Monday, 12 August 2013

10,865


 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 







Fwd: Join Energy Citizens for a Telephone Town Hall



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Energy Citizens
Date: Monday, August 12, 2013
Subject: Join Energy Citizens for a Telephone Town Hall
To: Majors.bruce@gmail.com


Get involved on our Citizen Action Center

Energy Citizens

Join us for a Telephone
Town Hall

 

Dear Bruce,

The Federal Government is considering imposing new regulations on fracking.
Join our Telephone Town Hall Meeting to learn more about this controversial plan!
 

Register Today!

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management wants to impose a new layer of federal regulations on fracking operations for federal and Indian lands, on top of the very effective state rules that already exist.

Energy Citizens believes this is a mistake – a burdensome, expensive government overreach that could stand in the way of domestic energy production, economic growth, job creation, and billions of dollars in federal, state, and local tax revenue.

Join our Telephone Town Hall Meeting to get the facts and learn what you can do!

  • What: Energy Citizens BLM Fracking Telephone Town Hall Meeting
  • When: Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 1:30 pm.
  • Who: Erik Milito, API's Upstream Director

RSVP Now to Make Sure You Are Included on This Important Call!

Fracking is key to American energy. Without it we would lose 45 percent of domestic natural gas production and 17 percent of our oil production within five years.

Help us protect this vital support for U.S. energy security!

Get the facts - have your questions about the BLM and fracking answered by experts - hear how people are getting involved. Do not miss this Town Hall Meeting!

RSVP NOW AND SAVE THE DATE – August 15th!

Thank you,

The Energy Citizens Team


 

Click here to unsubscribe from future emails
Energy Citizens | P.O. Box 54 | Alexandria, VA 22313

Energy Citizens Facebook Energy Citizens twitterEnergy Citizens G+



--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

The Stegosaurus Is Dead


The Stegosaurus Is Dead
By Butler Shaffer
August 12, 2013

For those of you unfamiliar with the stegosaurus, and who have no young children or grandchildren around to explain it to you, the stegosaurus was the dinosaur shaped like a bell-curve, a perfect symbol for the linear, quantified, mechanistic model of our over-sized institutional world. This creature was so large and cumbersome that it required two brains -- one in its head, the other in the tail -- to move about. Its nervous system was about as sluggish as that of a mainstream newspaper editor. It has been hypothecated that a stegosaurus could be using its frontal brain to munch on the leaves of a bush, while its rear brain was being attacked -- and killed -- by a tyrannosaurus rex. Stegosaurus could continue feasting, unaware that it was already dead!

I can think of no more vivid picture of the condition of the modern nation-state. After years of dragging its corpulent carcass about, indifferent to the injuries it caused to those lesser creatures who got in its path, this dinosaur continued to gorge itself on leaves, heedless of the voices from its hinterland informing it that its fate was already determined.  My oft-used metaphor of the just-beheaded chicken can also help describe the condition of the modern state: it flaps about in a pattern of automatic reflexes spewing blood in its path, making a mess of whatever gets in its way. It no longer serves any life-enhancing purpose, having become little more than a mass of reactive energy.

How should intelligent people respond to this? Having been thoroughly conditioned in the political mindset of using force as the most effective manner of bringing about change, our initial answer might be to try to reform the state; to make its actions more palatable to its victims. Such a response recalls Frank Chodorov's wonderful rejoinder about wanting "to clean up the whorehouse, but keeping the business intact." But recent history informs us that we are far beyond being able to treat the state as an instrument established and controlled to serve our purposes. As an institution, the state is its own reason for being, its violent powers in the hands of the kinds of people attracted to compulsion as the principal method of dealing with others. As Einstein so well-expressed the point: "Force always attracts men of low morality."

The state serves only the most debased motives through the most destructive means of accomplishing the ends of the most vicious and corrupt members of the human species. By its nature, the state wars against truth and reality, using terror and violence to overcome our more peaceful and cooperative individual dispositions. To think of reforming such a monstrous system makes no more sense than trying to enclose a wild tiger with a tall fence! Such thinking reflects a continuing attachment to power, a force that would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of those who imagined themselves fit to exercise it.

