Trump, Right-wing Populism, and ending the Drug War

Continuing on my list of things that the common man would find appealing in a broad coalition with libertarians, we will look today at The Drug War and at Crime in the Streets.

I wrote in the original list of items that a large populist movement could agree upon the following:

7) Take Back the Streets and end the Drug War: By ending the drug war and legalizing all drugs, we can then put the police to working on stopping rape, murder, theft and other crimes against the people. To hell with the state saying what I should be allowed to ingest into my body.

It is obvious to all reasonable people that the drug war is totally lost and that Nixon was totally wrong to start the latest version of the drug war.

In June 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants

The fact of the matter is that outlawing drugs was unconstitutional from the beginning. Consider the prior alcohol prohibition in the United States and how it was handled.

Prohibition was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages that remained in place from 1920 to 1933. The constitution was amended with the 18th amendment to begin alcohol prohibition and was ended with the 21st amendment. Alcohol prohibition gave rise to an astonishing proliferation of organized crime and violence in the US. The “wet” proponents cited personal liberty, reduction in crime, and tax review as reasons for ending the horribly wrong experiment in government mandated morality.They proved to be correct in all respects. The thing to notice, especially, is that prohibiting people from consuming a drug was seen to a power that the government did not have without a constitutional amendment.

There is no difference in alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition other than the US gave up on trying to follow the Constitution and just used raw federal power to make drugs illegal. Enormous civil liberties were cast aside and the idea of the police knocking on your door at a reasonable hour and producing a court ordered warrant to search your house without destroying the place was overturned in the madness to find the “evil doers”. When the police breaks in now, you are guilty till your are proven innocent.

As the war continued, ever more tyrannical measures were taken against the entire population in the hopeless attempt to stop people from doing what they wanted to do in the privacy of their own homes. We have come to see SWAT teams break down the door at all hours of the night, murder pets, shoot the people inside for little reason and with impunity. Living right is no defense as many have died simply because the police went to the wrong address. Know this: the SWAT team is there to kill people. And they do that very thing.

We are at a point were legalizing at least some drugs would be possible in the US at a federal level and that would help enormously with the crime problem in this country. Legalization would help protect people from the militarized, out of control, trigger happy police and SWAT units. For that reason alone I think the “man in the street” and libertarians can agree on this issue. But there is more …

If the prisons were emptied of those drug offenders who are unconstitutionally convicted of using or selling drugs that the feds don’t like, then we would have the space for arresting real criminals like murderers, rapists, thieves, and all the rest of the violent criminals we don’t seem to have the manpower to pursue at the present time. There are vast, vast resources going to the “drug war” at the present time. We could save billions of dollars and still have much safer streets in this country simply be following the constitution and allowing people to buy and ingest whatever they so desired. It is also important to realize that some of the users commit crimes to support the illegal habit and with legalization the crime rate would automatically fall.

Cigarettes are legal and there is no one giving out “free samples” to get your children hooked on the product. The same will be true of any legal drug. For the sake of the children we need to stop the unconstitutional drug prohibition.




22 thoughts on “Trump, Right-wing Populism, and ending the Drug War

  1. Mark, I very much agree with you on this issue. Like alcoholism, drug addiction is a medical problem not a legal problem.

    You did miss one point and that is Civil Asset Forfeiture where if I am going to buy a pony or a bull and I am carrying a couple thousand or more in cash the police can grab the cash WITHOUT CHARGES OR A TRIAL! They just grab the cash, pocket it and walk off and I then have to spend thousands to sue trying PROVE a negative in court.

    For some reason I come up with

    Error 403 – Forbidden
    You don’t have permission to access the requested resource.

    When trying to access this organization who has done a lot of work on the issue of forfeiture.

    The Lew Rockwell site also has a good article:

    …Asset forfeiture has risen from an obscure concept in the mid-1980s to a whopping profit-making industry for law enforcement agencies. Over 400 federal statues now trigger forfeiture, and every state has its own statutes as well. These statutes allow police to seize property – not just from criminal defendants, but from third parties such as parents, spouses, landlords, and lien-holders.

