My Mobile Blog

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Socialism: Belgium Psych Wards Are Now Euthanizing Mentally Ill Patients…

Socialism: Belgium Psych Wards Are Now Euthanizing Mentally Ill Patients…



Socialism: Belgium Psych Wards Are Now Euthanizing Mentally Ill Patients…

Nichole Cooper  Wednesday September 13 2017

Belgium Euthanizes Psych Patients

You
might have a crazy aunt Susie. She makes trouble at Thanksgiving, gives
you a paltry $5 at Christmas, and still pinches your cheek. Stingy or
not, Aunt Susie fights a brave battle against mental illness. Now
socialized healthcare might euthanize her (see OPINION: Charlie Gard: 0, Death Panels: 1 and Counting and Dutch Doctor Forcibly ‘Euthanized’ Elderly Patient. But it Gets Worse…). Courtesy of Bernie Sanders. #Caring

Here’s the scoop: psychiatric patients with persistent mental health conditions are currently being euthanized in Belgium.

The Belgian branch of the Brothers of Charity, also called the Brothers of Love, issued a statement Tuesday
that they will continue offering euthanasia in each of their 15
psychiatric hospitals, despite receiving orders from the Vatican to
reverse their euthanasia policy by the end of August, according to Crux Now.

The
Belgian branch’s current policy allows for doctors to euthanize
non-terminal mentally ill patients upon request, so long as the doctor
determines that the patient’s suffering is “unbearable” and that there
is no reasonable chance of improvement with treatment. Belgian law has
no definition of unbearable suffering, however, which opens the door for
mentally ill patients with a chance of improvement being euthanized
instead, according to Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Chair of Politics at England’s Hull University.

Regardless
of potential loopholes in Belgian law, the Catechism of the Catholic
Church remains clearly, opposed to euthanasia as evidenced in paragraph
2277, which states:

“Whatever its motives and means, direct
euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick,
or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.”
Translation? Socialized healthcare is a slippery slope of death for sick babies
and sick minds. If Bernie gets his way, Aunt Susie’s struggle with
mental illness could all come to an abrupt end with one bad day and a
few willing doctors.



This
is socialist compassion. It looks like death. The irony here is that
leftists accuse anyone right of Bernie Sanders of being Nazis. Yet
they’re the ones currently “purifying” the human race by eliminating Down syndrome through abortion and mental illness via euthanasia.

It all sounds rather Hitlery.
Posted by pgrove at 12:50 PM

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Your Beliefs Are No Longer Allowed

Articles: Your Beliefs Are No Longer Allowed



Your Beliefs Are No Longer Allowed

By Taylor Lewis
American
progressives have fnally gone all the way to a totalitarian vision,
demanding control over not just your behavior, but your thoughts and
beliefs. This as the price of simply living without being attacked. 




And hats off to Erick Erickson for naming it first. The former RedState honcho and Never-Trumper called it right, and no, I’m not talking about his near-demonic hatred of President Trump.



Last year, Erickson released a book with a title he popularized: You Will Be Made to Care: The War on Faith, Family, and Your Freedom to Believe.
The book is a summation of an argument Erickson has long made. As the
sexual left makes progress on its biggest projects -- same-sex marriage,
transgenderism acceptance, pronoun wordplay -- they are increasingly
unwilling to brook resistance.




Do
you believe in traditional marriage but don’t care that gays marry?
Think it’s OK teenagers take hormonal injections to swap genders but
it’s not right for your kids? Don’t really give a hoot about someone who
identifies as “xe”?




Well, too bad, sucker. The new dispensation
doesn’t care for your waffling. Going forward, your private beliefs
must align with your public stance. No exceptions made or allowed.




In short: You will be made to care



Erickson’s warning was just vindicated in a tweetstorm by Zack Ford, the flamboyant correspondent for the liberal blog ThinkProgress.



Ford, who is prone to pique-filled tantrums, is the site’s LGBTQ editor. His beat
consists of sniffing out any hint of pro-heterosexual bias and
lambasting it as bigoted, backwards, and tyrannical. He’s a proud
atheist who doesn’t hesitate to cite science when it’s convenient. But, nota bene, he believes men menstruate and become pregnant.




