Note to Drug Warriors

Close the DEA, and fold the BATF, and the IRS into it, for good measure; reduce the FDA to prosecuting false claims and fraud.

Since the laws making various psychoactive substances illegal were passed, the illicit drug trade has only grown, turning a minor problem that affected less that one precent of the nation's population into a trillion dollar industry affecting more than ten percent, and that's not counting the $$ spent on "enforcement," "justice," and encarceration.

Yeah, I know, like cancer, there are probably more people making a living on it than are dying of it, but so what? Does anybody expect that someday, the narcotraficantes will surrender? That the junkies will decide to come clean -- as a result of all this handomely paying drug war? And what will the preachers do when the Devil is saved?

Give me a break! You're an adult(?) and want to poison yourself recreationally? Knock yourself out -- literally. You want to sell that ~!@#$%^&* to my grandkids? I'll kill you myself!

Enough jive! It ain't working for those of us who don't sell it, use it, chase it, litigate it, or pretend to jail it (ex-cons tell me there's often "better" drugs in prison, than on the street.) Dump the whole stupid concept of pretending to "fight" the source of your new Mercedes. Go find an honest job!

"Anchor" Babies

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

-- U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV (sic)

Is every child born to a foreigner in the USA an "anchor"?

Why is, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," so hard to understand? We understand why any hypothetical Pedro and Maria might prefer that their next child, putatively born north of the Mexican border, be regarded as a US citizen, but suppose for a moment that they were prosperous and well connected back in their homeland, had come here legally as tourists, and moreover, were proud citizens of their nation, and preferred that their little bundle of joy have the same citizenship as themselves. (Not too hard to imagine, is it?)

Would the Department of Homeland Surrender insist that their inconvenience at having dropped the little darling on the wrong side of the border on a mere touristic visit, become a trap, forbidding them to take out of the country, a newly-minted US citizen? Would they be charged with attempted kidnapping? I think not! Even considering the high-handed and capricious behavior, so characteristic of that misbegotten agency of Satan, I still think not. Would they do that to a British (French, Russian, German) family?

Moreover, if I am wrong, and the DHS should actually refuse to allow them to take their kid home, to whom would the parents logically turn first, to resolve the injustice -- to the US federal court system, or to the Embassy of their home nation?

The answer to that question should settle the issue of to whose jurisdiction they are subject. (Hint: It ain't ours) Why should anyone think that the prefatory (or should I say, "preparatory?") commission of the minor crime of crossing the border without permission, would alter the national jurisdiction to which any mere invader is subject?

Fear This: "Our" National (federalized) Police

Police Forces across the nation have jubilantly become welded into the occupying army against which we were warned by the Founders. Armies are necessarily organized to make unremitting war against enemies.

Unless you are in a position of political power to command them directly, (and unless they know it) as a non-cop, you automatically ARE the enemy. Whenever you see any law enforcement officer, even if he/she is your next door neighbor (perish the thought) even drinking/fishing buddy, you should assume that as soon as you become aware of his/her presence, you are under arrest, and behave accordingly, until he/she departs the scene, even if no discernible crime has been committed.

The mere presence of someone who is not a cop is all the evidence a surly cop needs to make a case. In fact, he/she needs no evidence of a crime having been committed at all, nor the presence of anyone. On any bad hair day, he/she can fabricate a nonexistent crime to have been committed out of thin air, take the next random stranger encountered, gun him/her down without comment, then allege away! Other LEOs needn't have been present to "substantiate" the obligatory multiple allegations, which they are only too glad to do, considering their inherently outnumbered and adversarial position vis-à-vis the the entire rest of humanity, and there's not a single court in the nation that would dare say different.

And all the sheeple who live subject to such treatment agree, that unless cops are allowed utter free rein to murder at will, anarchy must certainly ensue. Let's be careful out there!