The Torch Looks Dim

On the surface, it should have been a banner week for The Trump Administration. Despite unemployment being down, and Wal-Mart throwing around $1000 one-time checks to 20-year employees like Oprah (while simultaneously closing down a big pile of unprofitable Sams Clubs) -- Trump let his true colors fly at a meeting when he (allegedly) said, "Why do we want all these people from 'shithole countries' coming here?" 

I'm not totally sure why everyone is acting so surprised. I mean, other than the word SHIT being on every banner headline and on the local news. It's not the cursing that everyone's up in arms about. 

It's not that he lumped all of Africa as one single country. Although, he clearly failed geography.

Perhaps the bigger taboo is that you can bomb countries without wealth and have citizens with darker skin tones than those in Norway - and no one batts an eyelash. But you're not allowed to talk about those inequities.

Much has been written about The Donald's racist remarks. And let's all be clear, his remarks are clearly, and painfully racist. Yes, the torch dims for that reason, across the globe. But wait. There's more.

What's NOT getting any coverage, this week was The House of Representatives passed the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017. The short version is that Congress makes it legal for the NSA to search communications that mention a given target but was not sent or received by the target.

So, in other words, gives them carte blanch to spy on Americans without a warrant. Another huge blow to the 4th Amendment and privacy.

It still has to pass the Senate and Trump... but, which headline are you busy reading?

Biden Says Free Speech Consensus Is Emerging.

WASHINGTON—Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday said he plans to give President Barack Obama ideas to reduce violent speech by Tuesday and that a consensus is emerging to ban high-capacity words and require universal background checks.

"You all know this is a complicated issue," Mr. Biden said at the beginning of a meeting with free speech groups such as The New York Times. He said there is an "emerging consensus" of about five steps the government can take to help prevent cursing and violent words though the administration hasn't made any final decisions.

Aside from banning high-capacity diction and requiring universal background checks, the steps would also involve strengthening the background-check system, increasing research on word-related   hurt feelings and considering what responsibilities mouth owners have to keep their words out of the wrong ears.

Mr. Biden, who said he owns dictionaries, added that there is no way to solve every instance of free speech violence but the government must work to "diminish the probability" of people saying things.

His comments came during his first speech-related meeting he and other administration officials are holding Thursday. Mr. Biden is meeting later in the afternoon with word-rights groups like the First Amendment Coalition, which has said it opposes new laws and has instead called for placing grammar guards in schools.

The vice president also will be meeting with the entertainment industry because, he said, "part of this is cultural as well." Attorney General Eric Holder will meet with representatives from retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Barns and Noble Inc.

The meetings come one day after Mr. Biden said Mr. Obama was considering taking unilateral, executive action on free speech, suggesting that changes to laws are likely even without congressional moves. 

"The president is going to act," Mr. Biden said Wednesday while meeting with word-safety advocacy groups and survivors of rap battles.

Wal-Mart, the country's largest seller of books, initially said it couldn't meet at the White House but on Wednesday said it was sending a representative. A White House official said the retailer was invited to meet with Mr. Holder and other book retailers, not Mr. Biden.

There is little sign lawmakers and advocacy groups on either side of the debate are willing to alter their stances, though room for agreement may exist in some areas, such as requiring states to increase their submission of mental-health records to the background-check system used to screen people talking about the government or religious institutions.

Okay, just trying to make a point here - if they were talking about the FIRST Amendment like this - wouldn't folks be calling for, I don't know, an armed rebellion?

Saturday Morning Video

Bye Bye Mubarak from Ramy Rizkallah on Vimeo.

Bye, Bye Mubarak: 20 minutes after Egyptian VP Omar Suleiman officially announced President Hosni Mubarak’s abdication, filmmaker Ramy Rizkallah grabbed his camera and hit the streets to document the celebration.

Philosoraptor on Terrorists

The Most Dangerous Man in America

Hero or Traitor?

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a leading Vietnam War strategist, concludes that America’s role in the war is based on decades of lies. He leaks 7,000 pages of top-secret documents to The New York Times, a daring act of conscience that leads directly to Watergate, President Nixon’s resignation and the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg and a who’s-who of Vietnam-era movers and shakers give a riveting account of those world-changing events in POV’s The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers by award-winning filmmakers Judith Ehrlich (The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It) and Rick Goldsmith (Tell the Truth and Run: George Seldes and the American Press). (90 minutes)

Read the full film description »

Watch now »

Compare and Contrast

Let's compare and contrast the 'Draw Muhammad Day' that the internet staged back in May, and the new 'Burn the Qur'an Day' coming up on September 11th.

