No hair jokes, just issues.
For immediate release
September 16, 2015
Libertarians versus Donald Trump
Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee issued the following statement:
Libertarianism is the idea that you have the right to pursue happiness in any way you wish as long as it doesn’t hurt people or take their stuff. We support the fundamental rights of all people, all of the time. We do not denigrate or disparage any group. We respect the humanity of all people.
Unfortunately, the only policy position addressed on Mr. Trump’s official campaign webpage is immigration. Thus, we are limited to piecing together Mr. Trump’s positions on policy issues based on recent quotes in the news media.
Let’s compare and contrast Donald Trump’s views with those of the Libertarian Party:
Mr. Trump likes tough talk and seems to think that wars are an effective solution to many of our problems. Libertarians think that wars often create more problems than they solve, are bankrupting our nation, and that violence is only justified when used for defense.
Mr. Trump advocates more sanctions on Iran, more support for Israel, and being tough all around. Libertarians think the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world.
Mr. Trump thinks that foreign countries are getting the better end of trade deals and says that he would negotiate more favorable deals. Libertarians support free trade and think that U.S. citizens and businesses should be allowed to negotiate the deals that they find favorable without the interference of the U.S. government and government officials.
Fifteen years ago Mr. Trump claimed he was for a government run single-payer Canadian-style healthcare system. Mr. Trump now says Obamacare is ineffective and should be repealed and replaced, but he’s not specific. Libertarians have always opposed government run healthcare, and support a free market.
Mr. Trump advocates building a wall along our Southern border and has said disparaging things about immigrants. Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel peacefully across borders to work, trade, or live.
Mr. Trump has taken advantage of eminent domain laws to build his real-estate empire. Libertarians think that eminent domain is often exploited by the wealthy at the cost of average Americans and is a violation of our most basic rights.
War on Drugs
Mr. Trump has, in the past, advocated ending the “war on drugs” because it is ineffective and wasteful. Lately, he seems to be adjusting his stance and claiming that it’s an issue for states to decide. Libertarians also think that the “war on drugs” is ineffective and wasteful. In addition, we think the “war on drugs” is one of the biggest violations of Americans’ civil liberties as it has been used to put hundreds of thousands on non-violent people in prison.
Mr. Trump also has said that he thinks that gay marriage is an issue for the states. Libertarians think that the government has no business regulating anyone’s marriage.
Mr. Trump says he would be tough on crime via anti-crime policies. Libertarians also want to decrease crime but likely disagree with Mr. Trump on the nature of “crime.” Libertarians are careful to differentiate between violent crimes and non-violent crimes, and also between crimes which involve a victim and those that do not. Currently, a huge percentage of our prison population is imprisoned for non-violent, victimless crimes such as marijuana use. Libertarians think that this is unjust to everyone: the taxpayer, the incarcerated, and society more broadly. Prison should be reserved for violent criminals.
Mr. Trump has stated that he is against Common Core and supports school-choice. Most Libertarians would agree. Libertarians think that the federal government should not have the authority to dictate to Americans how we should educate our children.
Mr. Trump has said that he is against limits on Americans’ 2nd Amendment Rights, but has supported the ban on so-called assault weapons and longer waiting periods to buy guns. Libertarians oppose all laws at any level of government that attempt to restrict, register, or monitor the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.
In the first debate, Trump said, “Our leaders are stupid. Our politicians are stupid.” Libertarians think big government policies are the problem, and smarter politicians with the same policies won’t help. America needs new policies and a new perspective focusing on smaller government, more liberty, and peace.
Thanks to your feedback, we’ve fixed a problem with our polling campaign software.
Our best supporters — those who agree with our propositions — found that they couldn’t easily navigate to all the argument panels in our polling campaigns.
Now, once you’ve signed the petition, you’ll find it easy to visit those panels. Every one of the panels is listed and linked (in the right column) on the signature confirmation page.
We made other improvements too. And now we’re ready to charge forward. We want to invite you back to try the polling campaigns again!
What does this tool do for you?
