Picture copied from Google Images – amnesty illegal immigrants
We should probably all be on the same page before I start this rant because not everyone understands what words mean. For the sake of the argument being presented today the definitions are as follows:
Amnesty: in law it means an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole
Pardon: in law it means a release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor
Theft: in law it means the act of stealing; the taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another without their permission (i.e. larceny)
Compassion: there is no specific definition for compassion in law it simply means a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering
I make these distinctions because President Obama made a joke of them the other day. It is tradition that the President gets to “pardon” the White House turkey. He quipped that his critics would call his action amnesty and made a point to say “it was fully within his legal authority”. All of this was of course referring to his critics and his most recent actions addressing illegal immigrants.
Every President has the power to “pardon” people so long as it does not cost others anything to accommodate that pardon. President Obama said it was the “humane thing to do”, the same reasoning applied to getting Obamacare into law.
However, forcing one person to pay for another person’s problems is not humane or compassionate. It is tyranny. If a company decides to pay for its employee’s health care, good for them, it is their money and they should be allowed to spend it as they wish.
Let’s look at this in a different manner and see if I can better illustrate the point. Someone comes into your house and takes $10,000 of your money. He is caught and goes to trial. The judge then takes it upon himself to pardon the criminal and does not make the criminal return your money. No matter what story the criminal gave the judge to allow him to make this decision, he was not being compassionate.
Clearly, his decision to pardon the thief provides no justice for you. You have been victimized a second time by the judges actions. If the judge was actually compassionate and identified with you, he would have taken $10,000 of his own money to make you whole again. Although this action would show the judge’s compassion it still would not be just because a criminal is free and able to strike again.
So, let us now take the next logical leap. Since President Obama, and members of Congress seem to claim that it is compassionate for the government to “help the poor”, “help the uninsured” etc. I present the argument that nothing the government does is compassionate. It is impossible for them to be compassionate because they have no money.
ALL money that arrives in the government coffers is taken from the citizenry at large under the threat of punishment. Do not believe it? Stop paying your taxes and see what happens.
Just like the judge who allowed the thief to go free and keep your money, government redistribution of monies taken by force is NOT compassion. IT IS THEFT. No matter which Democrat or Republican tries to convince you that it is the compassionate thing to do, they would be wrong. It is a moral impossibility to claim compassion when you are stealing from someone else to accomplish it.
Understanding and living by the principals is what allows us to make correct choices. For sure, our representatives in government have lost sight of the principals that make this country what it is. Definitely President Obama has lost sight of them. His action to provide “amnesty” to illegal immigrants is NOT compassion.
His actions allow them to feed at the public trough. That is, the taxpayers now have to foot the bill and pay for the illegal’s benefits with money that was forcefully taken from them in the form of taxes.
I should be fair here. Not every illegal immigrant his here feeding at the trough. But there are a large number that abuse the system set up by everyday Americans. The failure for Americans to see the system that was set up as abusive is in and of itself a problem. Keep in mind, two wrongs do not make it right.
The system is fundamentally flawed to begin with.
Immigration is NOT the problem.
The welfare state itself is the problem.
Government provided “amnesty” for illegals would not even be necessary if there was no form of socialism in American society. Without socialism, the people who want to come to America would be those willing to take a chance on life and make something of themselves. Without socialism, there would be no people trying to come here and take advantage of the system to get a free lunch.
If there was anything that needed pardoning, it is not the turkey; it is the American Welfare State. If we want to get back on our feet, we need to pardon the state of its transgressions and then get rid of it completely. We as a people will never see the money we turned over in previous years. That, however, does not have to be the same for future years.
Getting rid of the welfare state and making people responsible for themselves would end a slew of problems. Yes, yes, I know the arguments; who is going to build the roads, blah, blah, blah. They had the same question when the slaves were freed. Back then, they asked who was going to pick the cotton.
Life goes on.
Would you rather be free and responsible for yourself – or – support the welfare state and be a salve?
Ever wonder what a Libertarian World would look like?
Ever wonder how to answer objections to creating a Libertarian World?
Ever wonder if a Libertarian World could truly exist?
Here’s the thing: creating a Libertarian World is hard.
It was a lot easier centuries ago. People used to think back then AND they acted on their thoughts. Now-a-days, that does not happen not so much. For lack of a better term, people are lazy.
I used to recommend that folks stand up to their government. However, most people now are under the impression you cannot fight city hall. So, a tyrannical government rises from being the servant to be being the master.
