Frustrating when we still eat our own due to a failure to realize a re-ordering of actual reality (when they are too busy looking for an unrealistic paradigm shift to a different reality) in the offing.

Ron Paul’s position on legalizing drugs is so far beyond pollyannaish. To equate the use of drugs (and he does not limit himself to just Pot but includes drugs like heroin) to someone drinking soda, eating chips and other “fattening” foods the government Nanny state wants to control is over the border delusional.

The person that uses heroin is not able to function in society. If you can’t function you can’t hold down a job. You can’t hold down a job you have no income to pay for your heroin (illegal now or legal in Ron Paul’s universe). No income you resort to theft to pay for the habit.

Drug use is not the “personal choice” issue that Ron Paul wants to pretend it is by his obfuscating the issue.

A friend of mine who is a Ron Paul supporter defends Paul’s stance with:

So convict them for theft. Let’s stop trying to decide what’s “best” for the little people and return to a government that does what it is supposed to do; protect people’s Life and Property and secure their Liberty. Anything else is just elitist collectivism

Which of course does not address the issue. They do get convicted for theft. But without the addiction there would have been no theft.

That is why Paul’s position is delusional. It’s not the same thing as eating a Twinkie.

Paulista’s shout from the top of their lungs that the sole purpose of Government to to “protect people’s Life and Property and secure their Liberty”.

Drug use ruins lives, damages property and results in loss of liberty. Not just of the Drug user but of Society at large.

No Twinkie ever did that

Of course the Paul supporters respond that

“the federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate what we choose to ingest.  If it did, ObamaCare would be a breeze to defend.”

While I have no issue with them (and am in agreement) on the Federal/State issue in general in this regard their argument falls apart.  Heroin is not a domestic product.  It had to be imported.  Federal jurisdiction would of course cover the control of the importation of a processed product like Heroin. Federal enforcement in this regard is a text book example of the proper use of the Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…”

While I “could” see the elimination of “drug” crimes and not prosecuting the drug user there is actually a good reason to prosecute these crimes. As I pointed out above the drug addict will resort to theft, etc in order to feed and supply their drug addiction.  Without the addiction there is no theft.  Therefore, if we can treat the addiction of the addict we can go a long away toward the Government responsibility that the Paul-bots agree on “protect people’s Life and Property”.  Plus, a conviction of theft is far more damaging to the addict’s ability to become a productive member of society once the addiction is under control then is a conviction for drug use.

That’s why there are Drug Courts to work as a diversion.

Where the Fed’s should certainly prosecute with a vengeance are the fiends that import and distribute across state lines these poisons that wreck huge chunks of our economy and lives.

This article about the rise of heroin use in Russia was interesting and directly on point.

Ivanov, who did not say which country Russia had replaced as the top heroin user, estimated that heroine addiction cost Russia 3 percent of its annual gross domestic product, which in 2008 totalled about $1.7 trillion, Reuters reports.

“Our people are dying. Some 90 percent of drug addicts in Russia are on Afghan heroin,” Ivanov said. “This is a threat to national security and to our country’s society.”
In a sign of its concern about Afghanistan, Moscow last month agreed to increase support for resupply shipments for NATO’s operations in Afghanistan across its territory, despite differences with the United States over its war with Georgia last summer, NATO expansion eastwards and missile defence, Reuters reports.
“It is time the world community got serious about the Afghan drug problem,” Reuters quotes Ivanov as saying. Poppy crops should be sprayed with defoliants and farmers offered incentives to cease production.

The Sale of drugs and the use of drugs are not victimless crimes.

So tired of the lie that the US Budget was in balance in 2000 and on it’s way to paying off the debt if it had not been for George Bush the Terrible.

Guess Tim Geithner in addition to being unable to use Turbo Tax can’t check his own Treasury Department’s website to make sure his Boss’s Teleprompter does not make Obama tell a lie.

Pray tell. Which of these Clinton Era Budgets ends in surplus and in what year does the trend line for the Debt start to head down?

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury.  Considering the government’s fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton’s budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here’s the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

The horror that is a the North Korean Nazi-Socialist state. Mao, Stalin, etc… were free thinking reformers by comparison.

Watch more free documentaries

The US Department of Justice certainly seems to have either lost their focus (I doubt it) or more probably (as I believe) they are simply announcing their new direction which is in simple contradiction to their actual purpose.

Consider this question.

Q: What is the difference between constitutional law, statutory law and common law?

A: There are three basic types of law in the United States:

1. Constitutional law is the law in the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. It includes such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression etc. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. No law can be enacted that contravenes the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Statutory law is law enacted by legislature.  Congress, state and municipalities all have legislative bodies that make laws.  It is created through a formal lawmaking process and codified in official text. ( Example: When the Legislature passes a bill, it is a Statutory Law.)
3. Common law, began in England when law was derived from common practices.  Common law includes “judge-made laws” and relies on judicial precidents (case law).  Judges, thus, in their decisions are bound by precedent: the rulings of other judges in similar cases decided earlier. All the states except for Louisiana are common law states.

What has the US Justice Department done to indicate that they are no longer focused on enforcing and prosecuting the Constitutional Laws of the United States?

Now while publications are updated and changed (to include websites).  The designs and elements that are chosen “should ” reflect the philosophy of the organization.  The Justice Department recently did a makeover of their site.

Old Banner:

New Banner

It’s hard to see but the words at the top of the new banner say:

“The common law is the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people.”

With the transition from English law, which had common law crimes, to the new legal system under the U.S. Constitution, which prohibited ex post facto laws at both the federal and state level, the question was raised whether there could be common law crimes in the United States. It was settled in the case of United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812), which decided that federal courts (where the US Justice Department plies it’s trade) had no jurisdiction to define new common law crimes, and that there must always be a (constitutional) statute defining the offense and the penalty for it.

So… The Justice Department has no jurisdiction bringing Common Law cases so why have a quote about Common Law featured on the Public Entrance to your site?

Where did the phrase come from?

Well, it DID NOT come from someone subject to the Laws of the United States nor even someone affiliated with the Courts or the Justice System. It is atributed to C. Wilfred Jenks, a Brit and a former Director-General of the International Labour Organization from 1970 to 1973.  International Labour!?

Where there no good quotes to be found from US Judges or former heads of the DOJ?

What does the clamor for Electic Cars like the Nissan Leaf from eco-nuts in California portend for your ability to blow out your coif, play your Xbox or stream a movie from Netflix.

Yes, California has addressed some of the real and the market manipulation causes to the rolling blackouts that affected the state in 2000 and 2001 but have they built enough power plants or built the infastructure to accomodate a fleet of electric cars?