Adventus

Clemens Pfeiffer, Vienna



The Advent Season

The season of advent marking the start of the Western liturgical year began on 2 December, making this the second Sunday of Advent.  It precedes Christmastide, the traditional 12 days of Christmas running from December 25th until January 5th. In the early middle ages this was a period of fasting, running in some areas from St. Martins Day on November 11th until Rose Sunday, or the third Sunday of Advent.

How We Celebrate

Over time we have greatly simplified Christmas in our house.  I used to be the type of Christmas celebrant whose home could easily be seen from low earth orbit, we have since toned it down considerably and I now decorate the house in a colonial fashion, with simple white electric candles in the windows.  We have also changed the focus of Christmas in our living room from the Christmas tree, which is now small, to a mantle display featuring a creche, and small lighted ceramic buildings that my wife collects... a small village as it were.  Not sure what I'm planning to do this year, as the space over our mantle now contains our television.  The great thing about flat screens is the TV is no longer the central feature of our living room, and when off is relatively unobtrusive.  What I need is some kind of box that turns it into a collection of classical paintings.

So, How Do You Celebrate Christmas?

If all goes as planned, I'll have gotten the Christmas decorations out and up, and will have figured out what to do with the mantle this year by the time you read this.  So kick back, grab a hot toddy or a glass of eggnogg, and share with the rest of us how you celebrate Christmas at home.  Do you have 150,000 lights stressing out your local electrical grid? Or are you more subdued?  Any unusual Christmas traditions handed down through your family?  We always had a Bayberry candle burning on Christmas Eve when I was growing up.  I'm not exactly sure why.  But every year my mother lit the tall green taper and I remember that no one was allowed to blow it out, it had to be left to burn down and go out on its own.  Every year I recall going to bed on Christmas Eve with a candle sitting in the kitchen sink because my mother was afraid it was going to burn the house down. So, anybody fasting these days?

Cheers!

~Finntann

VENI VENI EMMANUEL



Taxation without Representation

Quantitative Easing: Welcome to the liquidity trap. 

Normally the Fed enacts monetary policy by controlling interest rates, raising or lowering the federal funds rate (inter-bank interest rate with the Federal Reserve) to achieve the desired effect.  It does this by buying or selling short term government bonds, altering the amount of money in the economy while affecting the price and yield of government bonds, which in turn nudges the inter-bank interest rate in the desired direction. 

In 2002 the targeted federal funds rate was 1.75%, in 2006 it was about 5.25%, today it stands between 0 and 0.25%.  A liquidity trap is when increased monetary supply fails to lower, or can not lower interest rates.  An economy in a liquidity trap can not use monetary stimulus to increase output. 

Quantitative Easing is a monetary policy whereby the Fed prints money and uses that money to purchase financial assets from commercial banks with the sole intent of increasing the monetary supply rather than lowering interest rates which cannot be lowered further.  

Laws in the US, UK, Japan, and EU prohibit the central banks from printing money and directly purchasing government debt.  Instead, the government sells bonds to private entities with the understanding of and defacto guarantee, that the central bank will then repurchase those assets.  So in essence we’re saying it is illegal to counterfeit money unless you also launder it. 

Ben Bernake had this to say:

What has this got to do with monetary policy? Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm

When the government imposes a tax (Say $2), it takes that money out of the private sector leaving individuals and business with less money and the government with $2 more.  When the government uses money that didn’t previously exist (prints money) and uses it to buy (Say $10) something on the commercial market, holds it, and then sells it for a profit (Say $12), the difference ($2) is effectively a tax.  The value that the government has earned has come out of the devaluation of all the other currency held in the private sector, including yours.

Between 2009 and 2011 the government has devalued the US currency supply by some $200 Billion dollars.  This is $200B that the government now holds, that was taken from the private sector, all without the approval or consent of congress (although one may argue they have implied consent).  This is effectively a $600 a head tax each and every one of us has paid.

