Joined Sentiment about Legal Joints

Citing the Pot Czar position still waiting to be filled in Washington State, Neworth whittled off a number of liberal talking points: Obama won by a landslide (no!), the expansion of victories for women (tell that to women struggling under massive unemployment), and more states endorsing gay marriage (hardly gay, and marriage has never been about equality). Then he mentioned the Colorado and Washington State initiatives which decriminalized recreational use of marijuana. Throughout Neworth trumpeted his support for ending the War on Drugs. Oh My God -- Are you high? I thought to myself as I was reading “The Big Bong Theory”. Fast times at SaMo High, maybe? Where’s Sean Penn when you need him?
Joint, er. . . point of fact, Jack Neworth and I agree on something else. I have either hit “Cloud Nine”, or gotten lost in the “Purple Haze” of lefty guitarist Jimmy Hendrix, or Jack Neworth’s “Crystal “Blue state Persuasion” has taken over. Now, for the second time this year, I find myself agreeing with this polar (or bipolar?) opposite on another policy issue.

Without a doubt, drugs never should have been criminalized -- never!

Granted, it was never the smartest idea to allow a former Confederate General to market a “soft drink” laced with Cocaine (that’s “Coca-Cola” to you and me). Then again, legal versions of cocaine (novocain, anyone?) are readily available.

I had resisted the notion of decriminalizing drugs. In those days I believed that more laws, more penalties, more enforcement would stop people from using drugs. Telling wolves not to eat meat made more sense.

I freed my mind when free market Milton Friedman argued t hat drug laws were “immoral.” Then I studied the history of Marijuana Prohibition. Depression-era pencil-pusher Henry Anslinger wanted to stay working during the FDR administration. Anslinger cooked up (no spoons) a scheme to create a nuisance to prosecute and keep himself employed: criminalize marijuana. Fresh off of alcohol prohibition, the United States federal government, under Democratic leadership, proposed that MJ should be “Not OK”. Just to stir up anti-MJ sentiment,Anslinger helped produce the now laughable movie Reefer Madness. The horror! The horror!
Respectfully, Neworth acknowledged in his piece that it was “National Review” conservative William F. Buckley who said Decriminalize! God bless that "Krypto Nazi", (according to liberal goad Gore Vidal). Then again, joint. . .er, point of fact, the Nazis and other nanny-state socialist tyrannies have long supported drug control, along with every other form of control possible. A long list of libertarian-Conservative-Republicans have favored decriminalization: ABC radio host Larry Elder, former Congressman David Dreier (R- San Dimas), and the two Pauls, father Ron (Congressman from Texas) and son Rand (Senator from Kentucky). What better way for Republicans to flex their “anti-establishment”muscles and burn Democrats as out of touch (or just plain out of it).

Of course, even if I want to sink the legal wrangling, micromanaging liberals among us, I must conceded that it was a Republican President who pushed (pun intended) the War on Drugs on this country. Richard Milhous Nixon was an ambitiously immoderate moderate to many GOP operatives, and one of his worst legacies was the DEA, along with the EPA and price controls. And there was that Watergate thing, too. Perhaps Nixon has been using gateway drugs in those days. Was he a member of a different “Silent Majority” of abusers?

Besides, I never liked First Lady Nancy Reagans’ “Just Say No!” campaign against drug use. Neither do the growing numbers of youth who still get high. In the South Bay, I often overhear high school students talk about going home and getting high in broad daylight, either at school or at McDonalds (I’m not lovin’ it!). One high school graduate, clothed all in white, even outlined to me which drugs are most popular, and where. In the local paper, I read about two teen deaths on the same obituary page. Imagine how much easier it would be for anyone to get help once they know that there will be no condemnation, no incarceration for using (or rather abusing) a controlled substance.

Decriminalization is fast upon us, from statewide to nationwide. Colorado, Washington state, and as we speak even little Rhode Island is on track to decriminalizing marijuana. Strangely enough, former Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy resigned from office because of drug abuse, yet he resists decriminalization. From “Chappaquiddick” to “Getting-high-ain’t-chic”,this double-standard cannot stand for long. Next to California, Rhode Island has high taxes, higher regulations, and one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Very soon, they will be getting “high” on MJ without going to J-A-I-L.
Once again, a liberal and conservative are feeling their way through the purple (or green) haze. Here’s to more consensus in the future (but I won’t smoke on it).

Krugman is a Krack-Pot

Who pays Liberal economist Paul Krugman's bills?