    Because there is no requirement that anyone be charged, much less convicted, large numbers of forfeiture cases are not even connected to a criminal proceeding but property is confiscated by police.

    Forfeiture victims have a difficult time defending their property, especially when the government can seize everything they have, including cash, leaving them unable to finance a defense….

    • “When trying to access this organization who has done a lot of work on the issue of forfeiture.”

      Gail, I just went to the link and it loaded fine for me. Perhaps you went at a time they were having trouble at the site. Or, maybe when the net was overloaded. We get that a lot here when big news is breaking.

  2. From my old notes on forfeiture:

    When asked why a search warrant would not be served on a suspect known to have resale quantities of contraband one officer responded:
    “Because that would just give us a bunch of dope and the hassle of having to book him (the suspect). We’ve got all the dope we need in the property room, just stick to rounding up cases with big money and stay away from warrants.”

    In other words the Drug War is nothing but a money transfer scheme and the police have no intention of getting dealers off the street and interfering with their cash flow. This is the REAL REASON why Obummer and the politicians have not closed the Southern Border. They are taking a cut of the take.

    In another case officers were instructed to wait until most of a large shipment was converted into cash.

    This perversion of law enforcement priorities was the subject of an empirical study “Efficiency is measured by the amount of money seized rather than impact on drug trafficking.” ,Drug Enforcement’s Double-Edged Sword: An Assessment of Asset Forfeiture Programs described forfeiture as a “dysfunctional policy” that forces law enforcement agencies to subordinate justice to profit.

    The WSJ also covers the problem.

    Police for Profit

    With states and cities struggling with deficits, one fertile source of revenue has been money or property seized by police in possible connection with crimes. Not to be left behind, Illinois has pursued this tactic aggressively, using a law which encourages both police departments and prosecutors to take property for forfeiture, long before the accused ever get their day in court.

    …Under Illinois law, the state has 187 days after property is seized to file forfeiture proceedings. Meanwhile, of forfeited funds seized, 25% lands in the lap of the prosecutor’s office. Another 65% goes to the department that seized the property, giving police added incentive to take the property to pad their budgets. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted this police incentive with concern.

    The numbers can be hefty. In 2008, the Chicago Police Department bragged it took in some $13.5 million in asset forfeitures, nearly double what it had seized the previous year. Golly. Inquiring minds will wonder if there were actually double the situations that called for asset forfeiture last year, or if the Chicago PD is simply more assertive about detaining property when the city is short of money.

    The case comes from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which vindicated the citizens when it ruled that the time between forfeiture and judicial hearing presented an unconstitutional delay…

    The Illinois law compares awkwardly with the federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000. As the Cato Institute details in an amicus brief, while the two laws may establish comparable time frames, federal civil forfeiture actions can often run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, a level of cost and complexity well beyond the property at issue under the Illinois drug law. The better match-up is with other state forfeiture laws, and here Illinois performs miserably, taking many times as long to provide a hearing as the likes of Florida, Iowa, Arizona, Missouri and Texas….

    Did the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 fix the problem NO!

    FEAR who has worked on getting the reform says:

    …The Senate compromise also added 200 or more new federal offenses to the list of offenses that trigger forfeiture.

    Unfortunately some of CAFRA’s [Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000] most important reforms have since been nullified by prosecutors and the courts. Even in those cases where CAFRA requires counsel for indigent claimants, judges have created exceptions to avoid appointing counsel. Attorneys’ fees are rarely reimbursed these days because the courts have created exceptions by construing “substantially prevail” to mean something other than winning your property back.

    Rather than reining in aggressive forfeitures as Congress expected, after CAFRA was enacted federal forfeiture revenue skyrocketed from $470 million in 2001 to $6.5 billion in 2013. The abuses continued and multiplied….

