... which is that by allowing States to make their own determinations on medical marijuana he is causing the collapse of Mexico. This is the voice of John Walters , Dubya's drug control czar who is also roundly pissed that Obama has tossed his old position out of the cabinet: On the key issue of illegal drugs--the widely recognized source of criminal power in Mexico--the Obama administration is lurching dangerously in reverse. In his first statement on drug policy, Attorney General Eric Holder suggested he may no longer enforce federal law against trafficking marijuana if the traffickers call their marijuana medical. Both U.S. and Mexican officials at all levels know that medical marijuana is an utter fraud used to undermine drug enforcement in the United States. Mexican officials also know (as does the Justice Department) that much of the marijuana sold in the "dispensaries" of California funds the mafias of Mexico.... And what must Mexican officials think about Vice Pre...

... which is something that it has required only that many weeks to determine. We have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has been allowed to discuss publicly the general outline of a US attack on Iran: In an interview today on the Charlie Rose show, Admiral Michael Mullen cautioned that a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran could endanger the stability entire region, leading to an escalation that could imperil American forces in the Gulf region. Then Mullen spoke about a hypothetical US attack on Iran, declaring that it was in “a maritime part of the world, where the emphasis would certainly be on those two forces (the Air Force and Navy).” Mullen also insisted that there was no disconnect between the United States and Israel on the question of Iran. Israel has repeatedly been reported as being on the cusp of launching an attack on Iran. At the same time, there is evidence of a disconnect within the Pentagon itself about Iran. Mullen has repeatedly been on the same page as I...

I only ask because we seem to be planning a new military intervention ... in Mexico : In an interview today on NBC, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the US is in position to provide more help to the Mexican government to continue its fighting against drug cartels along the two nations’ border. Gates declared the drug war “a serious problem,” and said that he envisions the US providing training, surveillance and intelligence to Mexico. Gates also praised President Felipe Calderon for his willingness to take on the cartels, though the clashes have killed a significant number of people and led the US Joint Forces Command to conclude that the nation was at risk for a “rapid and sudden collapse.” Earlier this year it was reported that the US was considering playing an increasing role in the drug war, and the possibility of joint operations with the Mexican military was raised. Still, today’s comments by Gates were the most public acknowledgment that the Obama Administration is indee...

.....and no one is addressing it. I never thought I would hear these words....listen.... Has the Mexican government forgot what happened the last time they started a war with us? From 1846-1848 we had a serious problem with the Mexican government, and it resulted in our occupation of the Yucatan Peninsula and acquisition of the southwest. We should have peaceful trade all across the Americas, but military intervention and encroachment into our territory is a big problem. Now this is clearly a case where the state is being exposed to danger from without. What do you think should be done about this? If you were a governor of a border state, what would you do to protect the citizens of your state from this? From a libertarian perspective, what do you do when your state has foreign military agents in it?

. . . but the fact that continuing to fight the drug war with more machine guns instead of a better policy could turn the area south of the Rio Grande into a genuine failed state . Visit Drug War Rant for the details (and be sure to click through to the source material). It's a scary picture. Ironically, however, the team of former CIA-type spooks who penned the assessment suggest that a classic Libertarian strategy may be Mexico's best chance to avoid disintegration: One way to deal with the problem would be ending the artificial price of drugs by legalizing them. This would rapidly lower the price of drugs and vastly reduce the money to be made in smuggling them. Nothing hurt the American cartels more than the repeal of Prohibition, and nothing helped them more than Prohibition itself. But that, of course, would make too much sense.

This week Narco-Sphere news drops another bomb shell . That is war funding in Iraq included a supplemental provision for funding the militarization of Mexican society and that the money will be used by groups like Blackwater. Essentially setting up our own right-wing paramilitary group for Latin and Central America, and it will likely be used against all the normal countries we use this for: Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil. This is combined with the fact that we have re-activated the American 4th fleet to dominate the naval lanes of the Caribbean and Latin America is very bad news. As a descendant of a founder, and long line of naval officers, usually I'd say how happy I am, but in this case without a firm commitment to work with the other countries of the OAS to interdict right and left wing paramilitary drug cartels, I have no such enthusiasm. Clearly this is being used to dominate naval lanes in the way the Athenian Navy did, as gunboat diplom...