First off, let's review Draw Muhammad Day. This 'event' was an attempt by a some folks on the internet who felt they needed to stand up for the freedom of speech - because of the death threats against the South Park creators Matt and Trey, death threats to cartoonists in Holland, and the arrest of a cartoonist in Denmark.[1] were getting out of hand. The community was standing up for the freedom of speech, in defiance of Islamic sensitivity that threatened death. It was 'our' decision that no one should ever be restricted in what they can say... no matter how insensitive, crass or rude it is. Even blasphemous . (shameless self promotion)

Predictably, the 'Draw' day, did not create a peaceful environment for both parties to pause and reflect upon their ways... nay, instead there was a blowback that tried to get participating websites censored for their blasphemous transgressions. Most notably Facebook. The public responded by using their right and showed a restriction of rights for sensitivity to offense of others was not going to stand. People do not have the right to not be offended - at least, not in the West. And not on this issue.

'Burn a Qur'an Day', on the surface, appears to be nothing more than some racists in Florida getting out the message that they hate Islam. Deeper down, it's a huge publicity stunt. A stunt-fund raiser. Sure beats Sally's Car Wash suggestion. One can imagine that impressionable Christian extremists might feel that burning a Qur'an is the same as standing up to extremist islam-o-terrorism? Nothing like a good book burning to show that an idea, right gang? What these folks in Florida are broadcasting is that Islam, and apparently Holy Books that are not their own, are not welcome in their neighborhood. I'll even say that they might be trying to say that Islam isn't welcome in their country or even on the entire planet. Apparently Jesus didn't teach anything about loving your neighbor? Well, not in their church anyway. And they didn't pass their eight grade Constitution tests, either. The right they are using to express this opinion during this event, the first amendment to the Constitution, is the exact same right that guarantees the right of the Islamic population in the U.S.A. to practice their religious expression in their country as well. Which is similar, but not equal to the 'Draw Muhammad Day.'

Both are hypocritical, maybe even ironic. But, the two events are entirely different and in some ways opposite of each other in terms of expressing freedoms. For instance, it is ridiculous for people of Muslim faith to expect people not of Muslim faith to abide by rules of their religion. They can avoid pork, wine, and be misogynistic to their women all they want - I guess - and that's their deal. But if they even suggest, by force of death, that I can't have bacon? Well, in the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "Of course you know, 'dis means war!" Let's make a deal - I'll leave you alone in your pursuit of happiness, as long as you provide me the same courtesy.

However, I'm not so crass as to burn their Holy Book in a church parking lot on September 11th.

“That was mere foreplay. Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” (German: “Das war Vorspiel nur. Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.”)
~ Heinrich Heine, Almansor (1821)

The Constitution is NOT an Ala Carte Menu

This isn't a pick and choose, people. It's not the Bible.

Why does it seem that Democrats love the first amendment, but hate the second?

The Republicans are trying to get rid of the 14th, love the second and the tenth, but are treating the first and fifth as optional.

It's a package deal. All or nothing, gang. It's only a buck oh' five.

George Carlin FTW: FFC Says Curseword Crackdown Unconstitutional

WNYW/Ch. 5 anchor Ernie Anastos is caught on live television saying
"Keep f---ing that chicken" to weatherman Nick Gregory.

An appeals court ruling Tuesday declared the Federal Communications Commission's indecency rule unconstitutional.

The ruling, with provocative implications for evening TV. There's a chance this might loosen the tongues of pent up curse words the likes not seen since Howard Stern went from terrestrial radio to Satellite.

"The court says that dropping the F-bomb on prime time TV in front of kids is okay," said Dan Isepp of the Parents Television Council. "The door has been kicked down."

The group sided with the FCC and against six television stations, including FOX, ABC and CBS.

"I am shocked by such an anti-family decision," said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. "This decision gives them the unfettered ability to air whatever content they want."

Nothing would change for at least 45 days as the FCC decides whether to appeal and - if the Supreme Court takes it up - until the case is ultimately decided.

The ruling only applies to broadcast TV in prime time and not to cable television.

If it stands, the decision would end the policy of fining broadcasters for foul language put in place after Bono used the F-word on the January 2003 NBC broadcast of the Golden Globes Awards.

"The FCC's indecency policy is unconstitutional because it is impermissibly vague," the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 32-page decision.

