Quote of the Day
The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.Plutarch
Image of the Day
 |
| Via Genetic Literacy Project |
I've not been one of Snowden's fans (for violating the terms of his government clearance):
Snowden allegedly stole up to 1.77 million NSA documents while working at two consecutive jobs for US government contractors in Hawaii between March 2012 and May 2013.It looks as though Russian or Chinese agencies have gotten access to enough information on Western intelligence agents to force the British to pull agents in affected country operations. Snowden had suggested that he had destroyed relevant files.
The US government believes Snowden gave about 200,000 "tier 1 and 2" documents detailing the NSA's global surveillance apparatus to American journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras in June 2013.
The US also believes that Snowden also took up to 1.5 million "tier 3" documents, including 900,000 Department of Defense files and documents detailing NSA offensive cyber operations, the whereabouts of which are largely unknown.
Kill ObamaCare!
Choose Life: Father's Day Next Sunday
Facebook Corner
(Libertarianism.org). "[O]pinion on the left and the right needs to change, and that means dialogue with the left and political alliances with the left just as much as dialogue and alliances with the right." #QOTD #liberty #libertarianism
I am an unapologetic fusion libertarian-conservative. I worry about unintended consequences of embracing a more libertine/non-traditional lifestyle or values; however, provided natural rights (life, liberty, property) are respected, I believe in a mutual tolerance of speech and behavior (i.e., live and let live). I tend to be strongly pro-migration, free trade, and noninterventist in government domestic or foreign policy. The author of this piece fails to make a key distinction between conservatives and right-wing authoritarians. As the author suggests, American conservative thought is grounded in the liberty tradition. I would not say that I am a typical American conservative, but I think the author is picking the wrong fight; e.g., I don't see Statist recognition of "gay marriage" is commensurate to issues of a massive national debt, a government-dominated healthcare system, a freer market. Whatever electoral success has occurred, it's usually a fusionist, like the Paul's, Amash, Massie, etc.
(Cato Institute). "Iceland is in the process of phasing out capital controls. Those controls reduced foreign investments. Fine. But, what about property rights and the taking of property?"
Since the banks committed massive fraud, seizing them and imposing capital controls was the correct solution. The banks stole money and capital controls ensured that the thieves could not abscond with the stolen proceeds
Wrong, fascist. Government was the problem. "Common superficial analyses of Iceland's economic crisis have mirrored the analyses offered for the worldwide crisis. Analysts and journalists alike have blamed the worldwide crisis on the usual suspects: greedy bankers, inexperienced upstarts, a corrupt political elite, the deregulation of the financial system, or, more generally, the evils of capitalism. Likewise, some commentators and economists[3] have blamed Iceland's crisis on financial deregulation during the preceding decade. Gumbel contends that the free-market program of Davíð Oddsson, the prime minister from 1991 to 2004 and a self-proclaimed fan of Milton Friedman, caused the debacle.The problem with this explanation is that Iceland could not, by any stretch of language, be called a free market.[4] In 2007, before the crisis erupted, Icelandic taxes and contributions to social security were the ninth highest among nations in the OECD (41.1 percent of GDP). Iceland's particular crisis, and the world's in general, was caused by the manipulations of central banks and intergovernmental organizations. Thus, in the final analysis, it was the actions of governments that brought about Iceland's financial collapse. " https://mises.org/library/when-iceland-totally-froze
(FEE). "Search your conscience. Consider the evidence. Be mindful of facts. Ask yourself: When it comes to helping the poor, would Jesus prefer that you give your money freely to the Salvation Army or at gunpoint to the welfare department?"
As I figured, the "Chrisitian progressives", atheist and other trolls are out to spam this thread with their disingenuous rubbish. The last time I checked, the Ten Commandments did not include, "Steal property from others in the name of the poor." Jesus does teach voluntary charity, but He had a number of wealthy benefactors and He did not demonize wealth or industriousness. (Consider the parable of the talents.) The Gospels are replete with references to Jesus rejecting earthly power and wealth and emphasizing the Kingdom of Heaven, prayer, etc. Jesus was not an insurrectionist nor did He want a confrontation with the Jewish authorities (re: coin in the fish's mouth), because He did not want politics confounding His mission/teaching. The Greatest Commandment was not to love others but to love God. To those who would reduce the message of Christ to some secular humanist/socialist mandate is disingenuous blasphemy.
(IPI). In fiscal year 2015, the state gave $5.1 million to county fairs, including $1.7 million for prizes and competitions.
The suspension of funding for county-fair prizes, competitions and rehabilitation projects were among the spending reforms announced by Governor Bruce Rauner on Friday.
Ah, yes, the Illinois version of bread and circuses. Really, is the state buying rainbow-colored teddy bears a wise use of the people's money?
No prizes for you. Just tax breaks for the wealthy. Trickle down economics has never worked in all of history. Empowering the middle class with more money strengthens business. The wealthy have not invested in job growth
I can't believe that feeble-minded fascist trolls still use the pejorative "trickle-down economics" (as if these morally-corrupt bastards think they are entitled to steal ever-increasing cuts of other people's money....) Why don't we talk about "trickle-down" Statism? That is, what's left after political whores and parasitic bureaucrats take their cut before spending the rest of their stolen loot paying off political chits to corrupt special interests like public sector unions on morally hazardous, ineffective domestic programs (which can be done cheaper, better and faster in the private sector)?
(Cato Institute). "It’s important to separate immigration (permanent) from migration (temporary). Much of what we think of as 'immigration' is actually migration as many of them return home."
Interestingly enough, under the original US Articles of Confederation, States handled their own immigration and naturalization. These were seen as two separate but related functions. When the US Constitution was written, naturalization was given to the Federal government, but no language was included that as obviously changed the immigration situation. A reasonable person would say that the States retained their immigration authority, but 19th century decisions by the Supreme Court located that authority in the Federal government by a waving of hands and the blowing of smoke about the inherent powers of national sovereignty, which apparently didn't need to be explicitly vested in the Federal government by the Constitution (even though, for instance, taxation -- long held to be a power of Sovereignty -- was NOT vested in the Federal government under the old Articles and had to be specifically mentioned in the new Constitution). The idea of birthright citizenship also came out of Supreme Court decisions of this era, even though it had been necessary during the revolution to repudiate that idea most forcefully in our own Declaration of Independence. I must say that, from the looks of it, the 19th Century was a very bad time for our Constitutional system; the Justices on the Supreme Court did quite a lot of damage that we are only just now beginning to appreciate in full.
Birthright citizenship is clearly founded in English common law, which is part of our legal tradition and was made explicit in the Fourteenth Amendment (the interim issue dealt with the status of slaves born in the country). Trying to argue that the Constitution only vested naturalization vs. immigration to the federal government is disingenuous; Ariticle 1 Section 9 unambiguously states "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." There was a transition period before the Congress was empowered to exercise its regulatory authority. This is no judicial construct but plain language in the Constitution.
A big reason so many stayed instead of going home is because of US policy that made staying and taking one's chances less risky than leaving and trying to get back in. During the economic downturn, many might have gone back if they could have returned later without difficulty or penalty.
There was net outbound migration to Mexico during the Great Recession. This has been discussed by many sources, including here in passing.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists
Dionne Warwick, "Walk On By"