    • Thanks for the links. I will do asset forfitture in a coming post, but righ now am looking to post for “Joe” who wants to see a right-wing, left-wing populist message that could make a “big tent” alliance to beat the system. I am pushed for time just now.

      • Sounds like a good post Mark,
        I look forward to reading it.

        I was just making sure the asset forfieture point got mentioned since it is a real biggy that hits the little guy. Get pulled over at a traffic stop while on vacation and you lose all your cash and maybe even the Travelers checks.

        Also many small business types deal in cash and therefore carry a lot of cash. Especially those of us who hate banks.

  3. Mark,
    Someone mentioned a tweet that had a bit of this info. link Could you pass this on? I can’t because my IP address is banned and I can only post at site I have been at before the bann.

    Ted Cruz and #NeverTrump were colluding with the Democrats.
    First Ted flew to Dallas with Obummer on Air force one.

    Christina Freundlich had been communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party and vote freudster

    So that is the DNC link.
    An email linking her to Eric Bennett

    And even better Bennett, Eric $42,123 — Democratic National Cmte, Expenditures 2016
    (Freundlich, Christina – $36,997)

    Now the incriminating e-mail

    Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: “ken.c@tedcruz…
    Date: April 25, 2016 at 8:22:11 PM EDT
    To: Eric Bennett
    > Subject: FW: SERIOUS Death threats

    Politico is reporting that one delegate was warned to ‘hide his family and pray he makes it to Cleveland.’ Eric, Ted sent you an email this morning about the danger GOP delegates are facing from Trump supporters, and now I’m emailing you because it’s way worse than we thought. Politico is reporting that one delegate was warned to ‘hide his family and pray he makes it to Cleveland.’ There are hundreds of other delegates receiving similar threats… I wish I could go into more detail, but to do so would further endanger these delegates — and frankly there’s not time. Rest assured — law enforcement is being notified, but that is not enough…so, will you please read Ted’s original email below, and make an IMMEDIATE contribution to the Delegate Defense Fund…

    Also, we’ve rushed to set up a Delegate Defense HOTLINE to receive tips and gather vital information to help keep delegates safe. If you have any information — please call…..

    As always, your thoughts, prayers, and financial support are deeply appreciated!
    Thank you, Ken Cuccinelli
    Cruz for President

    I very much doubt there were ever any threats made. As we ‘Den1ers’ know that is a very very easy accusation to make and impossible to disprove. All the violence has been on the side of the liberal rioters and the one instance of a Trump supporter hitting a guy was after he started the fight.

    • “Someone mentioned a tweet that had a bit of this info. link Could you pass this on?”

      Gail, I did pass that one on in Twitter last night and notice that may others did also. It is becoming a big story and Drudge had a link to part of it which means millions of views.

      I doubt the Clinton supporters care though. They always give her a pass.

      • Thanks Mark,

        We will never get the braindead left to vote for anything but the party line. HOWEVER a little over 1/3 of voters are democrats, a little less than 1/3 are republicans and the last 1/3 are independents like you and I.

        It is the independents we have to convince to vote and to vote Trump because any other vote is a vote for Hillary. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the death of the USA (Trans-Pacific Partnership**) and individual freedom.

        Trump may not be perfect but he is a heck of a lot better then Jeb the Twig who was supposed to be the republican nominee. That is why the Repugs fielded 17 candidates. The idea was no one would get a majority in the first vote and it would go to a brokered convention. At that point the party boss could select who they wanted.

        Trans-Pacific Partnership**

        This treaty literally strips the USA of sovereignty and allows totalitarian rule by Corporations and bureaucrats with a bit of help from NGOs to add a veneer of ‘democracy.’

        ” ….TPP Parties aim to have these disputes resolved through impartial, unbiased panels. … Panels will consider requests from non-governmental entities located in the territory of any disputing Party to provide written views regarding the dispute to panels during dispute settlement proceedings.

        … Panels will be composed of three international trade and subject matter experts independent of the disputing Parties, with procedures available to ensure that a panel can be composed even if a Party fails to appoint a panelist within a set period of time. These panelists will be subject to a code of conduct to ensure the integrity of the dispute settlement mechanism.

        To maximize compliance, the Dispute Settlement chapter allows for the use of trade retaliation (e.g., suspension of benefits), if a Party found not to have complied with its obligations fails to bring itself into compliance with its obligations. Before use of trade retaliation, a Party found in violation can negotiate or arbitrate a reasonable period of time in which to remedy the breach….”

        The Groniad says this about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement:
        ” Leading arbitration lawyer, George Kahale (chairman of Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt & Mosie LLP, an international law firm) says there are critical loopholes in the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s investment chapter that leave Australia wide open:

        “….an MFN clause is tantamount to a classic wipeout move. It would enable foreign corporations from TPP states to make a claim against Australia based on the ISDS provisions in any other trade deal Australia has signed, no matter which country it was signed with. That means it does not matter how carefully the TPP is drafted: foreign investors can cherrypick another treaty Australia has signed, and sue the Australian government based on the provisions included in that treaty…..”

        From The Hill by former Bill Clinton advisor Dick Morris

        The TPP, generally supported by pro-free-trade Republicans but opposed by labor-union Democrats, reportedly contains a barely noticed provision that allows for the free migration of labor among the signatory nations. Patterned after similar provisions in the treaties establishing the European Union, it would override national immigration restrictions in the name of facilitating the free flow of labor.

        The draft treaty, now under discussion among 12 Pacific Rim nations, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and Japan, makes provision for needed labor to move across national boundaries without restraint. While much of the commentary on the deal has been focused on high-skill, white-collar migration, it could easily be interpreted as allowing farm workers and others to flow back and forth without legal regulation…..

        Curtis Ellis, executive director of the American Jobs Alliance, calls the trade deal “a Trojan horse for Obama’s immigration agenda” on The Hill’s Contributor’s blog. He notes that “one corporate trade association says bluntly that ‘The TPP should remove restrictions on nationality or residency requirements for the selection of personnel.’ ”

        TPP is NOT about ‘Free Trade’ it is about international corporations governing our country.

  4. Mark more research of interest to you. Do with it as you will.

    Thomas E. Woods Jr. at LewRockwell said this about Trump:

    …I need to begin by parrying any manifestations of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
    I do not support or endorse Donald Trump, who is not a libertarian and who appears to have no clear philosophy of any kind….

    It looks like Mr Woods has not been paying attention to anything but the Disinformation put out by the Lame Stream Media who is directed by the Democrat- Progressives.

    Has Trump ever given a glimpse of his philosopy? Yes. He just did in his acceptance speech as well as in all this actions.

    Here is his philosophy and who he got it from, his parents.

    …My Dad, Fred Trump, was the smartest and hardest working man I ever knew. I wonder sometimes what he’d say if he were here to see this tonight.
    It’s because of him that I learned, from my youngest age, to respect the dignity of work and the dignity of working people. He was a guy most comfortable in the company of bricklayers, carpenters, and electricians and I have a lot of that in me also. Then there’s my mother, Mary. She was strong, but also warm and fair-minded. She was a truly great mother. She was also one of the most honest and charitable people I have ever known, and a great judge of character….

    But now, my sole and exclusive mission is to go to work for our country – to go to work for YOU

    Trump’s philosophy from this and other speeches can be boiled down to
    – There is dignity in hard work,
    – Reach for the sky and don’t give up,
    – Treat others with respect, kindness and be charitable.
    – Inspire others to be the greatest they can be.

    The MSM of course makes sure these traits are never highlighted. You have to read or hear what people around him say.
    There are the injured (or dead) firefighters and police who he helped anonymously (Rudy Giuliani) The NYC Veterans Day Parade he saved, the little Jewish boy he flew to the best hospital when the airlines refused to allow him to board and many other actions one would expect of what I call a ‘civilized human’ There are also those who have worked for him or with him who have been inspired to reach for the sky.

    However it is his sincere desire to save the USA that matters most.