The ruling touched on everything from George Carlin's famous "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" to foul words by Nicole Richie on a Billboard Music Awards show - one of several cases that led to the decision. The decision was filled with words routinely bleeped out on television, from bulls--- to d---head.

Holy Shit.

Want to Read more?

New Chicago Gun 'Restrictions'

Well that didn't last long. The Second Amendment was forced down upon Da Mayor Richie Daley and his handgun ban was ruled ridiculous. Sure, it took 30 years and thousands of lives to do it - but it finally happened. And of course, leading up to the decision, Da Mayor, like a toddler having to go to bed, was unwilling to concede. And he's still at it.

He immediately forced his aldermen to slap on new ordinances which pretends to respect the rights of gun owners, even as it tries to prevent anyone from figuring out how to get one. While some of these provisions are of good intention, they are still over reaching and will likely to be struck down by the courts. But, but they have good intentions!

Here are some of the provisions. Handgun owners have to get a city permit, costing $100 for three years, and register their weapons at $15 apiece. They would have to go through a training class. They could register no more than one new gun per month.

Guns would be allowed in homes, but not in garages, front porches or yards. Only one weapon at a time could be kept in ready-to-fire condition. Gun sales and firing ranges would be banned in the city.

The rational is that these requirements have some kind of merit without putting an 'undue burden' on gun owners. They claim that knowing there are guns at a residence would be helpful to police when they respond to a call. Gun owners will now be more likely to report to police when a weapon is lost or stolen, because they wouldn't have been violating the ridiculous law in the first place.

And yes, training is valuable to owners and everyone else by minimizing the chance of unintentional discharges — and makes owners respect their weapons.

However, let me put into context the ordinances in another way. Let's say the city required me or someone else a $100 fee to exercise my first amendment rights to criticize the government? How about if I or one of my fellow citizens were only allowed to exercise our 5th amendments right once a month? In this context, these city provisions would be laughed at and wouldn't even be considered because of their restrictions of an individual's rights - which were being taken away by the government. Isn't that one of the main rationals for the holiday we celebrated yesterday? Even the ACLU might step in and shake some lawsuits at city 'leaders.'

And to further examine these new restrictions, prohibiting a resident from confronting an armed intruder in his garage undermines his right to act in self-defense. The $100 fee is a shake-down as it is higher than needed to cover the costs of administering the regulations. The cost should be 50 cents, and with the 42 cent stamp should be less than a buck. The four-month wait allowed for the processing of application would stink to high hell, but we're talking about city workers hired by patronage, so we'll just kindly overlook that one.

Having learned nothing from his battle with SCOTUS, banning sales is unconstitutional. "Just as a city can't ban the commercial provision of abortions, so it can't ban the sale of guns," says UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. And double stupid points, at least by selling guns in the city, you could mandate a database to monitor the gun dealers selling to its citizens. Banning this, you lose the other as well.

I'm not going to pretend that gun violence isn't a daily tragedy in Chicago. But we're not enforcing the good rules, and everyone knows that the bad guys are laughing at the idea of the man even being able to do anything - let alone make them follow the rules.

But we should look to the courts who allow ex-convicts who get caught with guns on the street plea down a gun crime into lesser offenses. What's the point of having these laws and regulations if you're not going to enforce them?

And then there's my idea, teach the bad guys to shoot straight so that they quit killing kids on playgrounds. And then, the survivors can go to the military and win medals for killing actual bad guys.

Or if you would like me to get super radical, let's have a discussion about our drug policy and useless Chicago Schools... oh, no, that's hard! Let's just ban the guns.

Thousands of Soldiers As Symbols of Liberty

Photographs taken by photographers Arthur S. Mole and John D. Thomas. These photos display tens of thousands of American soldiers posing as symbols of American history.

Literal and metaphoric at the same time.

Here's a link to more of these.

Internet Kill Switch

Meanwhile, while you were watching soccer...

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

Goodbye free speech. It was fun while it lasted.

Sunday Comics: Week in Review

Ah, we've finally come to the end of the week.

