It is a far, far better thing that I do,
than anything I have ever done;
it is a far, far, better rest that I go to,
than I have ever known.
Charles Dickens
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of the Libertarian Republic |
Image of the Day
 |
| Via Statism is Slavery |
Government Smuggling Stings
The feds run stings to catch people smuggling goods from low excise tax states to high excise tax states; of course, the feds get a corrupt cut on the action. Maybe if states had low, uniform taxes instead of singling out certain politically unpopular goods for an unfair portion of the tax burden... But, of course, the feds don't have a good track record of what happens to money and merchandise after the fact...
Facebook Corner
LFC commented on a social liberal/"progressive" group's call to sign a petition calling for the arrest of Tea Party members of Congress (Ted Cruz is showcased) on grounds of edition, another shining moment of liberal "tolerance" of other people's opinions.
It's hypocrisy as usual; when the Democrats over the past decade rebelled against Iraq policy or Bush tax policy (even though these policies were enabled by bipartisan votes), there were no scruples about political opposition being seen as "sedition". I personally regard running up a huge debt on subsequent generations, operating a Ponzi scheme on senior entitlements and this Administration's lawlessness from manipulating bankruptcies for its crony unions to "pick and choose" enforcement of drug an immigration laws to be treasonous.
(from Congressman Amash): I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 3092. The bill reauthorizes a federal grant program through 2018 at $40 million per year. By diverting taxpayer dollars from state and local governments to the federal government—only to have a *portion* of the money returned to state and local governments with strings attached— the bill harms the very people it intends to help, missing children. State and local governments are best equipped to commit taxpayer funds efficiently and effectively, without a federal filter that diverts resources to federal bureaucrats and reduces operational diversity. Under the bill, the bulk of the funds are directed to one private, nonprofit organization, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which must use the funds to perform certain federally mandated functions. Missing children and their families would be better served—and would have greater financial resources—if not for the imposition of the federal bureaucracy. It passed 407-2.
Only a Statist would see federal rule-making as a value-added service.
(from Libertarian Republic) Hypothetical Question: There was a failed coup that was planned against the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt which never materialized. Considering the damage that the FDR presidency did to republican ideals in the US. (See this write-up of the new book on the banker plot.)
There can be no doubt the FDR presidency was a national tragedy and he disregarded tradition becoming President for life; the Democrats, even after the 1938 election, controlled both chambers of Congress and intimidated SCOTUS with his court-packing scheme into acquiescing to his schemes to radically enlarge the role of centralized government. No, a conspiracy of bankers is not representative of the American people, and the authoritarian regime to replace the FDR regime would have been just as intolerant of individual rights and perhaps even less accountable to the people. I think we need to revolt peaceably,by persuasion. But about the book, cf. e.g., 'Business Plot' in Wikipedia; the author seems to be resurrecting a story that was dismissed by a Congressional investigation and the media, including the Gray Lady. The author also seems to have an agenda, trying to link the Tea Party and/or birthers to this plot against FDR. Most Tea Party people, and I consider myself one, have nothing to do with the birther nonsense. A more substantive comparison would be on sound money policies. FDR's nationalization of gold, abandonment of the gold standard and subsequent devaluation of the dollar were/are problematic for most of us whom believe in a free market. In theory, SCOTUS should have put an end to FDR's problematic currency manipulation.
 |
| Via LFC FDR Got One Right! SOTU Address |
Privatize most, flatten the bureaucracies, process reengineering,across-the-board cuts, federal hiring freeze and pension reform, agency resource sharing, shutter obsolete/redundant facilities, sell and/or lease assets, sunset the preponderance of regulations, decentralize individual benefit programs to the states-and I'm just getting started
(Via Conservative Outfitters HT Drudge: re: news report saying Obama will address technical issues with government ACA exchanges: my ad lib: I'm not saying that Obama doesn't understand IT, but I bet when he heard the IT system had bugs, he wondered if the Navy SEALS had an exterminator.
LFC embedded the same video I embedded above earlier in the post (about the feds busting the smuggling of lower-tax Virginia cigarettes) and commented, "Wasn't the whole point of the Constitution to abolish interstate trade barriers? Yet the ATF is running sting operations on people who buy cigarettes in one state and sell them in another, because apparently it's a crime. And, in typical ATF fashion, they start smuggling it themselves and lose track of hundreds of thousands of dollars and cigarettes. (Teal).
