The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty

Restoring state sovereignty

Don Hank

The San Bernardino terror and the ease with which two jihadi killers entered and took up permanent residence in the US show that the US is putting US citizens in harm’s way.

Look, Folks, the solution is right in front of us and its name is state sovereignty.

Large central governments controlling large swaths of territory comprised of regions with people holding different political opinions and different cultures are an evil in themselves, because ultimately, a small group grabs all the power via “education” and the msm and produces a situation for the people that threatens life and basic freedoms.

Central government is the culprit here, and Europe is instructive. The EU has grabbed virtually total political power over European nations. Yet now that the EU is insisting on opening its borders to Muslim refugees in defiance of the will of the people and the nations, there are nations that defy them refusing to open their borders, such as initially Hungary, and later, at least partially, the Balkan countries,and now even Sweden, the country with the most open-border policy of all Europe. Under duress, European nations are rediscovering their sovereignty.

It’s not that the EU lacks laws to stop them, but it has no real power over them in cases where the exercise of such power threatens the security and liberty of the nations. They can’t enforce laws that are patently bad.

Our US states are analogous to these EU nations and their dire situation is also analogous. Our states do have a God-given right to sovereignty when the central government literally harms the citizens of the states as they are doing now with Obama’s resettlement of Syrian refugees and his policies of amnesty and open borders, all by fiat. Every American must know that no law that forces a people to harm itself can be Constitutional, regardless of whatever the Supreme Court says. The imported jihadis themselves are bringing this to light as they did in San Bernardino.

Eventually, our US states will be forced to do what Hungary and its copycats did and close their borders.

Here is what should be done now and will be done once enough Americans have died:

States that no longer wish to commit suicide will decide who enters their territory. If a person, even a US citizen, tries to enter a state, they may be denied entry on the basis of background checks. If they entered the US illegally, they may be barred — even if Washington gave them citizenship, because the state may decide whether this person was entitled to that based on the security concerns of the state. The states must be keenly aware that the Feds have overstepped their bounds as defined by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution (see below). If a person desirous of entering a state has entered the US illegally, then the state may deny them entry on those grounds, legitimately claiming that the federal government exceeded the powers granted to it under the Constitution.

Naturally, the Supreme Court will declare the state’s position un-Constitutional. However, we must examine the European model to see what can be accomplished regardless of the wishes of central-government agencies, such as the Supreme Court, which today is nothing but an interest group defending the Washington cabal and no longer represents the people of the US. Again, taking our cue from Europe, the EU government has declared, under the Schengen Agreement, that no EU nation may close its border except under specific extraordinary circumstances that threaten the country in question. However, initially, when the Hungarians closed the border, the requisites defined by Brussels may not actually have been met for this closing. However, the Hungarians, the Balkan countries and Sweden did not beg the EU dictators in Brussels for help in securing their borders or seek legal recourse. They simply resorted to their sovereign right to self-determination, bypassing the EU, and made it clear that this is the way it is going to be. Brussels made noises that they would be punished, but nothing happened. In a revolutionary move, Budapest (like the capitals of the other renegade nations that followed suit) faced down Brussels and won, at least for now, thereby restoring its sovereignty and providing for its own security. Indeed, in so doing, it caused the other above-cited nations to take notice and still others seem poised to do the same. EU officials are now warning of a potential collapse of the EU, and although dire consequences are elicited by the cunning EU officials, there could be no better solution. The same can happen in the US, with states declaring a state of emergency following a mass jihadi murder, and while the US could bluster and threaten, if the state stood firm, there would be little Washington could do short of civil war.

If a person is from a terror exporting country and has entered the US after a certain age, say, 15, then they can be denied entry into a state based on the fact that their country of origin is a terror exporting country. If it can be proved that they are not SUNNIS, then the state may allow their entry. ONLY the SUNNIS are pursuing jihad (where do we read that in our PC press? Even Trump ignores this fact).  Whether this is “constitutional” or not is irrelevant. The state must stand firm or perish. Indeed, the grounds for doing so could be a declaration of state-level emergency or even a claim that the state is at war (with jihadis, for example), whatever it takes.

The legal grounds for state-level initiatives are clear:

Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.