This, of course, is due to a lack of education on what government really needs to be if it exists. Government does NOT want its people educated enough to realize that the citizens are slaves. They want to hide the sheep by allowing them to think they are the wolf because so long as people live in ignorance, they are living in bliss and will not stop someone else from controlling their life.
As I now see it, the problem is that there are thousands, if not million, of people kowtow under peer pressure instead of thinking on their own.
And over the years, the constant lies and new laws forced upon us from via government and its propaganda makes it harder, and harder, and harder, to live as a free person.
The big boys of business and government collude to hide the Master/Slave relationships they’ve developed over years in our society. They hide it all under the guise of “helping” the people and “making a better society”. When, in fact, they are manipulating and controlling the citizenry through deceit.
Learning to recognize the truth on your own, through trial and error, takes LONG time to see and understand. Most books only give you theory. Most of that theory is twisted with arguments. Simple truths are turned on their head and no longer give you a clear image of right and wrong.
If you are just getting into libertarianism, you will want to learn what it is all about fast. You will not want to wait until you are at some meeting somewhere to begin learning and understanding. Clearly, googling things will not suffice because you don’t know what you are really looking for. You want to see practical application NOW in order to make sense of the arguments that will surely come your way.
If that’s the case, you are going to love this:
I have found ONE book, to date, that makes that happen fast for beginners.
Withur We is written in a story format that walks through the steps of how to handle an overbearing government. Including all the trials and tribulations that occur as well as all the steps necessary to set up a Libertarian World, it answers all the naysayer’s questions.
Withur We is written so well that it makes it easy to understand Libertarianism and the problems presented in today’s society.
Matthew Alexander presents the world of Alistair Ashley 3nn in a fashion comparable to Ayn Rand’s John Galt. His work is destined to become a classic among freedom loving individuals like Atlas Shrugged did among business people.
See how Alistair’s world resembles our own. Learn what he does to solve the problems. Understand the frustrations and witness the resolve. Transform your life by living the same principles and stop living as a “slave”.
Withur We is a great Libertarian story that covers the facets of creating a Libertarian society. It is far greater than the single topic visions of authors like L Neil Smith. In the book Alexander’s prose is carefully constructed to lead the reader from one point to the next. Considering that he is a first time author I was amazed at the fluidity of the story and look forward to reading his next book.
Clearly, Alexander took the thinking man’s approach to his story. He starts with the introduction of a Libertarian (anarcho-capitalist) society with a Rothbardian flavor. The story surely is fairer in its presentation than the dialects of “one way only” Libertarian books that exist thus far. There is no utopian world, not everything works out as being perfect as some Libertarians like to present.
As a Libertarian myself, I might wish to see happier results with the situations presented. However, Alexander is showing a world of reality. Not everything is perfect in the world, not even our current societies. He uses those realities to present his theme of market driven economies along with the meaning and inner workings of the non-aggression principle.
I have been waiting a long time for someone to put together a book of this caliber. The wait is over. Now everyone can enjoy a good story that shows both the advantages of a Libertarian society as well as the problems surrounding us in order to create one. It is not a utopia where everyone sings kumbaya to each other. Here, the story revolves around how people interact with each other during times of peace and violence. The contrast between the two is illustrated perfectly with everyday situations that we can recognize in our own society. The conclusion that peace is the better is not shoved in your face by some zealot but is smoothly presented through what can be viewed as real life experiences.
Matthew Alexander did a masterful job of creating the world in terms that everyone can relate too. Now it is your turn to do your part and learn from his efforts. See how a single individual can make a difference. Witness how Libertarianism in action can bring about a whole new concept on life. Learn how to be free.
Our team has been working since the election on some exciting new initiatives and projects. Liberty needs a voice in Tallahassee and it is upon all of us to ensure that it gets there.
How do we get there?
We have devised an approach that works on both sides of the political spectrum. One aspect will be through the Libertarian Party of Florida, the other will be to go directly to Tallahassee with our message.
These are both desperately needed to interject some common sense solutions into our government but also change the landscape for future principled candidates.
We are moving forward and we hope you will all join us!
This election showed that some of the barriers known to 3rd party candidates can be broken through but it was not enough. While we were ending the media blackout and the campaign was making history in fundraising and support, the inclusion into the debates was critical.
This is why Adrian and our team has started the 5% Project!
