Luke Ford

Ann Coulter writes: Any politician who claims to care about the drug overdose deaths sweeping the nation, but does not demand that we build a wall, deport illegal aliens and end the anchor baby scam, is a liar.

In 2014, more people died from drug overdoses than any year in U.S. history: 47,055. That’s more than die in car accidents—and it’s not even close.

This is a huge, horrible problem—and it’s a problem caused entirely by the fact that Mexico is on our southern border.

The diverse, hardworking people of Mexico manufacture the majority of heroin in the U.S. and import “nearly all” of it, according to a 2014 Washington Post report.

The media and political class respond to this fact by asking themselves: How do we blame this on Americans—preferably white males?

Even as Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the head of Mexico’s largest drug cartel, is all over the news boasting, “I supply more heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana than anybody else in the world” (The New York Times, Jan. 10, 2016), we’re informed, Hey, don’t blame Mexicans! It’s America’s appetite for drugs that’s driving the narcotics trade!

Mexicans aren’t at fault for dumping these poisons on our country because … it’s the 14-year-old American kid’s fault for getting addicted! Hucksters of cigarettes, subprime mortgages and fake weight loss pills should try that argument. We’re just selling what Americans are buying!

About the time President Bush threw open our southern border—followed by Obama rolling out the welcome mat for illegal aliens—Mexico aggressively moved into the heroin business. In 2007, U.S. authorities seized 367 kilos of heroin on the Mexican border. In 2013, authorities seized 2,162 kilos. During that same time period, heroin use nearly doubled in the U.S.

As a result, in the last decade, half a million Americans have died from drug overdoses, mostly heroin and other opiates. That’s ten times more than the number of Americans who died fighting the entire Vietnam War.

Mexico is pumping drugs into our country, but to blame Mexicans would be “xenophobic.” They’re poor and brown! We can’t blame the Mexican drug cartels, and we certainly can’t blame the corrupt Mexican government that is paid off by the cartels.

Instead, pandering politicians give fiery speeches about drug addiction being a “disease.” However that may be, drug addiction is the only disease that you absolutely can’t catch if you never take drugs. (I also don’t see anyone getting rich by giving people the measles or pneumonia.)

As Donald Trump has said, the best way to avoid becoming addicted to drugs is never to start.

It’s harder to stay away from drugs when Mexico is flooding the country with them. But no politician—except Trump—would dare suggest that we keep the drugs out.

Carly Fiorina talks about how she “buried a child to drug addiction,” on her way to saying “the war on drugs has failed.” Her main objective is to ensure that “families that are suffering through this know that they should not feel ashamed or stigmatized.”

How about not making them suffer through the hell of a drug-addicted child in the first place by keeping drugs out of the country?

Marco Rubio thinks we need government programs to “teach students skills to avoid gangs, violence and drugs.”

Yes, it’s American kids’ fault. While we’re teaching them about drugs, how about a government program to teach people skills to not to give all their money to scammers like Bernie Madoff, instead of criminally prosecuting scam investment firms?

Chris Christie gives passionate speeches about drug addiction being a “disease” that “can happen to anyone,” before demanding that we “start treating people in this country, not jailing them.”

Why is the only choice: a) Blame the addict or b) Don’t blame the addict? How about option c) Blame the drug dealers? Oh I remember! We can’t blame the drug dealers because diversity is a strength!

Not one Republican presidential candidate, other than Trump, has any intention of going after the Mexican drug cartels operating freely in our country. Absolutely none but Trump would consider building a wall on our border. Only Trump has denounced the anchor baby racket. Did I mention that El Chapo’s kids are American anchor babies?

Instead, the other candidates twist and turn to find some way to blame Americans for the fact that the country is drowning in drugs—brought in by innocent Mexicans.

The New York Times’ response to the heroin epidemic is to express smug satisfaction that white Americans suddenly care about drug addicts now that their kids are the addicts.

I’m sorry, but with 50,000 Americans dying every year from drug overdoses, could you put away your “racism” hobbyhorse for five minutes, New York Times? It’s stupid, it’s not helpful, and it’s not true.

The recent surge in heroin overdoses is hitting black and white Americans about equally. According to the CDC, heroin overdose deaths from 2013 to 2014 (the most recent years available) increased by 8 percent for non-Hispanic whites, and increased 8.2 percent for non-Hispanic blacks.

Curiously, heroin deaths of Hispanics increased by 0.0 percent. They aren’t the users; they’re the pushers.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The more you think about what Trump says, the more unreasonable it is. Take the case in point: his calling for the crowd to batter anyone who lifts a tomato against him. That isn’t reasonable when you think about it; it’s reasonable only if you try to take it as a joke.

* When fans of the New York (Football) Giants shout, “Beat the crap out of Brady!”, they aren’t actually urging his murder or risking arrest for terroristic threatening.

* I think Trump should be concerned about the possibility of voter fraud in this election. In the case of Ron Paul, the “Establishment” did everything they could to make sure he didn’t win and I have no doubt voter fraud was a large part of that and that Paul actually did a lot better in reality than the so-called results showed.

I will admit, however, that I don’t know how a candidate can protect himself from voter fraud, particularly in the case of electronic voting.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Our current money is rife with slaveholders, sexists, and racists. I suggest a clean sweep:

$100 – Martin Luther King Jr.
$50 – Rosa Parks
$20 – Harriet Tubman
$10 – Frederick Douglass
$5 – W. E. B. Du Bois
$3 – Harvey Milk
$2 – Carrie Nation
$1 – Barack Obama

$1 coin – Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Half-dollar – Abigail Adams
Quarter – Thurgood Marshall
Dime – Cesar Chavez
Nickle – Booker T. Washington
Penny – Malcolm X

* The “natural-born citizen” clause was introduced into the Constitution mostly to keep out the West Indian-born Hamilton, whom none of the other Framers could stand.