In response to an essay by Bethany Mandel in The Federalist, Ford had a bigger meltdown than Sex in the City fans
when Mr. Big dumped Carrie at the altar. In her piece, Mandel admitted
to once being a supporter of gay marriage, but the liberals’
Torquemada-inspired campaign for transgenderism inclusion among children
has changed her mind. Feeling hoodwinked, Mandel pointedly wrote, “The
Left has shown the totalitarian manner in which it exacts support, or at
least silence, from everyday Americans.”




Ford
wasn’t having any of it, no siree. Even though Mandel was an “ally”
during the fight for same-sex marriage, her opinion that grates upon the
“Approved Position” on transgenderism is hereby invalid. “What [Mandel]
argues that [sic] she should be ALLOWED to believe what she believes,
even though those odious beliefs harm others,” Ford tweeted. “Indeed,” our hysterical scribe continued, “she is a quintessential example of claiming free speech to justify her bigotry.”




Then came the kicker:
“You'll be ‘made to care,’ because intolerance harms people and is
unjustified and the rest of us want the world to be a better place.”




Ford
tweeted this outburst without a hint of self-awareness or irony. Yes,
Mandel also cited the famed Erickson phrase in her criticism. But that a
prominent liberal writer actually evoked it, giving full approval to
its thought police connotations, is quite stunning.




Lenin, eat your heart out.



It
just goes to show that well-meaning conservatives who were willing to
concede the culture war in the hopes the Left would cease marching
forward were hopelessly wrong. Waving the white flag
was never going to be a suitable compromise. Liberals aren’t satisfied
with open-ended sexual rights; they want the complete eradication of
bourgeois convention.




How did we get to the point where 8-year-old cross-dressers are celebrated as norms-smashing pioneers and not odd (and mentally ill) quirks?



Like his campus-tied intellectual colleagues, Ford is guilty of what Jonathan Haidt calls “concept creep.” In a recent interview with spiked, Haidt described how the psychological term has become the Excalibur
of social justice warriors: “When a word like ‘violence’ is allowed to
creep so that it includes a lot of things that are not violence, then
this causes a cascade of bad effects.”




For decades,
university intellectuals have stretched the terms “oppression” and
“violence” like rubber bands, trying to fit them over more gentle
concepts like “disagreement” and “dialogue.” The slow creep eventually
worked; hundreds of thousands of students graduate college every year
believing words truly constitute aggression.




Ford
completely buys into the notion that a person’s private belief
represents “harm” to others. Worse, in strict Manichean terms, he
positions himself as someone who wants “the world to be a better place,”
and Mandel, accordingly, as someone who pushes death and destruction.




The
terms of war can’t be any clearer. For traditionalists, being left
alone to think, worship, gather, and evangelize in private is not an
option. The logic of the Left doesn’t allow for empty spaces. If there
is one corner of the brain that still holds fast to outlandish beliefs
like marriage was made for man and woman, your chromosomes determine
your gender, race is a biological reality, or countries have the right
to determine and enforce their borders, then it must be reprogrammed or
wiped out.




Just ask Tim Farron,
the former leader of the Liberal Democrats party in Britain. A
long-time supporter of same-sex marriage, once it was discovered he was a
closeted Christian, the press wouldn’t relent. Journalists were dying
to know if Farron thought gay sex -- sodomy, in Dantean terms
-- was a sin. Farron begged for his own private conscience, but it was
to no avail. He was forced to resign from his position last month,
saying it was impossible to be a faithful Christian and a politician of
prominence.




And
so another trophy for undaunted Left. In the liberal view, a society
isn’t free until the last breadcrumbs of bigotry are swept away. A
sincere leftist accepts no moderation.




