Massive Phoenix drug sweep targets gangs, crack cocaine

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/09/27/20110927phoenix-police-drug-arrests-brk.html

The title of this article could have been, “Help Wanted!  71 full time job openings available immediately for drug dealers.  Unbelievable tax free pay!”  Another possible title could have been, “Countless Drug Dealers enriched as a result of some drugs seized by police.”  In addition to the celebrating police officers, the remaining drug dealers, who were not arrested, celebrated along with those officers because they just benefited from a small and temporary decrease in the supply of drugs.  Whenever supply is decreased and demand remains the same prices rise.  Said another way, all the other drug dealers benefited because their supply is now worth more.  

If you really want to disappoint the drug dealers, end the drug war.  Just as the prohibition on alcohol was the best thing that ever happened to organized crime, the prohibition of other drugs is the best thing for the illegal drug dealers.  The drug war has been a complete disaster.  It will never be won.  69 billion dollars a year later, it is time to end it and pursue sane policies instead. 

 

 

Marc Victor and Mike Wasdin Discuss the Constitution

Marc J. Victor and Mike Wasdin on Voice of Veterans Radio Show

Host - Vern Bagley

War On Terror Or War On Freedom?

A recent major investigative report by the Los Angeles Times sheds light on what all this “war on terror” is actually costing–and actually accomplishing. According to the report, “A decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security, setting up sophisticated radio networks, upgrading emergency medical response equipment, installing surveillance cameras and bombproof walls, and outfitting airport screeners to detect an ever-evolving list of mobile explosives. 


“But how effective has that 10-year spending spree been?


“‘The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It’s basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year,’ said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.”

The LA Times report goes on to say, “Like the military-industrial complex that became a permanent and powerful part of the American landscape during the Cold War, the vast network of Homeland Security spyware, concrete barricades and high-tech identity screening is here to stay. The Department of Homeland Security, a collection of agencies ranging from border control to airport security sewn quickly together after Sept. 11, is the third-largest Cabinet department and–with almost no lawmaker willing to render the U.S. less prepared for a terrorist attack–one of those least to fall victim to budget cuts.

“The expensive and time-consuming screening now routine for passengers at airport boarding gates has detected plenty of knives, loaded guns and other contraband, but it has never identified a terrorist who was about to board a plane. Only 14 Americans have died in about three dozen instances of Islamic extremist terrorist plots targeted at the U.S. outside war zones since 2001–most of them involving one or two home-grown plotters.”
The report also notes, “Large sums of Homeland Security money, critics complain, have been propelled by pork barrel politics into the backyards of the congressionally connected.”

See the LA Times report at:
http://tinyurl.com/3u3olzx

Add to the LA Times report a report by Madison Ruppert. In the report, Ruppert notes that it is clearly the Bill of Rights–especially the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms–that are suffering the most egregious attacks from the federal government’s “war on terror.”
Ruppert concludes his report saying, “In short, despite the fact that all the statistics and data in the world directly contradict the report’s findings and the claims made by clearly biased ‘experts’ on the threat of terrorism, especially of the homegrown variety, the HSPI [Homeland Security Policy Institute] and other bodies continue to fearmonger and lie to the American people to keep us scared while they empty our pockets and continue their imperialistic adventures in the Middle East and now North Africa.”

See Ruppert’s column at:
http://blacklistednews.com/?news_id=15638&print=1

Back to the Times report, not only do we Americans have about an equal chance of dying at the hands of a terrorist as we do dying in our own bathtubs, we have a much greater risk of dying at the hands of prescription drugs–something lawfully encouraged and tightly controlled by the US government. According to a recent report, more people now die each year from prescription drugs than from automobile accidents. That’s some 37,000 deaths via prescription drugs annually! (Come to think of it, how many people do you know who have died from marijuana?) And as hard as it will be for some people to accept, this number is gigantically greater than those who die from hard drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine. In fact, the prescription drug Vicodin, by itself, has killed more people than cocaine and heroin combined.

