Topic: 10th Amendment
SCOTT BROWN IS NO DEBRA MEDINA Yes, it's cool he won, but a freedom fighter he is not - and he has already proven the point, before I could even get this article out. He is a ball player of the "same-old, same-old" kind.by Alex Wallenwein
(conservative)
Friday, January 22, 2010
(This article was written last night, 01-20-10. The morning of 1-21-10 I received the email reprinted below that proved my point much faster than I expected)
If Scott Brown can do it, Debra Medina (Texas candidate for GOP nomination for governor of Texas) can do it - several times over.
Of course, it is wonderful that Scott was able to beat what's her name, but after looking at his web site's "Issues" statement to see what all the buzz is about, I was slightly underwhelmed.
His web site looks and sounds like he is just another milk-toast republican. (Maybe they should have an organization like that. They have log cabin republicans, so why not milk-toast republicans? Or, how about pancake republicans?)
Anyway, I didn't see a single word on there about Liberty or the US Constitution, or such. Yes, I am happy that he will probably be able to derail any efforts to get Stealthcare passed this time around, but then again, if it had passed, it surely would have thrown state-level efforts at nullifying it into overdrive, so the result actually could have been beneficial, if taken as a whole.
That's pretty much where we are in this country, today. If the states don't come into their own and simply start learning to block federal efforts at intruding into their constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty, we might as well just let Hugo Chavez take us over. We are at the point where nothing good will - or could - come out of any branch of the federal government, for a long time to come, until voters figure out that kicking these high-maintenance hobos out of office at every election until newcomers see there is no point in even trying to have a 'career' at taxpayer expense anymore is the only way to go.
Until that happens, we had better focus our energies at the state level. That's where the Framers always intended for us to spend it in the first place, by the way. The states are where we live. Let the career politicians migrate to Washington DC. Once states (and the people in them, like you and I) figure out what their real power is, their power to nullify bad acts (not 'laws'!) of the federal congress, those guys can do far less harm in DC than they can in your state capitol. Let's turn DC into a "Guantanamo Bay for politicians", of sorts. (We can fence it in, too, if we want!)
All joking aside, when people learn that they truly do have the power, and that they are able to exercise it at and from the state level, that's when Liberty will smile upon America again - not a moment sooner. Washington is not the answer. It's not even the question. All it is, at this point, is a rather unattractive nuisance that needs to be remediated, like an open landfill or a toxic waste dump.
"Fencing Washington in" is the least we can do - by nullifying pretty much everything that comes out of it, acting sort of like a national air freshener would act on the bad odors emanating from there. After that, the only people that should ever be allowed into that danger zone would be clean-up crews (like state-legislature-appointed US Senators who can ge their leash yanked when they try to run off with our collective silverware). Now is as good a time as any to repeal the 17th Amendment.
People like Debra Medina are what every state government needs, whether in the governor's mansion, in the state senate, or in their legislatures, county commissions, or city halls. It won't be the Scott Browns of the world who will clean up DC. Watch him closely. He will get "turned" rather quickly and start singing a different tune once he is there. If he doesn't, it's only egg on my face. If you keep him there and he indeed turns, it's egg on yours. I'd rather have it on mine. It affects fewer people.
We need more Debra Medinas in America. Watch what a huge boost candidates like her will get after she wins this election. Let's keep the Debra Medinas at home and send the Scott Browns to Washington DC. That's my idea of "federalism." Let Washington DC have the scraps that fall from our states' tables. We're not without compassion. DC must "eat", too.
We just have to make sure it doesn't keep eating our own lunch!
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Nathan Adams <nathan.l.adams@gmail.com> wrote: "We're past campaign mode: I think it's important for everyone to get some form of health care. So to offer a basic plan for everybody I think is important. It's just a question of whether we're going to raise taxes, we're going to cut a half at trillion from Medicare, we're going to affect veterans' care. I think we can do it better."
This is what you get when you elect an 'establishment' candidate.
