Tea Party, KKK, and the Insanity of the Left

A Question for discussion....

Many people complain about the functioning of the government and what it means to daily life. Many find the  U.S. Constitution to be out of date and dysfunctional.  What would you do to bring the document up to date while still exerting controls on the scope of government in individual live and insuring that the 'tyranny of the majority' does not cull segments of the population or control their behaviour in ways inconsistent with equal justice under the law.

What would you make the constitutional basis for all the laws in our land to be penned on?



I will start with: The repeal of the 17th amendment.

There are several reasons for my dislike of this amendment and indeed how it came to be.  If facts are right, it never should have been added to the constitution because it was never properly ratified by the states in the first place.  Beyond that I believe that it is truly invalid because it denies States the representation that they are entitled under article 1 section 3 “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.  This language was repealed by the 17th amendment but nothing was stipulated to change the statement in Article 2 Section4 which states that: The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. 

Many will say that place of choosing is still the state so no fowl.  That however nullifies the meaning of the word “Legislature”.  In addition, we have the words of Article 5 about amending the constitution which states that: and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.  The key word here is “suffrage” or right to vote. 
Again people will say that the states are represented by the people and “the people are the government”.  While that may be true in some colloquial sense, elected representatives are in fact the government.  That is borne out by the fact that many times the government does not execute the will of the people.  The bank bailouts are a very good example of the difference between the will of the people and the will of the government. 
Also the constitution is quite clear that it differentiates people and state on a couple of occasions:

1.    the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2.    the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.  – This is particularly telling given the contention and the supreme court ruling between ‘people’ and a state organized militia.

3.    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,....

4.    The full 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

5.    The full 10th amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

With respect to the word “suffrage” we can understand again the differentiation between the governments of the states (Legislature)  and the citizens (People) of those states

In Federalist 59, Hamilton explains in summary:
Summary

Hamilton defends the provision in the Constitution for national control over the scheduling and regulation of elections to the House. He argues that if state governments were given control over national elections, then the national government would find itself at the mercy of states. Hamilton does recognize that state governments do have the right to control the elections of senators and that this creates the opportunity for states to delay or prevent the election of senators. However, he argues that this was a necessary compromise so as to maintain the federal principle of shared power between the states and the national government.

I contend that with this one amendment, used to fix a mouse size problem with a bear size solution, the principle of distributed government was destroyed and much of the dysfunction that we see today is as a direct result of states being removing from their role in the federal administration.  This direction of course is intention on the part of two power structures. 

1. Those who believe that only a directly elected democracy is ‘free’.  I would contend that history has shown direct democracy to be a failure and pushing our country in that direction is a mistake. 

2. Those who wish to bend an influence government are more than happy to have to only buy off 536 people rather than the legislatures of the various states who have different needs and interests....


More over, if the states had sent representative to the senate, Obamacare, not favored by many states and indeed the debt ceiling problem, would have been settled differently, some time ago, because states are finding out just how true the statement: "There is no such thing as a free lunch" really means.....

Boy Scout Leaders - Always getting their rocks off.

Can you believe those jerks really want us to believe that they were doing it for safety reasons?

Probably the same guys who throw garbage in to Geyser holes. Wouldn't want anyone getting scalded by hot water.  Maybe their eagle scouts can go hunt some pesky eagles.

Conservatism And The Debt Ceiling

Submitted by James E. Miller of The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

I am not very good at self-identifying. When asked of my political affiliation, I waffle between libertarian, Rothbardian, or just straight out anarchist. Perhaps the best answer is “none.” Explaining the immoral nature of the state is too big of a feat for casual conversation. Regardless of my anti-state views, there is a soft spot for conservatism somewhere in my inner political makeup. And when I reference conservatism, I mean real conservatism; not its bastard third cousin known as neoconservatism that was birthed by Trotsky.

Hayek’s critique notwithstanding, libertarianism and conservatism overlap slightly when it comes to public policy.Both recognize the tendency of the state to become excessive with authority. The fundamentality of law is paramount in both viewpoints. The virtue of temperance is held in high regard for followers of both Rand and Burke. At times, there is conflict on the boundary of rights whether the greater good is worth violating the individual liberty of some. But fiscal issues are where the conservative and libertarian find the most common ground.