The Zero Aggression Project has three goals…
Share the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) with every person on planet Earth. The ZAP is, “Don’t threaten or initiate force against others, or ask politicians to do it for you.”
Locate and activate the 1-in-5 Americans who already self-identify as libertarians.
Move everyone in a voluntaryist direction.
Most people live by the ZAP in their daily lives. They don’t bully others, vandalize or steal their property, or violently attack those whose values are different. But when they start talking politics or they step into a booth to vote, like Jekyll and Hyde, something changes. They start making…
EXCEPTIONS to the ZAP
Their otherwise Golden Rule-like behavior takes a nasty turn. They ask politicians to do the dirty work of making other people obey their preferences.
This behavior is both inconsistent and immoral compared with their normal, ZAP-like values and behavior. So…
What if you could make people uncomfortable with their coercive, statist positions?
Our polling campaign tool addresses the exceptions your friends make. Thus far we’ve constructed arguments for…
Two more “exceptions” will be addressed this month. And more than a dozen polling campaigns are in the works.
Now that we’ve corrected the navigation issue for libertarian petition signers…
Evaluate our arguments. Determine whether you can benefit from sharing them with people you know. We’ve created a special sharing tool you can use for this purpose. It has unique features, designed so that you can see the results of your educational outreach. You can use this tool to…
Hand-select friends with whom you want to share our polling questions.
Customize the boilerplate message you send to them, if you wish.
Return to see who accepted your invitation, and…
Follow how they responded to the questions!
This tool allows you to pursue each of the three mission goals…
Share the Zero Aggression Principle with other people
Locate and activate libertarians
Move people in a voluntaryist direction
Do these goals appeal to you, in part or in whole? If so, please start by inspecting one of the following campaigns, signing the petition, and then sharing it with others…
Greater Los Angeles Libertarian Party Meetup Group
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Gill’s Indian Restaurant
838 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90017
We sit for dinner at 7:30 pm with discussion or speaker after dinner. Early arrivers can toss back a drink at Hank’s bar or just wait in the hotel lobby. For lingerers Hank’s is always there after Gil’s closes. This month’s featured topic… Learn more
There is an urban legend that there is a looming Bourbon Supply Crisis. (Heaven Forfend!) Meanwhile, American Pharoah, as expected, won the Kentucky Derby. Both circumstances contain a homey lesson about the Federal Reserve System’s conduct of monetary policy.
The demand for bourbon is overwhelming. In the past decade, there has been a nearly 40 percent growth in sales of bourbon and Tennessee whiskey in the United States, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS).
“We’re growing so dramatically that we’ve outgrown any reasonable expectations,” says Jim Rutledge, Master Distiller of Four Roses, one of the iconic, major Kentucky bourbon distilleries. “It’s just out of sight.”
Meanwhile, an IWSR survey commission by Vinexpo projects that global bourbon sales are predicted to increase nearly 20 percent more in the next five years. Not everyone has faith in those numbers though, and plans based upon future growth have come back to hurt distillers in the past.
“Long-range findings in this business is really long-range guessing, and I wouldn’t even call it educated guessing,” explains Rutledge. “It’s very difficult to determine consumer trends, and looking back at previous years and what’s been happening, that obviously didn’t work.”
The only thing worse than not having enough whiskey to sell to people is having vast rickhouses lined with whiskey-filled barrels that nobody wants to buy. It happened in the 1970s as many American consumers shifted away from whiskey, instead turning toward vodka and rum. This led to the demise and consolidation of brands, and it’s a hard-learned lesson which remains in the back of everyone’s mind even in today’s bullish bourbon market.
“Vast rickhouses lined with whiskey-filled barrels that nobody wants to buy….” Kentucky has more barrels of this elixir of the gods (4.7 million) than it does … citizens (4.3 million) reports The Atlantic Wire. Even this doughty bourbon drinker would have a problem making a material dent in a liquidity crisis of the magnitude described by Mr. Emen….
