July 4th links

Is America in a Pre-Revolutionary State this July 4th? (and the need to maintain it)

I understand the sentiment, but this is a different world we live in. Compare and contrast: 1776 in science to 2013 in science. It's the same with the Constitution. It has been reinterpreted, amended, massaged, legislated, Executive Ordered,etc., out of any resemblance to, and intent of, the original document.

The simple truth is this - beyond it's symbolism, we cannot return to the days of 1776 on either a constitutional or social basis - we live in different times. In large measure, this is because of a certain indifference to the purpose of the individual vote.

When the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was closed on September 18, 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin."

We didn't keep it because we now have an entrenched political and bureaucratic class whose only purpose is the protection of their own and the government's prerogative. We have a President who willfully ignores his Constitutional limitations and has essentially become a Monarchy that rotates every so many years. The social instrument of information distribution in was the news papers and the pamphlets independent of the government. Today, the media is largely controlled by the government via the use of access to information and their liberal social views.

We cannot even discuss the act of defiance because of "terrorism" and it's broad definition enforced by a large bureaucracy who has been given too much discretionary power and now treats all citizens as suspects and potential threats to the government - not the citizens, but the government.

Can we get it back? I don't think so.

200-Year-Old Fish Caught Off Alaska

Yep - amazing huh? 200 years old. I was looking at a southern oak that had to be removed from our condo complex common area due to it's condition. 210 years old by the tree rings. It sounds simple, but it's hard to wrap my mind around that for some reason.

NeverWet superhydrophobic spray hits stores this week

And soon after the Sate of California will discover that, after feeding gallons of it to lab mice and rats, it causes cancer and every can will have to have a warning bout it's use.

Abortion Horde to Pro-Life Texas Senator: “I Hope Your Daughter’s Raped”

It amazes me that we expect reasoned debate from what are essentially murderers and practitioners of infanticide.

The Surveillance State Isn't Coming—It's Already Here

Its been here - you just didn't notice until now.

#1 Tom Francis on 2013-07-04 08:57 (Reply)

Capt' n Tom,

Yesterday I was thinking the same thoughts...ie we can't go back in time. That is impossible. But George Santayana's (1863-1952) saying (paraphrased?) "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it/Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" might apply.

I was thinking that the Founding Fathers created a Constitution and tried to apply it's terms to their governance. The current crew are doing their best to govern around those articles. I'm trying to think back to see where that transition (orchestrated by politicians) began to occur. (That'll be a lifelong project).

HAPPY 4th to my good neighbours so' o' the 49th!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKCVS57j284

TC (The Canuck)

#1.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 09:19 (Reply)

Elections alone confer the legitimacy of which you speak. Thus the frantic fight over voter ID.

It would be bell-clear that the side 'for' voter ID is the legitimate USA.

However, the side 'against' voter ID has the 'racism' spiked club always lifted high over the head of common sense.

Courtesy of the Columbia School of Journalism.

"Worse is better"
--V.I. Lenin

#1.2 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 09:38 (Reply)

buddy,

I think Jean-Francois Revel's "Why Democracies Perish" is an excellent read and apropos for the times.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/by_the_book_how_democracies_pe.html

TC

#1.2.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 09:46 (Reply)

TC, that is a GREAT essay --especially the lead sentence, and the last sentence in the interior quote.

In the Queen's English, "We 'ighly recommend!"

:-)

#1.2.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 12:38 (Reply)

buddy,

Thought you'd like it. It certainly separates the "straw from the chicken shite" as the saying goes. It's been over 20 yrs since I read "Why Democracies Perish"...time for a reread.

BTW, "Ol' Glory" flies at the HQ of the 209th Ridge Road Regiment.

Looks kinda nice.

TC

#1.2.1.1.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 12:54 (Reply)

Yeah, the lack of self-awareness is amazing; "Extravagant criticism" juxtaposed with "In the short time Obama and the radical left have been in power, they have worked hard to bleed our spirit and our energy".

#1.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 12:54 (Reply)

Here's your confusion, Zach: he said 'our', he didn't claim Obama & gang were sapping your spirit. Au contraire, Obama has made you and your bunch break out in little assholes and crap for joy.

#1.2.1.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 13:52 (Reply)

hey buddy,

Time for me to throw Z back into the fish bowl and enjoy your 4th and life's good Grace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbufA_WgIvE

TC

#1.2.1.1.2.1.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 13:59 (Reply)

heh --well, it's hard to resist --but you're right, it gets a little sicko after awhile --like kissin' cousins, you want them to stop pretty quick

:-\

#1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 14:12 (Reply)

Buddy, methinks he she needs a coconut with almond.

Yall cracked me up with yall's command of asshole.

Tread on yanks and musli, both.