See the report on prescription drug deaths at:
http://tinyurl.com/6eh8bw3

So, what has this trillion-dollar “war on terror” accomplished? If it’s not making us more secure, what is it doing? Well, for one thing, it has created a stupendous surveillance society. Virtually every piece of public communication is now captured and stored by the federal government. Surveillance cameras are now ubiquitous throughout the United States. We have a gargantuan federal police department (which is anathema to the US Constitution): the Department of Homeland Security. We have thousands of Orwellian laws, most of which were spawned by the Patriot Act. And more and more often, law enforcement agencies are demonizing US citizens for their religious and political beliefs and statements–even categorizing them as potential domestic terrorists based simply on those religious and political beliefs.

To refresh reader’s minds regarding how Americans have been labeled, profiled, and denigrated as “terrorists” because of their religious or political beliefs, please peruse the material on this web page:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=52

Fortunately, it does appear that the combination of an emerging police state and a declining economy that has resulted from this “war on terror” is finally starting to catch the attention of the American people. According to a Brooking Institution report, “Six in ten Americans believe that that the United States weakened its economy by overspending in its responses to the 9/11 attacks. In particular, respondents felt this was especially true of the U.S. mission in Iraq. Two out of three Americans perceive that over the decade since 9/11, U.S. power and influence in the world has declined.”

A Rasmussen report further revealed, “As with the recent turmoil in Egypt, most Americans (67%) say the United States should leave the situation in the Arab countries alone.”

Beyond that, “A Zogby poll conducted in August 2007 found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks, two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.”

See the BlacklistedNews.com report containing the above survey results and more at:
http://tinyurl.com/3v2n538

The LA Times is right to question what Americans are getting for their $75 billion a year contribution to the “war on terror.” Some could even argue–with convincing data–that the “war on terror” is in reality a “war on freedom.”
P.S. Understanding the financial difficulties that many people are having due to the current recession, and wanting to help people who desire to download my video and audio messages, we have reduced the price of both of these downloads. Video downloads are now only $10 (down from $15) and audio downloads are only $5 (down from $10).
To download these messages, go to:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?cat=16

P.S.S. Our printer has just cleared his warehouse of all remaining FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. We now have 50 copies of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS available. And with our move to Montana, it is not certain that we will be able to provide FREEDOM DOCUMENTS this Christmas as usual. So, if readers want to obtain this fabulous collection of America’s great historical documents in one volume, we have a total of only 50 copies that will be shipped while the supply lasts on a first-come, first-served basis. To order FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go to:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=279

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

© Chuck Baldwin

ASU Marijuana Debate Victor vs Montgomery

Federalist Society Debate: Legalize Marijuana?

"Should Marijuana Be Legalized?" ASU Law School Debate on FreedomsPhoenix.com

Debate on YouTube:

Part 1 of 4

Part 2 of 4

Part 3 of 4

Part 4 of 4

kicked out ASU Marijuana Debate: Victor - Montgomery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5t2cyNtNXw&feature=player_embedded

Don’t Cherish the 2nd Amendment!

I was recently asked to write an article which would be of interest to people who cherish the 2^nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 2^nd Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Few people have more experience talking to others who cherish the 2^nd Amendment than me. I am the only attorney who is regularly invited to speak to groups of people in Arizona who attend the huge Crossroads of the West gun shows about their rights and responsibilities as firearms owners. Indeed, I enjoy talking to people who cherish the 2^nd Amendment, and I acknowledge, agree and respect the rights of free and responsible adults to acquire, possess and sell whatever weapons they peacefully obtain. I am far more concerned about the government bearing arms than I am about responsible citizens bearing arms.


However, I often wonder if the people who cherish the 2^nd Amendment also cherish freedom. They are not the same concepts. Like everything else in the Constitution, the 2^nd Amendment is subject to interpretation. Until the year 2008, it was a subject of much debate whether the 2^nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms or a "collective right" to allow the states to organize a national guard. Incidentally, I have no understanding of what a "collective right" is, and I suspect neither would any of the drafters of the Constitution. Although the United States Supreme Court determined an individual right is indeed protected, I wonder if those same 2^nd Amendment cherishers would have such warm feelings towards the 2^nd Amendment had the Supreme Court sided with the collectivists? Moreover, recent cases have already proven that there is no doubt the lower courts will now march toward restricting such individual right as they have with all other individual rights "protected" by the Constitution.