In the state of Florida, a party whose registration numbers make up 5% of the voting public is considered a major party. That would mean that the Libertarian Party of Florida would be seen on an even playing field with the Republicans and Democrats. Our candidates will have to be included in the debates, in the media coverage and will be listed with every county Supervisor of Elections Office the same as the other two. In Florida, it will not longer be a two party system but a 3 party system.
To help us in our 5% Project:
1. Become a member of the Libertarian Party of Florida. Membership is free and will help us grow and keep you involved in what is going on within the party. CLICK HERE
2. Register with your local Supervisor of Elections office as a Libertarian. It’s quick, easy and will help us get to our 5% goal. CLICK HERE FOR INSTRUCTIONS
While we are building for the future, we must keep our voices heard in Tallahassee. That is why Adrian has joined the Liberty First Network as the newest lobbyist working towards a better Florida.
I know it’s hard to think of a lobbyist doing something positive at all but the Liberty First Network has been on the forefront on many of the same issues that we built this campaign on. Real ID, property rights, Common Core are all issues that the Liberty First Network has been advocating FOR the people of Florida and against the cronyism that has become rampant.
Join us for the online 2015 Online Legislative TownHall Event on December 10th! More details here
To get the Liberty First Network newsletter and Action Alerts on what YOU can do to help bring freedom to Florida though legislation, please sign up here.
To become of member of the Liberty First Network to keep our voices standing up for you, please join here.
Our team has vowed to continue what we started nearly 2 years ago. It has been an exciting journey thus far.
We hope you will join us for the rest of it!
Wyllie for Governor
Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County Holiday Pot Luck
Join us in Delray Beach on December 6, 2014
Bring a favorite dish or beverage and holiday cheer anytime between 3-10 p.m.
This holiday season, we will be having fun at the Delray Beach home of Marc Tancer, Libertarian Chair of Palm Beach County.
On transformational humanitarian populist political leaders and ideas.
The Democratic Party has made “income inequality” a signature issue for the 2014 (and, presumably, 2016) election cycle. Democrats, en masse, shout “J’accuse!” at Republicans. There is a very different story to tell.
“Income inequality” is a crude, and twisted, heuristic for stagnant median family income. “Income inequality” does not really resonate with voters, as noted by the Washington Post‘s own Catherine Rampell, with a mountain of evidence showing that Americans don’t begrudge the wealthy their wealth, just are frustrated at the lack of widespread economic opportunity.
So let’s get down to cases. Stagnant median family income is not the GOP’s fault. It’s the Fed who done it.
The Atlantic Media Company’s Quartz recently claimed that the Fed has been intentionally keeping a lid on wages. This has potentially major political implications. Among other things, this view would allow the Republicans to push the discourse back toward the real problem, wage stagnation. It can serve to refocus the Congress on the real solution, restoring real, rule-based, integrity to monetary policy as a way to get America moving again.
This has been slow to happen because Federal Reserve has exalted prestige. The elite media has a propensity to canonize the Chair of the Fed. Media adulation has obscured the prime source of the stagnation besetting American wage earners for the past 43 years.
Paul Volcker’s life was exalted (with some real justification), for instance by New York Times prize-winning journalist Joseph B. Treaster as The Making of a Financial Legend. Downhill from there…
Chairman Greenspan was featured on the cover of Time Magazine’s February 15, 1999 issue as the most prominent member of “The Committee To Save The World.” One of the greatest investigative journalists of our era, Bob Woodward, wrote a deeply in-the-tank hagiography of Alan Greenspan, entitled Maestro. In retrospect, the halo the media bestowed was faux.
The Atlantic Monthly, in its February 12, 2012 issue, featured Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on its cover as The Hero. (Hedging its bets, The Atlantic ran a duplicate inside cover referencing him as The Villain.) Author Roger Lowenstein wrote: “Ben Bernanke saved the economy—and has navigated masterfully through the most trying of times.” The adulation for Chairman Bernanke, in retrospect, seems overdone. Even President Obama, at the end of Bernanke’s final term, gave him a not-so-subtle push out the door, as reported by CNN: “He’s already stayed a lot longer than he wanted, or he was supposed to….”
It’s Janet Yellen’s turn for media canonization. This is premature.
Phillips, in Quartz, observes that it has been Fed policy to suppress wages for two generations. Phillips:
From her position as the world’s single most powerful economic voice, the chair of the US Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen, is forcing the financial markets to rethink assumptions that have dominated economic thinking for nearly 40 years. Essentially, Yellen is arguing that fast-rising wages, viewed for decades as an inflationary red flag and a reason to hike rates, should instead be welcomed, at least for now.
