Saturday, February 27, 2016

About Donald Trump

Previously he invoked against monetary and trade policy that resulted in shipping much of the US economy overseas, particularly to China.  But now he focus upon the low people on the totem pole- Mexican immigrants, while saying about nothing on how the bank system screws the general public, while succeeding at getting others who are relatively low on the totem pole to cheer.

Makes statements about China and infrastructure putting us to shame, as if he would provide a way out of our malaise at getting big projects done.  But when push came to shove, where has he ever spoken in favor of new bridge-tunnel crossings, anywhere, such as in the NY metropolitan region?   Has he ever spoken on any such matters, asides from stating that we somehow can't afford a replacement Tappan Zee Bridge project (and with no mention of where the years of toll monies went)?!

Likewise, he favors eminent domain for private use.  But has be ever spoke in favor of its application for public use?  Such as a new crossing of Long Island Sound that would be opposed by the super wealthy along Long Island's northern coast?   Has he ever opposed such elite types who continually get away with politically bullying, as apparently this?

He once spoke in favor of ending the war of drugs- protecting alcohol and particularly Tobacco from their competition, but now favors its continuation- bucking the overall trend of more and more people favoring its end.

Indeed, his famous statement against Mexican immigrants, speaking of rapists and drug dealers in the same breath hearkens back to the hysteria of the 1980s.

What sort of political dynamics do things as that indicate?

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Catholic-Fascist Jeb Bush Drops Out of 2016 Race

upon his defeat in the South Carolina primary, about 3 weeks after being defeated by Rand Paul who nonetheless dropped out while Bush remained in the race.

Here's my write-up of Jeb Bush from last year:

As an open tool of Roman, Jeb Bush fervently supported the idea of the continuing inquisition against people for failing to conform to the pharma-alcohol-cigarette protection racket of the war of drugs.

Good riddance!

Thursday, February 11, 2016

"Time To Legalize Some Drugs" - D Willinger Letter Published October 2, 1987

appearing in the Westchester Gannett Newspapers
in response to a reactionary pro drug war column by nationally syndicated columnist William Raspberry


William Raspberry is mistaken if he thinks the government has not been going after consumers of illegal drugs (column of Sept. 8).  Records show that most drug law arrests and prosecutions have been directed against consumers.  Indeed, in all of the "victim-less" or "vice" type of crimes, drug type laws have been the ones where the customer is most vigorously prosecuted.

Raspberry seems unaware of the large numbers of drug users serving jail sentences for mere possession, with thousands having served average sentences of ten years for having as little as one marijuana cigarette.  Although marijuana penalties were reduced during the 1970s in a few states, the definition of "dug dealer is broad enough to allow or mandate a disproportionate jail time term for friends who pass a joint around in social sessions on private property.

Likewise with the rise in popularity of cocaine and the rise of political opportunists as Rudolf Giuliani, who find it advantageous to their political careers to set up elaborate sting operations and waste tax dollars prosecuting and jailing productive white collar coke users, our jails are overflowing.  Although a minority of cocaine users destroy themselves with the overuse and/or misuse, millions of responsible productive citizens with healthy relationships with such drugs suffer daily insult and threat from the government.

I am dismayed that Raspberry fails to see the threat to civil rights posed by a government stirring up animosity and hatred towards peaceful minority groups of individuals.  If Raspberry wants to rid peaceful neighborhoods of (presumably non peaceful) drug dealers, he would support legalization.  There is no justification for the laws against marijuana and cocaine in its natural form, coca, which contains many nutrients and other alkaloids recognized as modifying cocaine's effects in ways that can only be described as good.

Legalization would not only solve or mitigate drug problems, it would solve or mitigate the disturbing increase in government powers over individual freedom.

Although history has shown conclusively that drug prohibition is doomed to failure, politicians seek more police state power to fight this war.  For so many to be so blind or deceitful about this assault on civil rights and liberties is frightening.

New Rochelle

Also see:

Blame for drug abuse misplaced to benefit politicians, big business 
published January 4, 1988

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Rand Paul 2016 Wimp Out

Rand Paul defeats Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich in February 2016 Iowa Primary.

Yet it is Paul - the sole libertarian candidate in a field of authoritarian candidates - and not those that he defeated that announces a suspension of his campaign!

[excerpt] (CNN)Rand Paul, the libertarian-minded freshman senator who was once viewed as a formidable presidential contender, is suspending his White House bid.

Paul discussed the matter with staff Wednesday morning and sent out a statement confirming the decision to drop out of the Republican presidential primary.

"It's been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House," Paul said in the statement. 
"Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty."

Paul, a Kentucky Republican, is expected to instead place his focus squarely on his Senate reelection bid, where he faces a wealthy Democrat, Lexington Mayor Jim Gray, who has the money to partially finance his campaign.

Paul finished a disappointing fifth place in Monday's Iowa caucuses, registering just 4.5% of the vote despite placing a heavy emphasis on the state's college towns to bring out younger voters inspired by his libertarian-minded message. He promised that night to continue his campaign.

Note the general lack of media reporting of his decision to be a drop out, that Paul defeated Bush, Christie, Fiorina and Kasich.

Why should it be Paul that drops out and not Bush, Christie, Fiorina or Kasich?

This is even more perplexing when we consider that it occurred just before the primary in New Hampshire, a state known for being more Libertarian.
I cannot believe that Rand Paul would drop out before the crucial primary state of New Hampshire as thousands of libertarians have moved there. Maybe Rand does not have the fire in the belly as his dad had or there are forces at work. I am very disappointed with his decision and this will reflect badly on his senatorial campaign this year- Don Meinshausen

Once again we have a demonstration of the utter absurdity of the staged state primary system with the early states getting to effectively decide the range of candidates, thus violating the Constitutional doctrine of equal protection, by denying voters in the later states the same range of choices?

100% reportingDelegatesVote %
Cruz (won)

Site for 2016 Libertarian Party Candidate Gary Johnson