Prohibition Laws Must Be Destroyed

As of late, both State and Federal politicians (and certain unscrupulous and greedy trial lawyers) have sought to pass laws that prohibit or at least "regulate" our personal habits, (and those that provide us with servicing our appetites) or sue to destroy these industries. These laws and lawsuits include: attacks on "trans fat acids", "unhealthy-fast-food", tobacco, etc. Thanks, but no thanks, I'll choose for myself what I eat or don't eat or what goes into my body.

These laws come as no surprise to those who have seen the pattern of government intervention in both our personal lives and the free market that started around 100 years ago. Laws that prohibit the personal use (or sale) of goods and services (when no one other than the user are affected) are rightfully called "prohibition laws", as labeled by the father of the GOP, Abraham Lincoln.


Lincoln once opined, "prohibition laws strike at the very heart of what it means to be a free American in that they seek to legislate a man's (or woman's) appetite and makes crimes out of things that are not inherently crimes". Lincoln would never have supported ANY Federal (or State) prohibition laws such as drug, tobacco, prostitution, gambling, food, etc. It is unfortunate that BOTH Democrats and Republicans seek to keep existing prohibition laws in place (especially Federal laws that violate the 9th and 10th Amendments such as drug laws) and to expand them into new areas. The 10th Amendment grants states (and the people) the rights of criminal law-making and enforcement authority. That's why prostitution, gambling, murder, rape, robbery laws, etc. are usually state laws.



Fortunately, not all is lost, there are some Republicans who are actually fighting for Lincoln's views (against prohibition laws, especially Federal drug and gun prohibition) including: CA State Senator Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), Former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Victoria, TX), Rep. Tom Tancredo (R -Littleton, CO), to name a few...


It basically started with prohibiting heroin and cocaine in 1914 (and 1918) at the Federal level (before that we had a "states-rights" system in place, which worked better) by Woodrow Wilson, the blatantly racist Democrat who primarily passed these laws in order to "round-up" minorities. He used false public-safety justifications for these laws when race was his main issue. At that time, it was common for American citizens to drink Coca-cola (which contained cocaine) without any major problems (now that stuff was the "real thing"). Americans also used patent medicines containing opiates, cocaine, etc., again rarely with major problems. Some people had issues, but they largely used drugs indoors and approached treatment facilities and their churches when their use was problematic.


From there, prohibition spread to alcohol, which proved to be an abysmal failure, but at least the Federal Government made it illegal the way the Constitution mandates, which is through a Constitutional Amendment (there has NEVER been a Constitutional Amendment for drugs, firearms, etc., courts have simply "given" the Federal Government the authority to regulate drugs, guns, etc.). It was later repealed in 1933.


After that, (in 1934) we had our first Federal firearms regulations, which required a "tax stamp" to own certain weapons, however the government refused to issue tax stamps (which in effect made the weapons illegal). That false model was used to make marijuana illegal in 1937, under the "closet-racist" FDR. Just like with other drugs, marijuana wasn't a big issue and America's once-thriving "Indian-hemp" industry (as marijuana was traditionally known as), which started during the colonial days was destroyed by legislation.


Hashish, which made it's American debut at the World's Fair in the 1880's (fair-goers used "huka" pipes to smoke it at the booth, I'm sure the food booths appreciated the secondary business) was also included in the act. It too wasn't a public safety issue, but was made one by racist Democrats.


After that, it went to other drugs, then lower level firearms. Finally, we saw the attacks on tobacco. We also saw political and judicial attacks against basic children's toys due to accidents, etc. Now we see food on the list. I have a feeling I know what products are going to be declared regulatable next, however I won't make any predictions out of fear I might tip off the politicians and cause them to happen sooner.


The fact is, prohibition laws are wrong and illegal. We as Americans should no longer tolerate politicians that seek to pass them or those that don't fight to repeal them. The Judicial system should also restrict them when applicable.

Klansman Given 3 Life Sentences for Killing Black Males Over Second Amendment Civil Rights

Klansman Given 3 Life Sentences for Killing Black Males Over Rumors They Attempted to Excersize Their Second Amendment Rights

Jackson, Miss. --- Friday August 24, 2007 will go down in history as a great day for both the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. This is because a now-convicted elderly Democrat Klansman named James Ford Seale has been given three life terms for killing two black male 19-year-olds simply because there were "rumors" going around that "black males in Mississippi were 'stockpiling' weapons".