When they’re as candid as Zack Ford, at least faithful conservatives know where we stand: blindfolded, on the firing line.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/your_beliefs_are_no_longer_allowed.html#ixzz4sZzYM7vP

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Posted by pgrove at 10:06 AM

Why the Democrats Oppose Economic Freedom

Articles: Why the Democrats Oppose Economic Freedom



Why the Democrats Oppose Economic Freedom

By E. Jeffrey Ludwig
 
The
seeds of the modern bureaucratic or administrative state go back to the
Progressive Era of American history in the early 20th century. But
progressive regulation morphed into the hyper-control of our present
federal government during the New Deal. Modern students, whose history
education has been directed by teachers who “accept” the reality of a
federal leviathan, are often unaware of the fact that before 1916 there
was no income tax in the United States, and that federal revenues were
primarily through import duties. The income tax was justified by the
need to support the ever-expanding regulatory environment being promoted
by Democrats, with a small amount of crossover by Republicans.




Woodrow
Wilson and the Democrats were far more drawn to the big government idea
and ideal than their Republican confreres. Under Wilson, the Sherman
Antitrust Act of 1890 was replaced with the more powerful antitrust
tool, the Clayton Antitrust Act. The Federal Reserve came into being under Wilson.
Further, the 16th Amendment allowing a federal income tax was enacted
in 1916, although the move to establish that institution had begun
before Wilson took office, having been passed by Congress in 1909. More
importantly, under Wilson, the U.S. became involved in World War I, and
in the prosecution of that war, various federal governmental controls
over industry were enacted in order to promote the war effort, not the
least of which was the War Industries Board under Bernard Baruch.




So
the progressive emphasis was to curb the greed and concomitant excesses
of the business community that were manifesting in an America which, in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, moved from being a prosperous
agriculture-based society to being an industrialized manufacturing and
mining mega-power on the world stage. Competition was to be promoted.
The Federal Reserve was created as a backup and institution of last
resort when cyclical banking downturns took place, and, as we became
more involved in international markets, military buildup became
necessary as we needed to protect far-flung property and trading
interests throughout the world.




By
the time of the New Deal, the regulatory ideal of progressivism began
to give way to government planning which involved federal control or
even ownership of business, and federal engagement with previously
private markets on an unprecedented scale. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s
administration set up the “alphabet agencies” which performed functions
that were controlling or active in unprecedented ways. The Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) actually produced electricity and functioned
alongside private electric companies. The premise was that the TVA
(clearly a socialist venture) was delivering electric power to many
citizens who were not getting it because they were living in a market
that was not profitable for private companies to establish generating
plants. So, according to TVA justifiers, the federal government was
supplementing the private sector, i.e., meeting a need that the private
sector was not meeting, but not going into competition with the private
sector in those markets it was already serving.




The federal government also became an employer of vast numbers of people through its public works projects,
undertaken by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Public Works
Administration (PWA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), National
Youth Administration (NYA), and many others too numerous to list. And
the feds became lenders of choice to many, especially in the
agricultural sector. With vast government apparatchiks in the
regulatory agencies and these vast employment programs, the federal
government was no longer locked into the progressive ideal of protecting
workers, but increasingly became the employer of vast numbers of
people, thus going into competition with the private sector as the
employer of record. However, unlike the private sector, the employees
were not supported by markets, but by the taxpayers, government
borrowing (increase of the national debt), and printing of money.
Productivity was not the centerpiece for paying those federal bills.




The
Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was passed as an effort to keep farm
income up by controlling production. By limiting production, the prices
of farm products from hogs to corn could remain elevated. Thus, under
AAA, the feds authorized themselves to pay farmers for destroying crops
or otherwise limiting crop production, even killing 6.4 million pigs. This clearly went beyond regulating market practices to maintain competition as in the progressive era, but intervened to control markets at both the production and price ends of enterprise.




However,
the centerpiece of New Deal legislation was the National Industrial
Recovery Act (NIRA) which set up the National Recovery Administration.
This signal piece of legislation called for price and wage fixing by
various industries working hand-in-glove with the federal agency
administering the program. Companies participating in these associations
were authorized to imprint their products with a Blue Eagle indicating
their “cooperation.” Here we see the most important shift away from the
earlier progressivism. Under progressivism, competition was being
promoted – by the Republicans under the Sherman Antitrust Act and by the
Democrats under the updated and more powerful Clayton Antitrust Act.