When government has the ability to create and spend all the money it wants, priorities shift, and the concept of budgeting, as most Americans know it, loses all meaning.  Hand a teenager a credit card, and tell him there is no limit and no accountability for what he spends, and the effect would be the same.  Every dollar created and spent by government makes the dollars in your pocket worth less and less.

Taxes? We don’t need no stinkin’ taxes… we can print all the money we need!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/business/worldbusiness/11iht-views12.1.19248009.html?_r=0
http://www.investmentu.com/2012/February/quantitative-easing.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46898830/Was_Quantitative_Easing_a_Tax
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/07/21/why-the-founders-rejected-a-central-bank/

~Finntann

Can't Get There From Here

Liberals really, really hate Mark Steyn, with an extra-spicy hatred reserved for the likes of fellow leftwing hate targets Charles Krauthammer, George Will and Paul Ryan.

The reason they hate him is because, like George Orwell, he has a gift of dealing honestly with the facts, and he's incredibly witty to boot.  Here's how he describes government non-action as we careen towards the cliff...

Last year, our plucky heroine, the wholesome apple-cheeked American republic, was trapped in an express elevator hurtling out of control toward the debt ceiling. Would she crash into it? Or would she make some miraculous escape?

Yes! At the very last minute of her white-knuckle thrill ride to her rendezvous with destiny, she was rescued by Congress' decision to set up... a Super Committee!

Those who can, do. Those who can't, form a committee. Those who really can't, form a Super Committee – and then put John Kerry on it for good measure. (Mark Steyn)

We Love Our Big Fat Greek-Style Government...

According to the most recent (2009) OECD statistics: Government expenditures per person in France, $18,866.00; in the United States, $19,266.00. [...]

In that sense, the federal debt might be better understood as an American Self-Delusion Index, measuring the ever-widening gap between the national mythology (a republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens) and the reality (a 21st century cradle-to-grave nanny state in which, as the Democrats' Convention boasted, "government is the only thing we do together."). (Mark Steyn)

... But We Don't Like Paying For It

Generally speaking, functioning societies make good-faith efforts to raise what they spend, subject to fluctuations in economic fortune: Government spending in Australia is 33.1 percent of GDP, and tax revenues are 27.1 percent. Likewise, government spending in Norway is 46.4 percent, and revenues are 41 percent – a shortfall but in the ballpark. Government spending in the United States is 42.2 percent, but revenues are 24 percent – the widest spending/taxing gulf in any major economy. (Mark Steyn)

Do The Math

Democrat scolds like Bill Clinton enjoy wagging fingers in our faces and talking about "math," so here's some math for everyone...

President Obama want an additional $1 trillion in new taxes over ten years.  To balance annual deficits, he would need to collect that much per year.

We could couple this paltry $100 billion per year in tax increases with a zeroing out of the Defense Department, and still not balance the budget.

2012 Spending/2017 Projections - Percentage of Total Budget

* DoD:  18% / 13%

* Health:  9.7% / 13%

* Medicare:  13% / 14%

* Income Security (Other than Social Security):  15.12% / 12%

* Social Security:  20% / 22%

* Interest on Debt:  6% / 12%

Source:  White House Budget, Table 5.1

Note how interest on the debt balloons.  That will get even worse if the economy improves and interest rates rise.  Also notice how Health and Medicare, two items listed nowhere in the constitution, consume a greater percentage than Defense, which is a primary constitutional duty of the federal government. 

So, Big Government fans, how do we pay for it?

See also:  Six Fixes to America's Fiscal Crisis

Holy SH*T I'm a Democrat !!!

You've Come a Long Way Baby

1. Resolved, That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the constitution, and the grants of power shown therein, ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.

2. Resolved, That the constitution does not confer upon the general government the power to commence and carry on, a general system of internal improvements.  


3. Resolved, That the constitution does not confer authority upon the federal government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several states, contracted for local internal improvements, or other state purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient.  


4. Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the federal government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country—that every citizen and every section of the country, has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of person and property from domestic violence, or foreign aggression.  


5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the government, to enforce and practice the most rigid economy, in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised, than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government.  


6. Resolved, That congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people.  


7. Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.


8. Resolved, That the separation of the moneys of the government from banking institutions, is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the government, and the rights of the people.


9. Resolved, That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty, and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the democratic faith; and every attempt to abridge the present privilege of becoming citizens, and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute-book.


The title of this post is my exclamation upon reading this, the first Democratic Party platform from May 6, 1840.  This is a Democratic Party I could affiliate with, unfortunately it no longer exists.


Cheers!

~Finntann

Dueling Citizenships

Most working-age illegal immigrants from Mexico don’t necessarily want US citizenship. Sure, they'll take it if we offer it.  They like the United States, but they love their homeland. What they want is a visa, the right to travel back and forth with their heads held high, to work and to own property here and to not have to slink around in the shadows.

To grant these people citizenship would be a gross devaluation of our birthright and an outright stupidity. I've had illegal immigrants tell me so. The vast majority we grant citizenship to would not renounce the nation of their birth, but would hold on to their cedulas, matriculas and original passports.

We would be granting US citizenship to people who feel no special love or allegiance to our nation. The vast majority would thank us very much, but they would remain voting Mexican citizens and property owners who happen to have the extra bennie of a US citizenship in their back pocket.

Visas Now -- Decide the Citizenship Question Later when We have More Information

We do need to humanely address what we do with the illegal immigrants we've invited in. Yes, we did invite them in. Uncle Sam not only purposely left the doors and windows wide open, he adorned them with blazing neon Welcome signs. He also gave not a care about ID theft or workplace enforcement beyond a few token raids apparently designed principally to turn America’s hearts against rounding up illegals.

And We The People employed them to roof our houses, install carpets, do our landscaping and other work we Americans just won't do anymore.  So we must shoulder our share of the blame.

I am for giving citizenship to people who were brought here as children and who have known no other country, but a blanket amnesty only empowers leftwing agitation groups and then encourages more people to flock here illegally, increasing the leftwing ranks even more.

We could immediately regularize the millions here by issuing multiple entry and exit visas that also gave them permission to work.  This also would give us a clearer picture and allow us to expedite the cases of those who truly want citizenship and who are most deserving, and it would immediately improve the material position of all.

Public Agenda: A Place to Call Home

Time to Cut a Deal on Immigration

* For an interesting and different spin, read Reuben Navarette's article My Mexican-American Identity Crisis

A Political History of America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or how Democrats became Federalists and Republicans became Federalists

 

The old Republican party is already ruined, past redemption. New men and new maxims are the order of the day. ~John Randolph 1806

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. ~Thomas Jefferson 1821

 

We need the Quids

A splinter faction from Thomas Jefferson’s party called the Tertium Quids, which means “third thing” in Latin,  were led by the brilliant but highly eccentric John Randolph of Roanoke, Va. Members of this faction often called themselves the “Old Republicans,” to differentiate themselves from the mainstream Republicans, who they believe had abandoned the principles of the founding.   

 

They were the cross-party faction of Federalists and Democratic-Republicans in the period of 1804-1812 before the collapse of the First Party System in 1824. At the time the Federalists promoted the financial system of  the Treasury, which emphasized federal assumption of state debts, a tariff to pay off those debts, a national bank to facilitate financing, and encouragement of banking and manufacturing. Whereas the Democratic-Republicans opposed a strong executive power, were hostile to a standing army and navy, demanded a limited reading of the Constitutional powers of the federal government, and strongly opposed the Treasury financial program.

 

We're all Federalists now Baby!