#1.2.1.1.2.1.2 Leag on 2013-07-05 11:04 (Reply)

Zack...I'm back.

"If it doesn't fit...you must quit." JC.

TC

#1.2.1.1.2.2 Garry on 2013-07-04 18:01 (Reply)

Everything is known to the state of California to cause cancer.

However, when they keep finding the same problem no matter what they look at, we must consider the one common factor, namely California.

There is a sneaking suspicion that it is California that causes cancer. And ironically, that is the one thing that isn't known to California to cause cancer.

#1.3 JKB on 2013-07-04 10:13 (Reply)

The main difference between 1776 and 2013 is that the far flung corners of the country are linked very close today by all sorts of electronic communications that did not exist back in the day. In 1776, the people of South Carolina probably knew very little about what was going on in Maine and could not have cared less. Back then, people were used to thinking in regional terms and the idea that everything had to be the same across the entire COUNTRY was as foreign as Louis XVI. People's loyalty was first to state and religion (I was going to write region there, but religion is probably closer to the truth), and only then came COUNTRY. None of this, "If Maine does this, then so must SC." More than likely, a good southern gentleman would have said, "If that's what the Yankees do, then we'll have no part of it!" The result of that kind of thinking was the grail of modern Liberalism: DIVERSITY. And DIVERSITY = FREEDOM. The more we became linked by communications, the more we began to think of ourselves as all the same or part of the same...and if not the same, then being the same became the goal. Liberalism = Homogenization, which leads to Enslavement even if it takes a bit of force by Big Government to ensure it.

#1.4 Agent Cooper on 2013-07-04 21:44 (Reply)

re FEMA Approves Russian Troops on US Soil?

If this is true, what is the thinking behind it? The obvious outrage is giving foreign troops power over US citizens on our home soil.

One wonders if they would respect our laws, or if they would have the equivalent of diplomatic immunity and be able to do as they damn well please when it came to providing 'security'?

#2 feeblemind on 2013-07-04 09:02 (Reply)

Totalitarian takeover 101 --get your stooge a platform --usually this involves a provisional government, perhaps even 'in exile', unless you can by golly get one that seems 'elected' --then create a civil disturbance (perhaps between competing claims of legitimacy). Have this disturbance become onerous and ugly to all the people (perhaps even have a short circumscribed nuclear war, if it can be controlled). Then have the stooge call in help from a friendly neighbor, or from whatever force is able --after all, it is an emergency, children in the trouble spots are going hungry.

As soon as the help arrives, the stooge secretly calls a halt to the faction he controls, i.e., the faction responsible for the civil disturbance.

Order is restored. Nobody wants to see the disorder return --not even the citizens who savvy exactly what is happening.

This is the Lavrenti Beria dictum --that at some point, you want the people to become aware that the Party is responsible for the misery, so that there is no question as to whom the people must support, if they want food and some social stability.

This is the stage where the true 'total' power has been achieved.

Check and see who is spending money on 'civil defense' and who isn't.

http://www.financialsensearchive.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2007/0824.html

#2.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 10:13 (Reply)

bud,

Thanx for your interesting link. You may enjoy Lance Fairchok's "American Thinker" missive above @ #1.2.1.

TC

#2.1.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 10:21 (Reply)

Copy that --going there now. Here is the Nyquist archive. These are 3 - 5 minute reads, formulaic in that each is built around one or more links to original sources, or to scholarly works, which Nyquist then contexts via various observations from odd but telling angles.

The archive as a body covers the variety of diverse elements of history, culture, psychology, zeitgeist, and so forth. You can scroll the titles alone and in conjunction with the dates (the archive begins just prior to 9/11/01), see for yourself the high degree of prescience that such syncretic methodology can yield.

http://www.financialsense.com/user/164

'spread the word'

#2.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 10:37 (Reply)

snip from the link, which dates from 2007, bolding mine:

QUOTE:

It must be understood, as a practical matter, that Russia and China are underdog powers locked in a struggle for primacy with the United States. The only sensible strategy, if Russia and China expect to emerge on top, is to unite against the Americans. And that is what the two countries have been doing for the past decade.

A week ago today, on August 17, the Russians and Chinese conducted joint military exercises on Russian soil, in the southern Ural Mountains. These coincided with strategic air operations involving Russian nuclear bombers. The combination of ground exercises with nuclear bomber exercises is a characteristic of Soviet nuclear war theory, which holds that troops must be used to follow up nuclear strikes. President Putin and China�s President Hu Jintao watched the exercises while holding a summit in Bishkek (the capital of former Soviet Kyrgyzstan). While China and Russia insist that their preparations aren�t aimed at any specific power, only a simpleton would believe them. (I am sad to acknowledge that many Americans, in this regard, are simpletons.)