Under
the NIRA, what might otherwise be called a “trust,” “cartel,”
“monopoly,” or “oligopoly” by the pro-competition progressives were, so
to speak, under federal blessing. Price and wage fixing would be
considered okay as long as they were aligned with federal economic goals
and policies. Thus, the shift in orientation from regulation under
progressivism to governmental control under the supervision of a brain
trust of demand side, Keynesian economists. Wilson had believed in the
importance of experts in our new scientific marketplace, but Roosevelt
stepped up our dependence on so-called experts to a degree Wilson could
not have imagined, and the New Deal was implemented.




Both
the AAA and the NRA were declared unconstitutional. However, the AAA
was rewritten with adjustments to meet the Supreme Court’s objections,
and a new AAA was passed and upheld. In the famous case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. the United States
(1935), the NIRA was deemed to be unconstitutional. The Blue Eagle
disappeared from products, and wage and price controls under so-called
“voluntary agreement” were disbanded.




But
the socialist and communist left had tasted blood. The NIRA whetted the
appetite of the “reds” who admired Vladimir Lenin’s and Josef Stalin’s
iron man appropriations of the means of production in the USSR for the
supposed collective good. In fact, FDR’s rapport with Stalin
during WWII is a well-established fact, and that “rapport” should not
be surprising in light of the radical expansion of government control
during the New Deal. The new expert class of left-wing professors and
advocates operating during the Roosevelt years saw that the battle cry “workers of the world, unite”
was needed more than ever before as the capitalist colossus marched
onwards. Those leftists dominate the Democrat Party to this very day,
and their hatred for free markets is poisoning our society.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/why_the_democrats_oppose_economic_freedom.html#ixzz4sZywu6St

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Posted by pgrove at 10:04 AM

Clinton Kill Count Climbs

Clinton Kill Count Climbs 



Clinton Kill Count Climbs

September 11, 2017

Joseph
Rago, a seemingly healthy Pulitzer Prize winning journalist
investigating Hillary Clinton, was found dead at 34 in his apartment
Sunday morning.



Ricky Vaughn announced
the writer’s death through twitter at 10:30 AM, and although mainstream
media outlets have made cursory acknowledgements of Rago’s passing the
most obvious and alarming point escapes even a mention.


Joseph Rago, who by all accounts appears to have dropped dead
spontaneously if the MSM is anything to go by, was investigating Hillary
Clinton.


Neither The Inquirer nor The Wall Street Journal
mention this, though both are very quick to make vague assurances that
we shouldn’t assume it’s (another) assassination. This is particularly
notable since The Wall Street Journal was where Rago worked.


Rob Tornoe of The Inquirer writes:


“A New York Police Department spokeswoman told the New York Times
that foul play is not suspected in the 34-year-old’s death. “The cause
and manner of death are pending further studies following today’s
examination,” a spokeswoman for the city’s medical examiner’s office
said.”
Meanwhile, Jennifer Levitz of The Wall Street Journal reports:


“Mr. Rago was found with no obvious signs of trauma and
emergency responders declared him dead at the scene, the police said.
The cause of death was being determined by the medical examiner on
Friday.”
So they don’t know why Rago died, no idea at all, but it definitely
wasn’t anything sinister. Of course not. Why would it be sinister? It’s
not like there’s a precedent for this sort of thing. Young, talented,
politically difficult young men die for no reason all the time. Just
look at Seth Rich!


But my, how convenient for Hillary Clinton.
Posted by pgrove at 10:00 AM

Air Force General Reveals How Long it Would Take to Knock North Korea Off the Map

Air Force General Reveals How Long it Would Take to Knock North Korea Off the Map




Air Force General Reveals How Long it Would Take to Knock North Korea Off the Map

September 12, 2017
BAISH, FEATURED






Kirsters Baish| It seems like North Korea doesn’t fully understand
how stupid they would be to mess with the United States. To launch an
attack on America would be a death wish. There are so many decisions
that come into place. President Trump has made it clear over and over
again that he isn’t scared to take any action that is needed in order to
protect our great nation and the people that live here.