Now imagine how vastly more complex is the calculus for the demand for… dollars. Quantum physicist Niels Bohr once crisply observed, “It is exceedingly difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”
The Fed, while operating with astonishing impunity, is by no means exempt from Bohr’s Aphorism. Dr. Richard Rahn, in the Washington Times:
The Federal Reserve had forecast the U.S. economy to grow about 4 percent near the beginning of each year for the last five years. But during each year, the Fed was forced to reduce its forecast until it got to the actual number of approximately 2 percent. (Other government agencies have been making equally bad forecasts.) These mammoth errors clearly show that the forecast models the official agencies use are mis-specified and contain incorrect assumptions.
Is there a better way? Indeed, and the recent win by American Pharoah in the Kentucky Derby suggests it. American Pharoah was the odds-on favorite… and won. While upsets occur, and with some regularity. That’s what makes horseraces! That said, the odds, set by the bettors, consistently track pretty well with reality (or betting on horseraces simply would cease to occur).
Group intelligence consistently proves a better judge than does experts, however talented and well equipped (such as the Fed’s hundreds of PhD economists). As James Suriowiecki wrote in his bestselling The Wisdom of Crowds:
A classic demonstration of group intelligence is the jelly-beans-in-the-jar experiment, in which invariably the group’s estimate is superior to the vast majority of the individual guesses. When finance professor Jack Treynor ran the experiment in his class with a jar that held 850 beans, the group estimate was 871. Only one of the fifty-six people in the class made a better guess. …
[T]he group’s guess will not be better than that of every single person in the group each time. In many (perhaps most) cases, there will be a few people who do better than the group. … But there is no evidence in these studies that certain people consistently outperform the group. In other words, if you run ten different jelly-bean-counting experiments, it’s likely that each time one or two students will out-perform the group. But they will not be the same students each time.
Suriowiecki writing, in 2004, at Forbes.com: “Just as Google’s PageRank encapsulates the knowledge of Web users, so does a market price embody, as the economist Friedrich Hayek suggested, all of the tacit knowledge and wisdom of investors and traders.”
One lesson from both the bourbon industry and the Kentucky Derby has to do with the folly of central planning. Central planning is a widely discredited practice to which elite monetary (and other) economists, Fed officials, and rainbow-unicorn-chasing Progressives still bitterly cling. Yet the historical data persuade me that a “Treynor Rule” would be functionally superior to the Taylor Rule, or NGDP targeting.
Historically, the way markets were allowed to determine their desired liquidity balances — and, in the process, set the economy’s interest rates in an organic way — was by the monetary authorities defining the nation’s money as, and making it convertible to, a fixed weight of gold … and adhering to the “rules of the game” to keep it there.
This may have been what then-World Bank Group president Robert Zoellick meant, in a widely noted FT column where he wrote, in part:
The system should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values. Although textbooks may view gold as the old money, markets are using gold as an alternative monetary asset today.
And what Bundesbank president Dr. Jens Weidmann meant when he stated:
Concrete objects have served as money for most of human history; we may therefore speak of commodity money. A great deal of trust was placed in particular in precious and rare metals – gold first and foremost – due to their assumed intrinsic value. In its function as a medium of exchange, medium of payment and store of value, gold is thus, in a sense, a timeless classic.
Forty economists (few of them monetary) unanimously condemned the gold standard in a survey taken a few years ago. Still, Boehr was, and is, right: “It is exceedingly difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” As for monetary policy, time for the Fed to reassess its operating protocols. High time to replace groupthink with group intelligence.
“The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.”
“Innocuous?” I’ll be the judge of that.
You see? Whenever I want … Gotcha!
Confess. It is good for the soul!
PS, Warn your friends! Forward this widely and invite the recipients to sign up to get weekly Sam-o-Grams of their very own just by clicking here and signing up!
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dealt a blow to a lawsuit challenging the NSA’s use of warrantless surveillance, claiming the plaintiff did not prove standing. The Washington Post reports, the court “ruled that public-interest lawyer Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch, has not proved that his own phone records were collected by the NSA — and so has not met a condition of bringing the lawsuit.” The ruling sent the case back to a lower court for further deliberation on the issue, and did not address the constitutionality or legality of the program.
