choices…self governing, or elite governing.  Where is Ron Paul and his followers in that choice?

Historically, for the elite, honesty is optional–but justified.  Truth is optional but justified by the glorious ends in view.  They see themselves as great souls, self anointed, on a mission the rest of us just cannot understand and appreciate…but we will, they say.  Their intentions are good.

The Founders spoke of such:

Daniel Webster  – “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power . it is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”


Now, we can see what Jefferson meant:  

“Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317

Same issue.  Same basic choices:  honest, rogue, or the immoral who can’t tell the difference, believing someone a win-win compromise can be reached between the honest and the rogue.  Wanna hazard a guess at just which of those an elitist falls into–those who recognize no law above themselves?  I don’t have to say it, do I?

Where does Ron Paul and his followers fall in that grouping?

Let’s continue as these Ron Paul / voluntaryists discuss whether Ron Paul should admit who and what he is…a voluntaryist and anarcho-capitalist-anarchist rather than the Constitutionalist he claims to be:

  • Graham asks:  What do other people think of this ?  Is there a chance that widespread promotion of this video could undermine what Ron Paul is trying to do?
  • To Graham: I think it’s highly likely that it would damage his campaign temporarily.  But in all reality, he’s got to “come out of the closet” sometime, or else all he’s done is spawned a bunch of “We the People!” types, which is still antithetical to Paul’s ideal society.  I have said in the past before that if he did come out as an an-cap [anarcho capitalist] that it would isolate a good portion of his fan base.  But at the same time, if hangs onto it all the way to the grave, we’d probably wind up with fewer an-caps in total. In addition to these clips, he was also at a debate in 2007 at FreedomFest with Doug Casey and said in the following speech after Casey said he was an anarchist that he would love to give Casey the VP nomination if nominated.

Read it carefully:  Among other things, there is a danger for Ron Paul staying in the voluntaryist closet too long.  It might spawn the wrong kind of following–“We the people types.”

Before we go past that, note the first and most sacred words in our Constitution. “We the people….”

These people are on a MUCH different page already.”We the people” types are FAR from what they desire to have around.

“We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 1824

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. —John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

These Ron Paul / Voluntaryist folks disagree at a basic level.  “We the people types, which is still ANTITHETICAL TO PAUL’S IDEAL SOCIETY” — read it again.  You are a “We the people” type?  YOU do not belong for YOU are against what they seek!

Still think Ron Paul is a “We the people…” Constitutionalist as he claims?  Still think he is channeling the spirit of the Founders?   The Founders held that “We the people” were key while Ron Paul and his ilk say “we the people are antithetical.”  It’s “we the people” or an elitist.  Those are the choices.

They say they believe in the individual, and the amassed wisdom.  Do they really?  If they did, they would be honest, and allow real choice.  Deception that is characteristic of the elitist.  Watch now as they ask and answer a great question:  What should Paul do if confronted in front of the American people. How should he answer if asked if he is an anarchist? That is, should he be honest about who and what he is and where he would take us if entrusted with power:

  • Question:  If Ron Paul is asked if he is an anarchist — yes or no — during a televised debate, how do you think he will answer?  How do you hope he will answer?  I agree that it would damage his campaign short-term if he said yes, but I think it could well also do long-term damage to the voluntaryist movement.  He is currently acting as a filter: he turns liberals / conservatives into constitutionalists, and some of them (the ones that follow his leads to LRC [Lew Rockwell dot com] and LvMI) [Ludwig von Mises Institute] become voluntaryists by resolving their cognitive dissonance.  If he “came out” he would be less effective at converting socialists to constitutionalists, and by extension, less effective at leading people to voluntaryism.
  • Answer:  It is a different question, but it’s kind of the same thing.  If us anarchists spread the video around, it would functionally be the same thing as “outing” Ron Paul.  So they are similar in that fashion.  If he’s asked in a televised debate whether or not he is an anarchist, my guess is that he’d answer no and say he thinks the society with the least amount of coercion would be the best society, but that he believes a Constitutional government would the best means to achieve those ends.

Obviously I would hope he’d answer in the positive, but that would turn him into a laughingstock. If the people asking questions at these debates like Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Chris Matthews, or Anderson Cooper did 5 seconds of research, they would discover that Ron Paul a) has all of these clips floating around on the Internet, b) is affiliated with the majority anarcho-capitalist Mises Institute, and c) alludes to a load of anarchist literature in Liberty Defined (such as the LvMI publication “Let’s Abolish Government,” a collection of essays by Spooner).