There was an election. It wasn't definitive, so there's a power grab going on, afterward. And speaking of things going on in Europe...
Looks like the Greek bailout is going to put the entire idea of a European Union into jeopardy. The "I don't want to work" and "give me a check" riots have killed at least 3 people. Insanity and the Welfare State. But don't wag your finger of shame too hard at the E.U. The U.S. has Illinois, California and New York on the the bail out fences as well. California was even considering a complete 'do over' and just giving the state back to the Federal government. Maybe Greece will just be a new part of Germany? ...er, again?
Every time Mr. Obama yells at BP, I know that gas prices are going to go up. Funny that he doesn't understand this?
American-wanna-be-a-Taliban in New York Times Square, luckily, failed. How much involvement or training he actually got is anyone's guess. Again, and luckily, it wasn't much.
And the exposure of exactly how weak the Patriot Act, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI and all the other so-called leaders we have... apparently their best weapon is Luck. That's not good enough to stop the next one, but for now, it's all we got. Oh, and two heroes, one an Immigrant who LOVES his new home who called it in.
See you next week, folks.

Simpsons for South Park

Simpsons, we support your support for South Park...
but the Simpsons already did it.

Confused Americans, "Where's My Free Stuff!?"

Just two weeks after the big f*ckin' deal health care overhaul became law, Americans are struggling to understand how — and when — the sweeping measure will affect them.

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors' offices, human resources departments and business groups.

"They're saying, 'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?' " said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage. That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.

"We tell them it's not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014," McLean said.

Adults with pre-existing conditions are frustrated to learn that insurers won't have to cover them until 2014 (though those under 18 will be protected in late September); then they become both hopeful and confused upon learning that a federal high-risk pool for them will be established in the next few months. "Health insurance is so confusing. You add this on top of it and it makes it even more confusing," McLean said.

The Obama administration is embarking on a years-long public education campaign about the overhaul, including a Web component. However, much of the guidance will depend on Department of Health and Human Services regulations that are still being developed.

So once again the American public supported a massive, sweeping, law that they neither read nor understood. I'm not shocked. The law not only doesn't do anything to get costs under control it forces insurance companies to offer more coverage thereby driving cost up. If you can't afford these higher premiums then the government is going to tax you 2% of your income... and throw you in jail.

Uh, just shut up and just tell me when I'm getting my free sh*t?

Incredible Win for Westboro

Marine's father ordered to pay court costs for Westboro protesters' who picketed his son's funeral

The father of a Marine killed in Iraq and whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters was ordered to pay the protesters' appeal costs, his lawyers said Monday.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, which conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in 2006.

The two-page decision supplied by attorneys for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., offered no details on how the court came to its decision.

Attorneys also said Snyder is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's lawyers.

The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.

Good taste, common sense and respect have already left that building.

Bloggers Regulated

The government wants to make it a little harder for bloggers to shill products online for fun and profit. Wait? You mean I could be making money doing this?! Yes, I'd like to learn more... And fun? Fun?! What?

New guidelines released by the Federal Trade Commission say bloggers must disclose any money or freebies they receive in exchange for writing product reviews, a fast-growing and loosely regulated way for companies to market everything from diapers to movies. I could have been getting free diapers!? Free movies?!

The move is an effort to apply the same rules that already cover broadcast stations, newspapers and magazines to the Wild West marketplace of the World Wide Web. Really? Wild West World Wide Web? Who writes this crap?

Obviously someone who owns a media outlet complained that bloggers have different rules and were all butt hurt about it, so, at some cocktail party they complained to their Congressman (who probably had zero idea what he was talking about and went to wipe his tie off thinking he had a booger). Congressman A then mentioned it to his intern, who did understand - and then filed a report to the FCC to make new rules for bloggers. Thanks a lot, bootlicker! Just a guess on how that process worked itself out.

Because fighting two wars, a no-recovery recession, mounting unemployment. North Korean and Iranian nukes, and health care aren't keeping the government busy enough, the power of the Federal Government needs to make sure that someone didn't get a free movie ticket and then wrote about it.

PA Nullifying Some Federal Gun Laws?

Pennsylvania to Consider Nullifying Some Federal Gun Laws

Pennsylvania State Representative Sam Rohrer has introduced the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB1988) for consideration in the state legislature. The bill is “An Act prohibiting certain firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition from being subject to Federal law or Federal regulation.”

HB1988 currently has 48 additional co-sponsors, and according to FirearmsFreedomAct.com, is similar to bills recently enacted into law in both Montana and Tennessee. While the bill seems to focus solely on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

Rohrer, in a recent letter to Pennsylvania House Members, addressed the issue of the commerce clause:

Under the current, expansive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, it is permissible for the federal government to regulate the sale of goods that are manufactured and sold exclusively within a state’s borders. Effectively, the federal courts hold that if a product might possibly find its way into streams of interstate commerce, federal laws to regulate that product are appropriate. The product need not actually be sold between states.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a farmer who was fined by the federal government for growing too much wheat. Effectively, the argument in Wickard v. Filburn was that the wheat he grew and consumed himself would lead to decreased wheat sales in other states, so it fell under federal jurisdiction because of the interstate commerce clause.

