Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising every time we fail.
Confucius
Tweet of the Day
There is no constitutional "right to marry". As a lifelong bachelor, I have no State-guaranteed provision for some unfortunate bride.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) July 2, 2015
Donald Trump has the experience to lead America, over $100T in debt and unfunded liabilities: 4 company bankruptcies. http://t.co/8hsJSj0LhK
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) July 3, 2015
Nanny of the Month: July 2015The Government vs. Innovation in Pharmaceuticals
Choose Life: The Secret World of Babies
Facebook Corner
(from a supporter's responses to an insulting troll to my recent Cato Institute thread, where I argued that there is no much thing as a "right to marry". I don't usually reprint supporters comments, but he was spot on and makes a point about Kennedy's inconsistency. In fact, I still argue that Kennedy's original opinion last year was convoluted, because at one point, he's arguing for Tenth Amendment federalism, while he lets stand the overturn of the California Proposition 8 on a narrow ground of standing. [In essence, the Governator and then Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop 8 in court, a manifest dereliction of duty, unprofessional and grossly morally corrupt, for which they should have been impeached, Basically the court refused to recognize the de facto lawyers defending Prop 8. I have not heard any delusional argument from Prop 8 opponents that the Prop 8 results were in dispute; the lower courts were basically arguing they didn't like Prop 8 on their own theory of the Constitution, e.g., a "constitutional right to marry". So either the residents of California had the power to define/regulate marriage or they don't; similarly, either there is a "right to marry" or there isn't. If there was an intrinsic, unalienable right to marry, then no state could define it away by any means, any more than, say, a state could establish a constitutional right to own slaves. Kennedy was logically incoherent. I considered it a "wink-and-a-nod", pay-no-attention-to-what-I'm-saying-but-what-I'm-doing decision. I think the court didn't want the social upheaval of the nationally traumatic Roe v Wade decision, and encouraged by 3 blue states narrowly approving "gay marriage" thinking that a sudden wave of public support would create a wave of its own, after traditional marriage resolutions carried by strong majorities in over 30 states, thought that the states would move that way on their own and make stronger rulings unnecessary.
The problem is that activist groups smelled blood in the water and sought, through activist courts, to overturn marriage law in the 30-plus states that had constitutionally affirmed traditional marriage, like California (which had passed 2 traditional marriage propositions in less than 10 years). I myself had predicted this sort of garbage would happen after Kennedy's first decision. What I didn't quite understand was why the 4 court conservatives didn't vote to pick up the first overturned traditional marriage state, where there was no longer this excuse of legal standing. After the court refused to pick up that first appeal, the sharks were fearlessly out in the open, attacking the laws in all 30-odd states. The battle was really all over because Kennedy could no longer hide behind technicalities and pretend to be neutral or balanced. For Texas to remain a traditional marriage state while staunchly conservative Utah had its marriage law overturned, simply because of their respective courts of appeal, was unsustainable. The fact that the court wouldn't hear the appeals from overturned states but would from opponents of states whose laws were sustained made the final outcome obvious. The only question was whether the original 4 dissenters would join the majority to provide a morally authoritative decision like Brown v Board of Education. The answer is NO.)
Kennedy's opinion also had absolutely nothing to do with the law, Constitutional, Statutory, or common. He even ignored his own precedent in Windsor v US...Ronald is correct, however. There is no such thing as a positive right, because you cannot garuntee a positive right without infringing on the rights of another. That is another reason why Obergefeller is NOT a victory for libertarians - it advances the notion of positive rights favored by the Left, and as the idea of positive rights gains strength, individuals become more exposed to state coercion. Substitute "healthcare" in his argument for marriage and see what I mean.
(FEE). Immigrants aren't to blame for harmful economic policies.
No, immigrants aren't more "progressive" , but they are understandably offended by anti-immigrant policies of right-wing authoritarian populist political whores.
Articles like this are attempts to paint those who don't agree with illegal immigration as hateful xenophobes, so that way they don't have to answer the real questions about the problems of just letting everybody come here for any reason. With illegal immigration you get the worst of that society, as opposed to the best. As has been noted many times before, you cannot have massive welfare and free immigration at the same time.
Absolute rubbish. The fact of the matter is that until 1917 or so (with some racist exceptions for Asian immigrants) we have a fairly open immigration system (and the early 20's immigrant quotas did not include the Americas). They were NOT attracted by nonexistent welfare programs, idiot!. You are nothing more than a brown-nosed mark for the anti-liberty State. You want to deny others what you already have, you want to intervene in contracts that are none of your business. Immigration is a strongly pro-growth policy. Immigrants have shored up entitlements by nearly a quarter-trillion dollars; they tend to be younger and healthier than America as a whole.
Trump for President. Illegal immigrants are trespassors and should be deported. The most important function of limited government is to protect our borders from foreign invasion.
Anti-immigrant economically illiterate OP's should hold their tongue. Trump is a cartoonishly unfit man for the Presidency--well, he does have a lot of experience leading companies into bankruptcy--if anyone can bring down the government, he can... It makes no more sense to interfere with foreign migrants than say someone moving from Illinois to Texas to take a job. Guess what, moron; when you make it difficult for people to make a round trip to see their families, it actually encourages people to take root and have their families join them in the US. Countless studies show a large percentage of foreign workers do not intend to stay but earn enough to go home, start a business, retire, etc.
(Cato Institute). Exactly 51 years ago today, the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked a significant achievement for liberty in American history. Recognizing the government’s long history of oppression, some may ask, “Why aren’t there more black libertarians?”
I don't think that I am qualified to speak for the black experience, but I'll suggest in part the government has been seen as the most reliable ally in standing up to majoritarian abuses, the US military among the earliest, most reliable and fairest employers (and government hires almost 1 of 5 blacks among the employed). And there can be little doubt that black participation in public office greatly increased, particularly in the Old South, during the Civil Rights era.
I do think libertarians provide a solid alternative for blacks: morally hazardous social welfare policies have created a permanent underclass of government dependents, Urban blacks generally live in more crime-ridden neighborhoods, are incarcerated at disproportionate rates, have no viable alternative to failing public school, face challenges to employment in an anemic overregulated, overtaxed economy with occupational licensing restrictions and dysfunctional minimum wage laws.
But I do think we have a bad PR problem: we are seen as the principled behind the free expression rights of racist groups, we have opposed almost every major initiative of the first President of color, our agenda to shrink government affects a large number of employed blacks and government benefits for many poor blacks,
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Jerry Holbert via Townhall |
Dionne Warwick, "Let Me Go To Him"