I agree that Ron Paul’s role is as an educator.  He gets people interested in libertarianism and then turns people onto the Mises Institute.  If you took a poll here on this message board, I’d bet that 50+% of the people first heard of this place through Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign.  Changing somebody into a voluntaryist is a gradual thing and it’s something that’s probably easier to glide into rather than jump into.  So I think you’re right.  But there comes a point where you reach critical mass and Ron Paul has appealed to all of the people who are serious thinkers and at that point he can drop the anarchist bomb on his fans.

Seen enough?  Are you frightened as to what might happen if this man gets into office?

Can you imagine entrusting  the highest authority in our nation of United States, and our Federal State to someone who believes that the whole idea of a state is immoral and should not exist — and is more than willing to lie and deceive to gain power with the intent to dissolve the very state he was elected to preserve, protect, and defend?

He lied about who he was in order to get elected?  What is his oath worth?

I ask you to read carefully about this “eccentric uncle” in the GOP before you even consider supporting him.  Hopefully having some key words will help:  Voluntaryism, anarcho capitalism, Lew Rockwell.com. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, anarchy, statelessness, stateless communism, etc.

While it may be hard to decide who to support, it should not hard to decide who to oppose, and do so.  FWIW:  Many of these groups embrace the philosophy, not of the American Revolution, but the FRENCH REVOLUTION — that spawned the Reign of Terror.  So, make sure and take a look.

I know you will conclude that Ron Paul is hardly in tune  with the Founders after all.  In fact HE is what they warned us about:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 15– “Why has Government been instituted at all?  Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” 

Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.  —Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 1, October 27, 1787

Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.  –John Adams, An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power, August 29, 1763

 

Note this:

 

Ron Paul and his people believe so strongly in the sanctify of non-compelled choice, that they are more than willing to perpetuate fraud and deception on you and me and the rest of the American electorate, in order to get their way and to impose THEIR WILL on us — for our own good of course.  So are a lot of tyrants.

Being defrauded is hardly voluntary choice.  It negates free choice, and is its very antithesis, just as is coercion, etc. 

They violate their own standards to gain power.

Heads up.

Further reading:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=379089

Ghadaffi dies of propaganda overdose

Western hypocrisy exposed

 

Don Hank

I have been debating with a friend over the issue of why Ghadaffi has been treated worse than other leaders of the same region. After all, what Muslim leader has not shown unusual cruelty in the course of his reign?

One thing that my friend brought up was that Ghadaffi had instituted Sharia law.

The problem is that, while Ghadaffi did in fact make a stab at using Sharia as a reference, or sort of Constitution, he soon found that it didn’t work in the real world, and he very shortly abandoned it (see link below).

On the other hand, Obama bowed obsequiously before King Abdullah during a visit not long ago but yet Saudi Arabia has one of the most inhumane treatments of prisoners of any country in the world – thanks to its reliance on Sharia law. So here you have Ghaddafi, who abolished cruel Sharia, vs. Abdullah, whose regime relies on Sharia, and whom do the Western elites (incl notably, Obama) call cruel?

Why, Ghadaffi, of course. (Not saying he wasn’t, but why single him out if other Middle East regimes are arguably more cruel?).

Then my friend, who avidly reads the MSM, said he had read that Ghadaffi had brought poverty to his nation. So I did some internet searches on Libyan poverty and found that the only articles claiming Libyans were poor had been written during the run-up to the Libyan rebellion, by reporters in countries whose leading politicians supported the ouster of Ghadaffi. Does anyone doubt that much of what the MSM reports, and the way they report it, is largely propaganda supportive of government policy, particularly that of increasingly authoritarian governments in Europe and the US?

On the other hand, I discovered that, in 2009, the year with the most complete reporting for all countries in the region, the average per capita income in Libya was several times that in neighboring countries, namely, $9,957 (up to $13,800 this year).