The clear-cut grounds for the states to ignore US statues are that the US has failed to protect the states from invasion and/or domestic violence — as it actually did by admitting the San Bernardino jihadis into our country — and if the Supreme Court makes excuses for the jihad-sponsoring government, then it too must be defied on the simple grounds that it too is blatantly ignoring the above-cited clause. A grave risk to the people of the state is always legitimate grounds to ignore federal orders because no government can demand that its own people commit suicide. Everything depends on the will of the people to survive and to know and understand their God-given rights to life and liberty.

This restoration of basic state sovereignty could either happen now at the discretion of states with security minded populations or – based on the European model — it will happen spontaneously when it becomes clear that this kind of security is vital to keep the population safe from imminent harm. For now, there are enough libertarians and leftist liberals to convince the sheeple of most states that the absurd borderless-world ideology trumps security.

But once a critical mass of terrorist murders has been reached, there will be a spontaneous and unstoppable movement to secure our people, with or without the approval of our terror-supporting federal government, and the states will be at the forefront.

Trying to replace our corrupt central government with people who actually care about our nation’s security will fail as a permanent remedy, just as it has failed in Europe. A Trump presidency may be a vital stop-gap measure, but in fact, given the fickle nature of national political sentiment, only the individual states can provide for their security in the long run.

Sooner or later we will learn the valuable lesson that the states have the right to self-determination and only need to reclaim it. Those that lose this right to the federal government do so voluntarily by surrendering their sovereignty, ie, wrongly taking federal statues and their interpretation by a corrupt and ideology-driven Supreme Court – rather than We the People — as supreme. The number of dead Americans that lead us to that awakening depends on how soon our states respond to the threat.

Do you agree or disagree with the above analysis? Post your response at the forum below.

Further reading

http://conpats.blogspot.com/2014/02/chuck-kolb-02162014.html

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140522

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141110

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140522

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.

http://laiglesforum.com/the-young-pay-the-price-for-dutch-drug-experiment/23.htm

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.

http://laiglesforum.com/decriminalization-of-drugs-in-portugal/2666.htm

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:

http://laiglesforum.com/ye-shall-be-deceived-and-deceit-shall-make-ye-free/2969.htm

A true conservative candidate vs. a libertarian/ Part II

 

by Don Hank

 

Does Ron Paul understand cultural Marxism?

Ron Paul’s scoffing attitude toward those of us who care about culture makes me wonder whether his administration would cater to the cultural Marxists.

America has been victimized by cultural Marxism for decades. First it was the feminazis, who ushered in the “woman’s right” to kill her unborn and discredited fatherhood, influencing the courts to separate men from their children, effectively separating families under welfare rules, and generally declaring men evil abusers.

Now it is the homosexual activists (not gays as a group) who are organizing to discredit  candidates who oppose gay marriage. Ron is unfairly benefitting from this radical movement to gain ground with the gay agenda. It is cowardly and does him no credit.

And it is illegal aliens who are now demanding special rights, even as border guards sit in jail for essentially doing their jobs. The administration has contrived to make it look like it is protecting our borders, but that is a lie. They are in fact arresting and deporting fewer of them.

Paul’s position on illegal immigration? A true Von Mises libertarian, Ron Paul has never been strong on the border and illegal immigration. In fact, NumbersUSA has given him an F on immigration. A very big red flag.

 

Is there anyone left?

Who has the best grade NumbersUSA grade on immigration?

Why that would be Michele Bachmann. And just what if people could be focused on illegal immigration again, and made to understand that it is costing jobs? Wouldn’t that help her poll numbers? Of course, the GOP would have to stop catering to lawbreakers.

Further, regarding cultural Marxism (of which illegal immigration is a facet), Michele Bachmann is one of the few people in politics who understand what 100% of politicians should understand about cultural Marxism. For example, she recently set a feminazi straight on the Kinsey myths, ie, who Kinsey was, and what his agenda was. She probably could also have shown why he should have gone to jail instead of being hailed as a great researcher.

Anyone who still believes the Kinsey myths needs to check out the work of Dr. Judith Reisman at:

http://drjudithreisman.org/

I doubt any of the other candidates have a clue about this, and other, cultural Marxism issues.

 

But can Bachmann win against Obama?

The GOP wants you to think she can’t and that only a leftwinger who is ideologically indistinguishable from Obama can beat Obama. So why not just clone Obama, give him another name (would that be a third?), and run him?

But they are forgetting a few things.

