Self-Defense Against the State

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

On May 11, 2014, Charles “Chuck” Dinwiddie, an 18-year member of the Killeen Police Department in Texas and 15-year SWAT Team veteran, died from injuries received in the line of duty. In the early morning hours of May 9, 2014, members of the Killeen Police Department Tactical Response Unit and the Bell County Organized Crime Unit attempted to serve a narcotics search warrant. When the members of this team were breaching a window into the house, a 49-year-old male occupant of the house opened fire, striking four officers. Two officers received only minor injuries, Officer Otis Denson was struck in the femur and required surgery. Officer Dinwiddie received a critical wound to his face and later died.

The man who shot and killed Officer Dinwiddie was Marvin Louis Guy. Guy had been arrested in 2011 for assaulting a family member. He pleaded guilty and served 40 days in jail in 2012. Guy had no police record for drug offenses. The Killeen Police Department were executing a no-knock warrant based on the information of an informant who claimed to have seen bags of cocaine transported to Guy’s house. The Killeen Police found no cocaine or any other narcotics in the Guy residence. They recovered a glass pipe, a grinder, and a safe. While perhaps this is evidence of drug use, it is hardly a sign that Guy was a dangerous drug kingpin. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Guy.

Officer Chuck Dinwiddie bravely served and protected his community, and he died in the course of doing his duty. But consider this from the point of view of the middle-aged African-American Marvin Louis Guy. At 5:30 am, he is awakened by loud sounds. He witnesses what appears to be a home invasion. His significant other is in the house, and he wishes to defend her and himself against these intruders. There are no drugs or any other contraband in the house. Perhaps Guy has used cocaine in the past, but why would a petty drug user with one small criminal offense years earlier expect a SWAT Team to bust into his house to execute a simple search warrant? It is not like the Killeen Police knocked on his door and presented their badges and a search warrant. Simply stated, how could Guy possibly know these were police officers and not home intruders? If he had assumed that anyone breaking into his house with guns before dawn were police officers and they turned out to be criminals and not officers of the law, would it have been exemplary of Guy to forfeit his life and not defend himself? Could one not argue that the Killeen Police were reckless and unnecessarily put Officer Dinwiddie in a position where he might be harmed? Could it not also be argued that the Killeen Police Department is just as responsible for Officer Dinwiddie’s death as Marvin Louis Guy was?

Human beings have natural unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. These natural rights entail that human beings have the right to self-defense, and this includes the right to bear arms. Marvin Louis Guy had the right to defend his life, the life of his significant other, his liberty, and his home. Given that the apparent home invaders were well-armed with guns, Guy had a prima facie right to employ deadly force in self-defense.

Officer Chuck Dinwiddie and his companions were officers of the law executing their official duties. Of course, one cannot be permitted by law to engage in gun fights with officers of the law just because these officers are armed and could potentially pose a significant danger to a suspected criminal. However, the Killeen Police were not acting as officers of the law. In not identifying themselves, they were essentially going rogue. In the case of a building controlled by known members of a violent drug cartel, perhaps a no-knock warrant is appropriate. Perhaps. But in the case of someone like Marvin Louis Guy, a no-knock warrant is totally inappropriate. No-knock warrants in almost all—and perhaps in all—instances are nothing but totalitarian heavy-handed tactics more appropriate to the Gestapo than American police.

Marvin Louis Guy does not deserve to die for killing Officer Chuck Dinwiddie. In fact, he should not even be charged with a crime. He killed in self-defense, exercising his natural right. Even if he had been using cocaine, human beings also possess the natural right to liberty which includes the right to ingest any substance that does not directly harm anyone else—e.g. any substance other than highly radioactive material, explosive devices, contagions, etc. The true murderer here is the unjust and unconstitutional War on Drugs that causes police to act like soldiers storming American homes like they are GIs storming German bunkers on Normandy Beach. It is the War on Drugs and drug prohibition in general which should face the death penalty. Not a man exercising his right to self-defense.   