This man is a disgrace to the "dismal science."

He still tricks out the same hollow talking points about more spending and spurring economic growth.

Did he even live through the 1980's?

Did he not notice that the tax cuts spurred growth? Even Democratic President John F. Kennedy articulated the crucial importance of cutting tax rates in order to increase tax revenues.

Krugman must be paid out by the thousands from people like George Soros, or other well-financed leftists.

How this economist can claim to under the supply and demand which presses up against.

There is no such thing as "neo-Keynsian" theory. All of Keynes economic ideas are old, dead, and wrong.

Yet academics, intellects, the "second hand dealers in dead ideas" will  never leave alone the notion that human beings can do more things to make the economy work harder and do more.

The sheer arrogance of assuming that human interaction centralized and controlled should be enough to denounce the standing of academics such as Krugman.

Yet as long as they remain in the milieu of "like-minded" academics, "thinkers" like Paull Krugman will live in  the land of "truthiness" without getting to the truth of supply, demand, scarcity, and the impossibility of government to manufacture anything,  but instead distribute everything.

The Force is With You, GOP!

A long time ago, in a state far, far away. .

So begins the new political saga for California voters, except that this time, the new Evil Empire is the Sacramento Democratic Supermajority.

The rebel forces are none other than the Republican Party and the wearied conservative forces throughout the state.

Who is the Emperor of this Evil Empire of high taxes, higher regulation, and highest spending and debt in the country? Why, that would be John Perez, the Assembly Speaker of the House, who has threatened and intimidated businesses throughout the state, telling them that they must line up their donations behind every Democratic candidate in every statewide race, or face the "Dark Side" of his and his caucus' legislative fury.

Who is Darth Vader in this mix-up? None other than Jerry Brown, a former flower child who has given into the "Dark Side" of tax-and-spend, regulate-frustrate. He has a little, very little bit of "The Force" of limited government, lower taxes,  less spending, and local control, but he all too often gives into the decrepit Emperor, John Perez.

The Force is with you, GOP.

You believe in the Invisible Hand of commerce, which works good and evil to every interest, public or private, regardless of one's color, culture, or character.

You believe that less government, less tangibles, less 'gimmes" make a citizen stronger.

You believe that individuals can rest in the Force of Individual Liberty, that they can choose the schools that will best serve their children and their future. You believe that fewer laws are need to ensure a  just and safe society. You believe that the light that shines on government corruption will bring an end to the "Dark Side" of waste, fraud, and deficit spending which dominates the Evil Empire of the Democratic Supermajority.

Another "Emperor", President Barack Obama, has already discussed establishing a "Death Star", one which will supposedly protect us from threats abroad, but here at home, in this country, in our state, the two Emperors are plotting more take-over, more control, more overwhelming constraints of the "Dark Side" on the lives of individual Californians.

Republicans, the Force is with you. You know the truth, even if most people either do not know or do not believe. You have run small businesses. You have paid your taxes. You have raised your children to grow into responsible adults.

Now is the time to take up the light sabers of truth. Now is the time to strike back at the "Evil Empire"

The Force is with you, GOP!

YHWH is Already with Us -- Through Messiah

On the Editorial Page of The Jewish Observer, I have read frequent pleas from the faithful that we must “return to YHWH” or “bring YHWH back into our schools.”

This kind of thinking, that YHWH is removed from us, that we must usher Him back into our lives, falsely limits YHWH and exposes our limited understanding of His great power.

YHWH does not sit and wait for us to come to Him. He comes to us, in our darkest hour sometimes, and often because we insist on exhausting every other option before letting Him work in our lives.

YHWH is the unityof “Was”, “Is” and “Forever.” He was, and is, and always will be. He has not gone anywhere. He rests outside of time, outside of our limited thinking, yet He is more than ready to step into our troubles and shed His grace on us. From Sarah to Hannah, every barren woman can sing (Isaiah 54: 1) because they trust that YHWH will cause them to prosper.

YHWH is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Was, is, always will be.

