Decentralization: A Strategy For Liberty

I have always been fascinated with the way Libertarians think….I will admit that some of their stuff I can get on-board with….like the non-interventionism thing……I am not so sure about their economic outlook….I seems to me that it would allow the ideology to rape the poor worker and the country…..on economics I disagree and on social I tend to agree somewhat but not totally…..

This is an interesting piece that I thought my reader would like to read……it is an elective and not meant to be a required piece……

Hardcore libertarians sometimes criticize me because of my focus on the Constitution and political action at the state level to limit federal power. They argue that the American constitutional system will never bring about liberty, and that by working through government at any level, I undermine the cause of freedom.

I am sympathetic to the idea that “where government begins, your freedom ends,” and I believe some of the hardcore libertarians philosophical objections to the Constitution have merit. But to quote Murray Rothbard, “Libertarians must come to realize that parroting ultimate principles is not enough for coping with the real world.”

Source: Decentralization: A Strategy For Liberty | Michael Maharrey

Does anyone have any thoughts about Libertarians?   Please do not start with the Ayn Rand stuff…..I prefer to concentrate on the ideology and not that of a the drug addict with a big mouth….thank you.

Writing a Blank Check on War for the President

As an opponent for most wars…I am always looking at the reasons why we go to war and why the American people turn a blind eye to it.  (and yes I know all about the M-IC)…..

Now a days when the US goes to war it is not paid for by any stretch of the imagination…..the process skirts Congress and the representatives allow it to be so…..the Constitution addresses war and the Congress is suppose to authorize the action taken…..but for decades that whole process has been ignored…..and by the very people that claim the Constitution is sacred and must be followed to the letter.  (I guess that means only the parts you agree with and f*ck the rest of the document)

How the United States Became a Prisoner of War and Congress Went MIA,

Let’s face it: in times of war, the Constitution tends to take a beating. With the safety or survival of the nation said to be at risk, the basic law of the land — otherwise considered sacrosanct — becomes nonbinding, subject to being waived at the whim of government authorities who are impatient, scared, panicky, or just plain pissed off.

The examples are legion. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln arbitrarily suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ignored court orders that took issue with his authority to do so. After U.S. entry into World War I, the administration of Woodrow Wilson mounted a comprehensive effort to crush dissent, shutting down anti-war publications in complete disregard of the First Amendment. Amid the hysteria triggered by Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order consigning to concentration camps more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, many of them native-born citizens. Asked in 1944 to review this gross violation of due process, the Supreme Court endorsed the government’s action by a 6-3 vote.

Source: Writing a Blank Check on War for the President – The Unz Review

The Constitution and the Standing Army

Thanx to the election we will hear the word “Constitution” more than any other time……the problem is most people that use the Constitution as a prop have little knowledge of what the entire document has to say….only the parts that pertain to their little rants…..few take the document in its entirety…..

I always like reading opinions on the Constitution……since there is NO one left alive that we can confer with on the actual meaning……opinions is all that is left.  The one thing that is certain is everybody’s opinion is valid…..we may not like what is said but until you can produce someone that was there………. then all are valid……I do however avoid those individuals that use the issue to go on some rant not substantiated by rational thought…basically those opinions are just blah, blah, blah….

I have given my thoughts on the 2nd amendment……..

Source: Why The 2nd? – In Saner Thought

I recently read a piece about the idea of a “standing army”……interesting and maybe my reader may find it so…..also…..

The U.S. Constitution can reasonably be seen as a massive tax and mercantilist trade-promotion program. However, there’s a third leg to this stool. It was a national-security program as well – almost a proto-PATRIOT Act. Indeed, these three elements formed an integrated project: it gave the new central government independent power to raise revenue by […]

Source: The Constitution and the Standing Army – Antiwar.com Original by — Antiwar.com

I think that too many Constitution wannabes take some of the wording too literal or out of context……and that shuts down any rational analysis and makes them an invalid opinion writer……

America: I Do Not Like Where This Is Going

The newest political football is the refugees and all related items…..there is some statements that smack with historical context and yet supporters will not see the un-American activities and games being played.  The refugees are the latest complex issue to be turned into a politicized mess to gain support from the mentally slow.

Personally, I do not like what is going on in this country…..Trump has gone a bit far…in my book……

Donald Trump went on MSNBC Monday to discuss issues related to the Paris terror attacks and ISIS, and he had some controversial ideas about steps he might take as president. “Well, I would hate to do it but it’s something you’re going to have to strongly consider,” Trump said when asked whether he would consider a plan similar to France’s interior minister’s promise to shut down “mosques where hate is preached,” CNN reports. Trump continued, “Some of the ideas and some of the absolute hatred is coming from these areas … The hatred is incredible. It’s embedded. The hatred is beyond belief. The hatred is greater than anybody understands.”

Trump had started out by discussing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s decision to put a stop to a covert NYPD program that had previously carried out surveillance on Muslim communities. “You’re going to have to watch and study the mosques, because a lot of talk is going on at the mosques,” Trump said. “Under the old regime we had tremendous surveillance going on in and around the mosques of New York City.”

But wait there is more……..