The emailer is completely right. Scott Brown needs to get booted out in six years. (that's a long time, isn;t it?) - and itwon't even matter if what's her name replaces him. Sellouts and turncoats must ot be tolerated under any circumstance.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 17 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Alex Wallenwein only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Alex Wallenwein is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Medina is a spoiler..her pro legalize illegal drugs ended any chance of being elected...she blew it, not us. Yes Perry has problems, but he is not for legalizing drugs and just adding one more problem. She is right on alot of things, and I wish I could support her..but I can't and neither can most Texans...so she's a spoiler.
Mark, you dont speak for Texans, you speak for yourself. The bogus "war" on drugs should come to a screeching halt, just as prohibition on alcohol did. Voters like you need to wake up to the concept of individual liberty and freedom. Read Lysander Spooner's "Vices Are Not Crimes" and your eyes may open up a bit.
Posted By: Alex Wallenwein
Date: 2010-01-22 10:41:30
To Mark Vogl:
We are obviously not fighting a war on drugs to win it - or we would have won it already. All we are doing is to keep prices artificially high for drug lords to make money at the expense of our kids. At the same time, we are creating nice slush funds for corrupt politicans who are not above taking money from these same drug lords to keep the "war on drugs" going so everybody involved can make money - on our backs. By legalizing drugs, you make illegal drug profits impossible. By criminalizing them, these profits are perpetuated. Besides - what about personal responisbility? Legalize drug use for adults - and give the death penalty to anyone who sells hard drugs to minors. That will cure the problem (My view, only). Those who support the war on drugs have no clue about Liberty.
Debra Medina's stance on drugs will not cost her anything. She has a real chance to win the GOP nomination - and that will make her shoe-in for the governor's job in the fall. Watch it happen.
The poor saps in Taxachussetts can dump Brown in 2012 (filling rest of TK's term, as he expired before his term did). Texans now have a chance to start back down the road of Liberty by electing a strong pro-sovereignty Governor whoREALLY means what (s)he says-Perry needs to walk the walk if he wants to take on Medina. Medina had best be willing to fight for Texas.
Mark, interesting that you would say that. Lets ask Rick Perry the same question. He said nearly the exact same thing as Medina did back a few years ago.
Did Perry flipflop on this issue, or is he just showing that he has no convictions.
The war on drugs costs far more than it is worth. It costs just as much to send someone to college as it does to incarcerate them. Remember that next time we send a young name or women upstate on drug charges forever changing there life for the worse. Now they will come back in a few years with a real criminal education. The cost on law enforcement are huge. Drug charges make up the majority of the prison system. And the fact that drugs are illegal makes them profitable for criminals. In a legalized system they would be profitable for business and add to tax revenue. At the same time forcing the criminal element to adapt or go out of business. I for one fail to see the positive side in keeping pot illegal.
I do not wat to dwell on this topic because Debra Medina stands for so much more but she does have a point, a revised policy on drug abuse needs to be looked at. And we need to be mature in evaulating it.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-02-28 14:01:54
People, people, people.....you have got to stop rationalizing here. Drugs kill people and that's a fact. Drugs destroy families and people’s lives and that's a fact, and although cost is a problem, that is not the main cause or ruin to people’s lives. If you do drugs you are going to always be for legalization and some folks who don’t do drugs feel the same way maybe because they have a family member who does drugs.Let’s take a look at Amsterdam where they took a different approach to the problem by setting up government run drug houses where they give the junkie a fix through a clean needle. Some of the drugs in Amsterdam are still illegal but tolerated, but you have all those who are constantly strung out on drugs being cared for day and night by the government…that’s you folks, that means more tax dollars to support those who feel the need to have you pay for their problems.
Alcohol is legal in this country and how many people die at the hands of drunk drivers every year? If drug use is legalized how many more people will be killed at the hands of someone who is stoned or so messed up that they drive like they are drunk? Should I subject myself, my wife, my children, my grandchildren and my friends to this harsh reality and legalize drugs and take my chances even more than I do right now? If you say that is not relevant, you have obviously never lost someone to the antics of a drunk driver, or you are brain dead.