Here is what one poster commented on a blog regarding a recent PA poll:

And now for a little course in Political Science 101: This poll is not of ‘likely’ voters. It included a sample of 500 Pennsylvanians. It was done by PPP which is a democratic polling group. It is notoriously flawed because in past polls PPP has been poorly predictive when identifying Republicans and Republican leaning Independents for the sample. It is also flawed because of its proximity to the general election in November of 2012. Polls taken long before elections are inherently non-predictive of the actual election results.

Added to this is that fact that the poll didn’t even include Bachmann, although she was not trailing Santorum by much, and he was included. It also doesn’t show the fallout of another 6 months of further job losses and other Obama incompetency that  may well make him unable to beat a warm body. Finally, let’s admit that Ron Paul has been successful largely because of his fund raising, and much of his money has come from libertarians, recreational drug enthusiasts and anti-war groups. What would happen if the GOP got behind Michele Bachmann and backed her financially instead of giving her the cold shoulder? Can we admit her poll numbers would rise significantly?

One of the main reasons Bachmann is showing so poorly is that the GOP and RINOs in the MSM are either unfairly attacking her or ignoring her sterling conservative and fiscal merits. There are no real conservatives left in the GOP leadership, which is bringing the party dangerously close to irrelevance.

If they were suddenly to turn around and show how Reagan-like Bachmann is, for example, that would change everything. After all, who would not want to return to the boom times under Reagan? It would be Reagan-Carter all over again.

A lesson that the GOP learned the hard way – again – is that when you try to hype a candidate like Newt or Mitt, who in important ways are indistinguishable from a Democrat, and who have ethical and moral issues as well, the public will eventually focus on these blemishes. Not because conservatives point them out, but because the Democrat-leaning MSM won’t let us forget.

Bachmann, to her credit, has no major skeletons, and all the criticism she has reaped so far looks like what it is: extreme nitpicking. For example, apparently one of her advisors fed her a false statement about an IEAE report showing that “Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 6 months.” I have read the latest IAEA report and although it does not say that, it actually shows that Iran has been weaponizing nuclear materials for a long time, and one can infer that it most likely will have a warhead in the near future. Ron Paul crucified her for the inaccuracy but ignored the relevant facts of that report.

At this point, the GOP has a worrisome dilemma: either choose Ron Paul, whose star is rising even as Newt’s wanes, or choose squeaky clean candidate Michele Bachmann and give her that much needed, and much deserved, extreme PR makeover.

Now would be a good time to act, before Ron Paul takes the nomination.

Michele Bachmann is probably their – and our — only chance.

Evidence that the difference between libertarianism and liberalism is paper thin:

Romney is for illegal aliens:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gingrich-romney-amnesty-immigration/2011/11/24/id/419071

Newt is for illegal aliens:

http://cis.org/krikorian/more-gibberish-from-newt

Ron Paul is for illegal aliens

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul

Michele Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest grade

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

Further reading:

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

A true conservative candidate vs a libertarian. Part I

A true conservative candidate vs a libertarian. Part I

 

by Don Hank

 

A libertarian who says he is more constitutional than the rest

 

Before you read this, check out this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc

Ok, here’s what I saw when I viewed it.

I was impressed by Ron’s observation that defending individual property would have been a more effective approach to combating pollution than making federal environmental safety laws. This may be a simplistic notion, but Ron does at least think outside the box. (They say Newt is “smart” too, but that was last week).

He also said he would save $1 trillion a year. That was a major promise, and if you’re focused on the economy, it carries a lot of weight. A promise that just might win an election on its own.

On the Constitution, he knows the original document well and basically understands states’ rights.

On the other hand, what he said on seat belt laws, narcotics laws and gay marriage made me cringe.

Here is what I heard:

Seat belt laws are bad because they rob the individual of freedom.

Partly true. But if there were no seatbelt laws, the insurance companies would have to insure the idiots who don’t use them at the same cost as the smart people who do. No one would say to their insurance agent, when asked: Nah, I don’t believe in seat belts.

Insurance rates would have to go up because there would be many more people injured and killed in accidents. That would affect us all. This is libertarianism gone amok. On the other hand, would these deleterious effects be anywhere near as significant as the effects of not stopping the runaway spending by government? And Ron promises to do that.

Narcotics. Ron thinks we should all have the right to use drugs that may cause us to harm ourselves. Unfortunately, when people fall into drug use, they do things that hurt not only themselves but others and they cost agencies like the police and social assistance and charitable agencies a whole lot of money – for example, when users, especially addicts, steal to get drug money, or perpetrate violence due to a state of stupefaction and a subduing of conscience. I had shown that the libertarian take on drug use legalization is nothing but pure propaganda:

http://laiglesforum.com/cato-portugal-drug-study-based-on-false-government-data/2602.htm

Ron is wrong on this issue. But again, could drug use cost more than the current runaway spending by government? Maybe not.