In this case, Freedom Watch v CIA, Circuit Court Judge Stephen F. Williams wrote that Klayman “lack[s] direct evidence” that records pertaining to his calls “have actually been collected.” The Post adds, the court “observed that [Klayman’s] effort to prove standing was complicated by the possibility that the government could withhold information that would bolster his allegations.” Circuit Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown said, “Plaintiffs’ claims may well founder in that event. But such is the nature of the government’s privileged control over certain classes of information.”
In a separate court action in the DC federal court, RT reports, “five whistleblowers are suing the Justice Department, National Security Agency, FBI and their former directors for violating their constitutional and civil rights after they complained about government waste and fraud through proper channels.”
The five whistleblowers were subjected to “illegal searches and seizures, raids on their homes and places of business, false imprisonment, and cancellation of their security clearances after they complained about government waste and fraud at the NSA.” Techdirt reports, “the lawsuit points to the short-lived internet surveillance program THINTHREAD, which was ignored and abandoned in favor of something more expensive, but less protective of Americans’ communications.”
These cases go to show that the courts and other government agencies don’t really care about your rights. They care about protecting their power. Is it any wonder that Edward Snowden fled the country after blowing the whistle on the NSA? Why would he knowingly subject himself to numerous “civil liberties violations?
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Campaigning • Party Growth • Fundraising • Publicity • Inspiration
LP Activist Training By Libertarians, For Libertarians
October 16–18, 2015 • Alexandria, Virginia
Early-bird registration ends Monday, September 14
LP Activist Training By Libertarians, For Libertarians is an exciting new Libertarian weekend of activist training, designed to inspire you and give you the tools you need to be a successful Libertarian activist, candidate, campaigner, and party leader in your state.
The National Libertarian Party is sponsoring this workshop featuring seasoned Libertarian experts. It will be held the weekend of October 16–18 in the Washington, D.C. area, at the LP’s national headquarters and the Comfort Inn & Suites.
Knowledgeable Libertarians, each with a proven track record of success, will show you the ropes, on everything from Libertarian campaigns to public speaking, from media interviews to organizing and expanding your LP affiliate.
This training will home in on the knowledge you most need to succeed as a Libertarian activist. It will be chock-full of tips, tricks, and techniques unavailable in courses offered by Republicans and Democrats.
Libertarian Campaign Management 101: What you need to know
Libertarian fundraising and membership growth
Winning on the hot seat: Play Who’s Driving? and learn how to control media interviews
Game-change Libertarian solutions: Learn how to formulate ones that inspire and win votes
How to raise your first $10,000 for your Libertarian campaign
Websites and social media: Get them up and running; expand their reach
Candidate recruitment: Attracting and recruiting quality Libertarian candidates
Run a successful LP booth: Drawing people in and signing them up
Open discussion: Q&A and other topics you wish to explore
Our line-up of expert speakers includes:
Adrian Wyllie – 2014 Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in Florida; current LPF State Chair
Carla Howell – Political Director, Libertarian National Committee; three-time Libertarian candidate; and head of three statewide tax-cut ballot initiatives
Wes Benedict – Executive Director, Libertarian National Committee; author, Introduction to the Libertarian Party; organizer of two Libertarian PACs
Sam Goldstein – Former LP Indiana State Chair; Member of the Libertarian National Committee
Michael Cloud – Author, Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion; three-time LP Presidential campaign organizer; professional speechwriter and political strategist
Bob Johnston – Campaign and Affiliate Support Specialist, Libertarian National Committee; LP Maryland State Chair
Doug Craig – Former LP Georgia State Chair; Member, Libertarian National Committee
Fri., Oct. 16
6 – 10 PM
Informal Libertarian get-together
Sat., Oct. 17
9 – 5 PM
6 – 10 PM
Dinner and party
Sun., Oct. 18
9 AM – 2 PM
Workshop sessions & open discussion
Early-Bird Special! $25 if you register by Monday, September 14.
Includes all speaker sessions, plus Saturday’s lunch, dinner, and party.
Price after September 14: $40 per attendee.