Donald Trump voiced support Thursday evening for creating a mandatory database to track Muslims in the US—the latest in an escalating series of responses following the deadly attacks in Paris. “I would certainly implement that. Absolutely,” Trump said between campaign events in Newton, Iowa, according to video posted on MSNBC.com. He said Muslims would be signed up at “different places,” adding: “It’s all about management.” Asked whether registering would be mandatory, Trump responded: “They have to be.”

What’s next from these twats?  Maybe a suggestion to make Muslims wear a large yellow crescent moon and star patch?  (that sounds oddly familiar)….

Sounds all you Righties…all that sounds a bit unconstitutional to me…..but then when have you guys ever let the Constitution get in the way of a good fear?

I know this will not matter to those that have their minds made up and are thanking Jesus for the vote …..but just in case….the GOP God Ronnie Reagan has something to say……

Just in case there is any doubt, President Obama has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States, and the president’s power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.

This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. Indeed, in describing the executive branch’s broad authority to make discretionary calls regarding immigration matters, Arizona seemed to explicitly contemplate the circumstances that face President Obama today. The United States may wish to allow a foreign national to remain within its borders, the Court explained, because the individual’s home nation “may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.”

And then we have the out right lies about other Americans…..and the biggest liar is that twat Trump……..

Donald Trump is insisting he saw something on 9/11 that most Americans have apparently developed amnesia about. On Saturday, he told a rally in Alabama that he had “watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering” as the World Trade Center came down, the Guardian reports. The New York Times reports that he doubled down on the comments about cheering in “areas with large Arab populations” on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, even after George Stephanopoulos told him that police have said there was no such cheering. “It did happen, I saw it,” Trump said. “It was on television. I saw it,” he continued, adding that while “it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it,” it was “well covered at the time.” More:

  • Trump’s remarks were widely condemned as simply untrue by both parties, NJ.com reports. “Clearly, Trump has memory issues or willfully distorts the truth, either of which should be concerning for the Republican Party,” said Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, a possible Democratic candidate for governor.
  • “I think if it had happened, I would remember it,” said NJ Gov. Chris Christie, per the Times.
  • “It did not happen. He didn’t see it. But who’s there to challenge him on that?” wondered NBC’s Tom Brokaw, calling Trump’s statements “flat-out lies.”
  • The Washington Post gives Trump’s claim four Pinocchios on a scale that does not go up to five, finding that while there were rumors of isolated celebrations in New Jersey, they were not covered on TV and no video or other proof exists. The police commissioner of Paterson, which has the state’s largest Muslim population, says the community was extremely helpful and law-abiding after the attacks. “There were no flags burning, no one was dancing,” he says, using what the Post calls a “barnyard epithet” to describe Trump’s claims.
  • In the ABC interview, Trump also refused to rule out a mandatory database to track US Muslims and promised to bring back waterboarding, the Times reports.
  • On Sunday, Trump tweeted what the Huffington Post calls a “chart of racist and wildly inaccurate crime statistics” that appears to be aimed at “perpetuating racist myths about black people and crime.” The numbers in the chart bear no relation to the FBI’s crime statistics, and the source is listed as the “Crime Statistics Bureau of San Francisco” which does not exist.

(Newser)

The Right wing talkers are doing a fine job of alienated American citizens…..look at over the weekend in Irvine, California armed protesters showed up at a mosque and threatened attending religious services….that is NOT what Americans do to fellow Americans…..this is MORONIC!

You dipshits realize you are doing what the bad guys want?  They want alienated minority that makes for good recruiting…..and YOU are aiding in that effort.

You people are MORONS!  Your kneejerk reactions are playing into the hands of those you are afraid of…..ever thought about thinking your little ideas through before acting?

Wait Just A 2nd (Amendment)!

This post ought to bring in the mental midgets from all corners of the internet……I certainly  hope so………the trolls will have a day with this post but first they will have to put down the Cheetohs and do what their Mommie tells them……….that is if I did not use too big of words for them…….(insert smiley face)………..if these words are a problem then ask a 10 year old……they will understand.

I have been watching the news in Texas…..they have this debate going on about the possibility to openly carry a hand gun in public……it is a debate the we should have but it has gone beyond reasonable to the brutish……it appears that thugs from some guns rights group is pushing its way into legislators offices and basically intimidating them into voting for the bill…..they even conned the Lt. Governor into a meeting so he could avoid a scene…..but what can you expect from a spineless politician?  (This is a quick definition of what is happening if you want more info then Google will do you proud)

My take on this situation…….

If it is illegal to intimidate a witness or juror in a trial, how isd it legal that such intimidation is legal when it comes to law makers?  Okay you do not like that take………Is it legal to intimidate a retailer to get him to do what you want?  Then how is it legal use harsh words and maybe a gun to convince someone to see things your way?  I believe that is called coercion.  And the last time I checked it was against the law as well as the Constitution.

Does the term “Brown Shirts” ring a bell?  In case you missed the PBS special…the Brown Shirts were thugs in 20’s and 30’s Germany that intimidated the population to get what they wanted….does it ring a bell now?

Okay another angle…..let’s say you go to a rally or protests whatever you would like to call it and most everyone there were people of color and almost all of them had weapons in plain sight…..what will be your reaction?….I mean besides running to FOX News that is…….

Hey Haters!  You dildos do realize there is more to the Constitution than the 2nd amendment, right?