Gay marriage? He didn’t use the word, but we all know what part of the interview that was and we heard him say he was bored with the subject.

What he failed to say, and may fail to understand, is that the state and national governments are moving toward the acceptance of a new and radical definition of marriage at the insistence of a radical group that has shown itself to be not only undemocratic but also violent at times. It is part of cultural Marxism, the original purpose of which was to prepare the ground for economic Marxism. Thus, ironically, while paying lip service to the free market, libertarians like Ron may well indirectly contribute to the malaise of the socialism they eschew.

Further, with regard to same-sex marriage, Ron ignores the fact that government has no right to or interest in changing standard time-honored definitions of words, not for any reason. Language has always been the domain of the people, and the changes in language, as well as its preservation, is supposed to be up to the people, not to a few whiners.

Ron Paul also seems to ignore the dangers of creeping Islam. Now, assuming Paul is not part of the elites that want to import hordes of Muslims to our shores, that may be a moot point. But can’t he identify what common sense tells us?

His idea that Middle Eastern dictators like Ahmadinejad deserve our “friendship” (not mentioned in the interview) could also be a problem. Militarily, Reagan cost America fewer lives than the presidents who came after him, and not because he made nice to the enemy but because he scared the bejeebers out of them.

Ron’s position on abortion has also been shown wanting by one of our contributors earlier today, who says that under the 14th Amendment, the executive has the duty to protect the Constitutional right to life of every citizen — born or unborn. If this position is derived from the Constitution, then it is not a matter of states’ rights, as Ron so blithely insists.

This is a real watershed issue because it separates godliness from wickedness. You don’t even have to know the Bible to understand that.

Those are some of the blemishes.

On the other hand, if Ron is willing and able to make good his campaign promises, he may turn out to be the best enemy the Fed and their cronies could ever have, and hence, no doubt the best friend we the people could have in combating a runaway Congress bent on spending us into oblivion. He could perhaps turn out to be another Andy Jackson and send the bankers packing. But yet, critics point out that, in his tenure in Congress, Ron has not made significant inroads in this direction. So is he just a talker, like Obama? Or will he, at age 76, have enough energy, mental clarity or will left to roll up both sleeves and fight as promised?

No doubt the US would still be standing after a Ron Paul presidency.

No doubt most people would still be using seat belts.

No doubt most marriages would be traditional ones.

Ron’s ideals are not all my ideals. But then a $15 or 16 trillion debt is even further from my ideal because it is a direct threat to our existence. And it is the reality we live with.

Evidence that the difference between libertarianism and liberalism is paper thin:

RINO Romney is for illegal aliens:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gingrich-romney-amnesty-immigration/2011/11/24/id/419071

RINO Newt is for illegal aliens:

http://cis.org/krikorian/more-gibberish-from-newt

LIBERTARIAN Ron Paul is for illegal aliens

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul

Michele Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest grade

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

Further reading:

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

GOP Debate / Chavez learns a Bible lesson

by Don Hank

Did you see the GOP candidates’ debate the other night?

While Fox News moderators and commentators pretended that Perry and Romney were the stars of the debate and that Mitt had “won,” the fact is, neither of them were close to winning if you look at the debate from a constitutional conservative standpoint.

Bachmann said, near the end, that we should not dismiss those candidates who are “constitutional conservatives” in favor of candidates who look like they are better equipped to beat Obama. She pointed out – rightly in my opinion – that Obama is by now an extremely weak candidate and that this is a good opportunity for a true conservative to win.

In saying this, she defined not only herself – as a constitutional conservative – but also every one of the others, NONE of whom used that term.

Not only that, she was the only one who said she would build a fence on every mile and every foot of our southern border.

Frankly, folks, she sounded for all the world like Ronald Reagan and no one else came anywhere near that. She is THE conservative candidate, if you really want a conservative president. And if you are willing to do your own thinking and not let Fox steer you to the left.

Ron Paul is very smart and, as he mentioned, he really does understand the economic and financial issues well. His problem is that he has decided not to be a conservative. He clearly wants to be a libertarian and has defined himself as such without mentioning that word. If I recall correctly, Gary Johnson, the de facto libertarian former governor of New Mexico, said he wanted Paul as his running mate. Gary and Paul have indicated in the past that they are not for closing our southern border and that we need more, not less, immigrants – read, illegal aliens. You know better than that.