(For a much more detailed discussion of natural right to self-defense as well as the immorality of the War on Drugs, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

Why Haven’t More College Liberals Become Libertarians?

by Gerard Emershaw

Libertarian Republican Senator and 2016 presidential contender Rand Paul of Kentucky recently gave a speech on civil liberties at California’s notoriously liberal Berkeley. This prompts the question of why college liberals have not become libertarians. The Obama neo-progressives in the Democratic Party are on the wrong side of most issues that traditionally liberal college students care about.

1. War

College students in the United States have traditionally been anti-war. It was, of course, the universities and colleges of this nation which spearheaded the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. Despite having been strangely—and prematurely—awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama is not a man of peace. He has continued the War on Terror which he inherited from President George W. Bush. In fact, President Obama has escalated wars. He has continued the Afghanistan War. He sought unsuccessfully to continue the Iraq occupation, thwarting only by Iraq’s refusal to grant blanket immunity to American troops. President Obama has also waged war—er, “kinetic military action”—against Libya, conducted a bloody drone campaign in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, and zealously attempted to gin up a war with Syria. If traditionally liberal college students are still anti-war, then libertarianism with its axiom of non-aggression and its non-interventionism is the true doctrine of peace.

Perhaps the fact that there is not an active military draft is the reason that college students have seemingly become apathetic about war. If they cannot be drafted and their friends and relatives cannot be drafted, then perhaps it does not matter to them anymore. If volunteers are instead risking their lives in these wars, then maybe most college students just do not care. Though one would hope that these students do care about the innocent people who are suffering due to President Obama’s warmongering zeal. With the exception of President Jimmy Carter and unsuccessful candidates such as Eugene McCarthy, the Democratic Party has been a bloodthirsty war party since President Woodrow Wilson. It is unclear why college peaceniks have supported the progressive cause for so long given this violent streak of the party.

2. Civil liberties

Libertarians are champions of the Bill of Rights. While college students mostly seem to be indifferent to the Second Amendment, they have traditionally cared a lot about the First and Fourth Amendments. Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul support Constitutional rights over the growing despotism of the state. In contrast, President Obama smiles like a villain as he allows the NSA and other American spy agencies to violate the privacy rights of Americans and treat them like they are all criminals. The Democratic Party has long since stopped being the champion of civil liberties. So why do college students continue to support the party? Is it because President Obama is allegedly cool? Was he cool when he wore his “dad jeans” when throwing out a first pitch at a baseball game? Is he cool when he is on the golf course like any typical square politician? Is he cool when he allows the NSA to spy on everyone’s communications?

3. Drugs

It is no secret that many college students like to smoke an occasional bowl—or bong— of Mary Jane. Even those liberal college students who do not use drugs tend to disagree with the War on Drugs. Libertarians favor ending drug prohibition. The Democrats have had ample opportunity to end the War on Drugs, but they never do. President Obama has the power to pardon every single nonviolent drug offender languishing in federal prison. He has not. How can college students support a party whose leadership is okay with throwing people in cages like animals simply for using or selling drugs? Do they believe that these individuals deserve to be put in cages with murderers simply because they choose to use or sell substances which are like prescription drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes in many ways yet are not approved of by the powers that be? Do these college students believe that drug offenders should suffer just because the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries do not want the added competition? Really?

4. Race

Liberal college students have long opposed racism. “Color blindness” when it comes to race relations has long been practiced by these students. Just because the leader of the Democratic Party is black, it does not mean that the party is not racist. Continuing to prosecute the War on Drugs—which disproportionately harms minorities—should be evidence enough that the Democratic Party is racist. If it is not enough evidence, then the welfare state should provide more than enough evidence. The idea of the welfare state—as well as related programs like affirmative action—is that blacks and other racial minorities are not equal to whites. They simply cannot compete. Welfare programs make racial minorities and everyone else enrolled in the programs into dependent wards of the state. If these programs worked, then one would not expect poverty rates to be so high among blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. The truth is that these programs do not work. Most likely, they were never intended to work. They were intended to make obedient and dependent citizens who will not dare question authority. In that regard, these programs are a success.