The 2^nd Amendment, as with everything else in the Constitution, is subject to interpretation, limitation, expansion, or virtual nullification by those nine political appointees on the United States Supreme Court. How many of your rights are protected by the Contracts Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clauses or the 9^th Amendment? With a different group of nine political appointees, those could have been important sections of the Constitution in terms of protecting freedom. Of course, the 2^nd Amendment could be repealed. I suspect many people would not be inclined to turn their firearms into the government for want of a right to bear arms.


I admit there is no escape from the necessity of interpreting written words. Our language and thoughts are not precise enough for perfect communication. However, we should recognize and admit the 2^nd Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution, is merely a collection of words written on paper. By themselves, they have no power to do anything at all. The mindset of the people interpreting and enforcing those words is what matters.


I would much prefer to live among liberty minded people without any constitution or written laws whatsoever than big government loving busy bodies who live pursuant to a written constitution which grants them rights to do whatever the government deems appropriate. There is no substitute for liberty minded people, and nothing else whatsoever can preserve liberty; not the words of the 2^nd Amendment or the Constitution or the congress or your favorite politician; nothing. Freedom is either respected by your neighbors or it is not. No words can get the job done.
Whether a person cherishes the 2^nd Amendment is of little importance to me. I am more interested in knowing what respect, if any, they accord to the rights of others to control their bodies, their money, their property and their time. There are endless arguments, restrictions, interpretations, and outright lies anti-freedom inclined people will advance in attempts to impose their will on others.


As an example, some people, with agendas to ban firearms, argue firearms are responsible for much of the horrible violence in our society. However, as research has shown, a greater number of guns in a community does not equate to more violence. Indeed, the opposite is true as has been pointed out by John R. Lott Jr. in his book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Nonetheless, as a consequence of the erroneous "firearms cause violence" assertion, many people will support laws from registration and licensing to outright bans on firearms.


Always ignored within the "guns cause violence" crowd, is the reality that anti-freedom government policies, not guns, are the root cause of the violence in question. Government policies which restrict freedom result in black markets where disputes are not settled peacefully in court but rather violently in streets. If a pro-freedom policy was adopted regarding drugs, the horrible drug cartel related violence, which always involves firearms, would be more akin to the peaceful purchase and sale of alcohol. I never hear about the Budweiser guy and the Miller guy breaking into violence in the streets. I suspect they don’t even carry guns. In any event, the gun is not responsible for the violence.


There are undoubtedly bad and violent people in the world who cannot be dissuaded, under any circumstances, from violence involving firearms, knives, bats, fists, whatever. However, nothing creates and nurtures a culture of violence and conflict like anti-freedom government policies.
We will not have peace in our world unless and until people realize freedom is a necessary prerequisite for peace. We should not be surprised trespassing on the rights of others often results in violence. The fact firearms are used to effectuate violence is not evidence firearms are bad. Firearms are neutral. Firearms are mere tools.

Likewise, the 2^nd Amendment is neutral. It is also a mere tool. Those words can be used by freedom inclined people to protect liberties. They can also be used by people who seek to restrict liberty, forcefully impose their views on others and cause conflict. Although I cherish freedom, and all the concepts which are necessary to a free and peaceful society, I do not cherish the 2^nd Amendment or any other collection of mere words.

Mock Debate

In case anyone is interested, Marc and I (Mike Wasdin) had our mock debate in the office yesterday. Here (I played the part of the Statist) is what I used as my argument to support the drug war (yes I almost threw up in my own mouth while reading it, lol). Marc of course destroyed this argument (not that I had any doubt that he would) and had a great rebuttal to all of it.  