1444 Duke St. Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Comfort Inn and Suites:
5716 South Van Dorn Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22310
Comfort Inn & Suites has extended the LP a conference rate of $89 per night (king bed or two queens) at their Alexandria location:
5716 South Van Dorn Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22310
To book a room, please phone the hotel directly at 1 (703) 922-9200; ask for the “Libertarian Party Training Room” block.
Van Dorn Metro stop (Blue Line). The hotel offers free shuttle service, to and from Metro.
Register today forLP Activist Training By Libertarians, For Libertarians by
calling 1 (202) 333-0008, or online by clicking the “Buy Now” button, below.
(Remember, early-bird pricing ends on Monday, September 14.)
A recent article in The Week by progressive columnist Jeff Spross, How modern capitalism killed self-reliance, observed that “The gold standard is a niche enthusiasm rejected by most economists.” Why that is so is curious. The hyperlink to his observation goes right to Episode 252 of NPR’s Planet Money, an interview with “charming curmudgeon” James Grant which first aired in February 2011.
The Floating Kilogram was described by Steve Forbes as “This brilliant book is The Federalist Papers for a gold standard. It succeeds, dazzlingly — and convincingly — makes the irrefutable case for re-linking the battered dollar to gold.”
To better appreciate this wonderful book it is useful to understand just why the classical gold standard has been (surely temporarily) relegated to the status of a “niche enthusiasm.” In an interview during my then-capacity as editor of the Lehrman Institute’s monetary website, Professor Brian Domitrovic, himself a Forbes.com contributor, addressed this very question:
Academic economic history has hitched its wagon to a particular star, the trashing of the gold standard. The funny thing is that this stuff really didn’t intensify, in academic economic history, until the 1980s, when the conditions were actually beautiful for a return to the gold standard. Students of economic history were not so foolish as to endorse fiat currency in the 1940s, as Bretton Woods was gathering, even though Keynes was urging just that. Paul Samuelson and a few others were trashing gold in the 1950s and 60s, but that was not the norm. >snip<
The publication of Barry Eichengreen’s Golden Fetters, his essays from the 1980s, was a decisive event in cementing the anti-gold standard position in the academy. And Ben Bernanke was such a lionizer of Eichengreen’s that it would prove very fateful if he were accorded high governmental office, which happened twice (Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors and the Fed). So the anti-gold view became part of the dominant political culture.
There is much more to the gold standard than is recognized by most contemporary economists. Lipsky lays out the reasoned arguments, with many beautiful and witty turns of phrase, within the context of daily politics and economics. A sample of the Sun‘s incisive commentary, an editorial titled Piketty’s Gold:
We’re speaking here about the timing of the rapid rise of the blasted inequality over which Professor Piketty is so upset. >snip<
Well, feature the chart that Professor Piketty publishes showing inequality in America. …It plunged during the Great Depression and edged down in World War II, and then steadied out, until we get to the 1970s. Something happened then that caused income inequality to start soaring. The top decile’s share of income went from something like 33% in 1971 to above 47% by 2010.
Hmmmm. What could account for that? … But, say, what about the possibility that it was in the middle of 1971, in August, that America closed its gold window…. That was the default that ended the era of the Bretton Woods monetary system.
Let’s give the last word on Lipsky’s excellent compilation to that very “charming curmudgeon” James Grant, from his Foreword to The Floating Kilogram:
Lipsky’s mentor on the Wall Street Journal, Robert L. Bartley, once quipped, “It takes 75 editorials to pass a law.” He was dealing with mere tax reform. With 130 editorials already in print, though, Lipsky is fast approaching the point of policy crystallization.
“How far is America from the Bolshevik State? The administration is already forcing health care providers to report on the activities of other citizens. How soon will American children be reporting ‘revolutionary activities’ to their teachers? How soon will American priests essentially compose a secret informant network? How soon will neighbors begin calling in about one another in hopes of avoiding being sent ‘somewhere’ themselves?”
This is music to my ears! To encounter such recognition from the very heart of the Old Bolshevism is an honor indeed. And the picture Mr. Green draws is that to which we aspire and toward which, clearly, we are making strides!