A friend emailed me that they are setting up Romney or Perry to win. However, judging by the tough comments by the moderators themselves, it looks like they favor spoiled rich kid Mitt Romney.

I haven’t given up on Bachmann yet.

 

Chavez learns a Bible lesson:

Did you know that, in June of last year, Hugo Chavez literally cursed Israel, in defiance of God’s warning in Genesis? I have seen this at YouTube. You can google it.

Well, that is not the interesting part:

THIS June, a crestfallen and humbled Chavez returned from Cuba, where he had gone to get treatment for cancer. In a press conference he admitted: My cancer is not gone.

Shortly thereafter, he released political prisoners from prison.

Chavez learned the hard way that God meant it when He said this:

Genesis 12

 1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

 2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

 3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Listen and watch as Chavez says: “Maldito sea el estado de Israel”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7EYL0_5J_o

Christianity and Libertarianism and the Consent of the Governed

Originally Posted here by Laigle’s contributor Anthony Horvath


“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Declaration of Independence


The last few months I’ve seen some strident statements of opposition against libertarians by conservatives. I’m on several email lists where I’m seeing such commentary and of course its on the web, as in this example. I personally didn’t detect a huge uptick in libertarian sentiment, but alright. I describe myself as a ‘constitutional libertarian’ and in explaining why I hope that I can shed light on what I believe are the true reasons for a rise in libertarianism- among Christians in particular. I can’t speak for them all, of course, but I think I recognize in some of their commentary some of my own thinking.

So, to begin with, let me make two important observations. First of all, when one thinks ‘libertarian’ one might immediately think licentious. However, the two are not identical terms. This leads to the second observation, the direction by which one arrives at libertarianism greatly impacts the flavor of that libertarianism. There can be no question that there are a great mass of individuals, who calling themselves libertarians, really are just people who wish to engage in whatever depravity that they want, with no one to tell them otherwise or worse- stop them. By my observation, the people coming from this direction are really your typical atheist secular humanist progressive who is perfectly happy to foist as much government as people can bear onto themselves and others- in the form of nationalized health care, eg- just so long as they can have sex with whatever and whomever they want and smoke whatever happens to come across their path.

However, someone coming at ‘libertarianism’ from the other direction, say, from a Christian perspective and a conservative, is not looking for a reason to misbehave. This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul. Continue reading

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

I Wish the GOP was the Party of No

by A.R. Horvath

Obama has been on a tear, raging against the Republicans that they are the ‘party of no.’  From a recent speech:

“There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy that we had already tried during the decade that they were in power — the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: Cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations.”

If only this were true!  If only the GOP were eschewing new ideas and holding tenaciously to the perfectly good old ones!  If only.   Not that I am conceding Obama’s argument, here.  Either he is an idiot or we are- or he thinks we are.  The Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the housing bubble.  Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D), did, and let us remember that this ‘inherited’ recession came only in the last few months of an 8 year term.  Shame, shame, Mr. Obama.  But I digress.

As the candidate field shapes up for the 2012 presidential election there is an opportunity to lay bare the fatal flaw in GOP ‘conservatism’ in the hopes that maybe something can be done about it.   Let me be clear, this isn’t a new development.  The problems began decades ago- even before we were born.   To help me get at what I’m talking about, let me begin with what may appear to be another digression.

Much talk has been made about Sarah Palin’s intelligence and education and her suitability to be president of these united states.  And this on the conservative side!  Have we ever wondered why we need our presidents and politicians so sophisticated?

We perceive that a high level of sophistication is necessary because the issues that our politicians will have to grapple with are so hugely complex that on no one of them could the president get away with saying, “this is above my pay grade.”    The underlying assumption, however, is that these politicians are going to have to actually navigate these hugely complex issues.

Therein lies the problem.  Constitutionally speaking, precious little is supposed to be done by the Federal government.  There shouldn’t be a thing called social security.  Or a department of education.  It shouldn’t require three doctoral degrees to balance out how taxation and distribution impacts the whole economy.  In short, the reason why ‘intelligence’ is needed in government these days is because we all take as our working assumption that the job of our politicians is to tinker, tinker, and tweak.

Now, this is to be expected from the Democrats.  Continue reading