It might sound surprising to most people who work for a living, but for decades the most powerful people in economics have seen strong real wage growth—that is, growth above and beyond the rate of inflation—as a big problem.
Phillips then gets to the point, providing what passes for economic wisdom among the enablers of the Fed’s growth-sapping (including wage-enervating) interventions.
Since the end of the Great Inflation, the Fed—and most of the world’s important central banks—have gone out of their way to avoid a replay of the wage-price spiral. They’ve done this by tapping on the economic brakes—raising interest rates to make borrowing more expensive and discourage companies from hiring—as wages started to show strong growth.
Phillips provides this exaltation of Janet Yellen:
If she’s right, and American paychecks can improve without setting off an inflationary spiral, it could upend the clubby world of monetary policy, reshape financial markets, and have profound implications for everything ….
Higher real wages, without exacerbating inflation, indeed would be something to cheer. That, demonstrably, is possible. The devil is in the details.
A rule-based system would represent a profound transformation of how the Fed currently does its business. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx) said, in a recent hearing, that “The overwhelming weight of evidence is that monetary policy is at its best in maintaining stable prices and maximum employment when it follows a clear, predictable monetary policy rule.”
Madame Yellen stated that “It would be a grave mistake for the Fed to commit to conduct monetary policy according to a mathematical rule.” Contrast Madame Yellen’s protest with a recent speech by Paul Volcker in which he forthrightly stated: “By now I think we can agree that the absence of an official, rules-based cooperatively managed, monetary system has not been a great success. In fact, international financial crises seem at least as frequent and more destructive in impeding economic stability and growth. … Not a pretty picture.”
Returning America to consistently higher real wage growth is a Holy Grail for this columnist. Equitable prosperity, very much including the end of wage stagnation, is a driving objective for most advocates of a rule-based system, very much including advocates of “the golden rule.”
Getting real wages growing is a laudable, and virtuous, proposition. Premature canonization, however, is a flattering injustice to Madame Yellen … and to the Fed itself. The Federal Reserve is lost in a wilderness — “uncharted territory” — partly, perhaps mainly, of its own (well-intended) concoction.
The road to the declaration of sainthood requires, according to this writer’s Catholic friends, documentation of miracles. If this writer may be permitted to play the role of advocatus diaboli for a moment … no American Economic Miracle — akin to the Ludwig Erhard’s German “Economic Miracle,” the Wirtschaftswunder, driven by currency reform — yet appears in evidence.
Expertise, which Chair Yellen certainly possesses in abundance, can lead to hubris … and hubris in disaster as it did in 2008. Good technique is necessary but not sufficient.
Madame Yellen by dint of her decency and intellect may yet prove capable of restoring the Great Moderation … and the real wage growth, with low inflation, that went with that. Yet, at best, Great Moderation 2.0 would be, as was its predecessor, a temporary, rather than sustainable, solution. “Making it up as you go along” is a proposition fraught with peril.
At worst, if Madam Yellen has, as observers such as Forbes.com‘s John Tamny detect, a proclivity for cheapening the dollar as a path to real wage growth she easily could throw working people out of the frying pan and into the fires of inflation. Moreover, the Fed’s proclivities toward central planning may be one of the most atavistic relics of a bygone era. Central planning, by its very nature, even if well meant, always suppresses prosperity. As the sardonic statement from the Soviet Union went, “So long as the bosses continue to pretend to pay us we will pretend to work.”
There is abundant evidence that the right rule-based system would not be a “grave mistake” but a smart exit ramp back to growth of real wages. Anything the Fed does that departs from a dollar price rule is anti-equitable-prosperity. Anything else hurts all, labor and capital. The Congress, under the leadership of Chairmen Garrett (R-NJ) and Hensarling (R-Tx), whose committee has in front of it the Federal Reserve Accountability and Transparency Act and Joint Economic Committee Chairman Kevin Brady’s (R-Tx) Centennial Monetary Commission, at long last, is bestirring itself. Now is the right time to amp up the crucial debate over monetary policy … by enacting both of these pieces of legislation.
Now, to these thinkers, comes activist Steve Lonegan. Lonegan, former mayor of Bogota, NJ and GOP US Senatorial nominee, ambitiously, is launching, for American Principles In Action, FixTheDollar.com (also advised by this columnist). FixTheDollar is designed to become a mass movement to ignite a Money Revolt and, with it, restore the American Dream.