If you want to see the real thing, here is where it will be:

 

Bill Montgomery, the Maricopa County Attorney, and Marc Victor, a local attorney, will debate whether Marijuana should be legal.

http://apps.law.asu.edu/Apps/WebEvents/EventDetails.aspx?laweventid=276596

 

My attempt to think as a Statist is below:

 

 

Mr. Victor talked a lot about freedom today. If you were listening closely you noticed that he used a lot of intentional words when describing my position such as “anti-American”, and “statist” or fascist. He then used jingoistic words such as “pro-freedom”, “Liberty”, and “American” to describe his position. He used these words as labels. He wants you to associate my position as being inconsistent with freedom, and his position as one of someone who understands and embraces true freedom.   Mr. Victor believes that he, and only he understands the meaning of words like, freedom, liberty and self-ownership.

 

What is freedom? Is freedom the right to do whatever you feel like doing, without regard to what effect those “freedoms” may have on other individuals who share an equal right to freedom just as you do? If that is true freedom, then what possible argument could Mr. Victor raise to my using my property in any way I decide, even if that use harms others?

 

Should I have the freedom to drive my car while intoxicated, endangering the lives of other citizens? If I own my body and what I put into it, as well as my car, then I should have the freedom to do whatever I wish with my property right?

 

Should I have the right to play loud music in my own home at 2 am even though it disturbs my neighbor? If I own the stereo and it's in my house, why should I not be able to do as I wish with my property?

 

Should I have the right to discharge my weapon at my discretion and at whatever I feel like? If I own my weapon and it is my hand that controls it, what possible objection could he raise to my controlling my own property?

 

Should I have the right to smoke marijuana anytime I choose? What about at work, or while driving my child to school, or while just driving in general?

 

At what point can there be too much freedom or should we just be able to run amuck and do anything we so choose? Do we have a responsibility as a civilized society to create laws and enforce them or should we just leave it up to each individual to decide which laws they should obey, and which laws they should ignore?

 

It would be impossible to live in a free society with unchecked freedom. With no limits to freedom there would be nothing preventing someone else who is capable of exerting more force than you are able to defend against from using their freedoms in such a way that would deprive you of your freedom.

 

With freedom comes responsibility! I also cherish freedom, but I understand and accept that freedom does and must have limits. Unlimited freedom would be chaos and anarchy. Any civilized society must acknowledge a need for law and order. Without rules, regulations and laws, your freedoms would only exist until someone or a collective group decided to use their freedoms in such a way as to deny your freedoms.

 

We live in a violent and dangerous world. I am concerned about what kind of world I leave behind for my children and my children’s, children. What kind of a message would we be sending our children if we legalized marijuana, that it is okay and acceptable? I don’t want my children to be addicted to drugs; I have seen up close and personal the dangers and the consequences of people with drug addictions.

 

I know Mr. Victor will make the argument that marijuana is relatively harmless, or that there is no evidence that marijuana is addictive or a health risk at all. I would disagree with all of these assertions, but more importantly I would remind Mr. Victor that marijuana is a gateway drug and a stepping stone to more dangerous drugs such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines.

 

We have laws in this country, and those laws were created for a reason. Laws are put into place to not only protect us, but to punish those people that choose to step outside those laws and do as they choose. Mr. Victor would like to see the laws regarding drugs abolished. I think that these laws are not only needed, but that they are consistent with freedom in a civilized society.

 

Among the very young, we impose structure (laws) so that they grow up properly to become responsible adults. Without any restrictions there is an increase in lawlessness in the youth of America. Society has the obligation to make up for the lack of structure on our children by the neglect of their parents. This lack of structure has made itself evident in the high dropout rate in American schools and the increasing failure of our children's ability to read and write.

Drugs are bad and create countless social ills. They are not only dangerous for the user, but for society as a whole. Drugs create higher crime rates in our cities as well as dangerous neighborhoods in our communities, which result in higher taxes for everyone. Drugs are a burden on our police, courts and prisons, as well as many other areas such as the medical and mental health fields.

 

Drugs, as well as drug related crimes are responsible for much of the violence that plagues our society today. Legalizing drugs would be akin to throwing gas on an already out of control fire. No, legalizing drugs is not the answer!

 

The only answer is to ramp up our efforts and find better ways to fight the war on these dangerous and addictive drugs. This war will not be won if we decide to retreat and concede. I would like to see more money and resources used in the fight against this dangerous enemy that is ruining the lives of not only this generation, but that of future generations as well. We need to think about the children, and what effect legalization would have on them as well as their children's children.