We won’t call it Bolshevism over here, of course.
Over here, it’s Auntie-Sam-ism. Much friendlier!
Not to be confused with antisemitism!
Thank you Pravda.ru!
Am tingling with Delight,
PS: Know any neo-Bolsheviks? Forward this to them and tell them to sign up to their own Sam-o-Grams by clicking here!
Facebook followers and regular DownsizeDC.org blog readers see these posts first. Our blog is located on the Downsize DC home page, and is updated regularly. Our Facebook page is: https://www.facebook.com/downsizedc. To follow, click Like and be sure to click the pull-down item, “Get Notifications” at the same time, so you see our latest thoughts.
What do libertarians do that most smart people do? #libertarian Retweet
In the classic book “Thinking Better”psychologists David Lewis and James Greene identified programs, or patterned ways of thinking, as the key to making quick, accurate evaluations. They observed that this was the approach to thinking employed by the smartest people.
This is exactly how libertarians think!
The libertarian approach uses various principles, facts, examples, and bits of logic to make thinking more efficient and accurate. Here at the Zero Aggression Project we call these tools…
A lever allows you to do more work with less effort. The approach to thinking that uses such tools is…
Too many people think randomly. With few or no principles to guide them, they have to re-analyze each issue from scratch. Sometimes people like to justify this random approach by giving it a nice sounding name — they call it “independent thinking.” But what is that approach to thinking independent from? Principles? Facts? History? Logic?
In practice, such “independent thinking” is simply random thinking. It’s unreliable and time-consuming. It inevitably leads to error and self-contradiction. Imagine if you tried to do math or engineering, or run a court of law that way. The result would be chaos. Even worse…
Random thinking makes people vulnerable to emotional manipulation by political con-men and the ambulance-chasing media. Mental Levers are the cure for this. They anchor your thinking to sound principles, rules, logic, and facts.
The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) is a good example of a Mental Lever.
Voluntaryist-libertarians use the ZAP to judge all political questions. For every issue ask yourself the following questions…
Does the proposed policy require a threat of force to make innocent people act against their own conscience or preference? If the answer is yes, then you should oppose it.
Would you feel justified using force against your neighbors and friends to enforce this policy? If the answer is NO, then you should NOT be willing to have politicians, bureaucrats, or police impose this policy on your behalf.
The voluntaryist-libertarian philosophy is rich in Mental Levers
We’ve assembled many of them into collections here in the Mental Levers section of our website. We plan to add many more in the future. They include…
Take a look. Use our levers to engage in leveraged thinking! Please also…
Share them on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+. Link to them in discussions on the internet. One of our Mental Levers will often be the exact right thing to say in some point during a discussion. Use them. Spread these concepts far and wide.
Is there a libertarian way of thinking? Yes there is — it uses facts and principles at Mental Levers. Can these Mental Levers be taught? Yes, they can. And teaching begins with sharing.
ZAP The State and have a nice day,
Perry Willis & Jim Babka
Co-creators of the Zero Aggression Project
Donald Trump recently published a policy statement on immigration, stating, “A nation without borders is not a nation. [Therefore] There must be a wall across the southern border.” Adding that “Mexico must pay for the wall.” Additionally Trump wants to “Cut-off federal grants to any city which refuses to cooperate with federal law enforcement [in regards to immigration law].” (i.e. sanctuary cities) And he wants to end birthright citizenship, claiming “no sane country would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.”
There are numerous problems with Trumps position on immigration. For starters, as reported by the Washington Post, “The history of the United States… shows that borders – and nations – can exist without immigration restrictions. Until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the federal government did not forbid voluntary immigration. Indeed, the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress the power to do so, allowing it to restrict eligibility for citizenship, but not to forbid migration.” Adding that Argentina does “not restrict immigration. Few would argue that Argentina is not a real nation, that it has no borders, or that it somehow ceased to exist when it adopted a virtual open borders policy towards migrants in 2004.”