YHWH told Avraham: “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 12: 3)

YHWH told Moshe: “Stand back and see the salvation of the Lord”? (Exodus 14: 13)

YHWH told Yehoshua: “There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.”
 (Joshua 1: 5)

YHWH told Yeremiah: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jeremiah 1: 5)

YHWH said: “A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.” (Psalms 91: 7)

Did not YHWH say: “I have redeemed thee, thou are mine”? (Isaiah 43: 1)

Did not YHWH say: “14In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.” (Isaiah 54: 17)

Did not YHWH promise: “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.” (Ezekiel 11: 19-20)

Did not YHWH declare: “But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.” (Malachi 4: 2)

YHWH’s creation must stop looking at the perils and start looking at Messiah (Isaiah 53). Stop seeking answers, start receiving His righteousness, and the rest, His rest, shall be added unto you.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee: Declare Another State of Emergency

A massive snowstorm is heading toward the Ocean State. Superstorm Sandy was bad enough, but now the Northeast is taking another battering. Governor Lincoln Chafee has declared a state of emergency in Rhode Island, telling residents to stay off the roads and stay in their homes.

Mother Nature's wrath is falling white and cold across the Northeast, but a worse disaster has descended on the New England states, one worse than intolerant Puritanism or even state-sponsored statism. The fiscal crisis of underfunded and unpaid pension obligations weigh heavily on voters and state representatives, worse than a superstorm, which will not only demolish houses but undo the legacies and savings of hard-working families, both those who worked in the public as well as the private sectors. General Treasurer Gina Raimondo has taken what precautions she can to staunch the misery of massive cuts, yet the tsunami of debt roars ever more over Rhode Island.

Beyond the fiscal fears, the demagoguery of the Democratic Party has been an unmitigated and unnatural disaster for Rhode Island. For seventy years, Democrats have dominated the state legislature, where their torrential cascade of debt, deficits, and bankrupting taxes and regulations have driven away thousands of Rhode Island residents. Only in 1983, which some have termed "The Great Fiasco", did some semblance of two-party rule return to the state, when Republicans won an unprecedented twenty-three states in the General Assembly. Today, the legislature remains dominated by the unprecedented disaster of Democratic rule. The real "fiasco", of course, has been the frightening trend of one-party partisanship (if such a dynamic is possible) in Providence, one which has unleashed an unearthly flurry of anti-growth polices.

Rhode Island has one of the worst business climates, replete with thundering regulations, hurricane-like taxes, and a snowstorm of spending which has blanketed the state in unrelenting debt. Instead of a field of powdery, gentle white, there is a thrashing sea of red ink washing along the shores and covering not just the homes, but the future of the state and its residents. The "Red Sea of Debt" is so great, that the city of Providence may have to seek the intervention of Divine Providence to part present bondholders and taxpayers (what few that remain) from the threatened bankruptcy drowning everything.

Gov. Chafee must declare another state of emergency, one of fiscal and political proportions, a formerly subtle disaster which is now erupting across the state, New England, and is even threatening larger states like Illinois and California.

Forget about global warming, and forget about gay marriage. The biggest crisis afflicting the state of Rhode Island is the ungodly dominance of the tax-and-spendthrift Democratic Party. However, it does not necessarily take an "Act of God" to end this heinous, disastrous dominance. In declaring a state of emergency, Gov. Chafee and supporters can enact the following reforms:

1. Pull the Master Lever once and for all. Get rid of this petty polling practice which permits one party to dominate every statewide office with one vote. Every resident in Rhode Island deserves to choose individually and selectively who will represent them at the city, the state, or even the national level. Not since the Gilded Age of political machines and politicized corruption have such hollow tactics existed. Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall would sprinkle perfume on the ballots that he wanted cast, and others have attributed the exhortation to him about tallying ballots: "It's not the number of votes that counts, but vote counters." He also quipped: "As long as I count the voters, what are you going to do about it?" The voters should do something all right, and end the Master Lever.

2. Initiate open primaries. Many parties should have the opportunity to participate in Rhode Island politics. Why should party have all the fun, partying on the taxpayer's dime? Republicans can coalesce with libertarians, or Democrats and Republicans who agree on anything can form their own party. More choices, more freedom, more power to the people.

3. Enact a Citizens' Commission to draw the boundaries for state legislative and Congressional representation. Instead of permitting the state legislature to gerrymander local and statewide seats, why not permit a select group of dedicated Rhode Islanders to draw up the districts. Instead of creating safe districts for state senators and assembly members, citizens would only take into account the geographical or at least the basic cultural similarities between and within cities.

4. Get rid of the massive number of state legislators and excessive overlapping bureaucracies. For a state as small as Rhode Island, why are so many people in public office? With every politician comes a pension, benefits, and guaranteed salary, while voters have no guarantee of any one of those perks. There is no excuse for anyone to get rich off the state, when the state merely reaps (or rapes) the profits from hard-working taxpayers, many of whom are now working hard to leave the state.