#2.1.2 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 10:49 (Reply)

If true? Heh, heh.

Conservatives would want to know the actual facts, rather than just listen to the echo chamber. Here's the echo:
http://www.infowars.com/russian-forces-to-provide-security-at-us-events/

Conservatives would also be somewhat skeptical of misinformation. Here's the press release:
http://en.mchs.ru/news/item/434203/

The echo chamber quote-mines the phrase "provision of security at mass events." Rather, as is obvious from context, the U.S. and Russia are exchanging experts in order to learn and train for disaster response and prevention.

{Total time to find original press release, 2 millidays}

#2.2 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 10:49 (Reply)

to learn and train for disaster response and prevention

"arbeit macht frei"

#2.2.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 11:14 (Reply)

Godwin was a genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

#2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 11:21 (Reply)

I've been meaning to ask you about your frequent invocations of 'echo chamber' and Godwin's Law.

For one thing, doesn't the very nature of an echo chamber mitigate against its continual repetition in lieu of actual arguments against points that are often repeated on the basis of their being true?

And, in any discussion of various aspects of the rise of extreme political systems, wouldn't aspects of the Third Reich often be an example so primary that to avoid it due to fear of Godwin's Law would be to cripple any applicable discussion in exactly the manner stipulated in Godwin's Law?

Hence, doesn't Godwin's Law (Godwin being 'not a troll') actually refer to the attempt to use the Nazi to trivialize or ridule the discussion, in order to halt such discussion?

And since the answer to both questions is obviously 'yes', isn't the invocation of Godwin's Law very apt to 'be' Godwin's Law? IOW, isn't it often the case that the use of Godwin's law is the use of Godwin's Law?

What if you are reading a book about Hitler? Are you in continual violation of Godwin's Law?

Has it occured that both 'echo chamber' and 'Godwin's Law' could be seen as rather shopworn cliches employed by leftists to avoid uncomfortable brushes with certain areas of their philosophy?

#2.2.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 12:04 (Reply)

buddy larsen: What if you are reading a book about Hitler? Are you in continual violation of Godwin's Law?

Nope.

In the case above, though, we pointed to a falsehood being echoed on this blog, and instead of simply admitting it, the writer invoked the Nazis. Classic case.

B: Echoed claim.
Z: Echoed claim is false. Here's why...
B: Hitler.

buddy larsen: Has it occured that both 'echo chamber' and 'Godwin's Law' could be seen as rather shopworn cliches employed by leftists to avoid uncomfortable brushes with certain areas of their philosophy?

It's the prevalence of the phenomenon that validates the principle.

#2.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 12:35 (Reply)

It's the prevalence of the phenomenon that validates the principle

--oh i see. So you can claim 'echo chamber' as often as you wish, yet never be in the echo chamber. Congratulations on your miraculous living transubstantiation.

As far as the other, you misunderstood the quip --it referred to 'euphemism'. You parroted (i hope obliviously) an official phrase dripping with it, and in response i called in one of history's egregious examples of it.

Whereupon you accused on Godwin, and thereby simultaneously convicted yourself of same.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 12:52 (Reply)

buddy,

Luv the way you "troll for trolls"...better'n shooting "ducks in a pond".

Problem is...is this TeamZ...the singular/plural or the plural/singular? Hard to determine which Sybilian 'non-de-troll' he/they are using at any one moment.

TC

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 13:01 (Reply)

buddy larsen: --oh i see. So you can claim 'echo chamber' as often as you wish, yet never be in the echo chamber. Congratulations on your miraculous living transubstantiation.

We didn't say that. Whether something is part of the echo chamber is something that can be verified. This blog itself cited a teriary source, and we can easily show the echoing effect, all based on a misreading of the original news release.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=FEMA+Approves+Russian+Troops+on+US+Soil

The validity of the underlying story we addressed above.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 13:08 (Reply)

okeedokee, but, as with your ''Nope" above, the ''misreading'' term here is an accusation, which without supporting evidence becomes an assertion to interest.

Q) "Permission to treat as hostile witness, your honor?"

A) "Granted, on the basis of the unfounded assertions to interest."

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 14:04 (Reply)

buddy larsen: okeedokee, but, as with your ''Nope" above, the ''misreading'' term here is an accusation, which without supporting evidence becomes an assertion to interest.

As for Godwin's Law, which we cited above, "The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies"

As for misreading, we provided a link to the original news release.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 21:05 (Reply)

To DNI: your apology is not accepted. Unintended consequences are real and tend to visit when least expected. May you have the pleasure of having to always be looking over your shoulder and with great suspicion at every individual around you. This is the world you have built, and it will come 'round to bite you. Cheers

#3 tom doughy on 2013-07-04 09:56 (Reply)

Curious. Who's DNI?