As the United States government remains partially shut down, Washington is hurtling toward its statutory debt limit of $16.7 trillion. Come sometime this week, Congress will either have to pass an extension of the cap or no more money can be borrowed. Some writers of the conservative bent have expressed worry there will be a default on the national debt if a couple of ideological Congressmen keep getting their way. Rod Dreher claims a small band of Tea Party Republicans are using the “prospect of a sovereign default as political leverage.” Commentary editor John Podhoretz calls the strategy (if there were really a tactic of shorting bondholders) “suicide of the right.” Ross Douthat, the estimable token conservative of the New York Times,labels the whole gambit “blackmail” and “much dumber and more dangerous” than the debt limit acquiescence during Reagan’s second presidential term.

These critics, for all their esteemed insights, are mistaken in their belief of the infallibility of Uncle Sam’s credit. That the thieves in Washington collect enoughin tax ransom to make interest payments is not considered. Neither is the inconvenient truth that buyers of government securities are not engaging in a riskless activity – they too made an investment and thereby accept the possible consequences involved. The state’s inherent ability to fleece money for operation is limited by decree and the impending furor of a plucked populace. Placing undeniable confidence in the full faith and credit of a government is nothing but ignorant reverence to force.

That aside, Washington will still not default on owners of its bonds. Talk of such an event is downright scaremongering. President Obama and the media are leading the chorus of fearfulness in this regard, and some otherwise sharp fellows are falling under the siren song. It’s unfortunate yet understandable. The failure to pay creditors in full would be a painful blow to America’s prestige. It would also hold ramifications for the global economy if investors began a fire sale of U.S. Treasuries. Nevertheless, that hypothetical is far from realistic in the immediate future.

That doesn’t make defaulting an impossibility however.For the superior economic productivity within its borders, the U.S. government is gifted with a sizeable tax base. Still, the politicians in charge can’t help but borrow close to .40 cents of every dollar spent – and that’s just on-the-books accounting. In reality, Washington is in possession of $222 trillion in unfunded liabilities largely due to entitlement programs. Such a number is so astronomical that default is already in the cards. The question is when it will occur. Like most things in life, the medicine can be swallowed now or later down the road.

The conservative case against another raise in the debt ceiling is not grounded in politics. It is made by the prudential character of anyone who firmly understands that well-being cannot flourish by using a disease as a cure. As Russell Kirk wrote,

A conservative is not, by definition, a selfish or a stupid person; instead, he is a person who believes there is something in our life worth saving.

Debt on debt is no way to run a country, a household, or an individual bank account. By borrowing in seeming perpetuity, you preserve the good times. But it only lasts as long as your credit rating remains intact. There is always the appearance of stability in a drunk who maintains his level of intoxication. As long as the bottles of bottom-shelf whiskey keep coming, the inebriated will not have to go through the painful correction of sobering up. Not many would disagree that the comedown after a party is a necessary part of existence. But when it comes to debt, the circumstances apparently change.

The virus of progressivism, at its essence, is the belief that paradise can be created on Earth. In practice, it’s presented in a variety of efforts that attempt to hurdle the natural barriers of life that keep us from being gods. The minimum wage, hate crime prohibition, public housing, income redistribution, and tax funding for welfare are all byproducts of an ideology that thinks it can it simply wipe away the laws that govern the world. What is not realized, or is willfully ignored, is the unseen, pernicious results of all government policy. Public debt brings the pretense of prosperity while avoiding the true cost. There are several economists who assert that government liabilities don’t really matter because, in the end, we owe it to ourselves. As Rothbard wrote back in the heyday of supply-side economics,

…at least, conservatives were astute enough to realize that it made an enormous amount of difference whether — slicing through the obfuscatory collective nouns — one is a member of the “we” (the burdened taxpayer) or of the “ourselves” (those living off the proceeds of taxation).

Since taxation is always and everywhere theft, the onlyjustified approach to government debt is total repudiation. The money that passes through the state’s hand to the creditor is tainted with the mark of crime. The correction would be tough, but the world would not end in flames. Another, less radical path is simply for the U.S. Treasury to cancel its debt held at the Federal Reserve. Since the Fed cannot go bankrupt due to the recent adoption of aquestionable accounting scheme, both entities would pretty much keep to their respective gimmicks to outrun an inherent insolvency.

The whole fulcrum of the bloated American state is beyond ready for a radical deconstruction. The same goes for most nation-states in the West. The continual borrowing, serviced indiscreetly by an accommodating central bank, has made an entirety of the populace fat and happy off of debt. Large pools of capital continue to be depleted with little refreshment. In 2008, there was a massive correction in this wholly destructive process, but it was averted through government intervention. The same easy credit policy that fueled the asset bubble-and-burst is beingreplicated at an unprecedented rated.

This is no realistic method for operating any institution. Something has to give eventually. The conservative will often pride himself on taking a realistic view on affairs. Refusing to see the train wreck that is Washington finances means putting one’s head in the sand and hoping for sunshine and lollipops. It’s the polar opposite of a sustainable yet measured outlook toward good living.