Someone besides President Trump has found his way into this matter,
and he has something big to say. United States Air Force Lieutenant
General Tom McInerney explained to Fox News that “if the North
Korean regime decided to launch a nuclear attack on the US or South
Korea, the despotic regime would only have about 15 minutes to enjoy it
because then the country would no longer exist.”



It’s as simple as that. North Korea would be wiped off the map in an
instant if they were to follow through on their threats to launch a
missile at the United States of America. We are all ready for it at this
point and would not be caught off guard if it were to happen. And I can
guarantee you we would act fast.


Tom McIerney knows what he’s talking about when it comes to these
kinds of things. This man has been right in the middle of battles during
his lifetime and has obtained tons of military knowledge. McInerney was
prompted to make the announcement regarding North Korea upon news of
the North Korean regime announced that they had nuclear capable missiles
ready to be fired… and they were willing.


World Politicus wrote:


Kim
Jong Un is currently testing the administration and their readiness to
defend themselves. He knows that an attack would be silly. That is why
he is trying to get President Trump to throw the first punch. That would
cause even bigger problems.



But
that is not going to happen. Trump knows better than to cause an uproar
like this. He has enough problems as it is. McInerney was trying to
send out a threat when he said this. That is exactly what is going on
here. If the North Koreans want to play the threat game, then the United
States can to. Only we can back them up with power.



There
is a war looming on the horizon and people are getting ready. The Obama
administration failed to do anything about the North Koreans and we are
seeing the consequences. They now feel completely invincible.



President Trump will do anything and everything he has to do in order
to protect the United States and its citizens. If need be, North Korea
will be taken care of, but only if Kim Jong Un decides to fire the first
shot. We are armed and ready, and North Korea should know that by now.
If they didn’t before, they do now.
Posted by pgrove at 9:04 AM

The Real Story Behind America's New $20 Trillion Debt | Zero Hedge

The Real Story Behind America's New $20 Trillion Debt 



The Real Story Behind America's New $20 Trillion Debt







Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
Sep 12, 2017 3:50 PM

Late yesterday afternoon the federal government of the United States announced that the national debt had finally breached the inevitable $20 trillion mark.





This was a long time coming. It
should have happened back in March, except that a new debt ceiling was
put in place, freezing the national debt.



For the last six months it was essentially illegal for the government to increase the debt.


This is pretty brutal for Uncle Sam. The US government hasn’t run a budget surplus in two decades; they depend on debt in order to keep everything running.


And without the ability to ‘officially’ borrow money, they’ve
basically spent the last six months ‘unofficially’ borrowing money by
plundering federal pension funds and resorting to what the Treasury
Department itself calls “extraordinary measures” to keep the government running.


Late last week the debt ceiling crisis came to a temporary armistice
as the government agreed once again to temporarily suspend the debt
limit.


Overnight, the national debt soared hundreds of billions of dollars
as months of ‘unofficial’ borrowing made its way on to the official
books.


The national debt is now $20.1 trillion. That’s larger than the size of the entire US economy.


You’d think this would be front page news with warnings being shouted from the rooftops of America.


Yet curiously the story has scarcely been covered.


Today’s front page of the New York Times tells us about Hurricane Irma, North Korea, and alcoholism in Iran.


Even the Wall Street Journal’s front page has zero mention of this story.


In fairness, the number itself is irrelevant. $20 trillion is merely a
big, round, psychologically significant number… but in reality no more
important than $19.999 trillion.


The real story isn’t the number or the size of the debt itself. It’s the trend. And it’s not good.





Year after year after year, the US government spends far more money than it collects in tax revenue.


According to the Treasury Department’s own figures,
the government’s budget deficit for the first 10 months of this fiscal
year (i.e. October 2016 through July 2017) was $566 billion.


That’s larger than the entire GDP of Argentina.


Since the government has to borrow the difference, all of this overspending ultimately translates into a higher national debt.