Gov. Chafee, it's time to declare another state of emergency: a fiscal and political crisis. The Capital city of Providence is going bankrupt, and aside from an "Act of Providence", the well-being of your state depends on well-meaning reforms which will return the power of representation to the people instead of the politicians. End the Master Lever, open up the primaries, and let the citizens design their constituencies. These reforms will expand choice and limit the scope of government in the lives and livelihood of Rhode Islanders.

La Opinion: Immigration Problem Centers on Welfare State

Washington politicians are debating immigration reform once again. Justifiably, Republicans want border control. Understandably, Democrats want a pathway to citizenship. While Democrats recognize the plight of young illegals brought to this country against their will, Republicans recognize that without the rule of law, the well-being of all Americans, and even illegal immigrants, means nothing.

Immigration was not a problem a century ago. What has changed since then?
Political pundits have submitted that a majority of recent arrivals, either legal or illegal, come from Mexico or Latin America. While the ocean provided a psychological divide for the assimilation of European immigrants, the proximity of Mexico and Latin America to the United States has delayed the assimilation of Hispanic immigrants. If people research this country’s immigration patterns, they will find that immigrants to the United States have been coming from all over the world for decades, even Mexico and Canada.

The immigration problem has nothing to do with the immigrants themselves. The immigration problem has nothing to do with the lack of skills, or the greater abundance of skills, which immigrants bring to this country. The immigration problem has nothing to do with the fear of terrorism, although mistakes in immigration processing allowed nineteen high-jackers from Arab countries to attack the World Trade Center.  Despite the lack of inoculation for man third-world immigrants, health issues are not stalling immigration reform, either.

The contention has everything to do with the welfare state, which did not exist a century ago. As long as the United States provides federal aid and public services (like education), regardless of citizenship, then law-abiding, taxpaying citizens will understandably and justifiably resist immigration reform.

Get rid of the welfare state, open the borders with steady law enforcement protection. Streamline naturalization, and economic forces will balance out immigration patterns. Problem solved.

Tolerance is a Virtue (One Which Requires Truth)

Tolerance is a virtue.

Without tolerance, there is no free society. Without tolerance, their is no pluralism.

Without tolerance, there is no political stability, for warring factions will disintegrate into fighting minions against each other, like the religious wars of Western Europe's past and the Middle East today.

Without religious toleration, European wars would have never abated. Without religious toleration, there may no longer remain a Muslim world.

Without toleration, there are not civil rights, no free speech, no respect for the individual.

Without toleration, the rights of man cannot be respected.

The Democratic Party, the liberal mindset of today, no longer honors "tolerance" as a virtue.

One Democratic leader told me that I had to accept him as he was.

If I have to accept someone because of who they are, then it's not acceptance, but instead a form of tyranny.

All of the talk about multiculturalism, gay rights, or accepting people because of their sexuality makes no sense if people are forced to accept these values.

Acceptance cannot be forced, but tolerance must be enforced.

Tolerance is a virtue, one that requires truth. What stands the test of time, what remains so in the face of changing fads and fancies, that is the truth. Without truth, without standing for something that you believe in, tolerance means nothing.

If the Democratic Party leaders expect everyone to accept the views and values of their coalition of ideologies, they will have no choice, no chance of realizing this vision, apart from using brute force and state sanction.

Tolerance is a virtue, one which the Democratic Party cannot claim to respect in the face of expecting every interest group that wants a share of state power.

Do Not Attack the Unelectable for Being Too Conservative

There will be primary fights in both parties.

That is the nature of politics and human ambition.

If a primary does ensue, it is vital that primary voters choose the conservative who is the most electable.

Of course, I am writing to Republicans, but if there are Democrats out there who are willing to listen, that's all for the best.

From Delaware to Washington State, from Texas to New England, Republicans and conservatives need to rally around the candidate who is electable, not just conservative, or freedom-fighting.

Back to Delaware, 2010. Congressman Mike Castle was a shoo-in for the Senate Seat. Was he the  most conservative candidate? No, he was not. Was he the most electable? Absolutely.

Along came Christine O'Donnell, a crack-pot politician who had a dubious record of suing conservative think-tanks, misusing campaign funds, and misrepresenting her previous record of running for US Senate.

Notice how I did not attack he because she was too conservative. I outlined the many reasons why she was not fit for running for office in the first.

This line of criticism must dominate every primary fight. Never should one Republican attack another Republican because he or she is too conservative. If distinctions must be made, they must be based on on a record of caring, competence, and character.