Any conservative who places high value on civil society over the intrusion of government should balk at the prospect of a higher debt load. It makes certain that the ruling political class will not cease in their effort to infiltrate private life. Unfortunately it appears as if some otherwise sharp minds have fallen prey to the liberal device of alarmism. Keeping the status quo is a nice goal if the present state of affairs is bucolic enough. But with an increasingly militarized domestic police presence combined with a massive surveillance apparatus that has made privacy into an anachronism, the times are far from serene. Taking a hardline on the national debt would go far in reducing both of these highly viable threats to peace.

A contrary view

Well, after finishing my first class for Nurse Practitioner school, I have a few days before the next class starts next week. Glancing at headlines here, life clearly goes on and changes very little. I read an article today here that I agree with quite a bit. It's actually quite a bad thing for Democrats so a few of you here might actually enjoy it.

I've long held the belief that herds of human beings are wrong. When stocks are going parabolic and sucks in the public, that is when the pros are selling. Politics is the same thing. Ever since Bush was elected in 2000, I watched shriekers from both political spheres of America confidently claim the end of somebody or something. And they have been wrong.

The Democrats right now seem to think they will gain something from this, and they are wrong. Not because I think a vast majority of people like the shutdown, but instead it's because it's no longer a big deal. Republicans in congress are truly hated. But the verbal abuse means nothing, and in fact, I think they enjoy it. When it comes down to it, the vast majority of them come from specially made districts they can't be turned out from. While people may yell about this and be pissed about it, the majority of America, essentially, can't do dick about it.

When Hilary Clinton pushed for national health care, the shrieking was endless, but we now have the ACA. When Newt shut down the government, there was a price paid. But just a short time later, America rewarded the Republicans with all three houses. Since Reagan, we have seen unions get destroyed, wages destroyed, benefits destroyed and the stage has been set to begin dismantling social security. Many claim we regulated ourselves to death, but, there is nothing but punditry to back that up and today we have mega corporations that, ironically, have a much bigger effect on small business than regulations do.

I've joked in the past that being out of power is the best thing that Republicans could hope for and it's pretty much no longer a joke. 30 states are under Republican control and increasingly, they are negating as much federal law as possible by, ironically, creating a buttload of local laws. National elections are essentially becoming a moot point. If you don't like something and can manipulate the rules to get your way, you can claim that what you are doing is to support the constitution by blocking it's power to legally enforce law.

It's disheartening to watch and school has actually been a nice distraction. But also a sad reminder. In school, you get to engage your brain with weighty intellectual pursuits. That shit means nothing to people who still believe Obama is from Kenya and who believe the government dominates their every move. This too will pass, but not for quite awhile. The new deal had a pretty long run before it became abused, and I say we have at least ten to fifteen years of the Reagan equivalent called the NO DEAL. About the time I'm 65, maybe we will have some years of peace and moderation. It's about all I'm looking forward to politically right now.

Let's Make A Deal!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate announced a last-minute deal on Wednesday to avert a historic lapse in the government's borrowing ability and a potentially damaging debt default, and to reopen the government after a two-week shutdown.
But even if the Senate and House of Representatives manage to overcome procedural hurdles to seal the deal before Thursday - when the Treasury says it will exhaust its borrowing authority - it will only be a temporary solution that sets up the prospect of another showdown early next year.
Major U.S. stock indexes rose more than 1 percent on optimism that lawmakers were finally reaching a deal to end the weeks-long fiscal impasse.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced the agreement on the Senate floor, where it was expected to win swift approval after a main Republican critic of the deal, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, said he would not use procedural moves to delay a vote.
Weeks of bitter fighting among Democrats and Republicans over President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform law led to a partial government shutdown on October 1, sidelining hundreds of thousands of federal workers. Cruz and other Republicans backed by the conservative, small government Tea Party movement want to repeal or delay the healthcare law.

The Government Shutdown and Our Permission Society

 Many private harms caused by the government shutdown are due to its own insistence on meddling in our lives.


“We need to get the government back to work so that America can get back to work”.  A curious statement from the Commerce Secretary.
This statement epitomizes the reasons why smaller government is a must. It is the main focus of Libertarians.  While the talking heads in Washington talk about the 800,000 federal workers who we now find will be held harmless in this shutdown, it is the tens of thousands of private workers who will bear the brunt of and out of control federal government that creates this dysfunction. 