John Randolph was the leader of the "Old Republicans" insisting on a strict adherence to the Constitution and summarized their principles as a  "love of peace, hatred of offensive war, jealousy of the state governments toward the general government; a dread of standing armies; a loathing of public debts, taxes, and excises; tenderness for the liberty of the citizen; jealousy, Argus-eyed jealousy of the patronage of the President."

 

Me? I stand with John Randolph.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertium_quids

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/liberty-and-order-in-the-slave-society/

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/12/19/ron-paul-and-the-rise-of-the-new-tertium-quids/

 



Are Hispanics Natural Conservatives?

Hispanic Actress Raquel Welch

I'll cut to the chase and answer the question up front: No. Hispanics are not natural conservatives.

Charles Murray culls these facts from the General Social Survey and the Current Population Survey:

Latinos aren’t married more than everyone else

Latinos aren’t more religious than everyone else

Latinos aren’t more opposed to gay marriage than everyone else

Latinos are a little more opposed to abortion than everyone else, but not by a landslide

Latinos aren’t more conservative than everyone else

Latino men are only fractionally more likely to be in the labor force than everyone else, and those with jobs work slightly fewer hours

Latino women are substantially less likely to be in the labor force than everyone else

Source: AEI - Charles Murray

This doesn’t make them bad people. It makes them mainstream Americans, and the GOP needs to adopt a coherent philosophy that appeals to all Americans, including Latinos.

Hispanics come from places where there are no safety nets, but perversely, those same governments can have a profound effect on people’s lives, often in a negative way. Latin American politicians are solicitous of retail constituent needs. I personally know a legislator from a Central American country whose first act upon getting elected was paving the dirt road in front of his mother’s house. It didn’t anger people; it gained him more votes in his next election because he was seen as a good and loving son.

So Hispanics can be very family oriented, banding together to protect and help one another, and they can be very entrepreneurial, owning their own businesses at a higher rate than Anglos, but they can also see a place for a benevolent government to help people get ahead and to keep people from falling through society’s cracks. And while they may be personally conservative in many ways, they believe in keeping personal business personal.

This is too subtle for politicians to grasp, so brace yourself for four more years of pandering and demonization in which millions will be handed a no-questions-asked citizenship.when all they really wanted was a multiple entry-exit visa that allows them to work here.

Paul Thorn

Retired boxer, former furniture maker, musician, and a song I hope is reflective of John Boehner's response to little Timmy Geithner's budget proposal.

Give ‘em What they Want!

It’s a sign of the times…

Republicans Wisely Break with Grover Norquist

Any time CNN praises you for being wise, you know you've lost your way...

The GOP is Toast

Pandering to Latinos will not work, nor will becoming a wing of the Democrat Party.  Standing their ground will only earn them opprobrium and blame. Democrats will get the credit and the GOP will get the blame no matter what.  Obama's hosanna choir in the press will make sure of that.  The Republicans are stuck, mired in a quicksand swamp of their own ideological perfidy and squishiness. It’s hard to talk about the Democrat welfare moochers when your own corporate and farm subsidy moochers also have their snouts in the trough.

My advice?

Stand aside and give President Obama and the Democrats everything they want. Boehner can come out and announce that they don’t agree, but they will not stand in the way of the will of the people.

 
While they are at it, they can launch some fiery Marxist fusillades at Wall Street before descending from the stage. The Big Banksters threw their money Romney’s way this time, but they bet on Obama in 2008, so at best they are like vampire bats, untrainable, going after harmful pests as well as the livestock. Firing loud broadsides at them wouldn’t accomplish anything, but it would be entertaining and allow the depressed and over-stressed party to blow off a little steam.

The rich?

Screw ‘em! 45% voted for Obama, and the majority of them were too stupid to convince their peers, so they get what they deserve. If the Dems want to go full-Krugman and slap them with a 90% tax rate, we should cheer them on. See: How the Party of Lincoln became the Party of Plutocrats

The American people voted for Obama’s policies, so the GOP should stand aside and let the Democrats deliver them. Let’s all recline in the arms of Uncle Sam and enjoy living the life of Julia.

