Archive for the 'USA' Category

If anyone needs further proof of the fallacy of America's "War on Drugs", a study published on Monday by Jon Gettman, who has a Ph.D. in public policy from George Mason University and publishes extensively on the pot business, finds that marijuana in America is a $113 billion annual business that costs taxpayers $41.8 billion in enforcement costs and lost tax revenues annually.  $41 billion dollars would go a long way (even for America's fiscal basket case of a federal government).  Plus, it would make sense in "the land of the free", would it not?

 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Global American

Gary Kasparov, the man who was a world chess champion for 15 years in a row is trying now to checkmate Vladimir Putin in politics. Wishful thinking? A mirage of the West projected onto Russia? Maybe. Leader of the opposition movement "The Other Russia", Mr. Kasparov admits quite sincerely: "We are not trying to win the elections, we are trying to have elections!"

A guest of honor at the European Ideas Network in Warsaw last week, Mr. Kasparov made some worrying statements:

Putin doesn't run a country, he runs a corporation. He is the ugliest mixture of Karl Marx and Adam Smith. He is not interested in restoring Russia's influence, he's just interested in Gazprom's and Rosneft's influence. Actually, Putin is destroying the Russian state. If we look at the functions of the state, they are gradually transferred to the state companies: Now the Duma voted that Gazprom and Rosneft can have its own armies. These so-called state companies are run by Putin and his KGB-buddies - him being a sort of "capo di tutti capi."  And for those doing business with KGB Inc., I  remind them that the KGB shareholders are very active shareholders.

In Kasparov's view, the main goal of Russian foreign policy is to raise the price of oil, no matter what - that's why the tensions in the Middle East are so important to Putin:

Selling nuclear technology to Iran is good - you get money and create tensions - selling missiles to Hezbollah through Syria serves the same purpose. North Koreea causes trouble? Excellent! In Putin's view, everything that will raise the oil price is good. But oil money is the main sponsor of terrorism. If we look at a map of the world, most of the dictatorships are based on oil.

Although he admits that the current opposition parties stand no chance in even getting registered for the upcoming parliamentary elections, not to mention the presidential ones, Kasparov seems confident that the Putin regime will collapse before 2012.

 If the price of oil falls under 50 dollars a barrel, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict that the regime will fall. But even if the price of oil stays high, the regime will collapse. The problem with this regime is that the oil money disappears, you can't find it in Russian banks or investments. You can find it anywhere from Riga til London, but not in Russia. The Russian banking system is shaky, the infrastructure is old and rusty, from Soviet times, pipelines need investments badly, but nothing of this sort is being done. Inevitably, this will lead to a political crisis. Even if Putin puts his man in charge for four or less years, the balance will be disturbed and there will be massive fighting among the different groups. And the fear of the rich and powerful can be transformed into a dynamic energy which could topple the regime.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The New European

If you were in New York City over the weekend and saw what was billed as a Muslim Day Parade, you would have possibly stumbled upon a scene better suited to the Middle East: 

Muslim March 1 

Muslim March 2

For a complete recount, visit NYC's own Urban Infidel

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Global American

It is time to quit squabbling about who will get the most financial aid, who will get the most pork, who will get the most benefits from governmental redistributions of wealth, or what the treasury or the taxpayers should do next to make our lives "happier."   It is time to engage in serious discussions about whether the US government is doing what it is constitutionally required to do.  To have such a discussion, it is best to start with the language of the Constitution.  I would like to see us begin the discussion with a look at Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution:

US Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:  The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Now, with this definition in mind, I present two easily-answered questions when posed within the framework of the US Constitution:

  • Test question #1:  Is the Federal Government protecting the States against invasion?  Compare and contrast the viewpoints of the citizens of Oregon and North Dakota to the viewpoints of the citizens of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, whose states are experiencing an invasion of illegal immigrants.
  • Test question #2:  To quell domestic violence in the aftermath of Katrina: the National Guard and federal troops should have been deployed in New Orleans:
    • (a) as soon as a federal official thought it prudent, or
    • (b) at such time as the New York Times would later assert, after applying biased 20-20 hindsight, was the time when the federal government should have acted, or
    • (c) upon application from the Louisiana legislature, or
    • (d) upon application from the Governor of Louisiana?

If you missed any of the questions above, I would suggest studying the US Constitution and then following my easy four-step plan: read, appreciate, understand, & apply.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wise American

Somehow we have equated permissive inaction with "making laws which establish religion".  Is the phrase, "Separation of Church and State," anywhere in this, the first article of the Bill of Rights?  Even more interesting, is there any language in this article which says that religious messages (Ten Commandments) or religious displays (manger scenes) or religious activity (praying) is not permissible on public property?

US Constitution, Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The politically correct position regarding religion is obscene for its blatant obfuscation and sophistry. Am I the only one who finds it at least curious, if not infuriating, that when trying to identify and define pornography, the Supreme Court applies the following standard (from Miller v. California):

"Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . ."

But when defining impermissible religious action there is no such requirement for applying contemporary community standards.  Thus, the standard for the impermissible establishment of religion in Knoxville and Birmingham is the same as in San Francisco, Seattle, and Manhattan.

I submit that we now have a government which is anti-religion and, at the direction and guidance of the ACLU, is actively engaged in and making laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  Why is this not in the public discourse and debate?  Where is the leadership from an elected official?  One Alabama judge tried to lead, and paid a heavy personal price when The People refused to defend their rights.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wise American

« Prev - Next »

Close
E-mail It