To attack the state through violent means is the most self-defeating measure. To think this way is to succumb to desperation, to give up on life itself. Our beliefs in systemic violence are destroying us. If we are to live peacefully with one another, our means of doing so cannot be found in the conflict that is the state's organizing principle. Even the most superficial mind ought to recognize that resorting to violence in an effort to rid the world of state-violence, is not only self-contradictory, but would require us to have coercive powers greater than those of the state! Those who might be successful doing this would have to amass the energies of a super-state, and would have to maintain such powers to prevent the "return" of the deposed state. Sound familiar? Do Marx and Engels come to mind, with their promises about the eventual "withering away of the state?" We cannot use the methodologies that have gotten us to where we now find ourselves. Furthermore, at a time when politicized thinking is on the defensive -- and, to many, in full retreat -- it is far better to focus attention on the development of alternative models of social organization.

We are beyond the place where incremental changes will suffice. Cosmetic alterations -- providing the emperor with a new suit of clothes -- may modify, but not end, our well-organized destructiveness. To redesign the systems that war against life, or to replace the puppets atop the pyramid, will only keep us spinning our wheels. Nothing less than a fundamental transformation in our thinking as to how we are to live in society with one another will bring about the change that matters.

As we focus our minds on the task of rethinking our basic assumptions, the question of how to end statism may answer itself. Like the stegosaurus and the decapitated chicken, the state clumsily staggers around in a brain-dead condition. At its best, the state may be said to be functioning at no higher level of intelligence than that of its reptilian brain with its reflexive, knee-jerk "see/act" behavior. Its behavior is dominated by contradictions, conflicts, falsehoods, corruption, violence, and other traits that work against a peaceful and orderly world.

Daniel Goleman observed that "[s]ocieties can be sunk by the weight of buried ugliness," a reminder of how collective power and collective ideas can bring down civilizations. Rather than focusing our energies on trying to rehabilitate or reinvent the state, we would be better advised to direct our attentions to alternative social practices that serve the living, not exalted abstractions. Like the dinosaurs -- whose presence on earth was of far greater duration than that of humans -- the state's monstrous size renders it incapable of making creative, life-enhancing responses to the changes occurring within the world.

Leopold Kohr has written of the dysfunctional nature of size, observing that "whenever something is wrong, something is too big." The study of chaos and complexity affirm the adverse consequences of trying to manage the world from the apex of Plato's pyramid. The state is a behemoth that stumbles about, ravenously increasing its consumption of whatever resources it deems necessary to sustain its ever-more-bloated size.

In the long run, the well-being of our children and grandchildren depends upon our bringing about a paradigm shift in thinking about what it means to be human. This involves learning how to regain control over our lives, a task that entails expanding the understanding of our own self-directed abilities, and the awareness of how we have given up such personal powers and authority to the state. This is not something we can do passively, but requires the most energized and focused mind.

In the short run, the best answer to the violence that is synonymous with state power may be to just let politicized thinking play out the logical consequences upon which it is grounded; to allow the system to grind itself down. Perhaps, like the attacking Martians in H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds, or the final days of dinosaurs on earth, our best short-term defense against the state may be to allow its dysfunctional size and nature to provide the catalyst for its own extinction. The rest of us need to protect ourselves as best we can against its over-reaching into our lives, and to participate in those peaceful, voluntary alternative systems and practices that serve our purposes. But in the meantime, we should take a lesson from our ancestral mammals who were able to wait out the dinosaurs who lacked the resiliency to respond to the changed conditions of an ever-changing world. Instead of trying to prop up and rehabilitate this destructive monolith, let us allow it to collapse of its own dead weight!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/butler-shaffer/the-stegosaurus-is-dead/

Very Urgent!!!






Original message is from WMD.com

Begin forwarded message:



 

 

  VERY   URGENT!!! PLEASE CIRCULATE to your friends, family and  contacts.   

 

In the coming days, DO  NOT  open  any message  with an attachment called: 

BLACK  MUSLIM IN  THE WHITE HOUSE , regardless  of who sent it to you. 

 

It is a  virus that  opens an Olympics torch that burns the whole hard  disk

of your computer.  This virus  comes from a known  person who you have in

your list. 