The federal government has its tentacles into every facet of our lives and we become numb to their rules.  Commerce, much of which is only taking place within individual states, must comply with mountains of federal regulations and red tape to operate.  America was never meant to be that way.

One overriding example of this is the requirement for employers to check the citizenship status of anyone they wish to hire with E-verify.  E-verify is closed so positions, some perhaps essential to the business, can’t be filed.  This is a federal shift of responsibility to employers when the federal government refuses to do one of its primary functions.... secure the border.  

Craft brewers have many of their operations stymied because, regardless of the distribution, the federal governments ATF must approve applications for new or expanding breweries, recipes, and even labels.  This is how intrusive and abusive the Commerce clause has taken.  A micro brewery in Milwaukee will lose $8000 a month and people he had lined up to hire are all on hold, not just for the period of the shutdown but for the amount of time it will take to clear the backlog.
Fishermen in the Northwest require a federal license to catch fish and crabs......  It is now moving in to crab season but they can’t fish because of federal laws in coastal waters. Crab prices will rise as a result but you won’t see that as part of any inflationary effects because food isn’t factored.

Because the Johnson Space Center is closed, 3200 federal workers are furloughed.  They will receive back pay but the 11,000 private contractors who work there will not. They are not laid off and eligible for unemployment.... they are just out of work.

Probably the one thing I find so egregious about the size and impact of the federal government is the number of private business that are in dire straits because the derive much of their income from federal employees... eateries, convenience stores, cleaners etc.  Why are these people not supporting other workers in private enterprise?

The government is so involved in our lives that even basic commerce—simply hiring people—is threatened by political jockeying. Democratic Sen. Harry Reid attacked Republicans as “anarchists” for bringing about the shutdown. Nothing could be further from anarchy than fishing boats sitting idle, waiting for a government functionary to give sailors permission to work. And yet, the common response is anger about the government shutdown, not anger about having to jump through so many hoops in the first place.

We are hearing some encouraging signs though.... Washington is starting to experience a brain drain of junior staffers who, because of tightening budgets, must choose between a government job and a more lucrative position in a private firm... They are reluctant though... Job security with the federal government is so much better... Besides, with pockets as deep as the American taxpayer can dig, its only a matter of a ‘resolution’ that they get lost wages because of a shutdown... private industry doesn’t have the luxury, regardless of how fat you think the cats are....



Thoughts as to why we need a 27,000+ page tax code or regulations that implement the affordable healthcare act that are about 30 times the volume of the original law?  Why we allow the Commerce Law to effect private business that has nothing what so ever to do with interstate commerce?  Why private business is forced with the burden of so many federal regulations when, at the end of the day, it is the employer who puts up the time, money and risk to provide jobs and add to the real GDP?

Exclusive: US Army Defines Christian Ministry as 'Domestic Hate Group'

Several dozen U.S. Army active duty and reserve troops were told last week that the American Family Association, a well-respected Christian ministry, should be classified as a domestic hate group because the group advocates for traditional family values.

The briefing was held at Camp Shelby in Mississippi and listed the AFA alongside domestic hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam.

A soldier who attended the briefing contacted me and sent me a photograph of a slide show presentation that listed AFA as a domestic hate group. Under the AFA headline is a photograph of Westboro Baptist Church preacher Fred Phelps holding a sign reading “No special law for f***.”

American Family Association has absolutely no affiliation with the controversial church group known for picketing the funerals of American service members.

“I had to show Americans what our soldiers are now being taught,” said the soldier who asked not to be identified. “I couldn’t just let this one pass.”

The soldier said a chaplain interrupted the briefing and challenged the instructor’s assertion that AFA is a hate group.

“The instructor said AFA could be considered a hate group because they don’t like gays,” the soldier told me. “The slide was talking about how AFA refers to gays as sinners and heathens and derogatory terms.”

The soldier, who is an evangelical Christian, said the chaplain defended the Christian ministry.

“He kept asking the instructor, ‘Are you sure about that, son? Are you sure about that?’” he said, recalling the back and forth.

Later in the briefing, the soldiers were reportedly told that they could face punishment for participating in organizations that are considered hate groups.

That considered, the soldier contacted me because he is a financial contributor to the AFA ministry.

“I donate to AFA as often as I can,” he said. “Am I going to be punished? I listen to American Family Radio all day. If they hear it on my radio, will I be faced with a Uniformed Code of Military Justice charge?”

The soldier said he was “completely taken back by this blatant attack not only on the AFA but Christians and our beliefs.”

It’s not the first time the Army has accused conservative Christian groups of being domestic hate groups.

Earlier this year, I exposed Army briefings that classified evangelical Christians and Catholics as examples of religious extremism.

