http://www.washtimes.com/…

Environmentalism, says Czech President Vaclav Klaus, is the new communism, a system of elite command-and-control that kills prosperity and should similarly be condemned to the ash heap of history.

The provocative Mr. Klaus, an economist by training and former prime minister, said in an interview that today’s global warming activists are the direct descendants of the old Marxists who trampled on individual freedoms and undermined free markets in pursuit of a greater good.

“I understand that global warming is a religion conceived to suppress human freedom,” he told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. “It is used to justify an enormous scope for government intervention vis-a-vis the markets and personal freedom.”

The 66-year-old Mr. Klaus was in Washington this week for talks with senior U.S. officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, and to tout his new book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles,” about the dangers to life, liberty and prosperity posed by the modern environmental movement.

He may be just stirring things up to sell his book but there are many who see this environmentalism movement as an excuse to give governments more power. I can’t say I disagree. Very few of the eco people advocate non-statist solutions.

http://www.upi.com/…

Montana officials said its statehood contract will be breached if the U.S. Supreme Court rules only state-run militias can keep and bear arms.

While there’s no secession talk in Montana, 39 elected state officials signed a resolution declaring that if the court rules the Second Amendment to the Constitution is a right of states, not individuals, Montana’s compact would be violated, The Washington Times reported Monday.

“The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract,” Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to the Times.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on a federal court decision striking down the District of Columbia’s gun-ownership ban. The high court hasn’t issued a broad Second Amendment ruling in nearly seven decades, including whether it provides an individual right or a state government-held collective right, the Times said.

The Montana statehood contract, preserved as Article I of the state’s constitution, specifies gun ownership as an individual right, reading in part, “The right of any person to keep or bear arms … shall not be called into question.”

I thought the REAL ID would put the states and federal government at major odds first. Seems I may be wrong. This is pretty interesting. You rarely have people in these positions talking in this manner. I doubt very much anything will come of this but it’s fun nonetheless.

There is an issue I have with the Bill of Rights and its application. Through incorporation the federal government says that particular amendments apply to state governments. I have major issues with the fact that these cases where incorporation was cited are effectively random. They seem to create the need for incorporation on the spot instead of there being a blanket statement that in fact full incorporation has occurred. This has allowed for the federal government to cherry pick which it wants to enforce. A notable amendment not incorporated is the 2nd. If incorporation is legit it should be codified clearly by passing a new amendment which states without a doubt that all protected enumerated rights found in the federal constitution also apply to the states and the federal government has the power to pass and enforce laws to do so.

http://www.reason.com/…

Lately, Barack Obama has been quoting John F. Kennedy: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do.” For a few hours the other day, I was starting to think he really meant it.

On Thursday, The Washington Times reported that in 2004, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, Obama came out for decriminalizing marijuana use. That usually means eliminating jail sentences and arrest records for anyone caught with a small amount for personal use, treating it more like a traffic offense than a violent crime. But in a show of hands at a debate last fall, he indicated that he opposed the idea.

When confronted on the issue by the Times, however, the senator defended his original ground. His campaign said he has “always” supported decriminalization.

It’s a brave position, and therefore exceedingly rare among practicing politicians. Which may be why it didn’t last. Before the day was over, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying he thinks “we are sending far too many first-time non-violent drug users to prison for very long periods of time” but “does not believe that we should treat offenses involving marijuana with a simple fine or just by confiscating the drug.” Recently, he had told a New Hampshire newspaper, “I’m not in favor of decriminalization.”

This episode reveals that as a candidate, Obama is more fond of bold rhetoric than bold policies. But it also proves the impossibility of talking sense on the subject of illicit drugs during a political campaign. That course of action would mean admitting the inadmissible: that the prohibition of cannabis has been cruel, wasteful and fraudulent.

It would also mean he has a backbone and is for real change and not tinkering with the status quo. A friend tried to get me to support Obama. Said he had a real chance of getting elected and was second best to Ron Paul. I very sternly let him down by telling him not a chance in hell. Obama’s looking to in the least continue the same old Washington bullshit while giving lip service to “change” at at worst will grow our federal government to even more. I don’t care about youth, speaking ability or race. I surely don’t care about a new Camelot or a weak policy on the drug war.