 

Directions:   You  should send this message to all of your  contacts. 

It is  better to receive this e-mail  25 times than to receive the virus  and open  it. 

If you receive a message called  BLACK  MUSLIM  IN THE WHITE HOUSE

even if sent by a friend, do not open,  and shut down your  machine immediately. 

 It is the worst  virus  announced by CNN.  This  new virus has  been  discovered

recently it  has been classified by Microsoft as the  virus most  destructive ever.

This virus was discovered yesterday  afternoon by  McAfee.  There is

no repair yet for this  kind  of virus. 

This virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the hard disk, where vital information 

function is stored.

 

Verified  by  snopes.com

 

 

 

 



__._,_._






__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

EU puts the screws to “insured” bank deposits





Dr. Eowyn posted: "The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a U.S. government corporation operating as an independent agency created by the Banking Act of 1933. As of January 2013, FDIC provides deposit insurance guaranteeing the safety of a depositor's accoun"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

EU puts the screws to "insured" bank deposits

by Dr. Eowyn

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a U.S. government corporation operating as an independent agency created by the Banking Act of 1933.

As of January 2013, FDIC provides deposit insurance guaranteeing the safety of a depositor's accounts in over 7,000 member banks, up to $250,000 for each deposit ownership category in each insured bank. For example, a singly-owned certificate-of-deposit (CD) and a second CD owned by the same individual but "held in trust" (payable upon death) for another individual are two separate ownership categories.

The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations – its Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) is funded from (1) earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities; and (2) premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage. The amount each institution is assessed is based both on the balance of insured deposits as well as on the degree of risk the institution poses the DIF.

Although DIF is mandated by law to keep a balance equivalent to 1.15% of insured deposits, that minimum percentage is not always observed. In March, 2009, for example, the DIF fell to $13 billion or a reserve ratio of only 0.27%.

Since the start of FDIC insurance on January 1, 1934, no depositor has lost any insured funds as a result of a bank or S&L (savings & loan) failure. However, in light of apparent systemic risks facing the U.S. banking system, the adequacy of FDIC's financial backing has come into question. 

Beyond the funds in the DIF and the FDIC's power to charge insurance premia, FDIC insurance is additionally assured by the Federal government. According to the FDIC.gov website (as of March 2013), "FDIC deposit insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government". This means that the resources of the United States government stand behind FDIC-insured depositors. Alas, the statutory basis for this claim is less than clear. Despite Congress' passage in 1987 of a non-binding "Sense of Congress" to that effect, there appear to be no laws strictly binding the government to make good on any insurance liabilities unmet by the FDIC.

In light of this, what recently transpired in the European Union (EU) should give U.S. savers additional pause.

EUThese three individuals designed the rules for the EU banking union: (l to r) Herman Van Rompuy (elected by no one); Dalia Grybauskaite (chosen by 68.21% of Lithuanians); José Manuel Barroso (elected by no one) (Photo: Consilium)

According to an Aug. 7, 2013, article, "Neue EU-Regel: Sparer müssen um Guthaben unter 100.000 Euro bangen (New EU rule: Savers need to fear credit under 100,000 euros," on the German-language news site, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (German Economic News), a new EU proposal that's "largely unnoticed by the public," seeks to impose the following restrictions on the supposedly-insured bank deposits in the EU's member countries:

  • To begin with, deposit accounts are only insured up to €100,000 ($133,000).
  • If a bank goes bankrupt, small depositors (defined as those with accounts of €100,000 or less) cannot withdraw all their money     immediately, but must wait for up to 20 working days or 4 weeks.
  • In the meantime, the depositors are allowed cash withdrawals of no more than €100 to €200 ($133 to $266) a day.
  • This limit on the amount of daily withdrawals "may last for up to three weeks."

Put simply, according to the EU proposal, in the event of a bank collapse, savers will now have to wait for weeks to see their money, if at all. The article advises that savers should take this new EU proposal into advisement if they:

  • Plan on making major purchases;
  • Run a business;
  • Are elderly and may run into big medical expenses; or
  • Simply want to keep their money in their own hands.

Meanwhile, there is still no agreement on the question of the contribution of banks to pay into the EU deposit insurance.