Make no mistake, debt is an absolute killer.


History is full of examples of once-dominant
civilizations crumbling under the weight of their rapidly-expanding
debt, from the Ottoman Empire to the French monarchy in the 1700s.



Or as former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers used to quip, “How
long can the world’s biggest borrower remain the world’s biggest power?”


It’s hard to project strength around the world when you constantly
have to borrow money from the Chinese… or have your central bank conjure
paper money out of thin air.


And yet tackling the debt has become nearly an impossibility.


Just look at the top four line items in the US government’s budget: Social Security, Medicare, Military, and, sadly, interest on the debt.


Those four line items alone account for nearly NINETY PERCENT of all US government spending.


Cutting Social Security or Medicare entitlements is political suicide.


Not top mention, both of those programs are actually EXPANDING as
10,000 Baby Boomers join the ranks of Social Security recipients every
single day.


Then there’s military spending, which hardly seems likely to fall significantly in an age of constant threats and warfare.


The current White House proposal, in fact, is a 10% increase in military spending for the next fiscal year.


And last there’s interest on the debt, which absolutely
cannot be cut without risking the most severe global financial meltdown
ever seen in modern history.



So that’s basically 90% of the federal budget that’s here to stay…
meaning there’s almost no chance they’re going to be able to reduce the
debt by cutting spending.


But perhaps it’s possible they can slash the national debt by growing tax revenue?


Possible. But unlikely.


Since the end of World War II, the US governments’ overall tax revenue has been VERY steady at roughly 17% of GDP.


You could think of this as the federal government’s ‘slice’ of the economic pie.


Tax rates go up and down. Presidents come and go. But
the government’s slice of the pie almost always remains the same 17% of
GDP, with very small variations.



With data this strong, it seems rather obvious that the solution is to allow the economy to grow unrestrained.


If the economy grows rapidly, tax revenue will increase. And the
national debt, at least as a percentage of GDP, will start to fall.


Here’s the problem: the national debt is growing MUCH faster than the US economy. In Fiscal Year 2016, for example, the debt grew by 7.84%.


Yet even when including the ‘benefits’ of inflation, the US economy only grew by 2.4% over the same period.


In other words, the debt is growing over THREE TIMES FASTER than the
economy. This is the opposite of what needs to be happening.


What’s even more disturbing is that this pedestrian economic growth is happening at a time of record low interest rates.


Economists tell us that low interest rates are supposed to jumpstart GDP growth. But that’s not happening.


If GDP growth is this low now, what will happen if they continue to raise rates?


(And by the way, raising interest rates also has the side effect
of increasing the government’s interest expense, essentially
accelerating the debt problem.)



Look– It’s great to be optimistic and hope for the best. But this
problem isn’t going away, and it would be ludicrous to continue
believing this massive debt is consequence-free.


There’s no reason to panic or be alarmist.


But it’s clearly time for rational people to consider this obvious data… and start thinking about a Plan B.
Posted by pgrove at 7:34 AM

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

1913: The Turning Point

1913: The Turning Point



1913: The Turning Point

By Robert Curry

In
1913, Woodrow Wilson was the newly elected president.  Wilson and his
fellow progressives scorned the Constitution and the Declaration.  They
moved swiftly to replace the Founders' republic with a new regime.




There
is widespread agreement that Wilson did not always show good judgment –
for example, in his blunders in international relations – but in the
project of overturning the Founding, he and the movement he led selected
their targets shrewdly.  By the time he left office, the American
republic was, as they say, history.  The fundamentals of the new regime
were in place, and the expansion of government under FDR, LBJ, and Obama
was made easy, perhaps even inevitable.




Nineteen-thirteen
gave us the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.  That year
also saw the creation of the Federal Reserve.  This burst of changes
marks the effective beginning of the Progressive Era in American
politics, the era in which we now live.  Wilson was to do much more that
would once have been considered out of bounds, but these three changes
were enough to change everything.  In 1913, the fundamental agreement
the Founders made with the American people about the relation of the
states and the federal government was broken. 




