LIBERTY: Politicians ignore the realities of economic life

Saturday, February 3, 2018

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattleites-making-a-run-to-the-border-for-coke/

Danny Westneat / Columnist
Seattleites making a run to the border for … Coke?
Originally published January 31, 2018 at 6:00 am Updated January 31, 2018 at 3:32 pm

*** begin quote ***

Ahmed Mohamed’s shop in the farthest reaches of West Seattle is so small you can easily miss it. But he’s nevertheless Ground Zero for Seattle’s latest economic experiment.

Mohamed runs West Seattle Halal Market, a two-aisle store specializing in meats and poultry butchered according to Islamic rules. A few shelves in the middle of the store, though, are given over to a popular side product that now has his neighborhood, White Center, literally divided.

“Here is the precious fluid,” Mohamed laughs, showing me around the store.

He holds up a two-liter plastic bottle of Coke.

He once sold it for $2.79. Now it is $4 — a 43 percent increase, due to the city’s new tax on sugary beveragesthat went into effect Jan. 1.

“The customer — they look at the price and then they don’t even talk to you,” Mohamed said. “They just walk away.”

The reason is that a couple hundred feet away, and around the corner of Southwest Roxbury Street, sits a Bartell Drugs. It’s just 15 feet outside the city limits. And spelled out on its main marquee is one source of Mohamed’s problem: “GET YOUR DRINKS HERE,” it reads. “NO SUGAR TAX.”

*** end quote ***

Virtually 50% increase.

Argh!

How can “We, The Sheeple” be so stupid to allow the politicians to do “social engineering” on the populace?

# – # – # – # – #


LIBERTY: Did this just screw up the whole Mueller effort?

Friday, December 22, 2017

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/legal-analysis-heres-why-muellers-seizure-of-transition-emails-likely-violated-the-law/

LEGAL ANALYSIS: Why Mueller’s Seizure of Transition Emails Likely Violated the Law
by Robert Barnes | 5:38 pm, December 18th, 2017

*** begin quote ***

First, whether the government or company maintains a policy banning personal use.

Second, whether the government or employer monitors the use of the email.

Third, whether third parties have a right of access to the emails beyond technical audits and maintenance.

Fourth, whether the government or employer notifies the individual of the limits on privacy in the emails, whether the individual was aware of those policies, the use of those policies, and the monitoring of those policies. It boils down to whether a person in the individual’s shoes would have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their email communications.

A fifth factor is relevant in the Fourth Amendment context: whether the government gave an individual notice and the individual had knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent to the future search of their emails.

*** end quote ***

Sounds like a lawyer, who should have known better, exceeded his authority.

Does that throw throw the whole result in the rubbish bin?

# – # – # – # – # 

Best analysis of the Fourth Amendment issues in the Mueller email seizure that I’ve read so far.

# – # – # – # – # 


LIBERTY: Is “liberaltarian” just a new name for socialist?

Saturday, November 25, 2017

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/11/david-gordon/the-new-progressives/

The New Progressives By David Gordon Mises.org November 18, 2017

*** begin quote ***

Brink Lindsey self-identifies as a libertarian; and Steven Teles is a modern liberal. They have together devised a new “liberaltarian” outlook. (The word combines elements of “libertarian” and “egalitarian”) It is a new name for an old way of thinking, and students of the Progressives will find little to surprise them.

*** end quote ***

Certainly seems so.

The key principle of little L libertarians is the “non aggression principle”

I first heard the easiest explanation of it by Jason Stapleton when he quoted a book title “Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff”.

I’m not the arbiter of who’s a “libertarian” and who’s not, but it’s hard to see “Brink Lindsey” as a “libertarian”, regardless of how he self-identifies.

Small limited government is the very least degree of liberatianism as I know it.

The welfare / warfare state as we currently have is not by any stretch of the imagination “libertarian”.

And “progressivism” is merely code for socialism, imho

# – # – # – # – #  


LIBERTY: Is it time to reject this faux leftist “liberalism” doctrine?

Thursday, October 26, 2017

2017-Oct-26

Is Liberalism a Dying Faith?
By Patrick J. Buchanan October 21, 2017

*** begin quote ***

On Oct. 7, scores of thousands of Poles lined up along the country’s entire 2,000-mile border — to pray the rosary.