We will hold a referendum in four years.

Will Obama Clean Up Wall Street?

William Cohan has written an interesting article over at Bloomberg.

Despite the fact that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Citigroup Inc. (C) were among Obama’s top 10 financial backers in 2008, we were hopeful we would see a change in the system whereby bankers, traders and executives were rewarded every day to take huge, asynchronous risks with other people’s money. (Sweep Wall Street Clean)

The key to “cleaning up Wall Street” is to make the risk-reward equation symmetrical

Recent events have shown that Wall Street sees no downside to reckless gambling. They rake it in when they win, and We The People pay when they shoot craps. That needs to change. Making the top management of all companies personally liable for losses would be a great first step. You want to see the community police itself? The specter of having to hock the Ferrari and sell the homes in The Hamptons and in Aspen tends to focus one’s mind, as does the prospect of going to jail for financial malfeasance.

We used to hold the bankers responsible in America. It’s why they were jumping out of windows during the crash of 1929.  

That is my recommendation. Here are Cohan’s:

Erskine Bowles for Treasury Chief

For Treasury secretary, the best choice is Erskine Bowles, who has distinguished himself as co-chairman of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Although it is true that Bowles was chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, and thus rubbed elbows with Rubin and Altman, he isn’t in that Rubin orbit. He understands Wall Street -- he founded a small eponymous investment bank and a private-equity firm, Carousel Capital, and was a partner at private-equity giant Forstmann Little & Co. -- and did a fine job serving as president of the sprawling University of North Carolina system.

More important, he has spent the past year shaping his commission’s report -- despite Obama’s having ignored it -- into legislation that Congress can take up immediately to try to resolve the budget deficit and the looming fiscal cliff, the more than $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts scheduled for next year. He has a proven record of bipartisanship, working well with Alan Simpson and the other Republicans on the commission. Appointing Bowles to Treasury would show that Obama is serious about getting the country’s fiscal house in order and finding a more productive relationship with Wall Street. (Sweep Wall Street Clean)

Eliot Spitzer for SEC Chairman

To address the vacuum of accountability on Wall Street, Obama should appoint former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer as the new chairman of the SEC. I’m not joking.. Having prosecuted Wall Street misdeeds as New York attorney general a decade ago, he knows where the bodies are buried and won’t be afraid to dig them up. As a cable-television host, he has proved to be the news media’s most aggressive and informed critic of Wall Street. (Sweep Wall Street Clean)

I agree with him. If Obama is serious about cleaning up Wall Street, he’ll appoint these two men.

The 28.4%

(c) André Karwath

Remember,  this picture will be found identifying posts addressing the roots of classical liberalism, republicanism, and the Republican Party today.

Welcome to the Electoral College

That's all it takes to become President folks, 28.4% of the vote.  All you need to do is win 11 states:  California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina for 270 electoral college votes.

Now I did a little research and according to the US census bureau there are 234,564,000 of us of voting age.  Now those 11 states have a voting age population of 133,225,000... but that's 57% you may say, true, but you only need to convince 11 more than half of them to vote for you. That's only  66,612,511 and that is 28.4% of the voting age population and you thought Florida in 2000 was bad.

So why have an Electoral College at all?

There was a very good article in Huffington Post by Carl Creasman. Professor of History at Valencia College.

The Founders NEVER saw the president as someone that represented the citizens or stood in their places as a representative. Instead, to the Founders, the president was supposed to be someone slightly detached from the passions and zealotry of "the masses" and provide a more, reasoned, comprehensive approach of, well, someone who is an executive...

The Founders' point was that there needed to be a way for us to have a chief executive who did answer to the people through the states, but not one who had to somehow participate in a popularity contest. Often, the best leader must make decisions and choices that the majority simply will not like. The Founders wanted to have a leader who would do that with few fears as to what the people might think. 