Another briefing told officers to pay close attention to troops who supported groups like AFA and the Family Research Council.

One officer said the two Christian ministries did not “share our Army Values.”

“When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values – don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem,” the officer wrote in an email to his subordinates.

At the time the military assured me those briefings were isolated incidents and did not reflect official Army policy.

If that’s true, how do they explain what happened at Camp Shelby?

I contacted the Pentagon for an answer but they referred me to Army public affairs. And so far – they haven’t returned my calls.

And their claim that the classifications are “isolated” is not washing with AFA.

“The American Family Association has received numerous accounts of military installations as well as law enforcement agencies using a list compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which wrongfully identifies and defames AFA,” reads a statement they sent me.

Bryan Fischer hosts a talk show on American Family Radio. He called the Army’s allegations “libelous, slanderous and blatantly false.”

“This mischaracterization of AFA is reprehensible and inexcusable,” he told me. “We have many military members who are a part of the AFA network who know these accusations are a tissue of lies.”

Fischer said their views on gay marriage and homosexuality are not hate – it’s simply a disagreement.

“If our military wasn’t headed by a commander-in-chief who is hostile to Christian faith, these allegations would be laughed off every military base in the world,” he said.

Hiram Sasser, of the Liberty Institute, told me the Army’s briefing is a smear.

He recalled what President Obama said last year when Muslim extremists attacked our diplomatic outpost in Libya.

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths,” President Obama said. “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Sasser said he wished the president and the Army would treat the American Family Association with the same deference and respect they show those who mean to harm us.

“Why must the Army under this administration continue to attack Americans of faith and smear them?” Sasser wondered.

I fear the answer to that question.

Because it appears the Obama administration is separating the military from the American people – and planting seeds of doubt about Christians and some of our nation’s most prominent Christian ministries.

Media Silent as Democrats Take Country 'Hostage' to Demand More Spending

Who are the "hostage-takers" now? Convinced by opinion polls that the media will let them get away with it, Democrats are now refusing to pass a "clean" continuing resolution to end the government shutdown, as well as a straightforward debt ceiling increase, in order to undo the sequester cuts that went into effect earlier this year. They are the ones holding a gun to Republicans' heads, threatening default if their demands are not met.

 Just like Obamacare, the sequester--passed in the Budget Control Act of 2011--is the "law of the land." And yet Democrats want to undo it--or else they will keep nearly 400,000 federal employees out of work and let the country risk not paying its bills. Where is the outrage at this disgusting hypocrisy? Where are all the dire warnings about children with cancer and catastrophic interest rates and the end of civilization as we know it?

Democrats are threatening to destroy the economy unless they can increase government spending. And yet the media are silent, their corruption and mendacity on full display. The Wall Street Journal, for its part, is more interested in settling political scores than pointing out Democrats' hypocrisy: according to its editorial Monday, this is all Ted Cruz's fault: he weakened the GOP, provoking the Democrats, you see. Absurd.

So hell-bent are the mainstream media--even its nominally conservative elements--on punishing the Tea Party that they blame it for Democrats' misdeeds. Know that whenever a Democrat or a journalist (they are virtually one and the same) is accusing conservatives of putting politics ahead of the nation's welfare, he or she is exhibiting what psychologists call projection--accusing others of what you do. So it is with the sequester.

The Democrats' new demand should re-invigorate and unite House Republicans. If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Dick "Dinner" Durbin and the rest want to change the Budget Control Act and increase spending, then they must swallow a one-year delay in the individual mandate of Obamacare. That would still be a bad deal for the country, which needs to cut spending and get rid of Obamacare. But it's politically fair.

And note where President Barack Obama is in all of this: nowhere. He, who in his imperial swagger declared Republicans arsonists for failing to pass a continuing resolution or a debt ceiling hike, has done nothing to insist on a deal, or keep his own party in line. Vice President Joe Biden, normally a back-room wheeler-dealer, spent the weekend on vacation at Camp David, open in the shutdown. And where are the media? Disgrace.

 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/10/14/The-Disgusting-Hypocrisy-of-the-Democrat-Media-Complex

Google's new policy

Google announced that it can now use your name, photo and other personal information in advertisements.  If you do not wish for them to use your personal information in this way you can opt out. Here is part of the announcement:

When it comes to shared endorsements in ads, you can control the use of your Profile name and photo via the Shared Endorsements setting. If you turn the setting to “off,” your Profile name and photo will not show up on that ad for your favorite bakery or any other ads. This setting only applies to use in ads, and doesn’t change whether your Profile name or photo may be used in other places such as Google Play.