Quote of the Day
Everything you can imagine is real.Pablo Picasso
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via LFC |
Chart of the Day: Time for Term Limits...
 |
| Via Reason |
Image of the Day: Cultural Marxism Run Amok
 |
| HT Mark Perry of Carpe Diem: cf. here |
Caplan Explains the Virtue of Trade
Hall of Shame: US Government WWII Propaganda
Facebook Corner
(Justin Amash). Just how bad were the changes to the #USAFREEDOMAct? A MAJORITY of the 152 cosponsors of the bill voted NO. A MAJORITY of the 121 no votes were COSPONSORS of the bill.
Where are the bureaucratic "truth-in-advertising" meddlers on letting a gutted bill retain the original name?
(Reason). See Hall of Shame video above.
they interned also Germans but you protest just Japanese; wonder why? and then of course in England enemy aliens were also interned. such is life in wars.
Bull*. Lincoln saved the union and suppressed the biggest treason in history. FDR saved us from the worst of the depression, set up the structure to make sure it did not happen again ( only when a lot of it was destroyed by Reagan was the almost-depression of the Bush admin possible), created the infrastructure for our boom in the fifties and sixties, and defeated fascism. We could use another FDR
I'm not sure where to start--the pathetic gullible troll whom uncritically believes the politically correct propaganda of Lincoln and FDR or the guy whom questions why this film focused on Japanese vs German/Italian internment camps,
Tom DiLorenzo does an able job cutting through the Lincoln myth; Robert Higgs takes out the myth that FDR got us out of the Depression. (DiLorenzo also has a great essay on economic fascism.)
On the latter point, in fact, there were in fact German and Italian internments, but the nature and extent of Japanese was qualitatively different. The number of Japanese was over 120,000, around two-thirds citizens (aliens included aged parents) and was focused entirely on ancestry. The internments of the other groups was focused on aliens, including shamefully Jewish immigrants escaping the Holocaust; on the other hand, there was no crackdown on pro-Nazi German-American groups.
The internments were unconscionable violations of our Constitutional principles where people were denied due process, based merely on the basis of ethnic identity.
(Reason). Justice Antonin Scalia, the same conservative jurist who once railed against his Supreme Court colleagues for "sign[ing] on to the so-called homosexual agenda," helped legalize gay marriage in Pennsylvania. Here's how.
I never thought I would ever read a libertarian essentially promoting the rationale of the indefensible Footnote 4, which radically expanded majoritarian abuse of power trumping individual liberty. There's no evidence whatsoever that the traditional private-sector social norms of marriage and family were created by discriminatory law; rather, law reflects preexisting social norms. The Tenth Amendment traditionally promoted police power over public safety, health and morals. For example, it's one thing to live-and-let-live people in a nudist colony, but it's another thing for minority nudists to impose their preferences in public areas.
So, in other words, state laws did not create traditional norms but simply reflected them. I never read these pro-marriage state laws as banning relationships of gay couples or their using the term "marriage" in their attempt to gain public acceptance (vs. tolerance) of their relationships. I think this whole concept of trying to co-opt a heterosexual construct really reflects the gay community's defensiveness and insecurity to chart traditions and standards independent of straights. They want to impose their special interest values via weapons of political correctness and groupthink media propaganda on the straight community; that is hardly consistent with a pro-liberty perspective. These fascists are intolerant of those whom believe in traditional values or do not agree with them. The fact that Justice Kennedy surrendered to the god of political correctness versus conformity to the Constitution in acknowledging the powers of the states is unconscionable and unprincipled. DOMA did not prohibit states from resetting their recognition of nontraditional marriages, but arguing that DOMA recreated a marriage standard is a departure from reality. At the time of DOMA, all fifty states only recognized traditional marriage, and the question of plural marriages was an explicit issue in Utah's joining the Union (and an explicit SCOTUS opinion supporting traditional marriage after a Civil War era law). DOMA was more of an attempt to ensure other states recognizing nontraditional relationships could not undermine other states' own marriage standards through reciprocity agreements.
Why do you care what consenting adults do?
Did you miss the entire thrust of my comment: what part of the nudist colony example did you not get? How do you not understand what I said by 'I never read these pro-marriage...'? I clearly said at the get-go that I didn't favor majoritarian abuses--and this would include things like banning homosexual relationships or "marriages"; that's different from forcing other groups to recognize relationships and/or confer special status. There's a world of difference between negative liberties (i.e., live and let live) and positive liberties (e.g., using the government to intervene on some privileged group's behalf). In short, I don't care what gay people do, their rights to form a supportive community, etc., which is tolerance; this is different from their imposing their agenda on a largely straight community--which has just as much right to voluntarily live in accordance with their own traditional cultural values.
What is the "homosexual agenda" exactly? To be treated as equals? Maybe the arbitrary social construct known as "marriage" should never have been taken over by the government...although at this point, NOT taking over things seems to be something our govt has forgotten about altogether.
Don't be absurd! This is not a case of intervening against gays getting "married" in the context of gay community; it's about the State intervening in the private sector to redefine a voluntary community standard of traditional marriage, a heterosexual construct. Real marriage and family, not those invented by political correctness as dubious as Justice Douglas' infamous prenumbras, are not arbitrarily defined constructs but reflect social norms promoting societal self-preservation and stability.
(Reason). Apparently, there is a "no questions" rule at the 9/11 memorial.
Big Nanny run amok in a public space partly paid for by the taxpayer and dedicated to American freedoms. The reporter witnessed a spontaneous incident involving a woman talking on her cellphone. That violation of the rules did not bother security as much as the fact that a reporter approached a guest, which they absurdly interpreted as unauthorized "harassment". There was no evidence that the interviewee objected to the unobtrusive interview, but apparently the local gestapo required the woman to get prior clearance for covering unanticipated events. Rules for the sake of rules, even if they trample on the First Amendment..
(Reason). See Chart of the Day.
Congresses "approval rating" is not 11%. The true approval rating is the average approval rating of each congressman in his/her home district. An overall approval rating is meaningless, pretty much like any other nationwide statistic.
No. For example, you could have a team of great players but they don't play well together.
Disney Proposals
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Lisa Benson via Townhall |
Journey, "Don't Stop Believing". Probably my favorite 80's single... Steve Perry is a rock god. Infectious hook, glorious arrangement...
