We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Is the "common good" - as if there were one of those - best served by freedom or by government expansion and intrusion?
Both Dems and Repubs are guilty of the latter, but during the Obama years it has reached a fever pitch. The EPA, the Dept of Education, the NSA, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the IRS - etc. Why aren't these expansions of power - oppression really by our moral and intellectual superiors - over the individual, frightening to our political "leaders" of any stripe? Why not frightening to the mainstream press? Government has the power and the guns - and our money.
The federal government is out of control. Where are the Minutemen?
I have very little paranoid tendencies, but I am far more uneasy about what is happening here in the US than about ISIS or Russia or Syria or whatever other crappy shitholes where people can't or do not wish to get civilized. Israel can take care of itself, however it feels best.
One might think the small-government liberal shows up in the realm of personal choice. And it is true that on one very narrow band of issues — sex and abortion — liberals agree government should butt out. Yet this is where the butting-out largely ends.
For while liberals largely support, say, the legalization of marijuana, that is not owing to any broader sense that people own their bodies and should be free to do as they like with them — such as ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or engage in sex for profit, or drink a 64-ounce sugary soft drink, or forgo health insurance.
Rather, the contemporary mainstream liberal view of such things holds that individual choices affect the collective good. And since government’s job is to safeguard the collective good, government should therefore regulate individual choices. If it allows people to smoke marijuana, that is because it has decided a little reefer now and then causes less collective harm than the harm caused by prohibition.
In other words, the mainstream Democratic view asks how much personal freedom smart public policy should permit. It has little room for the notion that some personal freedom should lie beyond the reach of public policy in the first place.
Does that seem too strong? Then consider the campaign to eviscerate the First Amendment. Democratic leaders such as John Kerry, Sen. Patrick Leahy, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and many others — including countless grass-roots activists — want to amend the Constitution to nullify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, so the government can once again dictate what people can and cannot say about politicians in the weeks leading up to an election. Tellingly, the proposals include provisions stipulating that the press would still be allowed to speak freely about political candidates.
This is a tacit concession that everyone else would not. In that event, rights are no longer trumps; they are simply one more consideration to be balanced against all the rest. Which means they are not really rights at all.
In short, the Democratic Party is torn between a liberal establishment that wants more government, and an even more liberal wing that wants the same thing squared. At bottom, both wings believe the formula for perfection is simple: Put the government in charge of everything, and put the right people in charge of the government. Then just sit back and wait for Shangri-La.
Oh, they are there. Its just their ire has not been raised to the level of Geo. 3, and the issuance of the first loveless letter.
Incidentally, I was listening to SiruisXM's Mike Church, and Dr. Kevin Gutzman, talking about the Declaration, and he commented that 19 (20 if you do some wrangling) of the original 27 apply for our governance.
I think you'd see them come out of the woodwork, if they declared Martial Law or suspension of 'Habeas Corpus (Lincoln did it stealthy, I doubt the current gang in power could even spell 'stealthy')
re Obama Urges Calm in Face of Crises in Ukraine and Syria
From the IBD article:
"All told, Holder has shaken down the nation's largest banks for a whopping $128 billion, more than a 10th of a trillion dollars, and counting. Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo are reportedly in talks with Justice to settle additional mortgage cases."
This is an outrage. As I read the article, these are negotiated settlements, not court awarded judgements.
Why are the big banks caving to this legalized theft?
The banks are making gigantic profits off the Fed pumping money. Then, the Administration extorts some of it back to themselves to hand around to friends. The banks aren't screaming and suing because they don't want the money spigot shut off.
This money is being stolen from you, not the banks.
For those of you who LOVE your MICROSOFT, but want to keep your right to bear arms--take a look at this:
Holder fines the banks and turns the money over to the left political activists to do their dirty work. Just as Obama wanted billions to manage the border crisis and gave the money to phony religious groups which were in reality thinly disguised fronts for left wing activists. Another big scandal just like the IRS scandal in the making. I'm sure the media is all over this after missing the IRS high crimes and misdemeanors. So what's next? Hard drive crash? Lost emails? No worries. Thanks to the 1st amendment our media is all over this. They will root out the wrong doing and expose the perpertrators. The Democrats won't get away with it this time...