    “But now, my sole and exclusive mission is to go to work for our country – to go to work for YOU”

    This from the NY post whose owner, Jeff Bezos, hates his guts, shows he has done it before.

    How Donald Trump (with Giuliani and Bratton/Kelly ) helped save New York City
    By Steve Cuozzo
    Long before Donald Trump stamped his name in gold on buildings around the world, posted snarky midnight tweets and joined the race for the White House, he was New York’s most important and bravest real-estate developer.
    Whatever you think about his political views or crazy campaign, Trump doesn’t get enough credit for being a transformative planner who is in love with the city.
    No matter how many times they watch “Taxi Driver,” younger New Yorkers and older ones who arrived recently have no idea of what the city was actually like in the mid-1970s through the mid-’90s. Notwithstanding Studio 54 and a short-lived Wall Street boom, the metropolis was reeling. Rampant street crime, AIDS, corporate flight and physical decay brought confidence to an all-time low.
    Trump waded into a landscape of empty Fifth Avenue storefronts, the dust-bowl mugging ground that was Central Park and a Wall Street area seemingly on its last legs as companies moved out.
    Except in Battery Park City, which was then as remote as an offshore island, few other developers built anything but plain-vanilla office and apartment buildings. Trump — almost by force of will — rode to the rescue. Expressing rare faith in the future, he was instrumental in kick-starting the regeneration of neighborhoods and landmarks almost given up for dead.
    Many of his brainstorms were ahead of their time. Some — like his struggle beginning in the early 1970s to build what’s now called Riverside South — were so far ahead, it can be hard to connect the dots between Trump’s works and the neighborhood transformations they spawned and inspired years later….

    To show just how dishonest and twisted the attacks on Trump can be look at Trump, the Widow and Eminent Domain.
    This is an explanation with liks put up by Ladysforest The take-away is that Trump met her price, and even threw in a place in Florida, and she turned him down. The widow then lost the place to the city for BACK TAXES not Eminent Domain.

    Is what Vera Coking and her husband paid for the 29-room boardinghouse/low income rooming house. In 1961.
    $1 million offered by Bob Guccione in 1979/1980.
    $1 million offered by Trump after Superior court denied Eminent Domain.
    $530,000~ Price fetched at auction.
    $995,000~ Reduced asking price prior to forced auction.
    $2M~ Amount Donald Trump offered as recently as several years ago prior to the auction.
    AND – it was reported in the newspapers that Trump not only eventually offered her 2+ million, but in addition to also provide her a free place to live in Palm Beach FL for the remainder of her life.

    • You say:

      Trump’s philosophy from this and other speeches can be boiled down to
      – There is dignity in hard work,
      – Reach for the sky and don’t give up,
      – Treat others with respect, kindness and be charitable.
      – Inspire others to be the greatest they can be.

      I can agree with that, but that is not a complete political philosophy. I can find people who would agree with those items from the far left to the far right.

      I will say that Trump is smart to hammer these platitudes — people want to hear them. He might be on his way to a Reagan blowout. If he can overcome the negative US Media, he may very well win in a landslide.

      • Stefan Molyneux is a libertairian, an anarcho-capitalist and a champion of philosophy. He sort of goes into Trump’s philosophy saying Trump is a results orientated strategic thinker and his genius is the ability to communicate complex ideas on the fourth grade level. Trump is genius level BTW and would be ~25 points higher in IQ than most US presidents.

        Why Donald Trump Is Different | Bill Mitchell and Stefan Molyneux – YouTube

        Another one of Stefan Molyneux’s Utubes you might like if you have not already seen it:

        An Introduction to Capitalism

  5. ARGGGHHhhh, Wordpest tossed the first half… I will wait and see if you can fish it out of trash.


    Any Rand addressed the graduating class of the United States Military Academy at West Point New York on March 6, 1974. The title of her talk was “Philosophy, Who Needs It?” Here are a few portions of her talk.