 

I would like to ask Mr. Victor a few questions myself. Mr. Victor what other laws would you see fit to abolish if given the opportunity? What about speeding and other traffic laws? What about guns and other weapons? What about prostitution or sex with children? Do you yourself have any limits to the freedom for which you so strongly advocate, or are there any areas where you think there should be limits to freedom, and if so where?

 

Maybe you should start by asking yourself if freedom really exists in the first place. The fact that you are here today defending your position with such vigor and passion would seem to imply that no it does not. If you are always on the defense can you really say that you are free? Freedom would mean that you're free in your mind as well as your body, yet here you stand debating this issue of freedom as if it is something you possess, well do you?

 

I am not sure if Mr. Victor even understands the consequences of the freedoms for which he is advocating for; I certainly do not. I believe in and support freedom myself, but obviously Mr. Victor and I have a different definition of what true freedom is.

 

 

Mike Wasdin

Law Firm Marketing Manager

Law Office of Marc J. Victor, P.C.

3920 S. Alma School Rd. Ste. 5, Chandler, AZ 85248

Direct: 480-455-5206 Fax: 480-857-0150

Email: mike@attorneyforfreedom.com

www.AttorneyForFreedom.com

What Our Clients Are Saying

I am writing to express my gratitude to Marc Victor and his legal team for not only doing an amazing job on my case, but for helping me get though a very difficult time in my life. I am a Hispanic male who was racially profiled and pulled over on I-40. After being pulled over for what was said to be “swerving in my own lane,” I was held for over an hour while the officer questioned me. Once I was free to leave and about to get back into my car, the officer yelled out asking if he could search my car. I refused the search, but the officer continued with the search of my car with his k-9. After finding several pounds of marijuana in my car, I was arrested and put into jail.

Quickly after contacting Marc Victor, I was able to get out of jail. I feel extremely lucky to have come to meet Marc and his team of experts. His firm gave my case the attention and effort necessary to make me feel confident in the process every step of the way. I was facing many years in prison, but Marc and his experts were able to work their magic to get me a misdemeanor possession charge. I strongly feel that without Marc and his firm defending me I would currently be in prison and unable to be there for my family.

- S.A.

Marc,

Just watched some of your videos with Ernie Hancock discussing the justice system and the Freedom Summit, and it just reminded me how much I respect you.  I really mean it. I'm an aspiring lawyer, and you really impress me as the kind of lawyer I want to be like.  When we met a week or so ago, you mentioned how my lawsuit could have a real impact on my current career.  You went through this same kind of thing and stood for principle with your judgeship.  Listening to your account of that one day reminds me of how I would imagine myself as in a leadership position in my profession.  I imagine I would be fired quickly, as the best often are for staying true to principle.  What separates me from the great, is that I have chosen not to work to achieve those positions and opportunities.  I hold in high regard those who have, and who still hold their integrity above what they've worked so hard to accomplish.  The greatest are able to "make it" while staying true to principle, but they are so few it seems to me.  Colonel John Boyd comes to mind. 

With your background in the Marine Corps, you may be familiar with him.  He was a great Air Force officer who was able to excel in the service through his excellence, while not passing up inconvenient fights for the good of our nation.  Only exceptional people like Boyd are able to do that.  He was shunned by the Air Force (even at his funeral), and yet honored by the Corps (they even have an exhibit dedicated to him at Quantico).  On the legal side, I think of my wife's former boss, a prominent federal judge who I once had the opportunity to talk with over dinner.  He's another truly principled American who has simultaneously achieved success.  I believe you are of the same caliber.  I am impressed that despite the success of your law firm, you remain committed to principle and defending our American liberty.  It was an honor to meet you in person and I'm grateful for the time you took out of your busy schedule to talk with me.  Please know that I am willing to pay whatever is required on my case.  I'm not looking for somebody else to bear the burden of my fight for charity.  I just greatly appreciate that you are willing to take my case, and that you have been so outspoken for our freedoms.

Be well brother,

R R