With the release of a Canadian Report from the CSIS Americas Program on the future integration of North American Society, called North American Future 2025 , that is the creation of MexiAmeriCanada- I have to say after reading it I am less then impressed by its lack of Pan Americanism. It basically creates a North American Empire that excludes the rest of the hemisphere. If you want integration and a borderless economy that is a fine goal for any one who honestly believes in free markets, but note that it should be the entire hemisphere and come as a result of sovereign republics that believe in the principles of Jeffersonian Democracy or Bolivarian Democracy and there will be less turmoil in doing it. You do not need to create crisis after crisis to bring a hemispheric society together, the OAS can do that through greater and uplifting cycles of mutual development, free markets, trade even with people we have had historical disagreements with, and prosperity for our citizens ens...

Mexico's President Vicente Fox said May 16, 2002 at Club 21 in Madrid: "Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union" (or as Gorbachev refers to the EU, the "European Soviet"). My response: "In matters of conscience, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson "Rather than jingle like the jade, Rumble like the rocks" Lao Tzu Dear Señor Fox, Let me be frank, thanks for clarifying your vision of a North American Union similar to the European Union, but that vision is flawed because it does not include the rest of the Americas . If we want Pan-Americanism , that is fine, free bilateral trade and respect for each other as a group of power blocks is also fine. To do it Vicente we need to ensure it is big enough, free enough and productive enough to fulfill Jefferson's vision of...

My daughter keeps pointing out to me that 90% of the time Senators Obama and Clinton give almost the same answers to every question. This is sometimes amusing, but as the pandering gets heavy in the rust belt (Ohio and soon Pennsylvania) their joint rush toward traditional Democratic trade protectionism has been little short of headlong ... ... and potentially dangerous. Investor's Business Daily (h/t to Fausta's Blog ) points out that all this noise will be awfully unsettling to our allies and trade partners: Both candidates threaten to leave NAFTA unless its "labor and environmental standards" are strictly "enforced." Enforcement? Hammer? What kind of criminals are these would-be G-men talking about? Evil ruffians out there committing . . . trade. This not only insults our allies and trading partners, it signals to everyone else that America's capricious, chest-thumping protectionist ally, Mexico, a third-world nation that is trying hard to transform i...

... so if you want to help me, just dive in. It's actually a great Wall Street Journal story about Eduardo Medina-Moro, Mexico's new attorney general, who is committed to taking on the violent drug lords in his country . But I almost didn't read it because the first two paragraphs sent me first one way and then the other: Perhaps it is a sign of a maturing electorate that Barack Obama's past drug use has not become a disqualifying factor in his bid for the presidency. It may signify that Americans are beginning to view the intake of mind-altering substances as a private decision. For those who embrace the notion of personal responsibility, such a change in public attitudes might be considered progress. But in Mexico, what suggests an increase in tolerance of illegal drug use in the U.S. has a tragic flipside: the gut-wrenching violence that arises when demand meets prohibition. This country is paying dearly for that contradiction. So is the author, Mary Anastasia O'...

Mexico is now joining a number of other countries (Japan, Brazil, Egypt, and South Korea), reports World Changing , in offer "women-only" transit. Sexual harassment is a maddeningly ubiquitous problem for female transit users in Mexico City, where subways and buses carry an estimated 22 million passengers every day. Women on the city's overcrowded buses face lecherous comments, groping, and worse. Efforts to stop sexual harassment on public buses have been futile; women report having men put hands up their skirts, kissing them, and following them off the bus. Mexico City has long had "ladies cars" on subways during rush hour. This month, the city rolled out the first two of what will eventually be more than a dozen women-only buses; the buses are plainly marked with a pink (ugh) sign that says "WOMEN ONLY." While "separate but equal" public accommodations raise legitimate concerns (will women get the oldest and least reliable buses? will segr...