Earlier this year, former Mexican President Felipe Calderon said, “Many [immigrants] are currently trapped. There are a lot of these people [who] want to be in Mexico eight months every year, but they are unable to go there, because if they cross the border, they will never be able to cross back again.” Adding, “I don’t believe that most of the Mexican workers looking for a job in the United States are wanting to be American citizens. They are looking for an opportunity to get economic benefits and actually thinking when they are leaving [Mexico] what will be the way in which they can go back to their own home.”
In regards to sanctuary cities, I have to wonder if Donald Trump would have opposed northern nullification of the Fugitive Slave Acts! The Tenth Amendment Center reports, “one of the driving forces behind personal liberty laws was the number of free blacks kidnapped and forced into slavery. Under the Fugitive Slave Act, they had no recourse. They started under the presumption of guilt, and the process made it impossible to prove otherwise.” The primary difference between nullification of the Fugitive Slave Acts and the existence of so-called sanctuary cities is that the Constitution explicitly authorized the Fugitive Slave Acts, however it did not give Congress the power to regulate immigration. In fact, The US Supreme Court has ruled the federal government “cannot require cities and states to hold and hand over detainees.”
Instead of treating people seeking a little economic prosperity as criminals who are incarcerated and fined, people seeking to improve their life should be allowed to do so without interference from a government as long as they are not violating the life, liberty or property of any other person.
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Welcome to the Church of State. Progressives are a Faithful lot. They live, and die, by a Creed.
We saw the religiosity at work again last week in the United Kingdom. We saw Martyrdom.
When the voters toss out a Left-wing political party (two, actually) for having moved too far left — as just happened in the United Kingdom — the Left interprets it as a call to greater purity to appease the vox Dei … by moving even further left. That the Kool-Aid®-drinking MSNBC’s ratings are in free fall, while Fox’s continue to rise, does not seem to be registering inside NBCUniversal, which, apparently, is willing to take a lot of pain to evangelize the True Faith.
Faith-based politics. Progressives are fundamentalists who, metaphorically speaking, burn heretics at the stake. Welcome to the new auto-da-fé by other means. Just ask those Christian cake bakers who demurred from baking a cake for a gay wedding. Ask Mozilla’s purged CEO Brendan Eich. Al Gore, at SXSW, one of this Faith’s mass festivals, demanded that those who dissent from the Climate Change narrative be “punished.” Check out the deference shown by the FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler who kneels and kisses the Papal ferula, the rod, of the incumbent Secular Pope, switching positions and imposing 300 pages of terrifyingly ambiguous “Net Neutrality” regulations.
Does this alienate voters? No matter. Progressives gamely embrace Martyrdom for their Faith.
>snip<In the United States, the Democratic Party lurched, relentlessly, left. It was punished by the voters, in the last Congressional election, with an historic thumping. The Republicans gained a solid majority in the U.S. Senate and the largest majority in the U.S. House of Representatives since Harry Truman. (Since then, however, the GOP’s agenda has been lackluster.)
The formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumptive (yet by no means secure, being vulnerable from, yes, her left) nominee of the Democratic Party, already had taken up the “income inequality” theme just over a year ago.
Mrs. Clinton, of course, is being attacked from her left by her newly fledged rival for the nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, pushing the income inequality theme. The lesson the national Democratic Party drew from its electoral drubbing last November (as did Labour, at least as posited by Milibrand)?
Move harder Left.
C’est magnifique, mais ce ne’st pas la guerre: c’est de la folie.
Feels like religious fervor.
The Democrats are mislabeling, and mishandling, the cause of voter concern. As the Washington Post‘s Aaron Blake points out:
And a Pew poll from February showed that people still believe Republicans are indifferent to working Americans: 54 percent said the Republican Party does not care about the middle class.
Republicans’ emphasis on poorer and working-class Americans now represents a shift from the party’s longstanding focus on business owners and “job creators” as the drivers of economic opportunity.
This is intentional, Republican operatives said.
“If Republican candidates are just repeating the same tired policies, I’m not sure that smiling while saying it is going to be enough,” said Guy Cecil, a Democratic strategist who is joining a “super PAC” working on behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The new Republican thematic focus on equitable prosperity is welcome. That said, it is as important to do the thing right as to do the right thing.