See also:

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/eu-puts-the-screws-to-insured-bank-deposits/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Screw The NSA, New Search Engine Claims To Have The Solution.





Steve posted: "before we get any further, let me just say there is no way at the moment you will be able to access the web site. It's been OVERLOADed all day. Or under attack.  LOL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Screw The NSA, New Search Engine Claims To Have The Solution.

by Steve

before we get any further, let me just say there is no way at the moment you will be able to access the web site. It's been OVERLOADed all day. Or under attack.  LOL

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW SEARCH ENGINE PROTECTS YOU FROM NSA

No data collected, so nothing to give feds if they ask

 

WND EXCLUSIVE        BOB UNRUH

 

Zeekly

Zeekly

Trust Google? The National Security Agency, which routinely collects its data, does.

After all, it's one of the companies from which Washington apparently routinely pulls data about what Americans are reading, doing, seeing, researching, hunting and contemplating.

So an entrepreneur says he has started an alternative service, which offers encryption services to keep your details, well, your details. Out of Google's files. And away from the NSA.

The website is called Zeekly.com and founder Jeffrey Sisk explains it doesn't retain search history, and also runs on 2048-bit SSL encryption to keep private what Internet users don't want public.

On his blog, he explains that there are a number of steps a consumer can take to make the options for the government to access personal information a lot harder.

One of those is an encrypted search function.

"Like millions of Americans, I was frustrated when The Guardian broke the story on June 6th that the NSA has a top secret program called Prism that collects personal data on American citizens from all of the most well known and trusted technology companies. This included tech giants such as Google, Yahoo, Microsoft/Bing, Facebook, Youtube & Twitter," he said.

"What made this story especially heinous as it unfolded is that each of these companies is prevented by the actual FISA court orders they were served from disclosing to the public their information is being intercepted by the government. These trusted companies all have privacy policies and tell their users 'we take privacy matters seriously,' yet we now find out millions of records are being secretly turned over to the NSA every single day. From the documents leaked to The Guardian by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the government literally has unfettered 'back door access' to these vast databases."

He said Americans now depend on the Internet.

"We find information, solve problems, pursue our interests, read news, make purchase[s], and socially connect with like minded people around the world. Granting access to American spy agencies to this level of information on American citizens is the most egregious assault on our constitutional rights regarding illegal search and seizure in the history of our country. As one of the original authors of the Patriot Act recently put it, they never intended the law to be used to snarf up mass amounts of data on unsuspecting American citizens. I think most of us already knew this was going on to some extent, but clearly this has far exceeded the original boundaries set forth by Congress."

He continued, "I don't think companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook or Yahoo are inherently bad. They collect this data to provide a higher level of targeted advertising and services for their users. Unfortunately, because of minimal oversight, the government is bending the rules to secretly obtain their data."

And that's the genesis for his Zeekly.com project.

It pulls information from all major search engines, but doesn't store a users personal data, he said.

"This means that even if a court order [to obtain information] was presented, there's no data."

He said there are other steps that consumers also can take.

"Currently there are four main browsers that are popular in the market: Internet Explorer (owned by Microsoft), Chrome (owned by Google), Safari (owned by Apple), Firefox (open source owned by Mozilla)."

"Of these four browsers, the first three are owned by companies who are listed in the leaked NSA documents to be under FISA court order to turn over your search data. The last one Firefox seems to be exempt. This is because Firefox is an open source project (any software engineer/programmer from around the world can write code to improve the browser and then Mozilla coordinates what makes it into each new version of the software). Surely it is not impossible, but it is highly unlikely that Firefox has a mechanism to record your Internet searches. To me, this makes it currently the best choice," he explained.

( I'll Be resetting To Mozilla)

He also recommended the use of a Virtual Private Network. They are easy to install, he explained, and "it basically acts as your proxy when you are on the Internet. In other words, to the websites you are visiting, your requests are coming from the VPN's server…. not your personal computer or cellphone/tablet."