#3.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 10:50 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Scott Ott: It’s the ‘Independence,’ Stupid... The average colonial American, upon hearing of “unalienable rights,” or “just powers” derived from “the consent of the governed” & etc. would have merely nodded along: “Of course, of course, everyone knows this.”

The idea that the people were sovereign was a relatively new concept, and not universally held, not even in the American colonies. Many people believed their duty was to the Crown, that kings ruled by divine right, and that republics were inherently unstable.

Indeed, even the Declaration states in the Prudence Clause that "”Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” In other words, the conservative principle holds first, then the radical impulse only when all other options are exhausted. Hence, the bulk of the Declaration concerns the abuses and attempts by the colonists to address those abuses.

#4 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 10:22 (Reply)

In other words, people freak out when the government screwed up the Great Depression and accept a bunch of unConstitutional new programs. Some of them were appropriately thrown out and some remained (e.g. Social Security) and the people got used to them. Now they happy to be dependent on the government for all manner of subsidies, pay offs and bribes. These programs are made possible by ignoring the Fourth and Fifth Amendment (something else we've become accustomed to). In the end, the "social safety net" is not sustainable (curious phrase given the green-left's love of sustainable everything) and it will be our un-doing just as it is starting to be Europe's un-doing.

It's happening just as Jefferson warned us it could. We surrender our freedoms and alter our government for the long term as a response to transient short term events. The Constitution was designed to prohibit that from happening but because it also sets up self-governance, we decided we could ignore it so we did.

#4.1 mudbug on 2013-07-04 11:14 (Reply)

mudbug: In other words, people freak out when the government screwed up the Great Depression and accept a bunch of unConstitutional new programs.

You don't seem to be addressing the point we raised. Ott claimed that the concept that the people were sovereign was universally accepted in the colonies, which wasn't the case by any means. However, for those that did accept the principle, the Declaration, which was intended for a much wider audience than the Americans, was persuasive.

As to your point, that Social Security isn't constitutional, presumably you would also find the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen of 1798 to be similarly unconstitutional, as well as the Louisiana Purchase, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition for that matter. Have you considered advocating that the Americans give the Mississippi-Missouri river basin back to the French? Of course, they would have to issue a refund of the $15 million purchase price.

#4.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 12:16 (Reply)

(sigh)
I was referring to this part of your post:
Indeed, even the Declaration states in the Prudence Clause that "”Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

With regards to the "Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen", I do disagree with it as it compels an employer to take funds out of the pocket of a sailor, but in every other way, it is not like Social Security because surpluses are at least required to be spent to further the cause of the seamen in general. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that has allowed the government to hide the full magnitude of the deficits and spend money it doesn't have. Surpluses are not earmarked for beneficiaries, in fact, they are an afterthought except during an election campaign where Democrats charge that Republicans are trying to take their benefits away from them (hint - it was Democrats who have taken their benefits away by taxing them).

The other examples you site do not violate the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government cannot buy land or go into debt.

Thank you for being honest enough not to challenge the shredding of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

#4.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-07-04 13:18 (Reply)

mudbug: With regards to the "Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen", I do disagree with it as it compels an employer to take funds out of the pocket of a sailor, but in every other way, it is not like Social Security because surpluses are at least required to be spent to further the cause of the seamen in general.

Social Security funds are required to be spent on benefits and administering the program.

mudbug: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that has allowed the government to hide the full magnitude of the deficits and spend money it doesn't have.

That's because some people (wonder who?) wanted to use the payroll tax surpluses to help fund income tax cuts. Supposedly, this was to "pay for itself" in economic growth. Instead, it fueled the bubble which led to economic disaster. Now the bill is coming due.

mudbug: Surpluses are not earmarked for beneficiaries, in fact,

In fact, they are.

mudbug: The other examples you site do not violate the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government cannot buy land or go into debt.

The Jeffersonians would argue that if the power wasn't specifically delegated to the federal government, then the federal government didn't have the power. However, Jefferson couldn't turn down such a good deal. Fifteen million bucks for Louisiana, along with a free bust of Napoléon. What a deal!

mudbug: Thank you for being honest enough not to challenge the shredding of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Didn't respond because we weren't sure in what sense to which you were referring. If you mean the income tax, that is authorized by amendment.

#4.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-05 08:50 (Reply)

Social Security funds are put into the general fund (thank you Democrats) and that money is spent on anything (thank you both parties). If I die before I collect any benefits, the money I "contributed" does not go to my estate (which harms blacks disproportionately since they tend to lead shorter lives). I believe there was a Supreme Court decision that basically said that the government can change the benefit payout whenever and by how much it wants - which means it could be reduced.

Tax cuts didn't harm the "trust fund". There are supposed to be trillions of dollars in it, right? That money has already been spent and all that's left is an electronic IOU.