So far, most of the GOP presidential candidates have been proposing rather anemic policies for reigniting job creation and economic mobility. None, yet, have tackled the really Big Issue. The Kemp/Reagan American Economic Miracle explicitly was founded, along with cutting marginal tax rates, on good monetary policy. That was, in fact, delivered by the Fed under Chairman Volcker, with Reagan’s support, and, for eight years, by Chairman Greenspan under Clinton. The Good Money mix then fell apart, and, with it, the climate of equitable prosperity.
Then money factor, central to job creation and economic growth, has been orphaned by the Grand Old Party. The smartest, safest, way to rescue this crucial policy element from its orphanage is the national monetary commission called for in a plank in the 2012 GOP platform, and the legislation sponsored by Rep. Kevin Brady and Sen. John Cornyn in the 113th Congress.
The presidential candidates would do well to take this matter seriously. Unless the Republicans wake up and follow the money the siren song of the Progressive’s Church of State retains a certain allure.
It warms the cockles of my heart — and should warn your cockles too — to see that the Montgomery County, Maryland, Authorities have propounded a finding of “unsubstantiated” child neglect, and even better, one based on no law. (There is no law in Maryland against not supervising your children outdoors.)
This is a major victory. We who are vigilant for your security heartily celebrate this Progress!
The Washington Post reported recently that Child Protective Services issued a finding about parents who >shudder< actually let their children walk home unmolested from a public park through a safe neighborhood on the public streets, unsupervised! The finding, reports the Post?
…[Mommy] Danielle Meitiv said when she first read the decision, she felt numb. As she reread it, she recalled turning to her husband and saying: “Oh my God, they really believe we did something wrong.”
”I was kind of horrified,” she said, adding: ‘You try as a parent to do what’s right. Parents try so hard. Even though I know they are wrong, it’s a painful judgment.’
She said that while the terminology of being “found responsible” for “unsubstantiated child neglect” is difficult to interpret, she and her husband do not feel they have been cleared in the case. She called the decision inconceivable and outrageous.
Horrified? Inconceivable? Outrageous?
Tut tut, Mrs. Meitiv.
Compose your soul in serenity.
It is not hard to interpret what “being ‘found responsible’ for ‘unsubstantiated child neglect’” means.
Follow along. In the bad old days Americans were “innocent” (ha, as if!) until proven guilty. That means that the authorities had the wearisome burden to substantiate charges with actual evidence. If they failed to prove their case you are found innocent.
Now the burden of proof to prove yourself “innocent” (as if!) falls, as it should on you.
“Innocent until proven guilty” — along with “due process” (as, irritatingly still technically guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution) — along with the prohibition of “double jeopardy.” Such archaic concepts…. One laughs ruefully at their memory.
Darling one: due process goes back to the Magna Carta, which turns 800 years old this year. Surely I deserve praise for modernizing our justice system and dispensing with obsolete concepts like “due process” and “double jeopardy.” And, of course, that pesky presumption of innocence.
Surely we can all agree on that.
All, that is, who matter. People in Authority. Me!
Montgomery County CPS! Bravo to you for trampling the presumption of innocence. You set a perfectly marvelous example! Thank you. Well done!
PS Know anyone sorely deluded that they should be afforded the “so over” presumption of innocence by the Powers that Be? Forward this and tell them to straighten up and fly right.
It’s a New Dawn of … Perfect Security. Tell them sign up for Sam-o-Grams here … to help them get with the program. Now!
Supreme Court agrees with brief: Asset forfeiture case should be heard. #tlot ReTweet
Two major Supreme Court victories were recently achieved with YOUR help. Our lawyers, led by William J. Olson, filed amicus briefs in two important cases.
In Los Angeles vs. Patel, we argued that hotel registries are the private property of hotel owners. They can’t be searched at the sole discretion of a police officer. This brief extended the argument we successfully made in the Jones case, which re-established property rights as the basis for our 4th Amendment protections.
Result: VICTORY! In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that police need warrants in order to search hotel registries.