The case started with the mere "rumor" of black citizens attempting to excersize their Second Amendment Rights, not even proof that they were doing so, WHICH IS NOT A CRIME EITHER. And being the PRO-GUN CONTROL group that Nazis and the Klan were and are (well, gun control against everyone who isn't a Nazi/Klansman), they decided to enforce their anti-gun (when it comes to non-whites) views and killed the two teens; by abducting them, beating them severely while interrogating them about "the guns" (they had the right to own by the way), and then they were bound and dumped alive into the Mississippi River. Even if the men were stockpiling guns, WOULDN'T YOU TOO IF YOU LIVED IN TERROR LIKE BLACK FOLKS DID IN THE 1960's and before? A dead Klansman doesn't hang anybody.

This is an "unspoken area" of the civil rights movement, the right to full and equal rights including the right to protect oneself and ones family by using the SECOND AMENDMENT from terrorist organizations like the Nazis / Communists / Socialists / Islamo-fascists, street-gangs and other criminals, and most importantly, FROM THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF. Keep in mind, MANY KKK members also wore the same uniforms as the police in their areas; as such blacks could not trust law enforcement, and firearms are the only answer for protection against direct murder and assault plots when you have no one you can trust in Government to turn to for equal protection.

Unfortunately, in today's world, the ignorant left-wing block of black voters have fallen into the Democrats' racist gun law trap again. This time Democrats use "Uncle-Tom" front-men like "Al Sharpton", "Jesse Jackson", etc., who are too ignorant to UNDERSTAND THE ROLE OF RACIST GUN PROHIBITION LAWS as being mechanisms of OPPRESSION against blacks in the past and the present, to push their racist anti-Second Amendment Democrat agenda. (In fact, blacks are DISPROPORTIONATELY convicted and imprisoned for simple gun prohibition offenses, at a rate higher than any other race, more than 3 times their actual population percentage).

These two "rhyme-time Democrat-plantation stage-performing fake-intellectuals" are essentially doing the Klan's work for them, helping to pass gun prohibition laws, incarcerating blacks for violating them, etc. The Klan nor the Democrats couldn't have asked for better allies than the "Two Toms". (Rumor has it that Sharpton was a long-time snitch working for the FBI informing on other blacks as well, look up 20/20's Al Sharpton report; now he is going after the First Amendment Rights of Rap Artists, yet he hides behind it any chance he can get).

In today's world, the Democrats may not hang blacks from trees for violating their racial standards, instead they send them to prison. They don't disarm them through kidnappings and drowning them alive in rivers, they do so with gun prohibition laws which leads to arrests, and long prison sentences. The Democrats use different tactics, but the outcomes are similar.

This is Corruption the Los Angeles Way.....

Los Angeles City Councilman Assists Girlfriend in Increasing Property Value

Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon proposes to reclassify his girlfriends (soon to be wife) street from a busy highway designation to a quiet "collector" street to assist her (and ultimately) him in profiting in some of her other investments on her street. He also proposes protecting her from mandatory property loss which is common under street-classification changes; it 's a mandatory version of "eminent domain."

Although it is shady, quasi-ethical and should raise questions; in Los Angeles, it is still 'technically legal' for Councilman, Mayors, etc. to do favors for girlfriends, friends, etc. involving city action, (there is a ban on immediate family members such as spouses). How the 'Alarcon scam' works is, the street becomes more residential, and thus the property values increase due to it becoming a "quieter" neighborhood, Alarcon's girlfriend will be able to to tear down her 1950's era home (homes in LA came with more property back in those days) and build as many as 9 homes, which of course can be sold, rented out, etc.

His simple, but highly lucrative move, proves that LA politics is just as corrupt as ever, it may not always be the "mafia-related" graft you see back East, or the "good-old-boy/I-run-this-County-types" you'll find in the South, but it is dirty, with a unique, Hollywood, LA glitz to it. You got it, it involves crookedness based on sexual relationships (when you combine the Mayor of LA's recent sexual deviation from his wife to a Spanish News Anchor "covering him", really "covering for him"), you hence have, "Corruption, LA-Style".

As an advocate for local control, it would be best to see the voters of LA take note of this, and then mobilize to change their City laws to disallow LA politicians from giving away tax-payer benefits to anyone they have a personal relationship with, or their relatives, etc. Heck even "cereal box" contests are better regulated for "conflict of interest" violations than LA politics.

L.A. councilman's proposal could benefit his new wife Alarcon's plan to reclassify part of a street would spare her from giving land to the city.

By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times, August 25, 2007

Traffic congestion is a sensitive political issue in the San Fernando Valley, especially for residents frustrated by the cars that cut through their neighborhoods.

Los Angeles Councilman Richard Alarcon quietly drafted a measure two months ago to deal with a tiny piece of that traffic, calling on the city bureaucracy to downgrade a street in his district from a busy highway designation to a quiet "collector" street.