Steve Forbes and Steven Lonegan have joined forces and embarked on a mission to defend the liberty of the individual, which can only be protected when the wages, quality of life and savings earned through the fruits of one’s labor are preserved by the maintenance of sound currency.
By restoring the classical gold standard, and if possible changing a few laws so as to permit competing currencies, America can create a climate of equitable prosperity that will generate tens of millions of good new jobs, end wage stagnation, restore a climate of opportunity wherein everyone – blue or white collar, of every age, race, and creed – can climb the ladder to affluence, balance the federal budget via economic growth, provide the resources to improve the natural environment and fix our decaying national infrastructure.
Steve Forbes, at FixTheDollar’s debut rally, stated:
You can get it right on taxes. You can it right on regulation. You can get it right on government spending. But if you don’t get the money right it’s all for naught.
Want a vibrant economy? It will take a Money Revolt. Washington, curiously tone deaf on this issue, needs to hear from the people.
Forbes and Lonegan addressed a standing room only crowd in a bistro (converted from an old bank, with huge safe doors as décor) around the corner from Wall Street on September 3rd.
A “lower tax rates plus high integrity dollar” policy formula, called the Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis by Jude Wanniski, created “Morning in America” under President Reagan. Mostly preserved and embellished by President Clinton, with prompting from a Republican House, it led to an economic zenith in America. America created around 16 million jobs under Reagan and around 22 million under Clinton.
By comparison, Bush saw the creation of little more than 1 million, Obama little more than 4 million, net new jobs. Bush and Obama, notwithstanding special pleading by their respective apologists, have nothing to be proud of on the score of job creation, nor in breaking the curse of wage stagnation which began in earnest under Nixon, nor in the creation of a climate of equitable prosperity.
Washington is missing in action. Enter FixTheDollar.com. It aspires to move into a critical policy vacuum … in much the same way as did MoveOn.org (with its demand the Congress censure Clinton and move on, and then for a non-militaristic response to 9/11).
Mass movements all have this in common: when the political elites abdicate on an important issue it makes room for populist agitators, like Lonegan, to rally the grass roots to action.
Will September 3rd be remembered as the “July 4th” of the Money Revolt? It will if the voices of the two Steves, Forbes and Lonegan, are heard and taken to heart.
Less than two weeks after making history in his campaign for Governor of the State of Florida, Adrian Wyllie announced today that he has accepted a lobbyist position with the Liberty First Network. Wyllie says he plans to take his message of economic freedom and individual liberty directly to Tallahassee.
As the Libertarian candidate for Governor, Wyllie made statewide and national news throughout his record-breaking campaign. Wyllie toured microbreweries across the state in order to highlight legislation that would have decimated the growing, small-business industry. As a long-time advocate of privacy rights, Wyllie was twice arrested in his legal fight against the unconstitutional provisions of the Real ID Act, as it applies to Florida driver’s licenses. He also fought passionately against Common Core education standards.
“The Liberty First Network and I have been working toward the same goals, and fighting the same legislative battles, so this partnership is a perfect fit,” Wyllie said in a statement. “Though I may not be governor, the Legislature will still hear our voices, and will be subject to our scrutiny. I am excited to be joining this all-star team of principled and competent people.”
Liberty First Network is a liberty advocacy organization focused on defending freedoms, and championing principled legislation in Tallahassee. The Liberty First Network is a nonpartisan lobbyist organization, not beholden to any party, business, or organization. Their only allegiance is to the Constitution and the ideals of liberty.
With a broad network of strong relationships and grassroots activist strategies, the Liberty First Network sets itself apart from any other organization. Implementation of timely, state-wide “calls to action” to key decision-makers, legislators, and their staff result in highly-effective advocacy strategies. They bring the people of Florida the most in-depth and unbiased information in each legislative analysis, and give the people the tools needed to keep our elected officials accountable.
In addition to his work with the Liberty First Network to advance legislation he championed during his campaign, Wyllie will be taking on separate initiatives to increase membership and voter registration in the Libertarian Party of Florida.
Wyllie for Governor
Picture copied from Google Images – states say no to federal
Many times get the argument that the federal government is in charge and what they say goes. As always, I counter argue that such crap is what gets this country into so much trouble when dealing with State’s Rights and Federal Government Laws. Contrary to popular belief, what the Federal Government says is law does NOT always apply to the states. Many times the federal government has come out with regulations that cannot be enforced upon the states. We have all seen this even in our recent lives. Take ObamaCare or the National ID for instance. These regulations are not being forced upon the states to implement them. Several states have “opted out” of implementing anything that deals with these two programs.