Libertarians, in contrast, support free market and economic opportunity. They support the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. They defend the natural rights of human beings regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, etc. The same is true regarding gay rights. Libertarians do not believe that it is the business of government to worry about, let alone discriminate against, people on the basis of their sexual orientation. The Democrats, in contrast, have only recently begrudgingly begun to support gay rights.

5. Economics

College students are inevitably anxious about their economic futures. They often carry a lot of debt for their educations. Student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so it is often imperative that college students be able to get well paying jobs to support themselves and pay for their loans. President Obama’s Neo-Progressive Democrats are crony capitalists who support the status quo. As long as their friends on Wall Street and in the “Green” sector do well, they care not about anyone else. In fact, the more people who fail economically, the more people who go onto welfare. The more people who are on welfare, the more people who are dependent on the government. Economic failure creates more potential voters who will support the Democratic Party.

Libertarians, on the other hand, favor ending the Federal Reserve, cutting government spending, cutting taxes, and cutting federal business regulations. These things will promote the growth of the economy. If college students want a bright economic future, then why are they not libertarians?

Why Are There So Few Black Libertarians?

by Gerard Emershaw

In the 2012 presidential election, 93% of black voters cast ballots for President Barack Obama. Part of this could be that after so many decades of being underrepresented politically, they had a chance to cast a vote for a black presidential candidate. While such a collectivist racist attitude is typically unacceptable, over two centuries of institutionalized racism on the part of the federal government makes it understandable. Given that both parties are nothing but two wings of the same corrupt welfare/warfare state party, perhaps if one is going to vote for one of the mainstream parties at all, it is as good a reason as any to cast a vote. However, why should blacks choose either the neo-progressive donkey or the neo-progressive elephant? Why are there so few black libertarians?

Libertarianism should be a natural fit for blacks. Black Americans were so long denied their freedom—and at times their very personhood—by the federal government that one would think that blacks would naturally support a political philosophy which so zealously guards personal freedom. A group of individuals whose ancestors had been enslaved and who have been systematically disenfranchised both economically and politically by both statist parties for so long should not rationally support either party.

The role models of the black community are not individuals who succeeded because of government handouts or political favors. These role models are entrepreneurs, athletes, and entertainers who have succeeded through their own genius, hard work, and excellence. Sean Combs, Jay Z, Tyler Perry, Oprah Winfrey, LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, etc. have all risen to the top on their own. Freedom has allowed such individuals to succeed, and more freedom would allow even more individuals like them to succeed. Black rap stars and others in the entertainment industry have become successful thanks to freedom of speech. Black athletes have become successful thanks to freedom of contract. Black entrepreneurs have become successful thanks to the free market. If it was freedom which allowed such success stories to unfold, why are the protagonists of such success stories not libertarian? Why do they oppose the philosophy which promoted their success while supporting the corrupt welfare/warfare state which attempted to hold them back and which will attempt to do the same with future generations?   

Even if the libertarian philosophy does not appeal to blacks, by default it is the only rational position for them to hold. Here are four reasons why blacks should not support statism in any way, shape, or form:

1. Slavery

The evil institution of slavery, which violated the American credo that all human beings are born equal in terms of natural rights, led to millions of individuals of African descent being deprived of their freedom and forced to labor against their will. Slavery was only possible because the government endorsed and defended the institution. The Three-Fifths Clause of the Constitution will forever remain as racist scar tissue in an otherwise enlightened document. From the Fugitive Slave Act to the infamous Dred Scott decision, the federal government was continually the key player in the enslavement of Africans in the United States. So why should Blacks be supportive of a government which allowed Americans much like themselves to be enslaved for nearly a century?