The proposal affects just one block of one street in Panorama City. And that block of Wakefield Avenue happens to be the place Alarcon lists as his home — a 1950 tract house belonging to Flora Montes de Oca, the woman Alarcon plans to marry today.

The councilman's proposal seeks to "preserve the residential character" of Wakefield. But the plan could provide another benefit to Montes de Oca, who plans to tear down her rental house and replace it with as many as nine homes.

Montes de Oca faces the prospect of giving part of her property to the city for a required street widening once she builds. But if Alarcon's request is approved by the council, she would be spared from forfeiting up to 2,850 square feet of her lot at Nordhoff Street and Wakefield.

Nothing legally prohibited Alarcon from writing the council motion; the state's conflict-of-interest law keeps politicians from acting on property owned by spouses — not girlfriends or fiancees.

Still, the proposal troubled Robert Stern, who heads the nonprofit Center for Governmental Studies and wrote the 1974 law.

"Is there no shame?" he asked. "There's nothing illegal. But [this] is doing something that affects him personally."

Alarcon disagreed, saying he won't own the property even after he is married. But he will be required by law to recuse himself from voting on matters directly affecting the property, leaving the decision to his colleagues and the city bureaucracy.

"Obviously, when we get married, I can't be involved," he said.

The house owned by Montes de Oca is one of only two on the east side of Wakefield between Nordhoff and Terra Bella streets — the 338-foot stretch covered by Alarcon's motion. Just two lots away from Montes de Oca's property, 26 town houses are under construction.

Alarcon said his proposal, drafted in June, would bring a long-awaited traffic fix to Wakefield. Asked why that proposal didn't create the appearance of a conflict of interest, Alarcon replied, "Well, we weren't engaged when I did it. Or at least, when the issue came up."

An hour later, Alarcon's office issued a news release about today's wedding, saying the couple had become engaged in February — four months before he introduced the motion regarding Wakefield Avenue.

Alarcon first listed the home as his address Nov. 9 — two days after voters passed Proposition R, the measure that eased term limits and allowed him to seek a third term on the City Council. (He had just been elected to the Assembly in that same election.)

During the City Council campaign, an image of the house — one that showed a weed-filled, unwatered frontyard and a mattress on the curb — was used in a campaign mailer by an opponent who questioned whether Alarcon was living in the home.

Now, Montes de Oca may also have to move into the house, which the councilman described as seriously in need of repair. That's because he has been unsuccessful at convincing his colleagues to redraw the boundaries of his council district so he can move into Montes de Oca's other house in Sun Valley, where she lives.

Alarcon said he had failed to persuade Councilwoman Wendy Greuel to support the change, which would shift at least 200 of her constituents into his district. Greuel, for her part, said she was not yet convinced that residents just east of the Hansen Dam Golf Course support the change.

Alarcon asked Greuel again as recently as two weeks ago and failed to make progress. And although the councilman has not given up, he said he and Montes de Oca may settle together in the house on Nordhoff Street — complicating construction plans.

"The site plan she's drawn up actually is individual houses — separate, detached housing, I should say," he said. "But we've got to live by the law, and she's willing to live there. If that's what the law demands, that's what we're going to do."

Although Wakefield Avenue is 75 feet wide, it would need to be 90 feet under its current designation once any town homes or apartments were built on the block, said Jane Blumenfeld, head of citywide planning for the Planning Department. To accomplish that, any developer would need to contribute part of the lot, Blumenfeld said.

Alarcon said Montes de Oca had no comment, because she shies away from the public eye.

His colleagues — some of whom plan to attend the wedding — declined to comment when asked if they would support the motion.

But Councilman Dennis Zine said that he sees such street reclassifications as routine and that Montes de Oca's development work would help the economy.

"I don't think there's anything sinister," he said. "They're trying to build homes in a community where people are trying to live comfortably."

Second Phase of NAFTA Begins; Spells Doom for American Trucking Industry

Implementation of Second Phase of NAFTA Starts End of US Union-based Trucking

Now that the 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to stop the implementation of the initial stage of the Second Major Phase of NAFTA (the RIGHT of Mexican Trucks to travel throughout the entire US - regardless of how much they pollute, how dangerously maintained they are, what types of "loads" they're really carrying, and God only knows the driver-regulations that will be in place; but don't worry, our Government says they can monitor this); I believe we will see the decline and ultimate END to union-controlled trucking in America, and most likely non-union as well.

For years the unions have fought this (legitimately in my opinion), and have had some degree of success in preventing its implementation, which Presidents' Clinton and Bush BOTH PUSHED for solidly (along with former President Bush Sr. and his Council on Foreign Relations friends, who lobbied for NAFTA heavily). The unions main allies have been a few Federal Courts and certain members of Congress, mainly social conservative Republicans who view such treaties as surrendering American sovereignty, such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Victoria, TX) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton, CO) and solid Union Democrats such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland, OH).