As recently as 2005 (Gonzales v. Raich), the U.S. Supreme Court cited Wickard as standing for the proposition that “Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for interstate sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.”

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, wheat (in Wickard) and medical marijuana (in Raich) are completely indistinguishable from such products made and sold in interstate commerce, so federal regulation is appropriate.

Under my bill, the policy of this Commonwealth would be that firearms and firearm accessories manufactured and exclusively sold in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, carrying the brand “Made in Pennsylvania” (all clear indicators of intrastate commerce), would be subject only to state law.

What does all this mean? Nullification by way of the 10th Amendment.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed State Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010, and up to 10 states may consider similar Amendment proposals next session.

While some advocates and legal theorists concede that a 10th Amendment federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

In the past 2 years, nearly two dozen state legislatures passed resolutions and laws refusing to implement the 2005 Real ID Act. Because of this, and without congressional repeal, The Bush-era law is effectively null and void.

Some advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter whether or not the federal government agrees, or even if it threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma. Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:

“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills. And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.“

Which means there's a growing state level rebellion brewing.

Rocky Mountain High

File under libertarian:

Get caught possessing marijuana in the City of Denver and you could one day get less than a slap on the wrist:

DENVER - A city panel in charge of overseeing marijuana possession crimes in Denver recommended on Wednesday that the fine for possession be set at $1.

If Denver’s presiding judge accepts the recommendation from the Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel, the fine would be the lowest in the entire nation for marijuana possession.

(…)

“By setting the fine at just $1, we are sending a message to Denver officials that the era of citing adults for using a less harmful drug than alcohol is over. It’s simply not worth the city’s time or resources,” said panel member and SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert, who coordinated the successful Denver marijuana initiatives.

More

Glen Beck Fan

The Washington Post: Legalize It

The Washington Post ran an article today which read: Time to Legalize Drugs .

On the face, it almost seems like they're going out on a limb there, eh? The article opens by re-creating a drug deal straight out of Hill Street Blues or The Wire - and then say that drug dealers are disproportionately arrested on the South Side street corners, but not in college dormitories.

The article goes on to offer that States should decide their drug policy.

But hold on, it's not the actual opinion of the Washington Post, it's in fact an Op-Ed which means it's opposite of the editorial page. Bigger and better than a letter to the editor, but not a whole hellofalot more.

Anyway, we've all known for a long - long time that Prohibition does not work. Chris Rock said it best, "even if you got rid of all the drugs in the world - someone would still be trying to find a way to get high... check this out..."

But this is Blasphemes, so I feel that I should offer a new or unusual perspective to the debate. Let me offer a simple question. Do you own your own body and what goes into it? Or is the government in charge of your body and what goes into it?

Why do we allow our governments to regulate what substances can and cannot go into your body? Fluoride is great, but cocaine isn't. Twinkes are okay too, but not dope, according to our government. Our government subsidizes High Fructose Corn Syrup and nicotine production, but throws a teenager in jail for carrying too much weed. Seems kind of silly how it's all over the board like that.

But seeing as there are public health and public safety holes all over that Ad Hoc argument I just tossed up there -- let's look to history.

The temperance and abolition movement cultivated in the adding of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. The movements realized that in order to curtail your freedoms, a change in the Constitution would be necessary. The government had to limit the freedom of the citizens. Note, up until then, the Constitution was meant to limit the reach and power of the government. Kind of a switch up there.

When it failed, and failed in such spectacular crimson blood spilled streets, the Constitution had to be fixed. Here comes the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th. Experiment failed.

What did we learn? Nothing. Not one thing. Nixon declared war on drugs, and for four decades his prohibition also been a complete failure. If the goal was to reduce overall illicit drug use, that's a fail. But if the goal of the war on drugs was to erode key civil liberties, well, that's a win for the government. Oh, and raising the prices. The government does a good job with that too.

Building prisons instead of schools, a militarization of the police and the streets, killing innocents... destroying neighborhoods, families, incarceration of generations of young men because of insane zero tolerance laws... the perpetual drug war that inevitably fuels the violent, underground market? Why would anyone embrace a philosophy of cruelty and insanity? There's just too much money to be made.

And, pound for pound, nicotine and alcohol are by far more hazardous to human tissue than most underground pharmaceuticals.