Here is the Founders' original bargain, stated by James Madison in Federalist 45:



The
powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government
are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State
governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised
principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign
commerce[.] ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend
to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the
lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order,
improvement, and prosperity of the State.



It
is important to remember that when we speak of the ratification of the
Constitution, this is what was ratified.  But this is not the government
we now have.  Today's central government is not the federal government
of the original Constitution.  For example, thanks to Obamacare, the
central government can penalize you if you do not purchase a health
insurance policy approved by the central government.  Also, bizarrely,
Obamacare federalized loans for college students – by actually putting
the central government in the student loan business!  These are not
"external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."




Clearly,
the bargain, honorably entered into by the Founders' generation, was
broken.  It was broken by the 17th Amendment, which instituted the
direct election of U.S. senators.  That amendment struck directly at the
heart of the Founders' design.  According to the original Constitution,
senators were chosen by the state legislators.  Unlike the members of
the House, who represent the people of their district, the senators had a special responsibility to represent their states
in the deliberations having to do with the those "few and defined"
powers the Constitution transferred from the states to the federal
government.  That is why the states with small populations and the
states with larger populations got the same number of senators and the
same number of votes in the Senate.  It is also why the Constitution
gives the Senate power over treaties and over the appointment of the
senior officials of the executive, those whose responsibilities include
"war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."  The 17th Amendment
eliminated the fundamental electoral guarantee of the Founders' vision
of a federal government with limited powers.




The
system we have today bypasses the state legislatures.  The consequences
have been many and profound.  Probably the most obvious has been the
inevitable erosion of the independence of the states and of their
ability to counterbalance federal power.  The Senate was a barrier to
the passage of federal laws infringing on the powers reserved to state
governments, but senators abandoned that responsibility under the
incentives of the new system of election.  Because the states no longer
have a powerful standing body representing their interests within the
central government, the power of the central government has rapidly
grown at the expense of the states.  The states increasingly are
relegated to functioning as administrative units of today's gargantuan
central government.  The Tenth Amendment has become in our time a dead
letter:




The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.



Instead
of retaining many of their powers and responsibilities, and
surrendering only a limited number of their powers to the federal
government, as the Framers intended, the states are today greatly
diminished politically.  They are increasingly entangled in
administering programs and carrying out mandates of the central
government.  These mandates are often not even funded by the central
government; the costs of unfunded mandates falls on the states. The many
new departments that have accumulated in Washington during the
Progressive Era, such as HUD (Housing and Urban Development) and HHS
(Health and Human Services), involve themselves in, and even direct,
functions that, according to the Constitution as drafted by the
Founders, are outside the scope of the federal government. 




The
result – a central government that can fine a farmer millions of
dollars for plowing on his own land across a  "vernal pool" (standing
water in the springtime) without its permission – is obvious to us all,
although this new regime's origin in the 17th Amendment generally goes
unnoticed.




Then
there is the 16th Amendment.  It introduced the progressive income tax,
one of the most prominent jewels in the progressive crown.  Changing
the federal government's revenue base from tariffs, which are largely
self-limiting, removed a fundamental limit to the growth of federal
power.  In 1910, the government's revenue looked much like how it did in
the time of George Washington: about 3 percent of GDP, earned primarily
through tariffs.  The 16th Amendment overthrew the limited government
of the Founders by opening the door to the unlimited revenue needed to
finance the central government's unending expansion into every area of
American life.




It
also corrupted the federal government.  The federal government once had
a reputation for being fairly free of corruption.  In part, this was
simply because it was limited government.  The bigger it got and the
more areas of life and the economy it entered into, the greater were the
opportunities for corruption.  Today, the fantastic corruption of the
Clintons is only the tip of the iceberg.  Their brazenness tells you
what you already know: Washington is corrupt on a scale undreamed of by
the Founders. 