    …You might claim — as most people do — that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? “Don’t be so sure — nobody can be certain of anything.” You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.” You got that from Plato. Or: “That was a rotten thing to do, but it’s only human, nobody is perfect in this world.” You got that from Augustine. Or: “It may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” You got it from William James. Or: “I couldn’t help it! Nobody can help anything he does.” You got it from Hegel. Or: “I can’t prove it, but I feel that it’s true.” You got it from Kant. Or: “It’s logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality.” You got it from Kant. Or: “It’s evil, because it’s selfish.” You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: “Act first, think afterward”? They got it from John Dewey.
    Some people might answer: “Sure, I’ve said those things at different times, but I don’t have to believe that stuff all of the time. It may have been true yesterday, but it’s not true today.” They got it from Hegel. They might say: “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: “But can’t one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?” They got it from Richard Nixon — who got it from William James.
    Now ask yourself: if you are not interested in abstract ideas, why do you (and all men) feel compelled to use them? The fact is that abstract ideas are conceptual integrations which subsume an incalculable number of concretes — and that without abstract ideas you would not be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems. You would be in the position of a newborn infant, to whom every object is a unique, unprecedented phenomenon. The difference between his mental state and yours lies in the number of conceptual integrations your mind has performed.
    You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational conviction — or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.
    But the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown….

    Now you may ask: If philosophy can be that evil, why should one study it? Particularly, why should one study the philosophical theories which are blatantly false, make no sense, and bear no relation to real life?
    My answer is: In self-protection — and in defense of truth, justice, freedom, and any value you ever held or may ever hold.
    Not all philosophies are evil, though too many of them are, particularly in modern history. On the other hand, at the root of every civilized achievement, such as science, technology, progress, freedom — at the root of every value we enjoy today, including the birth of this country — you will find the achievement of one man, who lived over two thousand years ago: Aristotle.
    If you feel nothing but boredom when reading the virtually unintelligible theories of some philosophers, you have my deepest sympathy. But if you brush them aside, saying: “Why should I study that stuff when I know it’s nonsense?” — you are mistaken. It is nonsense, but you don’t know it — not so long as you go on accepting all their conclusions, all the vicious catch phrases generated by those philosophers. And not so long as you are unable to refute them.
    That nonsense deals with the most crucial, the life-or-death issues of man’s existence. At the root of every significant philosophic theory, there is a legitimate issue — in the sense that there is an authentic need of man’s consciousness, which some theories struggle to clarify and others struggle to obfuscate, to corrupt, to prevent man from ever discovering. The battle of philosophers is a battle for man’s mind. If you do not understand their theories, you are vulnerable to the worst among them.

    More concisely:

    Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence. The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. This view serves as a base, a frame of reference, for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or existential. This view tells him the nature of the universe with which he has to deal (metaphysics); the means by which he is to deal with it, i.e., the means of acquiring knowledge (epistemology); the standards by which he is to choose his goals and values, in regard to his own life and character (ethics)—and in regard to society (politics); the means of concretizing this view is given to him by esthetics.

    • Gail,

      There is nothing in the trash that I can see. Everyone gets moderated the first time, it is the default wordpress setting and works for me. So, if you change name or IP or something you will get moderated by I’ll approve it when I look at the site. (that can take a day or two at times)

      I hope that helps.

  6. Mark it showed up a while later. (I do not change my login here.)

    Here is something I posted at Tony Heller’s that may be of interest since it details the threat. Lamy has been very forth comming about the desire for a global government run by the Elite.

    If Hitlery gets in, or Jeb Bush, who was the other choice to be given to us, the USA would only exist in name only the same as the countries under the European Union do.

    Please pass this on to your libertarian friends. The situation is critical.

    Pascal Lamy’s enlightening statements:
    Pascal Lamy was unanimously re-elected director-general of the World Trade Organisation in 2009. He is a good friend of Clinton’s and both lecture at the Fabian Socialist’s London School of Economics where many world leaders in politics, finance and the corporate world are educated. Clinton signed into law NAfta and the World Trade Agreement (WTO) and got China into the WTO. As a result the USA is losing FIFTEEN FACTORIES A DAY!