The amendment authorizes the government to collect taxes on income. It does not invalidate any other amendment. You are compelled to fill out tax forms which may incriminate you. That violates the Fifth Amendment. When you are audited, that violates the Fourth. It's very simple and clear.

#4.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-07-05 11:52 (Reply)

mudbug: If I die before I collect any benefits, the money I "contributed" does not go to my estate ...

Yes. It's a pay-as-you-go system. The money you put in goes to your older relatives.

mudbug: I believe there was a Supreme Court decision that basically said that the government can change the benefit payout whenever and by how much it wants - which means it could be reduced.

Of course it can. It's a matter of public policy, something for the people and their representatives to decide. Most Americans support Social Security, and all modern democracies have some version of a social safety net.

mudbug: Tax cuts didn't harm the "trust fund".

That's right. It harmed the general fund, which must now make up the difference.

mudbug: You are compelled to fill out tax forms which may incriminate you. That violates the Fifth Amendment. When you are audited, that violates the Fourth. It's very simple and clear.

The Sixteenth Amendment allows the government to collect taxes on income, which means it can require an accounting, just like any tax.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-05 13:49 (Reply)

Z: Yes. It's a pay-as-you-go system. The money you put in goes to your older relatives.
No it doesn't. My children could get survivor benefits till they are eighteen. After that, it goes to someone I don't even know.

Z: Of course it can [reduce SS payouts]. It's a matter of public policy, something for the people and their representatives to decide. Most Americans support Social Security, and all modern democracies have some version of a social safety net
If they can be reduced or even eliminated then it is not mine. If I had bought an annuity from a private company, they would be legally obligated to provide me with the return they contracted to provide. Not so the government. The fact that all modern democracies have some version of a social safety net is immaterial. The fact that their safety nets are bankrupting those countries is.

Z: That's right. It [tax cuts] harmed the general fund, which must now make up the difference.
First, the tax receipts were higher after the tax cuts (as they usually are) so the tax cuts HELPED the general fund and there was nothing to make up. Second, if SS were not part of the general fund - it wouldn't have mattered anyway, but then it couldn't as easily been spent.

Z: The Sixteenth Amendment allows the government to collect taxes on income, which means it can require an accounting, just like any tax.
So you say this accounting allows the government to ignore other parts of Constitution? You can't be serious. Would it be ok with you (any of you) if the government broke into your house unannounced and without a warrant and rifled through your papers to make sure you're paying your taxes accurately? Are you saying we give up our rights of due process because of an income tax? So tell me, is there anything that the government can NOT do to enforce the income tax?

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-07-05 18:08 (Reply)

mudbug: No it doesn't. My children could get survivor benefits till they are eighteen.

It was a general statement. It goes to older people primarily. some to the disabled or survivor benefits.

mudbug: If they can be reduced or even eliminated then it is not mine.

That's right. It's a pay-as-you-go system. If you can convince enough people, then the social security checks going to all those old people, disabled, and orphans, can be stopped.

mudbug: First, the tax receipts were higher after the tax cuts (as they usually are)

U.S. tax receipts:

Year, $trillions
2000, 2310
2001, 2215
2002, 2029
2003, 1901
2004, 1950
2005, 2153

It took until 2006 before tax receipts returned to previous levels, and that was during the biggest economic bubble in modern history, the one that led to financial catastrophe (and lower tax receipts).

mudbug: So you say this accounting allows the government to ignore other parts of Constitution?

Later amendments have priority. In this case, it is implicit that the government has the power to require an accounting for income.

mudbug: Would it be ok with you (any of you) if the government broke into your house unannounced and without a warrant and rifled through your papers to make sure you're paying your taxes accurately?

The question was not whether it was "okay", but whether it was constitutional. In any case, the government can rifle through your papers with a warrant.

mudbug: Are you saying we give up our rights of due process because of an income tax? So tell me, is there anything that the government can NOT do to enforce the income tax?

Like running a red light, they can fine you or arrest you for breaking the tax laws.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-05 22:37 (Reply)

The bubble you refer to was not caused by tax cuts. You can blame the Fed because of their artificially low interest rates for an extended period of time but you are only fooling yourself if you don't give responsibility to the subprime and no-doc loans that were demanded by the Community Reinvestment Act.
Z: The question was not whether it was "okay", but whether it was constitutional. In any case, the government can rifle through your papers with a warrant.
WRONG! They can compel you to present your papers without a warrant (in violation to the Fourth Amendment). They can empty your bank account and garnish your wages without a warrant or even talking to a judge. If you want to suggest otherwise, you have no idea what you're talking about. I and thousands of others have been there. It happens routinely and there is no legal recourse. No judge would take that as a case.