2. Jim Crow

Even after the Civil War when the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified, the federal government still did little or nothing to ensure that the natural rights of Blacks were defended. Reconstruction ultimately proved to be at best a noble failure and at worst a tyrannical exercise which set back the cause of racial equality. The federal government embraced and defended segregationist policies and turned a blind eye to Jim Crow laws in many southern states. The racial caste system that Jim Crow created disenfranchised many Blacks and allowed them to be victimized by continued institutionalized racism. It was not until nearly two centuries after the founding of the nation that the civil rights movement ultimately began to change things. For two hundred years the federal government either actively oppressed blacks in the United States or allowed state and local governments to violate their natural rights. Why should blacks trust this government now?

3. Welfare State Racism

The conventional wisdom is that blacks should favor the American welfare state. According to this line of thought, progressive social programs such as welfare, Medicaid, Headstart, etc. are most beneficial to blacks. Justification for this view typically begins with the recitation of disturbing statistics. In 2012, 28.1% of blacks were living in poverty, including 39.6% of blacks under the age of 18. The rate of black unemployment is twice as high as that of whites. Therefore, welfare programs are needed and are needed most by blacks. In the eyes of progressives, blacks should be grateful to the government. Many progressives hold racist views which they perversely consider to be enlightened and politically correct. They view blacks as dependent upon the government. They view blacks as unable to compete on a level playing field. Through their destructive Nanny State programs, progressives create a self-fulfilling policy when it comes to the economic and social well being of the black community.

The truth is that blacks should be grateful to the federal government. About as grateful as one would be to a thug who stabs him or her in the stomach and then offers a free Band-Aid. Why are blacks in such dire straits economically? Many reasons. Two centuries of institutionalized racism spearheaded by the federal government. Progressive economic policies such as the Federal Reserve, the income tax, deficit spending, stifling business regulations, etc. which erode the economy and destroy wealth, jobs, and other economic opportunities. The welfare state which infantilizes blacks and fosters dependency. The war on drugs—which will be discussed below. The federal government has created the disease, infected the black community with it, and has offered the “cure” in the form of the welfare system. The only thing is that the welfare system has done nothing to help blacks in the lower socioeconomic classes rise economically. It has been roughly 50 years since LBJ instituted the social programs of his Great Society. For the past 50 years, the ratio between black and white unemployment has remained roughly 2:1. For the past 50 years, the gap between black and white household incomes has remained the same. The wealth disparity between blacks and whites has been growing since the beginning of the Great Recession, and the already appalling black poverty rates are again increasing. So why should blacks favor and support the statist system which offers them nothing but financial methadone? The black community remains sick and dependent upon the welfare state, and it will never be healthy as long as the perverse racism of progressivism continues. Unfortunately, the black community does not seem to be learning its lesson about the Welfare State Emperor having no clothes. Black Americans are three times more likely than whites to support Obamacare.

4. War on Drugs

According to a recent report, 1 in 3 black males will go to prison during their lives. It is difficult for individuals to succeed economically when they are in prison or are stigmatized and disenfranchised ex-convicts. By 2011, there were more blacks in prison or “under watch” than were enslaved in 1850. One of the reasons for this is the economic carnage wreaked by the progressive welfare state. Another reason is the War on Drugs. The idea of the War on Drugs seems to be that drugs ruin lives; therefore, if we catch you using or selling drugs, we will ruin your lives by putting you in prison. Actually, the hidden racist reasoning might be that drugs ruin the lives of white children; therefore, if we catch blacks using or selling drugs, we will ruin their lives by putting them in prison.

Drug crimes are victimless crimes. Ergo, they should not be crimes at all. Even if drug offenses were genuine and deserving of punishment, blacks are incarcerated for them at shockingly unjust rates. According to the Sentencing Project, blacks “make up 12% of the nation’s drug users, but represent 34% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 45% of those in state prison for such offense as of 2005.” This has devastated the black community, destroying families and creating more out of wedlock births.