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-creasman/defending-the-electoral-c_b_2012010.html

A Republic - If you can keep it.

The founders thought the Republic such an important facet of government that it is specifically called out in Article IV. Section 4. of the Constitution: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

Why? A few of them made their viewpoints known:

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.  ~James Madison

It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. ~Alexander Hamilton.

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, —the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it. ~Thomas Jefferson

What's wrong with America? Too much Democracy.

Representative Democracy Good, Popular Democracy Bad.

The intent of the electoral college was to insulate the presidency from the vagaries of popular opinion, to enable the president to make decisions that would not necessarily be popular with the population at large.  As we weaken the republican aspects of our government the United States moves closer and closer to popular democracy and our political situation degrades closer and closer towards everything we were warned about.  Politicians represent not their constituencies but the mob.  They don't need to represent their people, only an electoral majority of their people.  You vote for what keeps you in office, not for the general welfare and good of the country as a whole.  Politics has devolved into factionalism, we no longer debate ideas, we enforce platforms.

I'll leave you with two final thoughts, and to be honest, the second is from Viburnum:

The world is weary of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians. ~Benjamin Disraeli

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. ~Sir Winston Churchill

From the Heavens to Hell

YOU ARE BEING WATCHED

 

The reasonable expectation of privacy. 

Police are investigating an incident at a Berks County hunting club in which someone on the hunting grounds allegedly targeted a mechanical flying object rather than a living and breathing one. The drone, nicknamed “Angel,” was recording a live pigeon shoot on Sunday around 3 p.m. when investigators say it was suddenly struck by gunfire.

The story centers around a Berks County, PA hunting club and their local self appointed wildlife Gestapo…a group calling itself SHARK (Showing Animals Respect and Kindness).

By the group President’s own admission, they have driven the owners/users of the property well inland, so to speak.

"The pigeon shooters are basically going into hiding," said Steve Hindi, president of SHARK. "So they're using a ring that's up a hill and completely surrounded by trees. So the only way you can get to it is through the air."

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Flying-Camera-From-Animal-Rights-Group-Shot-Down-at-Pigeon-Shoot-Cops-179983451.html?dr

The case raises some interesting questions in an undoubtedly murky area of the law.  The title here “From Heaven to Hell” comes from an article in the Atlantic on the same subject.  The original common law position on property rights was “ad coelum et ad inferos” or “to the heavens and hell”

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-fly-a-uav-over-my-neighbors-house-is-it-trespassing/263431/

No matter your opinion on shooting pigeons let out of a box, this case has the potential to impact all of us.  If I am tanning naked (god forbid) in the privacy of my own backyard, is my neighbor committing trespass if he flies his radio-controlled aircraft with an HD camera over my lot snapping pictures? 

The advent of aeronautics pretty much wiped out the theory of “ad coelum et ad inferos” so we are left with the legal restrictions for aircraft (mind you, drones don’t necessarily fall in this category)…and the nearest thing that meets the described situation is:

FAA regulations in 14 CFR 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes states:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

b)  “Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.”

So if it were a Cessna and not a drone they could approach no closer than 2000 ft at a minimum altitude > 1000 ft..

There are plenty of fourth amendment cases on which the courts have ruled on the reasonable expectation of privacy, in your house, curtilage, and surrounding lands but the 4th amendment applies to the actions of the government, not other citizens.

 

So you have to ask yourself, what is your 'reasonable expectation of privacy'?  I can put up security cameras that capture my property and may overlap yours... what if I put a camera on a pole on the fence line pointed at your pool?

 

If someone were flying a drone with a camera over my house in the middle of 100 wooded acres, I'd be inclined to shoot it down too.

 

 

The Political Chinese Fire Drill

(c) André Karwath

The picture above is of the Pansy, from the French pensée, meaning thought. The flower is symbolically representative of the Age of Enlightenment and the Freethought movement and Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism and not authority, tradition, or other dogmas.  This picture will be found identifying a series of posts addressing the roots of classical liberalism, republicanism, and the Republican Party today.