Jurisdiction plays a big deal in all this and that jurisdiction is what people seem to forget about. Federal law applies to federal property and people who fall under their jurisdiction. It does NOT apply to the states (or people who are not under federal jurisdiction). Our Constitution has made this very clear with the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment states:
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.
The Tenth Amendment was very specifically designed by our fore-fathers to help define the concept of federalism, that relationship between Federal and state governments. Over the years, federal government activity increased to the point they are everywhere and touching just about everything. So, the problem of reconciling state and national interests over things like the federal government’s ability to tax, police etc. has grown. The lines are now blurred and many in state government as well as many free people lose sight of where the boundaries are. Like all children, the federal government will push its boundaries until the parent says “Stop!”. In this case, the parent, according to the way the Constitution is set up, is the States and the People respectively, since they are the ones “in charge”.
This is not a unique concept that is just being talked about as something new. The war between the federal government’s overreach and state’s rights has been going on for centuries. Our anti-commandeering doctrine is clearly established in constitutional jurisprudence. Heck, we even had a Civil War over these types of arguments. The first case I could find on the subject was nearly 20 years prior to the Civil War (1842). In Prigg vs. Pennsylvania ( found here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6678588256467429342&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), it was determined that the federal government could not compel the states of the union to carry out the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Judge Story wrote in his opinion:
The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or instrusted to them by the Constitution.
and the history of the Constitutional Convention, demonstrates that Congress may not commandeer the States’ legislative processes by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program
The Supreme Court consistently ruled that the federal government cannot commandeer state’s rights for their own and enforce federal regulations upon the states and people.
In other words, state and local governments are NOT required to assist any federal agencies in violating your rights.
I bring this up because I ran across an article where Nevada is doing something about it. Nevada is not so keen on the federal government’s idea of making its Yucca Mountain a nuclear dump site. There was a slew of backlash over the proposed plans. The public was outraged. Yet, still, the federal government was going to move forward with its plans. That is, until the state of Nevada decided to refuse to provide the necessary water needed for treatment. Law suits went back and forth and finally it reached a federal court where the judge followed the anti-commandeering doctrine and ruled that Nevada was in the right to control its own water.
If we take the lessons learned from the various cases and the recent actions of states like Nevada we can put the federal government back in its box. Power to control the federal government has always been in the hands of the people. We just seem to forget that such is the case. Often I remind people that it is supposed to be the government “of, by and for the people” and that the feds only get their power from the CONSENT of the governed. As such, if we do not like what the feds are doing we should follow the anti-commandeering doctrine ourselves and remove our consent.
“[T]he study of monetary questions is one of the leading causes of insanity.” — Sen. Nelson Aldrich, 1909
The Federal Reserve System is a, and perhaps the, dominant institution in the world economy. The Fed’s precursor was portrayed, in an early cartoon opposing its formation, as a fanged and ferocious giant octopus looting farmers, factories, and community banks and transferring the money to Wall Street.
As it turns out, the Fed really is more platypus than octopus. If a camel is a horse designed by committee, the labyrinthine structure of the Fed kicks it up to a whole new level of surreal. Yet the Fed originally was intended as a high integrity engine to operate the monetary system within the classical gold standard better than the ad hoc banking system of its day.
The classical gold standard’s empirical track record, as assessed by the Bank of England in 2011, strongly suggests it well today may be an optimal mechanism to get “faster growth in wages and for real wage gains” … as Fed Chair Janet Yellen stated in July testimony as her admirably humanitarian desiderata.
Public intellectual Detlev Schlichter has produced a second
The University Lecture Series (ULS), a student-run and operated board within the Center for Student Involvement, is solely funded by the Activity and Service fees from all University of South Florida (USF) students. Therefore, a commitment to USF students is the university’s top priority at all lectures.
All USF students must have a valid USF student ID and are allowed to have one guest with them in the student line.
All USF students will have their own line for each event, and 80% of the seating for the live lecture will be allocated for students.
All guests, which include USF faculty and staff and Tampa Bay community members, will wait in a second line. Entrance to the MSC Ballroom will be allowed 15 minutes after USF students have been allowed to enter.
20% of the seating for the live lecture will be allocated for guests. If USF student seating is not full, guests will be allowed to overflow into this allocation.
November is an exciting month for Campaign for Liberty with Dr. Paul speaking in Florida.
During the month of November we will be hosting one day political leadership schools throughout Florida.