Here are some reference figures for average incomes in other countries that same year:

Afghanistan: $4,526

Iraq: $2,565

Kosovo: $3,080

Morocco: $2,808

Egypt: $2,699

Tunisia: $4,199

 

Now, you will note that Iraqis, who had been under US control since 2003, or about 5 years at the time of that compilation, had an average annual per capita income of only a third that of Libya, while Afghanis, who have been under Western Coalition control since 2001, or about 7 years at that time, earned less than half the income of Libyans. Kosovo, which was also created by the Western powers through war, had some of the lowest income in all of Europe, about one-third of what Libyans earned.

So it doesn’t look as though poverty is a viable argument against Ghadaffi, even though it was a favorite in the MSM in the run-up to his murder. After all, if impoverishment of one’s people is grounds for murdering a leader, then what should we do with the leaders (notably Western ones) responsible for countries poorer than Libya?

But when I articulated these arguments, my friend then said he thought it was more of an issue of wealth distribution, with Ghadaffi receiving vastly more than his share. However, the UN’s calculation of the Gini index, which is the best indicator of wealth distribution, was not collected for the countries that I wanted to study for my analysis, namely, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

So if there are no official data available, then apparently Western anti-Ghadaffi arguments were based solely on speculation and anecdotal evidence.  Yet, if you want to trade Libya anecdotes for Saudi Arabia anecdotes, for example, on the subject of wealth distribution you can swap stories ‘til you drop. Here’s a tofer for you, evidence of both human rights violations and poverty: A blogger was arrested this year in Saudi Arabia for posting evidence of poverty in that country. Not just a tad bit authoritarian? And not evidence that enough poverty exists that the government is scared word might get out.

You know what all this reminds me of?

A movie I once saw about a corrupt sheriff’s department in the south that stopped a car driven by a black northerner and tried to charge him but couldn’t think of a charge. They couldn’t get him for speeding because he wasn’t speeding. They couldn’t get him for drunk driving either because he was significantly more sober than a judge.

One of the deputies finally found a tail light out and they fined him on that flimsy charge.

That is the story of Libya’s Ghadaffi: a failed tail light and now he’s toast.

So what was the real motive behind the persecution and murder of Libya’s strong man, who had brought prosperity to his country and was apparently well enough liked that many of his countrymen laid down their lives for him?

The hypothesis that holds up best to scrutiny is that the Western power elite despises Western culture, especially the Judeo-Christian aspect, and here was an opportunity to rid the Middle East of another secular leader who tolerated Christians and Jews (he imported blacks from southern Africa as laborers and he cooperated with the West in its policies regarding Israel). After all, why else would the Ruling Class import millions and millions of Muslims to Europe knowing that they would not assimilate, that they would cause trouble, and that they oppose Christianity and its trappings? And why did every conflict with Western involvement – Iran, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Egypt, etc. — ultimately wind up with almost all of the native Christians banished from their homeland of generally about 2000 years?

I have shown copious evidence of this anti-Judeo-Christian motive in numerous articles, and with each move that the West makes in the Middle East I become more and more convinced of it:

http://laiglesforum.com/i-told-you-so-again/2697.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/my-government-is-killing-me/2159.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/spare-me-the-crocodile-tears-when-northern-africa-explodes/2215.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/how-western-powers-abet-christian-persecution/2513.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/us-media-cover-up-ivory-coast-massacre-details/2398.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/why-i-am-not-on-our-side-any-more/2174.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-far-left-connection-to-the-near-east-rebellion/2224.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/2286/2286.htm

 

Check out these links showing the West’s extreme hypocrisy in the Ghadaffi saga:

http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/africa/poverty-persists-in-libya-despite-oil-riches

Libyan average annual gross domestic product per capita has reached US$13,800 (Dh50,868) per year

(written after OBL killed, so very recent).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

2009, Libya

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:IRQ&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+per+capita+iraq

Iraq: $2090 in 2009

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:AFG&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+per+capita+afghanistan

Afghanistan: $468 in 2009

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

All 2009:

Average annual GDP per capita in Libya: $9,957

Afghanistan: $4,526

Iraq: $2,565

Kosovo: $3,080

Morocco: $2,808

Egypt: $2,699

Tunisia: $4,199

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Wealth distribution:

Gini index: NO DATA for Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/business/worldbusiness/17iht-inflation.1.15359629.html?pagewanted=all

A January wage increase of 5 percent for government employees disappointed those Saudis who earn less than 10,000 riyals, or $2,666, a month, especially after other Gulf countries moved more quickly to raise wages by larger amounts.