Z: Like running a red light, they can fine you or arrest you for breaking the tax laws.
How do the determine you are breaking income tax laws without violating your Fourth and Fifth Amendments? It's not at all like running a red light. Do you not understand anything??

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-07-06 00:26 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Theo: Pissed off yet?

That's just silly. Even in time of war, often especially in time of war, a head of state will visit other nations to strengthen ties and increase trade. Americans get confused because their head of state is also their head of government.

#5 Zachriel on 2013-07-04 10:27 (Reply)

Z,

That's just silly

U're being 'silly'.

#5.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 18:39 (Reply)

The Russian troops must be for the Obama coronation. I can't think of any other event that it would turn out well otherwise.

On the other hand, such an event will resolve the oath question raised in the pre-revolutionary America story.

I took an oath before I slipped on the country's uniform, to protect and defend, not the government, not the flag, not the nation, but the Constitution of the United States of America. That means I owe my allegiance to said Constitution. If those other things let slip their allegiance to the Constitution, they can become my enemy. I really thinking government here, the flag and nation we'd take back from the government who sullied them and restore them to their rightful place under the Constitution.

This concept of allegiance to the Constitution and the possibility of the government becoming the enemy because of it, really freaks out government workers. Who, being a plurality of Liberal Arts majors, should be well studied in the concept but apparently not.

Of course, the devil is in the details and when does the ebb and flow in constitutional interpretation become abrogation. But all Americans owe their allegiance to the Constitution and even if driven out of our nation, it lives in our hearts to be re-established elsewhere.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going out on the front porch to await the government men, the IRS auditors or the drone strike. Isn't America great, a plethora of ways the government goes after their enemies.

#6 JKB on 2013-07-04 10:32 (Reply)

Well said, JKB1

===

Zach, i'd imagine that would be Director of National Intelligence, Gen. Clapper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTry_MiFA2Q

#6.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 11:05 (Reply)

NeverWet: Read about it 2 weeks ago, got some last week. Haven't tried it yet. Read a commment from a guy who sprayed it on his clothes--said it wore off during a weekend campout.

Russian Troops: If a Republican had done this...but a Repub wouldn't have. And exactly WHAT authority does FEMA have to do this?

EVs unclean/unGreen? Quelle Suprise!

Durbin: Dems just HATE it when us lower classes speak around them! And back to them.

Benghazi Barry putting off intended consequences to after the next election? Unexpectedly!

Tommy (I LOOOOOOOOVE China) Friedman doesn't see how much cleaner our air and water have gotten, and how much warmer the Earth hasn't gotten. Don't fit da Narrative, doncha know.

#7 Sam L. on 2013-07-04 10:45 (Reply)

NeverWet - Oh, thank God, I was concerned we'd never see another wet t-shirt contest. Does it come off faster if you rub it?

You know, way back when I heard Russia had invaded Georgia, my first thought was bad timing, hunting season was just about to open in Alabama and everyone was already armed up. Wrong Georgia but central Europe could use a good Alabama to stand ready for a fight.

#7.1 JKB on 2013-07-04 11:57 (Reply)

That's about the size of it, according to the guy who wrote of his experience.

And, I'm sure wet t-shirt contestants will use all-cotton (or, we'd hope, really fine silk) t-shirts for best effect.

#7.1.1 Sam L. on 2013-07-04 23:23 (Reply)

[quote]Abortion Horde to Pro-Life Texas Senator: “I Hope Your Daughter’s Raped”[quote]

What is wrong with these people. If they can't murder children in the womb they hope they befall misfortune in life.

#8 JKB on 2013-07-04 12:01 (Reply)

--it's called ''collective guilt''. Well-defined as a genocide precursor, at the Nuremburg Trials --which of course would never have been held had the world not spent a furious decade of blood and treasure trying to defeat those who believed in it.

#8.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-04 12:15 (Reply)

I think it's more than "collective guilt." You can watch the pro-abortion crowd chanting "Hail Satan!" here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XENUuwKP8

#8.1.1 Jim on 2013-07-05 00:20 (Reply)

JKB,

What is wrong with these people

I believe they've all had the "Lieberal Lobotomy" in hopes of moving to the front of the "Kool-Aid" line.

TC

#8.2 Garry on 2013-07-04 12:20 (Reply)

vdh writes: What is the common denominator of this rant? Air travel is too cheap.

I agree. I've been saying that for a long time. The airlines need more revenue to give the same service they used to give 2-3 decades ago. Same story for the US Postal Service: if they could set their own rates and charge the same fees as the UPSes, FedExes, et al., they'd be in great shape.