It was the centennial of the Virgin Mary’s last apparition at Fatima in Portugal in 1917, and the day in 1571 the Holy League sank the Muslim fleet at Lepanto to save Europe. G. K. Chesterton’s poem, “Lepanto,” was once required reading in Catholic schools.

Each of these traditionalist-nationalist movements is unique, but all have a common cause. In the hearts of Europe’s indigenous peoples is embedded an ancient fear: loss of the homeland to Islamic invaders.

Europe is rejecting, resisting, recoiling from “diversity,” the multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual future that, say U.S. elites, is America’s preordained mission to bring about for all mankind.

*** end quote ***

Clearly I think it’s been overdue for rejection of this “nation building” “barbara streisand”!

The USA is not the “world’s policeman” and the “piggy bank” for social engineering.

“We, The Sheeple” should be insisting on dumping the UN as a failed institution (e.g., what countries are on the Human Rights committee; how much corruption do we know about; who needs NYC traffic jams).

The USA has become the “dumping ground” for all the criminals and grifters who come here to suck off the system.

I continue to urge that we end: “welfare” for everyone, the “(pseudo) War on (some) Drugs”, and the foreign “wars” that serve NO strategic interest.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 


LIBERTy: Independence Day + local self-government, secession, and strict construction

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

2017-Jul-04

FROM TOM WOODS’ EMAIL

https://www.libertyclassroom.com/

*** begin quote ***

Independence Day is coming up, and I wonder how many people really get why it matters.

In school, we were told this: “No taxation without representation.”

Zzzzzzzz.

The real principles were more like the following.

(1) No legislation without representation.
The colonists insisted that they could be governed only by the colonial legislatures. This is the principle of self-government.

This is why a Supreme Court ordering localities around is anti-American in the truest sense. It operates according to the opposite principle from the one the American colonists stood for.

(2) Contrary to the modern Western view of the state that it must be considered one and indivisible, the colonists believed that a smaller unit may withdraw from a larger one.

(3) The colonists’ view of the (unwritten) British constitution was that Parliament could legislate only in those areas that had traditionally been within the purview of the British government. Customary practice was the test of constitutionality. The Parliament’s view, on the other hand, was in effect that the will and act of Parliament sufficed to make its measures constitutional.

So the colonists insisted on strict construction, if you will, while the British held to more of a “living, breathing” view of the Constitution. Sound familiar?

So let’s recap: local self-government, secession, and strict construction. Not exactly the themes you learned in school.

*** end quote ***


LIBERTY: Rights are not Gifts from Government

Monday, June 19, 2017

https://youtu.be/xcC0FC5o5bQ

Rights are not Gifts from Government
Tenth Amendment Center
Published on Jun 8, 2017

*** begin quote ***

Did you know, your rights don’t come from the Constitution? Or even the Bill of Rights? Today, we’re talking about the source of your rights – and how you defend them.

*** end quote *** 

“We, The Sheeple” need to claim and exercise our rights weather the Gooferment wants us to or not!

# – # – # – # – # 


LIBERTY: “All peoples have the right to self-determination”

Sunday, May 21, 2017

FROM A FACEBOOK DISCUSSION WITH A RELATIVE
(who’s both a hard left Democrat and a Gooferment employee) 

*** begin quote ***

Aside from the fiscal death cliff of that would destroy the state from within, your guy Scalia threw water on this . “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2010.

Other than fringe libertarians there are no legal conversation that supports a states right to secede.

Don’t let states fool you- they depend on the federal government for their existence. All the noise about states being independent of the federal government is a game played by republican governors and legislators.

*** end quote ***

Well, I’m sure if you look at the USSR documents, their collapse wasn’t covered either.

“Right to secede”? Hmmm, interesting concept.

All peoples have the right to self-determination. … All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Jul 19, 2006
UNPO: Self-determination
http://www.unpo.org/article/4957

The UN says I do.

The question becomes that when NH secedes, will the Federal Gooferment roll tanks on us?

Personally, I don’t care if they do or don’t . If they do, then the fraud of a peaceful benevolent Union is unmasked. If they don’t, we’re free of the tyranny of the “District of Corruption”. Either was, liberty wins.

p.s., The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves all the unstated rights to The States or to The People. Since the “Right to Secede” is UNSTATED, then I must have it.

# – # – # – # – # 


%d bloggers like this: