The Drug War has not decreased drug use, violence, nor has it maximized peace. It is an unconstitutional assault on other countries who have done absolutely nothing to the U.S.

The “War on Drugs,” like the “War on Terror,” ends up being an undertaking with no definable victory in sight. No matter how vigorously the federal government prosecutes its “war” on drugs, people will still use drugs. No matter how vigorously the federal government pursues the “war” on terror there will still be those who want to commit terrorist acts to get their points across.

Thus, we have two “wars” with infinite reach that use the threats engendered by their very own existence to justify their actions.

In the meantime, numerous lives are lost like so much “collateral” damage–a phrase that should be abhorred by anyone who wants to think and speak seriously about such things. I would wager that damage doesn’t seem so collateral when it’s your brother, or mother, or cousin, etc.

We have now, on display, the cost of the ongoing war on drugs.

In Mexico, the violence is disastrous and spilling over the border, but the cost of drug war-related violence has already been a reality for a lot of Americans who are unfortunate enough to live in neighborhoods where such violence is the norm. The only difference now is that Mexican violence is encroaching on popular spring break destinations as well as the U.S. southern border; hence many American lawmakers are apt to take notice.

Under pressure from the U.S. government, Mexico’s government decided to “crack down” on drug gangs in its country. This only resulted in Mexican law enforcement cracking down on the gangs that don’t pay them, in favor of the ones that do.

Well, you say, “of course, because drugs lead to corruption” — no, it’s the drug laws that lead to corruption. We saw this with prohibition, and we have been seeing it with the illegal drug trade, yet many refuse to admit the obvious.

The criminalization of drug use and sale does not halt such activity. It simply creates a black market aptly taken over by criminal elements that operate on a level they know best–violence and corruption.

Mexico has become the epicenter of the drug war, just like Columbia before it. Columbia lost its infamous title, not due to any particular competence by Mexico’s drug gangs but because of the U.S. government’s intervention-which helped to weaken the Columbians, and U.S. authorities congratulated themselves. But ultimately, this only moved the problem even closer to our own borders.

The price we pay is a situation that is proving deadly for both Mexican and American citizens alike.

Now that the Obama administration is deploying National Guard troops to the Mexican border, some are torn between welcoming the needed border enforcement and realizing that the intervention will likely just move across the border in due time. This will simply lead to more problems than it might solve, and probably won’t do anything to actually secure the border.

Another current illustration of this is happening in Jamaica, where a bloody riot has gone on for days, pitting law enforcement against an alleged local drug gang leader and his supporters. This battle was incited by Jamaican authorities’ attempt to extradite the gang leader to the United States.

The Jamaican government initially refused the U.S. government’s request, but after further pressure by the U.S. State Department (I do not doubt it involved a threat of some kind), Jamaican leaders relented. The drug ‘don’ and his supporters reacted with force to the force by authorities he’s likely been working with for years – it is well known that no one wins political office in Jamaica without support of local dons. Once again, corruption comes into play and the people pay the price.

The U.S. government uses its strength and position in the world to force other countries to do what it wants. Regardless of the situation, the U.S. government feels entitled to behave in such a way.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=894

It is an absolute myth that government is somehow more efficient in its operation with the environment. I’m reminded of the Onion video a couple years back, “Bush Tries to Make Iraq War More Green” or something along those lines. Efficiency and sustainability does not come through government intervention and growth, it comes from market competition directed by a free people.

—————————————

Statist journalist and staunch defender of Bill- and Hill-ism, Joe Conason asserted Monday that “[Norway's oil company] Statoil operates the most environmentally friendly offshore oil rigs in the world – because it’s state-owned.”

He advocates that Americans accept this fact, especially in light of the ongoing BP gusher 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. If only the state owned our off-shore drilling, it would be so much more environmentally friendly.

Conason explains, with a Halliburton counterpoint:

What makes Norway so different from the United States – and much more likely to install the most protective energy technology – is that the Norwegian state can impose public values on oil producers without fighting off lobbyists and crooked politicians, because it owns and controls the resources. Rather than Halliburton-style corporate management controlling the government and blocking environmental improvement, Norway’s system works the other way around. It isn’t perfect, as any Nordic environmentalist will ardently explain, but the results are considerably better than ours.

Let me break this down. First, Norwegian Statoil is currently 67% owned by the Norwegian government. Eight of the remaining top 20 shareholders are U.S. banks, including multiple sectors of Bank of New York Mellon and State Street Banks, both of which incidentally partook of hefty TARP funding, meaning that Statoil is also partially owned by the US government. Sounds like our own government contract-dependent Halliburton.

One wonders why Statoil, founded in 1972 as a 100% government-owned oil company, was partially privatized with an initial public offering (IPO) in 2001. Presumably, the company was losing market share, facing declining performance and internal waste, and generally becoming less competitive. That’s why most government-run businesses attempt to partially privatize – like any vampire, it occasionally needs to refresh itself with fresh human blood.

…

Conason suggests that Norway, but he means specifically Statoil, is more likely to install the most protective energy technology because he believes the government is like a follower of Jesus, desirous of good works and of pure heart. “Good” works, of course, for Conason and his compadres, are not productivity and efficiency, but fat pensions, low carbon dioxide emissions, and quick “state” response to accidents and disasters.

Well, let’s look at Statoil’s record on leaks and spills. They’ve had them, including a major gas leak that shut down a refinery for several days just a few months ago. Drilling is a dirty and dangerous business. BP of course has been in the news, taking the heat on spills along the Alaskan Pipeline and in Prudhoe Bay, and now with Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico. But BP’s activities in Alaska, and those of other non-state owned oil and gas companies in similar cases have been heavily taxpayer-funded and could, in an honest world, might be considered public-private partnerships.

Maybe Norway is different, and Norwegian state-owned oil companies are a model to be emulated somewhere. Before suggesting that a state-owned model would be good for the U.S., Conason might be interested in reading up on state corporatism, because like a bad case of leprosy, we already have that disease.

If state-owned means an improved safety record, better business morality, and a high level of respect for the environment, we should look no further for proof than the safety, morality and environmental record of the U.S. military around the world, and within our own borders.

Whether it is open pit burning, oil fires in one of our many wars in the Middle East, oil spills as a result of our acts of war, depleted uranium in the soil and water of Iraq and Afghanistan, contaminated military bases abroad and at home, and even noise pollution – the culprit is a wholly government-owned entity, led by public servants.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski249.html

Every time they tell you on TV war is patriotic
See a soldier gathering family pictures
Dressed in blood

We are still alive!
We crawl toward you!
Asking for help
To stop the blood flowing from our wounds
(more…)

Investors are ignoring the possibility of bad news on the war front. I wrote about that here.  First off, I don’t wish for troop deaths. Let me remind you that I served in the Marines and it wasn’t so long ago that people I served with are not in harm’s way.  My politics aside, I want good things for our troops.  But you know my politics already.

This summer could be very bloody.  More relevant to investors, the war could continue to widen, as America is already taking aggresive action in Pakistan and a very hawkish stance against Iran, while aggression in Palestine heats up as usual.  That means higher oil prices, higher gold prices, and a shaky market.  Of course, it means a lot of other things too.

That brings me to this interesting story.  A leaked CIA memo is up on Wikileaks, perhaps the greatest liberty protecting website around.  The memo in pdf is here.  The memo talks about how the French and German governments rely on popular apathy to continue their support for the Neocon war in Afghanistan.  However, since that apathy is slowly turning into resolve, it’s imperative to manipulate public opinion.  Enter Barack Obama:

“The confidence of the French and German publics in President Obama’s ability to handle foreign affairs in general and Afghanistan in particular suggest that they would be receptive to his direct affirmation of the ISAF mission….”

The CIA’s plan is appearantley to use Obama as a puppet to maintain support for wars that the European public does not support.  Brilliant.

I leave the discussion to you. This is an interesting and developing story with investment implications.  A flight to oil and gold this summer is not out of the question should things turn for the worse.  And I think we all know that a turn for the worse is not out of the question either.

Was it the “free market” that exploited Japanese Americans in World War II? Was it “capitalism” that drafted thousands of young men to be sent off to Vietnam, with many to return in body bags? Is it the free market that implements mandatory wage and price controls, takes a third of each American’s income, and leeches money to politically connected corporations? Who is the true exploiter, free markets or government? All things involuntary and compulsory are not compatible with freedom, yet it is constantly government using its monopolized force to accomplish its various goals, not the market. In a free society and market your greed, anger, and any other such negative qualities are purely limited to free and voluntary exchange. You cannot work like government using coercion to sell your products, force to maintain your position, and threats of imprisonment as your insurance.