 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/saudi-video-blogger-reportedly-detained-for-showing-poverty-in-riyadh/?scp=2&sq=saudi&st=Search

Saudi Video Blogger Reportedly Detained for Showing Poverty in Riyadh

A popular Saudi video blogger was detained this week, along with his crew, after his report on poverty in the kingdom’s capital, Riyadh, was viewed hundreds of thousands of times on YouTube, human rights activists said.

The blogger, Feras Bugnah, was arrested on Sunday with his colleagues Hosam al-Deraiwish and Khaled al-Rasheed, in connection with the latest episode of their online show, “We Are Being Cheated,” according to the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association.

 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/more-saudi-women-record-driving-videos/?scp=28&sq=saudi&st=Search

Saudi women may not drive

 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/saudi-arabia-executes-eight-bangladeshi-nationals-2011-10-07

Beheadings

The beheadings bring the number of executions in Saudi Arabia this year to at least 58, more than double than the 2010 figures. Twenty of those executed in 2011 were foreign nationals.

http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF133.htm

2005

And only those with a perverse sense of what constitutes justice would have approved of the news of an Indian man in Saudi Arabia facing the ‘punishment’ of having his eye gouged out.

http://lankapolity.blogspot.com/2011/06/inhuman-treatment-for-sri-lankan.html

6/07/2011

A Sri Lankan who was found guilty for selling liquor in a public place in Taif city Saudi Arabia while being drunk has been subjected to 430 lashes

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:

http://laiglesforum.com/2634/2634.htm

They’re still catching up to Laigle’s Forum

by Don Hank

As I have said before, the world is slowly catching up to Laigle’s Forum.

I have written a fair amount about the hypocrisy of US policies that coddle Mexican illegal aliens and treat the corrupt Mexican government with exaggerated respect instead of standing up to it as it should.

It is therefore always gratifying to see at least the alternate media focusing on this hidden issue.

COPS magazine is the latest to show such courage, and I include the following link for those who do not regularly read Laigle’s Forum, and for whom this COPS report will therefore seem like news:

http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in-national/mexican-military-police-brutalize-illegal-aliens-from-central-america

Having been in the Peace Corps in El Salvador in the late 60s, I have come into contact with enough Central Americans to know that Mexican police are practically an arm of the cartel they purport to oppose, and Central Americans passing through their country fear them with good reason.

It is well known in the US Central American community that male illegal immigrants in Mexico are routinely robbed and female illegal immigrants are almost routinely raped by these defenders of law and order.

I have reported on this before and have posted a commentary on the condemnation of the Mexican authorities by the Mexican Diocese, which had the cojones to stand up and condemn them shortly after the massacre of over 70 immigrants:

http://laiglesforum.com/mexican-church-confirms-immigrant-abuse-by-authorities/1754.htm

Ironically, our government’s coddling of Mexican “immigrants” and its refusal to confront the Mexican government over gross human rights abuses is perhaps the prime factor in the perpetuation of this abuse. Victims of abuse by Mexican authorities have no voice and in fact, feel betrayed by us. To state it plainly, the US government is the best friend of Mexican criminals and the most fearsome foe of law-abiding Mexicans and Central Americans. 

Our open borders policy and tendency to want to grant amnesty to all Mexicans, regardless of any criminal past they may have is harming America to a great extent but Mexico and Central America even more.

The Mexican and Central American people desperately need a US government policy with guts — or as they say, cojones.

Instead, they get mush brains in Washington tripping all over each other to please the far left, and hence the criminal element, in the Mexican community, opening up our country to increasingly dangerous criminals, while encouraging the cartels in Mexico, even supplying them with guns.

Finally, let me point out that a recent online exchange I had with a group of libertarians (Sons of Liberty) and an opinion expressed by the chairman of the Utah LP (“there is not such thing as an illegal”) demonstrate to me that libertarians are running with the progressives in this issue (and also in many others).

Ron Paul identifies with the libertarians and, sadly, he too apparently does not believe in protecting our borders and making immigrants present documents.

Conservatives must stand up and be different, even if it means standing alone at times. We are truly the only ones who insist that right is right and wrong is wrong, an insistence on absolutism that has held America together since the very beginning.

More on Libertarians:

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/probe-the-progressive-libertarians/