Leftwing statists attempt to re-enslave blacks by fostering and perpetuating economic dependency while rightwing statists attempt to re-enslave them by unjustly imprisoning them for bogus victimless drug crimes and forcing them to work at slave labor in prison. So how can blacks support statism? How can blacks vote for either the neo-progressive donkey or the neoconservative elephant? Only a libertarian philosophy of free markets and free expression can held heal the wounds of over two centuries of institutionalized racism perpetrated by the federal government in the hands of the mainstream political parties.

Breaking Bad and the Federal Government: Who Is the Real Criminal?

by Gerard Emershaw

On Sunday, AMC’s award winning drama “Breaking Bad” ended its five season run. In many ways, the show’s antihero protagonist Walter White is emblematic of the early 21st century American male. University professors, pop culture aficionados, and fans of the show will be discussing the finer points of the psychology of the tragic Walter White for decades to come. The question that will be considered in what follows is “Who is the real criminal?” Are drug dealers like Walter White the real criminals or are federal employees like White’s brother-in-law Hank Schrader who work for unconstitutional agencies the real criminals?

Walter White is a bad man. There is no doubt about this. He proves himself to be “the danger” and “the one that knocks.” During the course of “Breaking Bad,” he is responsible for the murders of well over a dozen individuals. However, the majority of these murders are the killings of drug dealing rivals, the kinds of murders typical in the narcotics trade. These are the kinds of murders that were once associated with bootleggers during Prohibition. Employees of rival alcohol producing companies do not engage in violence against each other now that alcohol is legal in the United States. Luiz Fernando Edmond, the president of Anheuser-Busch, does not order hits on employees of the Coors Brewing Company. Coors CEO Peter Swinburn does not resort to violence in order to force Anheuser-Busch out of his “territory” in Colorado.

Those in the drug trade are made into criminals by arbitrary laws that outlaw certain classes of intoxicants while allowing other classes to be freely produced, traded, and used. In an important sense, the federal government makes itself one of the major causes of the violence connected with the drug trade by making substances such as crystal methamphetamine illegal.

Walter White’s brother-in-law Hank Schrader works for the federal government at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA is tasked with enforcing federal drug laws by combating drug smuggling and use. The first thing to notice about the DEA is that it is an unconstitutional agency. The DEA was created by President Richard Nixon on July 28, 1973. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the President the power to create such a law enforcement agency. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to criminalize any drugs. The federal government acknowledged this undeniable fact when it legally amended the Constitution through the Eighteenth Amendment rather than simply passing the Volstead Act in the absence of such an amendment.

Prior to Prohibition, the federal government banned the non-medical use of opiates with the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. This was an unconstitutional move since there is nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress the power to ban opiates or any other kinds of drugs. While state legislatures do possess the constitutional authority to ban drugs under the Tenth Amendment, it is likely that drugs would not be so widely banned in states were it not for the federal ban. No state currently bans alcohol, though it would not be unconstitutional for a state to enact prohibition within its borders. Therefore, the federal government has created the environment which gives rise to drug violence and the associated crimes that are committed due to the artificially high price of narcotics through its unconstitutional actions in banning drugs and declaring the destructive War on Drugs.

ASAC Hank Schrader and all other employees of the DEA are essentially criminals. This is actually true of all federal employees who work for unconstitutional agencies. While employees of the Department of Education or the Social Security Agency might not be poisoning people’s tea with ricin, blowing them up with bombs, or strangling them with bicycle locks, they are criminals all the same. Everything that an unconstitutional federal government agency does is illegal. Thus, every official action taken by its employees is illegal. Furthermore, those who work for agencies such as the DEA create the environment that inevitably breeds monsters like Walter “Heisenberg” White.

Krokodil and the War on Drugs

by Gerard Emershaw

It produces a high similar to heroin, but it is much cheaper to produce. Krokodil—known more formally as desomorphine—is produced by mixing codeine with substances like gasoline, paint thinner, oil, alcohol, hydrochloric acid, or iodine. The drug gets its nickname from the hideous effects that its use produces at the site of injection:

The drug's sinister moniker—also known as crocodile—refers to the greenish and scaly appearance of a user's skin at the site of injection as blood vessels rupture and cause surrounding tissues to die.