Role Reversals

The New Left redefined the term ‘liberal’ at the same time that the Moral Majority redefined the term ‘conservative’.  Where the founding fathers adhered to classical liberalism, advocating civil liberties, political freedom, limited government, economic freedom, and republicanism, liberals of today stand virtually as the antithesis of what was once liberalism.  Likewise, the conservative movement in this country that was built upon maintaining the libertarian and republican principals of our founders has made a pronounced shift towards the theocratic right.  Both parties have also become more Federalist, advocating a larger centralized government with more power and control to the disadvantage of our civil liberties and our states.

 

“It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.” William F. Buckley, 1955.

 

Originally, conservatives in the United States were to be found in both parties and the modern conservative movement coalesced around opposition to the New Deal.  The big political shakeup began in the sixties, with the Nixon-Rockefeller compromise prompting a schism with ‘Goldwater’ Republicans; while Civil Rights legislation prompted Southern Democrats to battle the New Left for control of the Democratic Party.  

 

The Chinese Fire Drill

The shift in conservatism within the Republican Party from classical liberal and republican ideals to the social conservatism of today can be traced directly back to the political party controversies of the sixties and seventies.  With Goldwater Republicans stressing Judeo-Christian values in opposition to communism, the Republican Party became more attractive to Southern Democrats and evangelicals.  As the Republican Party moved towards the authoritarian right, libertarians moved to the left finding refuge in the ‘new’ Democratic Party or within their own nascent Libertarian party.

 

Today's Right

From Falwell’s Moral Majority, to Robertson’s Christian Coalition, to Dobson’s Family Research Council, to Graham’s Vote Biblical Values campaign the Christian Right has a pronounced influence on the Republican Party platform.  The key question we need to ask ourselves is this pronounced influence positive or negative when it comes to getting out the voters and getting the vote?  Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Linda McMahon, Tom Smith, and John Koster all embroiled themselves in controversy over abortion and rape and all fell flat on Election Day, soundly trounced by their pro-choice Democratic opposition.

 

The critical issues facing our nation today are not religious in nature they are financial, economic, libertarian, and republican, the Republican Party needs to return to its roots.  We are not the Christian Reform Party! If we attempt to be, we will continue to get our ass handed to us by the electorate.

This article kicks off a series examining where we came from, where we are, and perhaps where we need to go.  We seriously need to decide what is most important to the Republican Party and the nation, and what we can and are willing to compromise on.  Look for the pansy to highlight articles on this them, and as a second added benefit I am sure it will separate out those of us too immature to resist 'pansy' jokes.

 

Cheers!

 

~Finntann

A picture is worth a thousand words

© 2012 M. E. J. Newman

Checks and Balance

You don't have a right to vote for President!

Art 2. Sect 1. Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

"The Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes." James Madison.

In Federalist #10 he argued "the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority".

Succumbing to the whims of populism, the electoral college is now awarded based on popular vote in 48 of the 50 states.  So much for that check.

The Senate now stands at 53-45 with 2 independents.  Prior to the 17th amendment turning the senate from the representatives of the states to effectively a 'super' house of populism, senators were appointed by the state legislatures. A good map of the legislatures political breakdown can be found here: http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/state-legislature-house-senate-seat-totals-and-party-control.html

As shown on the map linked above, there are 31 Republican controlled legislatures, 17 Democrat, and 2 split legislatures.

One can assume that if Senators were still appointed by legislatures, the make up would be 36D-64R, quite a difference from the popularly (or populistly) elected 53D-45R. So much for that check.

Although congressional seats are apportioned based on population, the congressional districts are apportioned geographically.  This geographical apportionment is what explains the house makeup of  194D - 233R. The House remains the last existing check against populist tyranny.