People are irresponsible, they drink and drive, they text and drive, they will do drugs and drive, in other words they kill people! So, instead of making texting illegal as has had to be done in this country, should we just legalize it and continue to allow people to get killed by irresponsible drivers?Why should we have to have a law that says it’s illegal to text and drive….why aren’t people responsible enough to figure that out on their own without the government having to step in and pass a law that makes it illegal?
Question: If I were to approach you carrying a gunny sack with something moving inside and then told you that I had a very large rattlesnake inside and that I would give you a $100.00 dollar bill if you would stick your hand and arm into the bag and touch the snake, would you???Well, would you?????Hell no you wouldn’t, unless you are a total whack job and if that’s the case you’re gonna need the $100.00 to get yourself to a hospital really really fast, cause I really do have a rattle snake in that bag!We are talking about the same thing here!
What about the bar owner who serves the guy sitting at the bar a half dozen drinks and then allows him to leave the bar, knowing full well that the chances of him getting into a car and driving is about 99%.Now if you owned a bar that had a one way door that allowed them in but not out till the next morning so you were not putting them on the streets after serving them a half dozen drinks I would not have a problem with that, but that is not the case. Should the bar owner be required to have someone who escorts every patron out the door and into a cab?Well, frankly if I owned a bar, that is exactly what would be going on.You wanna drink, you hand over the car keys before you start, you can come back the next day and get your keys and your car because frankly I would not want on my conscience that I sent him out onto the streets and he ran over and killed your sister!!
You will never get people to become responsible for their actions especially when they are so drunk or stoned they don't even know who they are, so legalizing drugs is a waste of time and life and I am afraid that is a cold hard fact.
We have prisons that are housing a population of at least 50% non violent offenders, meaning drug offenses of one type or another; this is a huge problem due to the enormous amounts of money that is being spent to house these people who cannot be responsible enough to stay out of prison. So what's the answer? Do we set up drug compounds where the government supplies the drugs and if you enter you cannot leave until you are straight? Geezz these people would never leave and now we are spending more tax dollars! Do you take away the drivers license so they can't drive, which you and I both know that they will do anyway with or without a license? Do you legalize drugs and "force the criminal element to adapt or go out of business"? Not likely, because the drug lords will just find some new illegal substance to push and sell, and you know that is not a fantasy, cause if you take away their livelihood, they will find something bigger or better to replace it! I wanna know why these drug lords are not just picked up, put against the wall and shot!They have murdered so many people with their drugs that there should be no question about their guilt or innocence.I’ll tell you why, because when the government authorizes find the drug lord’s stash of money and weapons they confiscate it and then it belongs to them.The drug lords are back on the street in a short time and the process is repeated.
When I was a kid the prisons were executing people all the time, but now that all the bleeding heart liberals have got everyone running scared it is happening less and less all the time.Necessity is what drives people, and if they lose the necessity, they will find a replacement. So instead of trying to eliminate the drug problem, why not eliminate the source of the problem? We used to have bounty hunters in this country; dead or alive were what the posters said, why not institute the bounty hunter program and pay a bounty on the drug lords head?They find a drug dealer they eliminate him choosing the dead rather than the alive portion of the wanted poster. Maybe that’s the answer here!We have so many people that are so gung ho to have the government take care of everything for us, give us drugs, give us money, give us a place to live, hold our hand, blah blah blah, I’d rather reinstate the bounty hunters!
Drugs are dangerous, you know it, and I know it.MJ is probably the least dangerous but it becomes very dangerous when you climb behind the wheel of a vehicle, and you know this will happen.I have driven down the street of California many times and have spotted people smoking pot while they were driving….and yes, if there is any doubt, you could smell it! I have seen many people I have known over the years who had succumbed to drugs and or alcohol and spend their lives living like a walking zombie, or their minds are so scrambled that they are like 3 year olds most of the time, or even worse, they died, some of them by their own hand!
I would like to see a better way of doing things with the drug problem if for nothing else than to ease the amount of tax dollars that are wasted every day to enforce the laws.What is required here is that people take responsibility, but that is not going to happen, so until that day does become a reality, the fight to legalizing drugs is just another can of gasoline on the fire!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