The flesh-eating Krokodil first began being used significantly in Russia in 2002 and grew to an epidemic. By 2010, up to a million Russians were injecting desomorphine into their veins.

The first reported cases of Krokodil use in the United States have emerged in Arizona. Frank LoVecchio, the co-medical director at the Banner Good Samaritan Poison & Drug Information Center, has reported seeing two cases during the past week.

Any time that the media reports on a new drug craze, it inevitably sparks hysteria in suburban America. From ecstasy to bath salts to the dubious I-dosing, the American media loves nothing more than to frighten George and Martha on Main Street, USA by making them believe that their precious children Ashley and Dylan might soon fall prey to the latest version of Reefer Madness.

If and when Krokodil or some other new mind altering and potentially dangerous substance does catch on in the United States, blowhards will again be calling for renewed effort in the War on Drugs. However, the most dangerous drugs exist and become popular because drugs are illegal. The illegality of drugs makes them more expensive. This is because in addition to the costs of producing and delivering the substances, there are the addition costs attributed to the risk. Thus, cheap and ultra-dangerous drugs like Krokodil develop a market because they are affordable alternatives to expensive drugs like heroin. While draconian “sin” taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, etc. have been causing the prices on such products to skyrocket, when left to the free market, these things tend to be reasonably priced. This is because legal competition is widespread and not having to evade law enforcement and not having to gun it out with rival drug gangs lowers production costs.

When consumers have their choice within a free market of legal mind altering substances, they tend to choose safer and milder versions. For example, in the United States, the best selling beer is Bud Light. Bud Light is only 3.88% alcohol. American imbibers could easily choose 190 proof Everclear over Bud Light, but they simply prefer to sip a mild beer rather than guzzle grain alcohol. If drugs were legal in the United States, it is likely that a mild brand of morphine would become far more popular than heroin or Krokodil. If Russians had had wide access to inexpensive forms of morphine, then Krokodil would never have become popular in the first place. Because alcohol is legal and affordable in the United States, moonshine is not very popular. Likewise, if drugs were legal, there would be little fear that new and dangerous drugs would catch on with users. If and when Ashley and Dylan are strung out on Krokodil and their flesh begins to rot, George and Martha can thank the War on Drugs for it. 

The Unrealized Popularity of Libertarian Ideas

Libertarian presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson managed to get just under 1% of votes cast in the 2012 election. Although this is a small percentage, this marked a huge increase in votes for the Libertarian Party over what it managed in 2008. On the surface this would indicate that libertarian ideas are fringe ideas with no hope of gaining currency with the American public. However, these numbers do not tell the true tale. While the public may not realize it, the truth is that libertarian ideas are quite popular with the American people.

Noninterventionism

The Democratic and Republican Parties are both war parties. At issue between them is not whether the United States should be militaristic. The only issue is the particulars that that militarism should take. Should it manifest itself in limited “kinetic military actions” or in full scale regime changing invasions? Yet, it turns out that the traditional American position of nonintervention – the foreign policy strategy that the early American presidents exercised in order to allow the United States to avoid doom in the jaws of a European conflict – that has been resurrected by Ron Paul is favored by the American people.

A May 2012 poll taken by Associate Press-Gfk found that only 27% of Americans supported U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan while 66% opposed the efforts. Even more tellingly, over half of respondents stated that they believed that American military presence in Afghanistan was doing more harm than good.