For Republicans to savage one another as too conservative or not conservative enough has placed the Republican Party too much on the defense in general elections, or forces winning primary candidates to backtrack toward the center, often at their own peril, losing votes in the process.

Romney tacked too far to the right in order to carry the nomination, but then he spent more time explaining himself or denying previous comments, when he needed to be attacking President Obama. Tory lawmaker Margaret Thatcher understood the crucial importance of defining the debate so as to beat one's opponent, but no one can set the parameters for the fight if he is too busy defending himself.

The GOP needs to stop defining itself and start redefining the Democratic Party of today, a group of entitled corporatists who spend other people's money at the expense of poor, working class, and minority voters, all while keeping minorities in the party through a series of lies, bailouts, and out right race-based peer intimidation.

Conservatives should never criticize conservatives for being too conservative. The issue must be competence, experience, and electability -- always.

The Democratic Party that I "Liked". . .

I love Democrats -- at least when they cared about the "little guy" -- or I guess the term nowadays is "The 99%"

I loved Democrats like John F. Kennedy, when he talked about having a strong military and lowering taxes so that more people would have money, find work, and create wealth for others.

I loved Democrats, like Grover Cleveland, who refused to sign off on federal subsidies for any reason. He never wanted the American people to dependent on the government, they way a growing number have become dependent today.

In effect, I liked Democrats when they voted and acted like Republicans today --- aside from the inherent racism

Unfortunately, the days when the Democratic Party cared about you and me are long gone, giving way to media and political elites who love to tax the poor in order to pay the way for the rich.

My father was a Democrat, to some extent, until the party left him, as much as the party left his father, and Ronald Reagan.

My mother was also a Democrat, because the party stood up for the "little guy."

Unfortunately, she kept voting the Democratic line because of party affiliation, even the party was no longer affiliated with the "little guy".

The Democratic Party is out of touch, uncaring and unconnected with the rights, the plights, and the fights of poor and middle class voters.

In Hermosa Beach last week, the vast majority of Democrats who met with Congressman Henry Waxman were old, rich, white people who cared about "climate change", just like Congressman Henry Waxman himself.

Most people in this country, no matter what their age, color, or creed, are not worried about the atmosphere. They do not care about the polar bears not having an Arctic home of their own, they do not worry about the ice caps melting, and the only "nino" that Hispanic voters care about are their own.

When Democrats wanted to  make sure that everyone had an opportunity, when affirmative action was about affirming that people can take action in their own lives for the better, then I liked the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, affirmative action went from ending discrimination to promoting reverse discrimination, giving unfair promotions and exceptions to individuals because of race.

Republicans had long since support civil rights, to the degree that no one's rights were infringed. To favor one group of people with preferential treatment is detrimental to the same group, as well as to all others. Democrats have taken civil rights in the latter direction.

I liked it when Democrats said "The era of Big Government is over." I liked it when Democrats passed welfare reform. I also liked it when a Democratic President signed into law balanced budgets, and was willing to wield a line-item veto. Today, I am convinced that Bill Clinton was really a Republican, while George W. Bush was the Democrat.

Spending sprees and irresponsibility define the Democratic Party of today, a political hegemony of nanny-state Pharisees and arrogant entitled titleholders who insult minorities with empty lies about Republicans and free markets, a party which panders to unions instead of preparing young people to succeed, a party which rejoices when more people enter welfare, instead of contributing to their own general welfare.

The Democratic voters of today deserve the Democratic Party of yesterday, which is the Republican Party of today: free markets, free enterprise, free people.

In effect, the Democratic Party that I liked. . . is the Republican Party that I like.

About the "Shrinkage" of the US Economy

The LA Times described an unexpected contraction of the United States economy as “shrinkage”. I immediately thought of the popular sitcom Seinfeld.

 

Has Elaine Benes or George Costanza­­ joined the newspapers reporting staff, or what?

Perhaps they should write about President Barack “Bubble Boy”Obama, who continues to live in a bubble of blaming President George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans for the country’s economic woes.

Americans are supposed to be “Masters of th­eir Domain”,even if Democrats won most of the contests in 2012. Obama’s every act, policy, and executive order prove that the Democrats are doing nothing for the economy. Without a doubt, President Obama was not my “pick”,and his administration has not been a “Festivus for the rest of us”.

What better way to describe them than with words from the hilarious show about “nothing”.

To which Democrats say: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”