You are correct; states are prohibited from assessing taxes or tariffs among themselves. As I write below, the Commerce Clause was intended to stop discriminatory policies among states which had existed prior to the Constitution. Of course, SCOTUS abandoned protecting economic liberty after FDR tried to pack the court as it had rejected some of his New Deal legislation. In the early 20's, Big Dairy, looking to protect local dairy farmers, got Congress to clamp down on cross-state shipments of a canned milk product (including a non-dairy ingredient). Carolene Products appealed, having been caught; the appeal was turned down by SCOTUS, which basically abdicated responsibility, giving discretion to the will of the legislature just as long the legislation was deemed 'rational'.They further expanded the feds' power in the unconscionable Filburn case, where the feds busted an Ohio farmer for producing more than his quota of grains, even though the farmer wasn't selling his production over quota but consuming it himself. Only SCOTUS sophist justices could consider a farmer's consumption of his own produce 'interstate commerce'
I was in the middle of writing the above, when I got distracted by a response thread below and intervened:
Article I, section 8: "To regulate commerce ... among the several states." I wouldn't look to the Constitution for liberty.
It was not meant to control commerce or intervene in commerce. again we have to look to what the term regulate meant in 1776. the goal was to establish commerce between the states to allow for the free exchange of products........
The government can't regulate commerce without intervening in commerce. Regulate means regulate. And even if it meant something different in 1776 that is irrelevant. The Constitution was meant to be and is a "living document". It can change and has been changed by design. Even if by "regulate" they meant "not regulate" (which is ridiculous), it has been interpreted and implemented as meaning "regulate". Federal regulation does not "establish" commerce or "allow" for the free exchange of products. In fact, it does quite the opposite
[Respondent] is absolutely correct. The intent was to create a free market among the states. Regulation was not intended to micromanage commerce and (see Commerce Clause under Wikipedia) during the first century was used to ensure non-discrimination among states, which had occurred before the Constitution. The Commerce Clause has been interpreted in an unwarranted expansion by SCOTUS, particularly in the Carolene Products and Filburn cases, ludicrously decided, particularly Footnote 4, which is basically an abdication of judicial responsibility.
[The troll decided to respond to me.] The Founders intent is irrelevant. The Constitution was meant to be changed over time and it has changed. The government we have today is the result of two things in regards to the Constitution: 1) The powers it gave the government 2) The ineffectiveness of the limits it places on the powers it delegates government. You can call cases "ludicrously decided" but they are in line with your precious Constitution which has, rather than protect you from them, enabled their occurrence.
A progressive troll.... No, you of little knowledge. The Constitution was not meant to be twisted by arbitrary, nonsensical judicial fiat. Your beloved "progressive" jurists try to invoke stare decisis when they try to sustain one of their incoherent decisions. SCOTUS had basically confirmed economic liberty in a number of decisions (e.g., Lochner, when New York state tried to limit the hours a baker could work in a day "for their own good"). Apparently you are not aware of the nature by which the Constitution can be legally changed--it's called an "amendment"--look it up.
[The troll answered back in an insulting manner and I will not repeat it, except to give my final response:] No, it cannot be changed except through the amendment process, as explicitly provided. All you're really saying is that the Supreme Court makes interpretations; there is a judicial/legal tradition that provides a context. I suspect most make a decision based on ideological preferences and rationalize ex post facto finding precedents to support their position. Obviously I know what stare decisis was, since I raised the point, not you. Unlike science, a number of decisions are split. And I stand by my criticisms of Carolene and Filburn. Not to appeal to others whom have concluded the same--it is clear from first principles and even minimal intelligence--consuming your own product is NOT interstate commerce on any level. You are trying to make the Constitution an expansive document--that was not the intent of the Constitution, which unlike your opinion is not speculative.
Political Cartoon
re: the Redskins name which some Native-Americans consider a slur. Because everyone knows you name a team after something or someone you despise.... Get a life, self-appointed political correctness police! Stop trying to impress your friends or professors with your condescending, judgmental attitude and uncivil intolerance, and think for yourself..
 |
| Courtesy of Michael Ramirez and Townhall |
Gladys Knight and the Pips, "I Heard It Through the Grapevine"
Political Humor