    No I did not make that up.

    …Rep. Betty Sutton of Ohio recently stated: “Every day in the United States, we are losing 15 factories.” The paper’s PolitiFact editor checked out the numbers with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. While the rate varied from year to year, over the 10 year period from 2001 to 2010, the United States lost 56,190 manufacturing facilities, or a daily average of 15 plants. Sutton is correct, and it’s a national tragedy….

    And Trump pointed out his friend’s business, building factories, is booming He is building the replacements in Mexico and other parts of the world but not here in the USA.

    To scare voters into accepting the loss of their jobs and the loss of their country’s economic power, Pascal Lamy took H. L. Mencken’s ‘Practical Politics’ the next step, by telling us what the “new enemy to unite us” is. The hobgoblin needed to create Legitimacy, one of the“three legs” needed to implement a global government…

    It gives me great pleasure to be here today to participate in this thematic debate on the United Nations in global governance, an issue of the utmost importance given the urgency of the global challenges we are facing… As for legitimacy, I see two avenues to strengthen it. First, domestically, by increasing the visibility of international issues and giving citizens a greater say…
    ( )

    BREXIT the Movie shows ‘Greater Say’ is a bunch of bureaucratic bupkis fed to bewilder the voters. Pascal Lamy should know since he was a high up EU bureaucrat.

    To govern this globalized world, writes World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy, existing institutions will need to be reformed
    ( )

    In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared…
    Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? …
    At the same time, globalization is blurring the line between national and world issues, redefining our notions of space, sovereignty and identity. As we saw during the recent financial crisis, economic turbulence in one country now sends shockwaves worldwide….

    This raises a final challenge: How to provide global leadership? Mobilizing collective purpose is more difficult when we no longer face one common enemy, but thousands of complex problems
    The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed….

    All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s …including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence.

    “and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty” means getting rid of that pesky US Constitution and American NATIONALISM. (That is why the words ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriot’ is now equated with Hitler.)

    Lamy makes that clear when he says…

    I see four main challenges for global governance today.
    The first one is leadership…..
    The second one is efficiency, i.e. the capacity to mobilize resources….
    The third one is coherence….
    The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy — for legitimacy is intrinsically linked to proximity, to a sense of “togetherness”.….

    There is one place where attempts to deal with these challenges have been made and where new forms of governance have been tested for the last 60 years: in Europe. The European construction is the most ambitious experiment in supranational governance ever attempted up to now. [Interesting that he uses word ‘experiment’] It is the story of a desired, delineated and organized interdependence between its Member States….

    First, on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law. And thanks to a clear articulation between the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Court of Justice.
    ( )

    And that is the whole goal “…the primacy of EU UN law over national law…. UN Agenda 21 is the plan for our new society. A cross between feudalism and a company town. The Trans-Pacific Partnership that allows an international Tributinal to TRUMP THE US SUPREME COURT is the implementation especially since it says ANY treaty signed by the USA is coverend. Remember international law sees no difference between an executive agreement, a congressional agreement or an actual Constitutional treaty.

    All those agreements that Obama (and Bush) has signed in the last decades WITHOUT Congressional approval are suddenly in play.

    • I mention above that international law sees no difference between an executive agreement, a congressional agreement or an actual Constitutional treaty. The paper on that has been wiped fronm the internet (Not a surprise) and is not even on the wayback Machine.

      From my old notes:
      The Supreme Court since the time of FDR has betrayed this country.

      Treaty Politics and the Rise of Executive Agreements: International Commitments in a System of Shared Powers

      Executive agreements do not require super-majority support in the Senate as do formal Article II treaties. Since the 1940s, the vast majority of international agreements have been completed by presidents as executive agreements rather than as treaties. This major policy evolution occurred without changes to the Constitution, though Supreme Court decisions and practice by the political branches have validated the change. This has led some scholars to conclude that the treaty power “has become effectively a Presidential monopoly” (Franck and Weisband 1979: 135; see also Corwin 1984).