~Steve~
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/new-search-engine-protects-you-from-nsa/#PmxOT0cKyWK45b0p.99

 

 

 

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/screw-the-nsa-new-search-engine-claims-to-have-the-solution/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Fwd: [Free Banking] Larry White: Krugman on Friedman, Hayek, and Liquidationism



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Free Banking
Date: Monday, August 12, 2013
Subject: [Free Banking] Larry White: Krugman on Friedman, Hayek, and Liquidationism
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


Free Banking has a new post by Larry White.

Krugman on Friedman, Hayek, and Liquidationism:

In a blog post yesterday, entitled "Friedman and the Austrians" , Paul
Krugman quotes Milton Friedman's charge that in the "London School (really
Austrian) view," i.e. the view held by F. A. Hayek and Lionel Robbins,

the depression was an inevitable result of the prior boom, that it was deepened
by the attempts to prevent prices and wages from falling and firms from going
bankrupt, that the monetary authorities had brought on the depression by
inflationary policies before the crash and had prolonged it by "easy money"
policies thereafter; that the only sound policy was to let the depression run
its course, bring down money costs, and eliminate weak and unsound firms.

Krugman then remarks:

I have, incidentally, seen attempts to claim that nobody believed this, or at
any rate that Hayek never believed this, and that characterizing Hayek as a
liquidationist is some kind of liberal libel. This is really a case of who are
you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes.

One of the "attemps" Krugman may be referring to is my June 2008 article in the
Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, "Did Hayek and Robbins Deepen the Great
Depression?" (Ungated pre-publication version here). Or he may be referring to
subsequent discussion of the question on Brad DeLong's blog -- if you follow
this link, please scroll down to see my comments on DeLong's post.

In either case Krugman's remarks call for a reply.

In the 2008 article I point out that Hayek enunciated a monetary policy norm of
stabilizing nominal income (aka nominal aggregate demand, or MV in the equation
of exchange) in the face of a declining money multiplier or declining velocity
of money. Under a gold standard, a high price level driven unsustainably high
(by the boom-creating inflationary policies that Friedman references) needs to
return to the sustainable level, but there is no virtue in "secondary"
deflation going beyond that point. Thus, according to Hayek, the central bank
should expand its liabilities H to offset an increased bank reserve ratio or
public hoarding that reduces M/H or V. In yet other words, it is better to
remedy an unsatisfied excess demand for money balances by supplying the
called-for money balances than by putting a burden of downward price adjustment
on the economy.

Overlooking Hayek's stable-MV norm, Friedman and others have mischaracterized
Hayek as prescribing only "to let the depression run its course." Hayek did
oppose cheap-money policies that distort the economy, and did counsel
policy-makers not to obstruct the process of correcting the mistaken investments
made during the boom. But quoting such statements doesn't show that he said
nothing else about depression policy.

It's a question of who you gonna believe, a one-sided quoting of only some
bits of Hayek by people unaware of the rest, or the full story of what Hayek
wrote about depression policy?

I'm sorry that Krugman didn't call me out by name. It prevents his readers
from finding and reading the other side of the debate.

I might also mention that my article treats the question of what Hayek really
said as a matter of getting the intellectual history right. I do not suggest
that mischaracterization of Hayek's position is limited to left-liberals.
Indeed, as Krugman's blog post does, my article prominently quotes Milton
Friedman's criticism of Hayek for supposed liquidationism. Friedman is no
left-liberal. Thus I would never call it "some kind of liberal libel."


Read the full post and join the discussion at:
http://www.freebanking.org/2013/08/12/krugman-on-friedman-hayek-and-liquidationism/

You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are
posted.

Best regards,
Free Banking




--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

HoMoSexuals, and even others, welcome

Liberty and Pride!
Dear Outright Supporters:

Join us this Sunday at 3pm PT/6pm ET for freedom and fellowship with other LGBT libertarians.   We will meet on line via Google Hangout

On the Agenda: 
  • Supporting our LGBT Libertarian candidates like Laura Delhomme
  • Our Secretary Mike Shipley's recall petition of Rep. Kyrsten Sinema for her support of domestic spying on US citizens. 
  • Recent Supreme Court decisions. What's next for marriage equality?  
  • Promoting Outright Arizona's new weekly podcast. 
  • Sponsorship of Buzz Webb's FSP Big Gay Dance Party for 2014.  
...and celebrating gay patriots like Bradley Manning and Glenn Greenwald. 