However, it looks like the ride is over "so to speak" as the new "Pelosi-Reid" Democratic-controlled Congress is seeking to "suck up to Mexico" (not just on this issue, but also on illegal alien amnesty, the NAFTA "Super Highway" which will rip through the heart of the Southern US into the Mid-West and onto Canada, the North American Union, etc.) as is the current President.

So unless our current Congress is willing to buck the economic and political pressure and block this concept, you can say "hola" (Spanish for "hello") to trucks from Mexico on a permanent basis. Be prepared for our highways to become far more dangerous, ready for an exponential increase in illegal aliens (who will simply pack themselves in many of these trucks and travel unfettered to any city in America), possible use of these trucks for terrorism since most will not be subject to search and Mexican companies are easy targets for Middle-Eastern terrorists to infiltrate...and the loss of American jobs, especially those in unions because it will be much cheaper for firms to use Mexican trucks to haul goods.

I personally do not support this, but since Congress nor the Executive Branch are willing to act in favor of the American worker and small-businessman, the Supreme Court is the only place left to ultimately go to stop this (there are some procedural moves that can be done in lower courts to delay parts of this). But due to the 1920 Missouri vs. Holland Supreme Court Ruling (a judicial activist one by the way), International Treaties TRUMP the RIGHTS OF AMERICANS, EVEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, and thus I see no way of this not happening, unless the Supreme Court reverses this BAD PRECEDENT.

Eventually, as the trend of using Mexican trucks increases, the wages and then the jobs themselves of American truckers will largely end, including non-union. It's unfortunate, but such is life in the "Bush 41-Clinton 42-Bush 43" eras' of "The New World Order, NAFTA and the North American Union.

CA Gov. Schwarzenegger and CA Democrats "Global Warming Plan" Drives Industry Out of CA

CA Gov. Schwarzenegger and CA Democrats "Global Warming Plan" Drives Wonder Bread out of CA; 1300 Southern Californians to Lose Jobs


Wonder Bread announced its leaving the state of California permanently. They did the typical press release explaining their "surface" reasons for leaving. The real reason is the loss of hope for industry in California's future associated with CA Gov. Schwarzenegger's job-killing compromise with Legislative Democrats, the now infamous "Global Warming Reduction Act of 2006".

As is with most items of Government, truth in advertising doesn't apply to legislation (especially their titles). This bill (the mandates of which will be addressed below by State Senator Tom McClintock's blog commentary), has little to do with global warming, because California can't stop the Earth's natural geological cycles, plus any "reductions in man-made global warming" will be offset by industry and jobs simply moving to Mexico, or if our country is lucky, perhaps another state, where the emissions from those factories, etc. will resume.

Like Nevada and Arizona, whose populations have dramatically increased as Californians have left the state in pursuit of better opportunities for enterprise and thus employment. Since factories, etc. will move to more hospitable territory, they will release essentially the same amount of bi-products into the air and thus the only real loss won't be of pollutants, it will be JOB LOSS in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in particular, California as a whole.

Any other state that considers following Arnold and the Democrats of California's lead better think twice; don't let CA be your state's example in this area, the consequences will be decreased private industry employment, and a few more jobs created at the welfare office and unemployment office.


Blog about this:
From www.carepublic.com
A daily blog by Senator Tom McClintock

• No Wonder...

Gov. Schwarzenegger's drive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions got a major boost this week when the makers of Wonder Bread announced the total withdrawal of their bread products from Southern California. Interstate Bakeries, the makers of Wonder Bread, Roman Meal, Home Pride and Baker's Inn breads announced the closure of four bakeries, 17 distribution centers and 19 outlet stores, leaving 1,300 Californians out of work. The iconic breads – that had been staples of Southern California grocery stores since the 1940s – will completely disappear from shelves starting October 20th.

The parent company, Interstate Bakeries, blamed the high cost of doing business in California. The company has been losing money in California for some time, hit by a number of concerns including declining demand and non-union competitors, but their principal problem was simply California's growing hostility to human enterprise.

Not mentioned by the company was this grim reality: Gov. Schwarzenegger's AB 32 mandates a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. A principal byproduct of baking bread is – you guessed it – carbon dioxide. Indeed, without carbon dioxide, there's no such thing as bread as we know it. Bread gets its spongy texture from yeast converting glucose into equal parts of ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. The familiar smell of bread baking is the oxidation of the ethyl alcohol as these gases are released during heating.

But not any more. No Wonder.