There are many social injustices, uneven economic scenarios, and plenty of misery in the world today. Saying these miseries come from the free market is a gross misunderstanding of where the free market itself is born: freedom. Freedom has its root in the individual, not in an all-powerful group of people such as government. If some people choose to live in a socialist system with limited property, redistributed wealth, and controlled production, there is nothing standing in their way. But the line is drawn when they feel they have the right to force others into the system. Freedom does not mandate how you live, it simply prevents you from coercing others (either an individual or a group) into a certain lifestyle. No one can force you to buy their product, live the way they think is best for you, and no sensible person can use force with bogus reasoning such as “protecting you from yourself.”
(more…)

Neither war has an end in sight, with Iraq holding at least 50,000 troops for an indefinite amount of time. The U.S. is stretching itself incredibly thin with these two wars during a time when people are suffering here at home. The cost of these wars, both in money and lives, will be devastating in the coming decade if they are not brought to a swift and immediate hault.

In an in-depth interview with the Times of London gearing up for the London Conference on Afghanistan later this week, CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus again cautioned that the war was going to “get harder before it gets easier.”

Likening the January 2007 surge in Iraq to President Obama’s December escalation, the general said he thought that the war in Afghanistan was going to take longer than the war in Iraq.

Perhaps even more troubling over eight years after the war began, Gen. Petraeus insisted he still hasn’t heard any talk of setting a timetable for the end of the war, and said any predictions would be “premature.” Several nations had hoped to use the London Conference to set out some sort of exit strategy for the seemingly endless conflict.

In fact, Petraeus suggested that the London Conference would not so much focus on setting a timetable for a transition, but on deciding “what transition actually means.” Though he provided little in the way of detail, it does suggest that officials have abandoned the pretense of starting the pullout in 2011.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/0…..than-iraq/

“All Warfare is Deception… There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.” – Sun Tzu, circa 250 BC

Summary: I will not approve spending to extend this unconstitutional war of aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Congressman, I will drive for a rapid immediate and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan and redeployment to protect America’s sieve-like borders. I support increasing the reward for the capture of Osama Bin Laden forty times from $27 million to over $1 billion. I support issuing constitutional letters of marque to bring indicted terrorists to justice in a court of law.
(more…)

Today foreign policy has largely taken a backseat to the economy as the main issue being discussed locally and nationally. But foreign affairs have done anything but settle down over the past several months.

During the Presidential debates between Senators’ Obama and McCain, the main debate on foreign policy was over how to best invade and increase forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The two did their best to separate themselves from each other on the issue, but in the Senate they have both voted similarly on key foreign policy legislation. Whether it be the FISA bill in 2008 granting immunity to telecommunication businesses wiretapping phones under federal order, or consistently voting to continue funding the Iraq War over the years. By looking at their voting records we can see that Obama and McCain have largely seen eye to eye on foreign policy.

Today, the lack of change in foreign policy is apparent. The marines currently in Iraq are beginning transfer to Afghanistan, and more troops are planned to be brought into the country this year. The “Iraq withdrawal” plan has turned into nothing but a cover to continue the occupation of 35,000 to 50,000 “residual force” troops beyond 2010. The body count in Pakistan, from U.S. attacks, continues to rise since late January when the Obama Administration began its operation. Despite protests from the Pakistani government, these attacks are expected to continue increasingly in the days ahead.

True debate on foreign policy has been disregarded and ignored for quite some time. Ever since World War 1, the United States has taken a larger military role in world activities. As we have seen with Obama, McCain, and Bush, the principles have remained the same: continue and increase interventions in the Middle East, keep thousands of troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time, and hardly a thing is mentioned about the countless troops placed worldwide in Europe, Korea, South America, and many other countries.

The core problem with U.S. foreign policy is very similar to the core problems of the federal government’s escalated domestic involvement with the economy. It is a short-term focused approach that does not account for individual responsibility, long-term sustainability, or the effects of blowback tomorrow because of yesterday’s actions.

The principles of domestic and foreign policy that a nation takes are very much intertwined with each other. A government heavily involved in foreign policy will lead to a government much more involved domestically, and visa-versa.

While the effects may not be immediately seen, it can’t be interpreted as a mere coincidence that U.S. entanglement overseas greatly escalated after the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Service were created in 1913. The power to print money and tax private property will lead to an expanded, intrusive government domestically, and in the long run that government will not hold back from expanding overseas.

What is it that we stand for? Democracy? Individual liberty, freedom, and right to one’s life are what we have fought for since 1776; not a majority rule through democracy. No matter how worthy or incredible a system may be, not one political, economic, or social system can be spread through force and sanctions without weakening or completely destroying its reputation.

The U.S. has pursued a foreign policy approach resembling that of a bully, rather than a beacon of freedom. How can we say that spending nearly 20 years in Iraq has spread American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Spreading principles cannot work if it is done through force, whether it be with the economy or dealing with a foreign country.  Leading by example, proving that freedom works, showing that free individuals can achieve more than use of military force, will bring about much more powerful, effective, and respected solutions of peace and prosperity worldwide.