We hear that we are allowed a trial by jury. It is taught in all our schools. It is supposedly a fundamental RIGHT that is afforded us as citizens of the United States. However, we seldom actually get what we are supposed to receive.
Often I wonder how many people even know what a jury is or what it is supposed to do at a trial. I suspect that if everyone knew we would not need various organizations out there attempting to educate the public on what a jury’s job is really all about.
Take a quick look at what Webster’s Dictionary says about a jury.
JU’RY, noun [Latin juro, to swear.] A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empaneled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case. Grand juries consist usually of twenty four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alleged in indictments. Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.
Note that one very particular thing in that definition stands out…at least to me it does. Read the part again where it talks about what the jury is supposed to decide. See that it indicates a jury decides BOTH the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions.
Yet, no judge tells the jury this. In fact, they go out of their way to instruct the jury on what the law is and how the judge wants it to apply. The judges tell you, the jury, that you are NOT supposed to judge the law in criminal cases. I have seen this happen many times.
When I go for jury duty, the judge always asks if we can follow his instructions. So I always ask, what if the law is wrong. Of course, the judge does not like this and explicitly tells me that he would not want me to legislate from the jury box. Not wanting to be outdone, I reply, I would never legislate from the jury box any more than a judge would from the bench. Needless to say, I do not get selected for jury duty.
SO, I ask you, as a matter of logic, if the judge tells you that you cannot decide the law as a member of the jury, does that mean the defendant is denied is right to a trial by jury?
Thomas Jefferson said “I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution”
Maybe you should think about this the next time you get selected for jury duty and do the right thing, regardless of what the judge’s instructions are.
Clearly, by now any reader of this blog has come to the conclusion that I am not a very big fan of the U.S. government. I think they lie to the citizens of the U.S.A. and the world at large. I think they do it all the time. Very seldom do I feel anything that comes out of Washington is honest any more. Of course, I do not have to work too hard to convince people of that any more, thank you President Obama.
We have all heard of the threat posed to us by Ebola. When you hear of such things what exactly do you think about? I hear of the disasters in Texas where nurses got contaminated. I hear about the so called mandatory isolations taken place across the country. Everything we hear thus far has been something in the medical field. This would make us all think that it has some medical urgency.
Under normal circumstances I would probably such too. However, these are not normal circumstances now are they? Granted, we have doctors and nurses going to Africa to help contain it. Somehow though we are missing the bigger picture, just how did Ebola come about and begin to spread? In keeping with my dislike for the government and the constant beating I take as a conspiracy nut I propose a possible way and something for you to think about.
Stay with me here, because this is not really much of a stretch to catch. If Ebola is a medical emergency, why is the U.S. sending elite military personnel to contain the virus? Especially military personnel trained specifically for combat, with ZERO medical experience in containing viruses.
Is it possible that the Unites States has biological warfare laboratories in Africa? Is it possible that the troops are not sent into the danger zone to help, but instead, to secure those laboratories? Are the Tulane University researchers that have been over there for the last several years a part of this fiasco? Their research conducted in conjunction with the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infection Diseases takes place in the very epicenter of the most recent outbreak of Ebola.
The research program’s purpose is to detect use of fever inducing offensive bio-warfare weapons. Anyone can see that in order to detect such a weapon, one must be available and used. Was Ebola purposefully allowed to escape the research facility? Did it happen by accident? Are we trying to cover it up and mislead people about the truth because we know we are not supposed to be conducting such research?
The U.S. military was not called out to battle AIDS or any other medical emergencies previously. What is so different this time around? Why is President Obama so intent on taking the lead in controlling the Ebola fight? He has sounded the alarm, talked with world leaders and moved troops to help contain the problem. He spews words like that make it sound like we are giving so much to help end the problem (see http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/16/health/obama-ebola/ for an example).
I just cannot get the idea out of my head that perhaps we caused the problem to begin with and the U.S. government is just hiding the facts. There are too many things that do not make sense. Send an elite fighting force with no military training. Establish a military base in a foreign country. Other countries, like England; doing the same thing in the trouble zone, and France doing it just outside the zone.
No, sorry folks, you may think I am still a conspiracy nut but there are too many unerring things going on over there for me to believe that we are not covering something up. If the government IS involved in this and covering it up, we should be asking a lot of questions. Here is one for you to think about…how long will it be before they start the experiments in the U.S.?