In the meantime, my wife and I take a big trip out of the country each year (this year to Europe). We fly international business class, which helps to eliminate a lot of the hassle. Ignoring the advice of travel guru Rick Steves (whom we actually like a lot), we always overpack. However, we get a bigger baggage allowance, which solves the problem of getting our extra luggage with our wetsuits and other diving and photography gear onto a small 10 seater plane that serves some remote island country in the South Pacific.

Business and First class passengers have their privileges. The way I look at it, if I don't spend the money I have earned from my own labor, the government will find some excuse to take it from me, probably on the grounds that I "didn't build that" or some such nonsense. On this July 4, I consider it my patriotic duty to fly at the front of the plane.

#9 Agent Cooper on 2013-07-04 15:08 (Reply)

AC,

Victor David...love his missives.

TC

#9.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 18:09 (Reply)

For S&G value, a link to the Army's Military Review of March-April 1996, where an article on Peacekeeper 95, a joint exercise with Russian troops at Fort Riley Kansas.

Also to avoid link spam, do a search for Russian-United States Guide for Tactics, Techniques and Procedures and follow the link to ota.dtic.mil. Interesting reading.

Links may not work for those outside the US

An administration official lying to Congress, inconceivable!

#10 walt moffett on 2013-07-04 15:48 (Reply)

I want a politician, any politician, attempt to justify (1) IRS bungling and misuse of its authority, (2) DHS in its entirety, but specifically the TSA and the use of military tactics in practicing the imposition of Marshall Law, (3) FEMA.

I bet they can't.

#11 Tom Francis on 2013-07-04 16:08 (Reply)

Capt 'n Tom,

And 'they' won't.

TC

#11.1 Garry on 2013-07-04 18:07 (Reply)

Martial Law, goddammit --you can't go hang out under Marshall Law at the Long Branch with Miss Kitty & Matt IF they done declared Martial Law and your hoss ain't got a signed transit pass

#11.2 buddy larsen on 2013-07-05 03:16 (Reply)

F'in auto correct.... :>)

#11.2.1 Tom Francis on 2013-07-05 10:39 (Reply)

--heh --yep you'd think it woulda learnt how to spell by now

#11.2.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-05 13:32 (Reply)

But seriously, Tom, see what you make of this --esp with Snowden in mind, and the rumor placed that he may compromised our launch code systems --whatever that means --

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&q=trouble+at+minot+minuteman+base&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

#11.3 buddy larsen on 2013-07-05 04:31 (Reply)

walt moffett --here is the source of the valuable institutional memory that the Russian forces have to teach. How an army based in a city can neutralize the countyryside and keep the supply lines open:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=suppression+of+the+Tambov+rebellion&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox

http://www.bing.com/search?q=nyquist+origins+of+a+killer+state&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror

(scroll to 'atrocities' --these victims were the families of the armed rebel fighters, who were safe in the forests. The army proceeded apace thru villages on their supply lines, creating maximum terror as publicly as possible.

===

Jim, thanks for the Austin vid --they're really pulling off the masks aren't they?

#12 buddy larsen on 2013-07-05 04:21 (Reply)

mudbug: The bubble you refer to was not caused by tax cuts.

No, it wasn't. It was caused by unbridled demand for mortgage-backed securities. Tax cuts merely threw fuel on the fire. When the economy is expanding, you're supposed to save for a rainy day, not spend like maniacs.

mudbug: you are only fooling yourself if you don't give responsibility to the subprime and no-doc loans that were demanded by the Community Reinvestment Act.

Not correct, but even if true, forcing banks to offer subprime loans doesn't mean there will be buyers for subprime securities. Like all bubbles it was due to unbridled demand.

“The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the original source of the crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far lower.” — Alan Greenspan

mudbug: They can compel you to present your papers without a warrant

Yes, they can. Your phrasing suggested they could just take them. That requires a warrant. You are required to provide documentation; no different than other taxes, by the way. You can always take the fifth on your tax return (U.S. vs. Sullivan), but you do have to file.

mudbug: How do the determine you are breaking income tax laws without violating your Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

Regardless, the sixteenth amendment amends any previous constitutional provision. Are you saying the framers of the sixteenth amendment didn't intend for people having to file tax returns?

#13 Zachriel on 2013-07-06 08:58 (Reply)

Z: forcing banks to offer subprime loans doesn't mean there will be buyers for subprime securities
They were forced to write worthless loans and you think they should want to hold those worthless loan?? No! They packaged them with other loans and sold them in bundles. Nobody would buy those loans so they had to get rid of them somehow. There was demand because Fannie and Freddy was backing them.

[b]Z: Yes, they [compel you to present your papers without a warrant] can. Your phrasing suggested they could just take them. That requires a warrant.
What do you call an audit? They don't go to your house, they make you bring your stuff to them. There is no difference. They are not required to get a warrant or even talk to a judge. They don't have to have a reason. The same goes for you bank account or business. They can empty your bank account with no documentation of any sort. As for taking the Fifth on your tax form, Where were you when Al Capone was being tried for tax evasion??? (for that matter where are you now?)