As
it happens, this is precisely the point where the 16th and the 17th
Amendments shake hands.  You can understand this better if you ask
yourself why the federal tax code in 2016 swelled to 75,000 pages. 
Those pages are filled with favors and special deals.  As a result of
the 17th Amendment, senators must chase after individual voters just as
their colleagues in the House have always done – but in all but the few
least populated states, they have to chase millions more voters.  That
costs money.  Instead of watching out for their states' interests, as
was originally intended, senators now must keep their focus on raising
truly fabulous sums to run for office under the new system.  This is
where lobbyists come into the picture.  They have clients with money who
need favors and special deals, and senators need money, and lots of it.




Also
in the banner year of 1913, Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve
Act, creating a central bank.  The progressives proposed the central
bank as a government solution to bank panics.  A bank panic occurs when
too many depositors want their money at the same time.  Banks had always
managed bank panics among themselves, sometimes heroically, not always
perfectly.  The central bank was going to change this by providing a
government solution.  The Fed failed at the first crisis, and failed
spectacularly.  What it did then and what it did not do in that crisis
seem inexplicable.  You or I could have done a better job.  In any case,
bungling by the Federal Reserve helped to turn an economic downturn
into the Great Depression. 




The
Federal Reserve Act did accomplish something: it opened the door to the
complete socialization of America's currency.  Instead of providing
liquidity to sound banks during a panic as the legislation provided for,
the Fed has taken control of the currency, an enormous, essentially
unchecked, and unconstitutional power over your wealth.  And although it
failed spectacularly at the job it was supposed to do, the Federal
Reserve did succeed in debauching the American dollar.  The value of the
dollar has collapsed; one 1910 dollar would be worth $24.89 in 2017.
 According to my calculations, that means your dollar today is worth
about 4 cents compared to the days when people used to say "sound as the
dollar." 




The
Fed has been using excess money creation as a hidden way of collecting
taxes for the central government.  The total amount of wealth the Fed
has confiscated in this way is breathtaking. 




John Maynard Keynes did a great deal of harm, but he did say at least one true thing:



By
a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly
and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By
this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily;
and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.



The
Fed has actually been functioning as a kind of accomplice of the IRS. 
Today, the Federal Reserve can create money without even having to
bother printing it; now the Fed can create any amount by simply entering
a number in a computer.  Talk about taking the limits off government
spending!




It
is perfectly obvious that we are far down the path to a new kind of
tyranny by way of endless bureaucratic regulation and confiscation.  If
we are to recover and secure our liberty, much must be done, and much
must be undone.  We cannot succeed unless we carefully remove these
three pillars of the Progressive State. 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/1913_the_turning_point.html#ixzz4sXDNXg4x

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Posted by pgrove at 10:42 PM
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Followers

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2019 (15)
    • ▼  June (15)
      • Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Googl...
      • Why the “National Popular Vote” scheme is unconsti...
      • Electoral College Rules Made Simple (or, rather, l...
      • Why Did the Framers Create the Electoral College?—...
      • EPA replaces failed Clean Power Plan
      • Unreliable Nature Of Solar And Wind Makes Electric...
      • Liberals' National Popular Vote Scheme Is Unconsti...
      • A shocking scientific discovery: Winds affect ocea...
      • Can We Arrest Global Warming By Yanking CO2 From T...
      • Great Lakes Reveal a Fatal Flaw in Climate Change ...
      • EDITORIAL: Gov. Polis budget splurges on 5-year-ol...
      • Exclusive: The Pentagon’s Massive Accounting Frau...
      • Judging by Mueller's staffing choices, he may not ...
      • Transgenderism vs. Free Speech in BC
      • Global Warming: Media Ignore Sharp Drop In Global ...
  • ►  2018 (14)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (3)
  • ►  2017 (47)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  September (39)
  • ►  2016 (23)
    • ►  October (6)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  January (4)
  • ►  2015 (7)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (4)
  • ►  2014 (10)
    • ►  December (10)
  • ►  2013 (1)
    • ►  November (1)
  • ►  2012 (2)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  May (1)
  • ►  2011 (3)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  March (2)
  • ►  2010 (5)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  February (2)
  • ►  2009 (17)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (8)
    • ►  August (6)

About Me

pgrove
View my complete profile

AddThis

Bookmark and Share