I wanted to thank everyone for making the Libertarian Party of Alabama’s 2014 election campaign a success. Our candidates combined received almost 50,000 votes with two (2) of our candidates receiving 17% of the votes in their respective races (just short of the magical 20% that assures future ballot access). This is very encouraging since the Party had not been on a ballot in Alabama since 2006.
Over the next few weeks I plan to meet with our Executive Committee to determine a plan for 2016. Much of that will depend on the outcome of the case (Stein v. Bennett) on November 21 in Montgomery to determine if the March petitioning deadline for minor parties will stand. On a positive note (I guess), with the low voter turnout at the election current statewide petitioning requirements are expected to drop by 8,000-10,000 signatures.
They will be counting provisional votes on Wednesday, November 12, at which time we will receive an official vote total. If you know of any of our campaign signs that are still in place, please email me (Leigh.LaChine@LPAlabama.org) the location so the materials can be retrieved. Lastly, please consider a donation to the LPA, http://lpalabama.org/donate.html
For starters, Rand is short for Randal, not an allusion to Ayn Rand, after whom Sen. Paul was not named by his libertarian (not Objectivist) father Ron Paul. Reportedly, growing up he was called Randy … until his wife shortened the diminutive to Rand.
Washington, ordinarily, is committed to maintaining the status quo or making, at best, incremental changes. As we struggle with the political consequences of the end of an era of all-out war the old political status quo is ripe for transformation.
Paul shows signs of being the key transformational figure. If he himself understands the depth of this proposition he well might become unstoppable.
Washington, naturally, finds him confounding.
As Aaron Blake, a columnist for the ever-conventional Washington Post,says, “Rand Paul is
I guess only time will really tell what we get but I look at the results and can pretty much guess that it will be more of the same. It is really funny though. I heard various people complain and I see a lot of stories in the newspapers about complaint. All revolve around a central theme. America is tired of both parties in Washington.
When I see and hear that I have to ask. If America is tired of Republicans and Democrats in Washington, why is it that they only vote for Democrats and Republicans?
Well America, why do you do it?
Democrats in office bring an upheaval of social issues at the taxpayer’s expense. Republicans in office bring an upheaval of nation building and war mongering at the taxpayer’s expense. If you are tired of Democrats and Republicans screwing up the country and turning it into turmoil at YOUR expense, why do you keep voting them into office?
I am told that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Are all of you insane?
By now, I have to presume you get the gist of this rant. We as a citizenry had it within our grasp to make some real meaningful change. We had the power to get rid of a government we were tired of and replace it with a different one we could live with. We had the power to turn this country back onto the correct path again.
WE BLEW IT.
We voted for the same thing we were tired of.
Many people say that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I disagree. If you had more third party candidates in office we may not have such a mess as we have now. The idea that we have so many different people in office from different parties would lock government in its box and get them to leave us alone. For that reason alone YOU should be voting for third party candidates. Never mind the fact that they might have better ideas on how to handle the problems that face out country than the Democrats or Republicans.
Well, we get what we vote for. So let me guess what we will see happen next. Obamacare will stay in effect. Republicans will not want to try and get rid of it until they have a lock on the Senate, House AND Presidency. It is too much of a political potato to try and get rid of it now. Any move to do so now will kill their chance at a 2016 presidency.
For sure, there will be at least one attempt to reform the tax code in some way to help businesses. There will be some minor reforms to Obamacare to help business. There will be an increase in spending for the military at a cost of social services. There will be the arguments to tighten the belts for budget concerns.
Through all this, the taxpayer will say things are better; meanwhile he or she will be paying through the teeth for all the fake changes that the Republicans introduce.
Democrats will fight tooth and nail to stop the Republicans at every turn. Nothing real will get accomplished. They will use anything the Republicans do to shape the Presidential race in 2016.
The 2016 race will start heating up early. Hilary Clinton will be the front runner for the Democrats from the get go.
Republicans will fight for the spot with Rand Paul coming out on top. Republicans need someone who can rile the base and the only one who can do that on a national level is Paul. The rest will be all infighting just like it was when Romney was running. If the party pulls that stunt again it will lose more of its base as well as the Presidency yet another time.
There is one slight golden lining if Rand Paul wins. His father might become Treasure Secretary.
I hope you are happy with your results. Time will tell if they elected candidates will make a difference. I hope I am wrong on all accounts. I hope that everything gets turned around, the economy improves, everyone gets back to work and we become a prosperous country again. History proves that voting for the same thing will get you more of the same thing. I won’t hold my breath while I am waiting.