Look, the government instituted an income tax. The government is still required to follow the Constitution when enforcing (if we are keeping the Constitution). That means that the government can not compel me to submit testimony against myself and it means the government can't go through my papers without a warrant. If the income tax can't be enforced given our protections, then we have either given up our protections or the government has a problem. We already know the government has very few problems that can't be solved by force and then the problem becomes ours.

#13.1 mudbug on 2013-07-06 16:36 (Reply)

mudbug: They were forced to write worthless loans and you think they should want to hold those worthless loan??

Hernández-Murillo, Ghent & Owyang, Did Affordable Housing Legislation Contribute to the Subprime Securities Boom?, Federal Reserve 2012: "We find no evidence that lenders increased subprime originations or altered pricing around the discrete eligibility cutoffs for the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) affordable housing goals or the Community Reinvestment Act. Our results indicate that the extensive purchases of risky private-label mortgage-backed securities by the GSEs were not due to affordable housing mandates."

mudbug: There was demand because Fannie and Freddy was backing them.

Subprime securities were innovated on Wall Street. GSEs followed Wall Street. See The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission 2011.

mudbug: What do you call an audit? They don't go to your house, they make you bring your stuff to them.

That's right. You are required to account for your income for the income tax, just as you are required to account for your property for the property tax, or your sales for the sales tax, or transfers or wealth or whatever is subject to taxation. Essentially, you are arguing against any taxation. Is that your position?

mudbug: Look, the government instituted an income tax.

It's a constitutional provision. Are you saying the framers of the sixteenth amendment didn't intend for people having to account for their income?

#14 Zachriel on 2013-07-06 22:05 (Reply)

See The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission 2011

http://www.bing.com/search?q=phil+angelides+FCIC+apollo+alliance&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox

http://www.bing.com/search?q=apollo+alliance+obamacare+soros&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Peter+Wallison+Dissent&FORM=QSRE5

#14.1 buddy larsen on 2013-07-07 01:50 (Reply)

Z: "We find no evidence that lenders increased subprime originations or altered pricing around the discrete eligibility cutoffs for the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) affordable housing goals or the Community Reinvestment Act. Our results indicate that the extensive purchases of risky private-label mortgage-backed securities by the GSEs were not due to affordable housing mandates."
Where did all those sub prime mortgages come from? Why were there all those advertisements that you didn't need to show any documentation to get a loan? Do Hernandez and Murillo claim that the number of sub-prime and Alt-A mortgages was no greater prior to Clinton's amending the CRA? You're joking right? By the way, did Hernandez and Murillo claim that tax cuts caused the housing bubble?

Z: Subprime securities were innovated on Wall Street.
And why do you think they were created? There were lots of those "toxic loans" that had to be sold.

Z: Essentially, you are arguing against any taxation. Is that your position?
Don't be stupid! You are apparently fine with whatever tax the government imposes and enforces whatever way it wants to enforce it. In the US, the government is supposed to live by laws (the Constitution) and it is supposed to preserve our rights, not trample on them. I guess those are just quaint, archaic ideas of a bunch of dead white guys from a couple of hundred years ago. Is this your idea of progress - give the government carte-blanche to extract money from you by any means it sees fit?

Z: Are you saying the framers of the sixteenth amendment didn't intend for people having to account for their income?
I don't know or car how the framers of the sixteenth amendment expected people to account for their income. I only care that the law is enforced within the bounds of the Constitution. I do know it was never meant to reach the common man and it was never expected to be more than a few percent from the wealthiest (just like the AMT) - but that didn't last long.

#15 mudbug on 2013-07-06 23:36 (Reply)

mudbug: Where did all those sub prime mortgages come from?

From brokers, most of whom were not working at CRA entities, but who were being paid large sums of money to originate subprime mortgages. There was a run on mortgages because there was a run on mortgage-backed securities.

mudbug: And why do you think they were created?

To make money, the same reason the brokers originated them.

mudbug: You are apparently fine with whatever tax the government imposes and enforces whatever way it wants to enforce it.

We didn't say that either. The question was the constitutionality of the income tax.

mudbug: I don't know or car how the framers of the sixteenth amendment expected people to account for their income.

Of course it matters. Personal property taxes require self-reporting of personal property. Sales taxes require accounting of collections by businesses. All taxes require an accounting.

mudbug: I only care that the law is enforced within the bounds of the Constitution.

The sixteenth amendment modified the constitution.

#15.1 Zachriel on 2013-07-07 10:16 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, July 4. 2013

July 4th links