Peace & Pride, 

Angela Keaton
Chair, Outright Libertarians. 
Copyright © 2013 Outright Libertarians, All rights reserved. 


--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

The Never-Ending Drug War


The Never-Ending Drug War
by Jacob G. Hornberger August 12, 2013

The drug war is back in the news with two major events, one here in the United States and the other in Mexico. Both events point to the utter futility and destructiveness of this decades-long disaster.

The New York Times reports that Attorney General Eric Holder will announce a new policy to relieve overcrowded prisons. Holder is instructing U.S. Attorneys to not mention the exact quantity of drugs when charging people with low-level drug offenses, which apparently will enable federal judges to circumvent the law regarding mandatory minimum sentences. In a line that could easily have been copied from drug-war critics for the past several decades, Holder declared,

Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no good law enforcement reason…. Widespread incarceration at the federal, state and local levels is both ineffective and unsustainable. It imposes a significant economic burden ­ totaling $80 billion in 2010 alone ­ and it comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.

One would think that the better approach would be for Holder and President Obama to go to Congress and seek a repeal of the mandatory-minimum law rather than engage in legal trickery designed to avoid the application of the law. But in an era in which the executive branch is the law and makes the law, it's not surprising that Holder would adopt such a policy.

But I've got a better idea: How about just ending the drug war entirely by ending drug prohibition, just as earlier Americans ended alcohol Prohibition when that social experiment resulted in the same types of horrific consequences as drug prohibition?

Consider two benefits of drug legalization: No more overcrowding drug-war dockets in federal and state courts and no more overcrowded prisons owing to drug-war prisoners. In fact, no more drug lords, drug cartels, and drug gangs because drug legalization would put them all out of business immediately, just as ending alcohol Prohibition put all the Al Capone types out of business immediately.

That brings us to the second major drug-war event in the news ­ the release from a Mexican prison of a man named Rafael Caro Quintero. Caro Quintero, who was a member of one of biggest drug gangs at that time, was convicted in 1985 of the torture and murder of an American DEA agent named Enrique "Kiki" Camarena, who was working undercover in Mexico. Camarena was kidnapped and brutally tortured for several days before finally being killed.

Mexico captured Caro Quintero and sentenced him to 40 years in jail. A few days ago, a Mexican court released him early from prison after he had served 28 years, holding that it had been an error to have prosecuted him in a Mexican federal court rather than in state court.

Needless to say, U.S. officials are furious. Joe Gutensohn, president of the U.S. Association of Former Federal Narcotics Agents, declared "The retired agents that I have spoken to are extremely upset."

The episode is a testament to the horrors of the drug war. First of all, the drug war gave rise to the drug gangs and drug cartels. If drugs hadn't been made illegal, they would have been sold by regular businesses rather than by violent drug gangs. Thus, Caro Quintero and the other gang members would not have been involved in the drug business, which in turn means that there wouldn't have been a DEA. Camarena would not have been in Mexico fighting the drug lords. He would have been here at home working a regular job.

And notice something important here: This took place almost 30 years ago! What good did it do to bust Caro Quintero and give him that 40-year jail sentence? It did no good at all. The drug war just kept going and going. Through the decades, people would quickly forget the last big drug lord who was busted, especially amidst the fanfare of the next big drug bust.

What did Camarena die for? He died for nothing. Although he is celebrated as a hero here in the United States, his death had no meaning whatsoever. The drug war just kept going, with new drug busts and new deaths and, as Holder suggests, ever-increasing overcrowded prisons and ruined lives.

The only people who have benefited from the drug war are (1) the drug dealers who have become wealthy and who have succeeded in staying alive and out of prison and (2) DEA agents who are now retired on fat federal pensions, including those in the U.S. Association of Former Federal Narcotics Agents, and (3) all the other government officials, including law-enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and clerks who benefit, one way or another, from the drug war.

There is only one solution to all this needless death, destruction, and damage, and it lies not in clever attempts by the Justice Department to circumvent the drug laws. The only solution is to put both the drug dealers and the DEA permanently out of business immediately. That means drug legalization.

http://fff.org/2013/08/12/the-never-ending-drug-war/