If a man does not keep pace with his companions,
perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.
Let him step to the music which he hears,
however measured or far away.
Henry David Thoreau
Tweet of the Day
The military adventures of Obama are blatantly unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment. Congressional neocons unlawfully enable him.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) November 5, 2015
Hypocritical Bernie Sanders is taking his cultists on a ride--via Uber, of course. His union bosses don't approve. https://t.co/xFzUjFNVmp
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) November 5, 2015
Socialist Bernie Sanders knows how to save money when spending campaign money by using Uber.Frugal with legally plundered taxes? Not so much
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) November 5, 2015
Alaska finally killed the infeasible Bridge to Nowhere. When will the Dems finally kill the Road to Serfdom? https://t.co/UGiqFzD7td
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) November 5, 2015
The Federal Reserve's manipulation of interest rates is a war on savers and future generations, enabling spendthrift Dems and RINOs.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) November 5, 2015
Hillary Clinton, you've got some splainin' to do! https://t.co/e1mkfyomXb
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) November 5, 2015
Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen schools Bernie Sanders: "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) November 6, 2015
Hero of the DayTimothy Joe Winn of Antioch, California, said that he and his daughter Alyssa, 6, were trick-or-treating at a man's residence on Bethel Island when the he slipped what Winn initially thought was a $10 bill into Alyssa's bag, CBC San Francisco reports.Chart of the Day: The Unsustainable Federal Welfare System
"This is for the wheelchair maintenance," the man told Winn, according to East County Today.
When Winn and his daughter got home and started looking through Alyssa's candy, however, they realized that the man had actually given them a $100 bill.
 |
| Courtesy of Cato Institute |
The Rap on Carson
The Coddling Contemporary University
Basically Mises' Critique of Socialism
Your Stalker Government May Have a Fatal Attraction to You
Facebook Corner
(Ron Paul). The Constitution is not a set of helpful suggestions. It is the law of the land. President Obama has no legal authority to insert troops into Syria or to continue airstrikes. He has become a lawless president and Congress is an accessory to the crime. Tune in to today's Liberty Report:
Without Authority, Obama's Syria War Illegal. https://youtu.be/Q2L7-5zdUiA
um, yes he does have legal authority to send troops and conduct air strikes. he is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. While the Constitution states that it takes Congress to formally declare war on an opponent, the President can deploy troops for a certain period of time without a formal declaration of war (Korea? Vietnam? Ring any bells?) Guidelines for doing so were established in the War Powers Act of 1973. You wanted to be president and you don't know these basic facts?
Utterly absurd OP. The ONLY justifiable use of the President without Congressional authority to initiate military force is actual or imminent attacks on the US. Ron Paul is spot on. Note that the unconstitutional, illegal wars of Obama have not been justified in terms of the War Powers Act, but resolutions passed early in the Bush Administration, particularly the 2001, which specifically referred to the 9/11 attacks and was not a blank check for war making--which would have been unconstitutional. In fact, the initiatives under Obama--Libya, Syria, Yemen et al., had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11, not to mention ISIS.
The War Powers Act did NOT delegate any constitutional authority to the Presidency, which could not be done by anything short of a change to the Constitution. What it did was to provide a window in which the President had to explain any military action that had not been explicitly validated by Congressional action. This is far from saying that the President has unfettered warmaking powers.
(Cato Institute). "To bemoan a capitalist earning high profits is like complaining about a surgeon saving too many lives."
High profits encourage competition; so long transactions are voluntary, it's all good. I remember a fellow grad student back in Austin several years back; he wanted to be self-sufficient in everything, e.g., if he was to build a house, he would do all the construction work, the plumbing, the wiring, etc. Logically extended, that would apply to the materials, tools, etc., used in related activities. Nothing wrong with being a polymath, but there are diminishing returns. Remember the recent story of the man who spent 6 months and $1500 making a sandwich? The beauty of the free market is that we are all better off to trade in accordance with the principle of comparative advantage, relevant economies of scale, etc. Success in the marketplace can be fleeting, undone by innovation, efficiencies, etc. If Subway can make a profit making me a sandwich at $5 vs. $1500, without my losing 6 months of my life in the process, why should anyone care?
(The Hill). "The Fed operating under a cloak of secrecy has gone on for far too long. The American people have a right to know exactly how Washington is spending their money. The time to act is now," Rand Paul urged in a statement."
You wanna audit the Fed? Fine. Only if we can audit the Pentagon too.
No preconditions, jerk. Monetary policy is specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Yes, all federal spending, including DoD and the parasitic welfare state, needs to be audited.
(Reason). If we really live under a representative government, how can a president take the country to war in Syria without even a show vote in Congress?
The fact of the matter is that there is this "wink and a nod" funding approval for Obama, with the implicit approval of the neocon majorities to underwrite Obama's unconstitutional military adventures. All these corrupt politicians don't want to share blame if or when the next attack reaches our shores. Meddling in the affairs of other nations is hardly conservative government.
Because congress illegally and unconstitutionally gave up the powers of declaring war under the patriot act and the umbrella term "war on terror". Under the terms of the constitution the president is in full control of the military during times of war, but only after congress declares war. Since we are in a never ending "war on terror" that congress declared 15 years ago the president has a never ending control of the military.
This war on terror is unconstitutional and illegal in the respect that it is vague. The power to declare war was clearly meant to be iasied each time the U.S. military engaged with a sovereign nation. This was to prevent the president from becoming a military tyrant bent on nation building.
False, What Congress approved after 9/11 was no blank check: " IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Note that it specifically qualifies terrorist attacks as those on 9/11--not some proactive, rebulous mandates against other/future terrorist organizations, ISIS, state governments like Syria, etc.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Mike Lester via Patriot Post |
 |
| Courtesy of Lisa Benson via Townhall |
Aretha Franklin, "I Can't See Myself Losing You"