While perhaps war fatigue could explain this growing dissatisfaction with military efforts in Afghanistan, other polls reveal that Americans are growing wary when it comes to new U.S. military interventions. A March 2012 Gallup poll indicated that only 25% of Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in Syria while 64% believe that the United States has no such responsibility. The popularity of the Progressive/Neoconservative idea that the United States must be the “policeman of the world” is diminishing with the American people.  Even after reports of alleged atrocities in Syria were issued, American support for military intervention in Syria still remained at only 33%. In March of 2011, a similar poll found that only 27% of Americans favored the United States intervening in the fighting in Libya while 63% opposed it. Following the tragic murders of Americans in Benghazi that resulted as blowback for President Obama’s “military kinetic action” in Libya, Americans are likely to finally realize the perils of American military intervention. 

Despite the popularity of peace, neither major American party has embraced it. The fact that there are votes to be gained by taking a less belligerent foreign policy stance yet neither party has embraced such a position is an indication that the special interests of the Military-Industrial Complex may be valued more highly by American politicians than the preferences of the American people.

The War on Drugs

Libertarian stalwart Ron Paul has said: “This war on drugs has been a detriment to personal liberty and it's been a real abuse of liberty. Our prisons are full with people who have used drugs who should be treated as patients – and they're non-violent. Someday we're gonna awake and find out that the prohibition we are following right now with drugs is no more successful, maybe a lot less successful, than the prohibition of alcohol was in the '20s.”

President Obama has done nothing to scale back America’s counterproductive and expensive “War on Drugs” despite the fact that he has admitted to using illegal drugs in his youth. The Republicans appear to have no interest in admitting defeat in this “war” either. Yet, Americans are not optimistic about it. According to a November 2012 Rasmussen poll, only 7% of Americans believe that the government is winning the “War on Drugs” while 82% believe that it is losing.  The votes to decriminalize the recreational use of marijuana in Colorado and Washington show that the stage is set for the end of the unjust and militarized persecution of recreational drug users. These sentiments are not unique to Colorado and Washington. A May 2012 Rasmussen poll indicated that 56% of Americans favor the legalization of marijuana.

If Americans support the legalization of marijuana in increasing numbers, why has neither major political party taken a position against federal enforcement of laws against marijuana? The likely answer is that campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies, cigarette companies, and alcohol companies are what are influencing mainstream American politicians. These industries do not want competition from legal marijuana, and the lives destroyed by the “War on Drugs” are seen by these corporations as acceptable “collateral damage” in service of their profits.

The National Debt

Democrats and Republicans pay lip service to the national debt, but few politicians outside of Ron Paul and those who embrace his ideals take it seriously. Ron Paul has called the national debt “the single biggest threat to every American man, woman, and child.”  However, it appears that the American people do take the dangerous national debt very seriously. A Gallup poll conducted in March of 2012 indicated that 73% of Americans were “very” concerned about the amount of U.S. debt held by foreign nations. Even more tellingly, a May 2011 Reason-Rupe poll found that 69% of Americans consider reducing the national debt “very important” and 74% of Americans favored “a spending cap that would prohibit the government from spending more money than it takes in during a fiscal year.”

Cutting Military Spending

Ron Paul favors cutting military spending. He scoffs at alleged plans for cutting military spending that would merely slow the rate at which military spending grows. He points out that “even if we were to slash our military budget in half, America easily would remain the world’s dominant military power.” Yet, hawks in both parties cringe at the very notion of any military cuts. This ridiculous attitude is best expressed by the neoconservative former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, Despite the fact that the United States military budget is ten times larger than China’s, Bolton claims that  the Pentagon has been reduced to “clipping coupons” while the Chinese military is “celebrating Mardi Gras.”

The truth is that Americans are actually closer in attitude to the libertarian Ron Paul than the neoconservative John Bolton on this issue. In a unique study conducted in May of 2012, the Center for Public integrity, the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) and the Stimson Center found that Americans favor cutting military spending by 18% – with Democrats favoring a 22% cut and Republicans favoring a 12% cut. This study showed participants the size of the budget for the military compared with government spending on other areas and then provided arguments for and against military spending cuts. When presented with actual data and reasoned arguments instead of histrionic talking points, Americans favored the libertarian position on military spending over the positions of leaders in both major political parties.