Guy was a genius, though.

* Rootless, illegitimate, ruthlessly ambitious, willing to run huge debts, spend lots of a military with an idea to self-aggrandizement, sexually amoral, good with figures- Hamilton would be seen as a sensible, moderate pol, a real statesman, by the NPR, CNN crowd and their audiences and the Chamber of Commerce sorts.

* Of all the great men depicted on present-day US currency, Hamilton is one of two who never owned slaves (the other, of course, is Abe Lincoln). That Washington, Jefferson and Jackson were slave owners is common knowledge. Less well known, however, is that Franklin and Grant were also slave owners. Grant owned slaves through his wife Julia (who was from Kentucky) and kept them until they were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. Ben Franklin owned slaves as a young man but later freed them and became an abolitionist in his old age.

So clearly, anyone who wishes to remove the plutocratic Hamilton from the currency is in favor of slavery. But if he is to be replaced by a woman, I would suggest Julia Dent Grant, a distinguished First Lady. BTW, Grant’s family refused to attend their wedding because the Dents were prominent slave owners.

* To comport with the essence of American culture, why not just use movie stars?

* I would rather use great American directors:

DW Griffith*

Buster Keaton

Howard Hawks

John Ford

Orson Welles

* 1/ I’m surprised that Steve didn’t mention that Hamilton was closer to being an immigrant than any of the other founding fathers having not only been born outside the 13 colonies, but having been born on an island that at one time wasn’t even British.

2/ Given this website’s current fondness for meritocracy you would think that Hamilton, born a poor bastard, would be lauded, certainly over his many rich born contemporaries. Indeed I see more than a few parallels between him and say Clinton (Bill not DeWitt), a favorite of the NY crowd.

* Alexander Hamilton brought central banking to the United States.

He didn’t wake up one morning and think “Wow, European-style central banking is exactly what this incipient republic needs!”

I’m sure Hamilton was well-compensated for his role in the establishment of the FBOTUS.

* Cuckservatives and libertardians have for almost a generation been flirting with the idea that inner city drug dealers- go-getting entrepreneurs trading in a product there is clearly a demand for but which a meddling nanny state has outlawed- are the REAL Americans, not those clock-watching, pink-complexioned stiffs working in auto plants or the Oakland docks for $65/hr. This is the implicit rationale behind Rand Paul’s claim that the justice system is unfairly incarcerating too many young, black males (too bad, BTW, since Paul seems like one of the smarter candidates; loved it when in one of the debates he pointed to Christie and said, “If you want WWIII, you have your candidate.”)

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996(?) was white America’s last great act of self-assertion; but then Michael Jordan hugged every single last white man and high-fived every single last white boy in the country, and we’ve been living under this dopey illusion of racial comity ever since. Actually, no, he didn’t hug or high-five them, he sent them a complimentary pair of sneakers made in a Third World sweat shop with his image on them. And actually, no, those sneakers weren’t free, but marked up like 2000%.

* There used to be only one face on American coinage, and that face happened to be female. She was Lady Liberty. If we need to put a woman on the folding green, I propose her. Besides, she’d focus attention on a rather neglected principle (at least in this day and age) instead of a individual person, and nobody would be able to argue that she’s not an appropriate selection.

* My wife and I have a running bet on how long one can be at a social event in Manhattan before talk turns to Hamilton. Usually it’s somewhere in the 5-10 minute range, but it can be as low as 2 minutes, and it almost never fails to happen.

* Seeing as how we are probably never going to get another (besides Franklin, of course) American man* who did significant work in the arts and the sciences on our money, I’m still going to plunk for putting one of these ladies on US currency:

Emily Dickinson

Edith Wharton

Willa Cather

Mary Cassatt

Hamilton as immigrant hero: Interesting reversal. American historiography used to see that as Hamilton’s weakness. It was thought that that prevented him from truly understanding the American mind.

Pop culture and Hamilton: Hamilton was depicted as something of a villain in the John Adams HBO miniseries. Wonder if that will be the last time that we will see a negative version of him.

Falling liberal idols: Who’s in bad odor these days: Jefferson (whole slavery thing), Madison (ditto), Jackson (slavery plus Amerinds),Woodrow Wilson (the vile racist who lauded Birth of a Nation), FDR (father of redlining, didn’t do enough to stop Hitler, Japanese internment), etc.

*Although I still think that it’s positively criminal that people like Edison, the Wright Bros, Mark Twain, William James, Poe, Melville, Howard Hawks, etc, have never been on US currency.

* I nominate Monica Lewinsky for the currency.

Nothing epitomizes the character of the postmodern U.S. better than Clinton getting a blow job in the Oval Office…

* It’s the work of one man, Lin-Manuel Miranda, who born into a upper-middle class Puerto Rican family in New York and educated at Wesleyan. He looks mostly, but not wholly, white, slightly less white than, say, Marco Rubio. You’d probably identify him as Latin-looking.

* For the same reason movies set in the past always involve sympathetic characters with modern 21st century US values. Most people don’t seem to have the imagination to hold it in their heads that many perfectly good people didn’t think like them, and indeed historical “heroes” usually had ideas not unlike those of their surrounding society.