      U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties, which are derived from the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution, from congressional-executive agreements and executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law

      …So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states [nations] at the time the treaty was contracted

      IF a president signs a treaty OTHER countries consider it VALID. Therefore it completely depends on WHAT type of enforcement is contained within the treaty itself.

      There is is just one fly in the WTO soup.

      …First of all, according to relevant U.S. statues, trade treaties are not self-executing…

      … status of trade agreements in U.S. law is governed by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 … In the Act, Congress made clear that any provision of the Tokyo Round agreements negotiated under the GATT framework would not prevail over a U.S. statute, regardless of when the statue was enacted. Clearly, this was not consistent with the later-in-time-prevail rule. ….

      For implementing the GATT/WTO embodied in the Uruguay Round Agreements, the U.S. Congress adopted the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994 (URAA) to define the limits of legal effects of the GATT/WTO agreements in U.S. legal order. A brief of the URAA is that it prevents terms of the GATT/WTO that conflict with existing federal law from having domestic effects, and allows for continued ability of the United States to take unilateral actions pose for the WTO… During the debate on approving the WTO Agreement, the prevailing view was that the multinational pact was not in conflict with U.S. sovereignty generally for two reasons: first, Congress is ultimately responsible for changing the laws of the United States; and second, the U.S. is entitled to withdraw …. These arguments were vehemently endorsed by Clinton Administration officials who were eager to get the agreement passed Congress. Mickey Kantor, U.S. Trade Representatives, stated… “[n]o ruling by any dispute panel … can force us to change any federal, state or local law or regulation. …His assistant, Deputy USTR Rufus Yerxa reiterated that “a WTO dispute settlement panel recommendation does not automatically change U.S. law. It has not self-executing effect …

      …the language of the URAA is even clearer. The features of the URAA are described as follows:
      United States Law to Prevail in Conflict The URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection. According to the Act, if there is a conflict between U.S. and any of the Uruguay Round agreements, U.S. law will take precedence regardless when U.S. law is enacted.

      All this ‘protection’ was then ignored by the US bureaucrats The FDA used the WTO as a whip against farmers.

      International Harmonization
      newer version changed after passage of Food Safety Modernization Act:

      The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.

      Which of course was a complete and total lie.

    • “Mark it showed up a while later. (I do not change my login here.)”

      Since I don’t monitor the posts much, and let WordPress do most of the work, I think it tells us something about you and WordPress. Every once in a while your stuff goes into moderation for no reason. I’ll check and see if it can be the number of links or something. But it sorta seems WordPress just messes with you every once in a while.

      But I’ll grab anything out of moderation or trash within a day or two. (might take longer after school starts late next week)

      ~ Mark

    • “UN Agenda 21 is the plan for our new society.”

      Yes it is. I just started re-reading Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions” after 20 years. The “new society” comes from the left’s vision that human nature is malleable and they can build a “new man” like the USSR tried to do.

      It is total lunacy of course.

  7. Mark here is an eye openner you might want to pass on to the Conservative Tree House when you get a chance.
    EIGHT BILLION TO ASSIST THE TERRORISTS? — Aussie Larry Pickering who I really like.

    …According to Egypt’s TV14 network, Obama had secretly transferred eight billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood, not the Egyptian Government, as payment to guarantee that a large portion of the Sinai Peninsula would be turned over to the terrorist organisation Hamas, an enemy of both the United States and Israel….

    …The UAE government has also labelled two U.S. affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society, as terrorist support groups. Both groups of course have denied these claims.

    The Muslim Brotherhood has long been established as one of, if not the first, terrorist organisation to commit Jihad style murders in the Middle East. It can be assumed that both President Obama and Hillary Clinton have always been cognisant of the Brotherhood’s terrorist status in the Middle East….

    I can not say I am surprised.

    If I recall Egypt wants Obama and Hillary to put on trial…
    Here is one of the stories:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s