As Jersey pointed out so astutely a week ago, the people in the cities don't give a rats ass what the rest of us think.

"If you Flyoverland cons think people from the NYC area give a rat's ass what you think about anything that goes on where we're from, or what our gun laws should be, or how FEMA handles Sandy, you're as naive as you are hick." Jersey McJones.

 We don't all live in cities and populist democracy will only represent the urban population centers, as Jersey implies... the rest of us can just screw off, and THAT folks is the problem.  Unfortunately, the other side of the urban bourgeoisie is that they are perfectly willing to dictate what goes on where we're from, or what our gun laws should be, etc., all for our own naive, hick good of course.

The preservation of the Republic necessitates, well, the preservation of the Republic as a republic. Under a populist urban dominated democracy the good people of Flyoverland will eventually rebel against the chaffing yoke of the city-states. The problem must be fixed before then.

Since I first wrote this article the following story has appeared in the news:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15117305-petition-for-texas-to-secede-from-us-reaches-threshold-for-white-house-response?lite

While meaningless in the big picture, it does indicate a restless undercurrent of seccesionism, and the list of states may surprise you. People, at least some people in 20 states are so seriously pissed off at the Federal Government that they are willing to go to, or at least voice this extreme.

Happy Thanksgiving?



Jennie Brownscombe (1850-1936)

A Thanksgiving Proclamation

As Governor of Virginia Thomas Jefferson issued the following proclamation:

I do therefore by authority from the General Assembly issue this my proclamation, hereby appointing Thursday the 9th day of December next, a day of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God, earnestly recommending to all the good people of this commonwealth, to set apart the said day for those purposes, and to the several Ministers of religion to meet their respective societies thereon, to assist them in their prayers, edify them with their discourses, and generally to perform the sacred duties of their function, proper for the occasion.

Given under my hand and the seal of the commonwealth, at Williamsburg, this 11th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1779, and in the fourth of the commonwealth.

No Presidential Proclamation?

During the eight years that he was President, Thomas Jefferson refused to issue a Thanksgiving proclamation.

In his second inaugural Address in 1805 he stated:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the power of the General Government. I have, therefore, undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.

In a letter to the Reverend Mr. Miller 23 January 1808 he further explained his reasoning:

I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the US. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

The entire letter may be found here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/11/jeffersons_thanksgiving_wish.html

A Distinction between State and Federal Government

Clearly Thomas Jefferson had no issues with Thanksgiving, but he did make a distinction between permissible actions for the state and federal governments.

Lighter Fare?

Many years ago on a cold and drizzly November day I had the pleasure of attending a Thanksgiving Dinner with the Pilgrims at the Plimoth Plantation. If you are ever in New England this time of year I highly recommend it. Word of advice though, I had far more fun with the Wampanoags than with the Pilgrims.

http://www.plimoth.org/dining-functions/thanksgiving-dining-special-events

Cheers!

~Finntann

 

“Retailers have basically ruined every holiday”

Gawker.com

Martin Lewis suggests we all jump off the obligation-laden, rampant retail-oriented consumerism of giving Christmas gifts.  Give it up altogether he recommends, for all but close family members.  And even then, he asks, do kids really need all that stuff?

I agree. Headlines like this make me sad:

45% Would Rather Skip Christmas

Why? Because it costs too much. The Gift of Jesus Christ our Savior is a free one, but many no longer celebrate his birth, so it has become a secular event for them. It is a shame how our entire lives have become so commercialized.

Halloween, once a night for kids to have innocent fun shaking down strangers for candy and throwing eggs at their houses, has been taken over by adults dressed in ridiculous and slutty costumes and is now "the second-largest commercial holiday, with Christmas being the first."

There is an easy remedy: Don't participate. I put retail madness in the same category as pornography, professional ball sports and Jersey Shore: It may be readily available, but that doesn't mean I have to indulge in it. I can ignore it and enjoy my life in my own way with my family, teaching my kids to tune out the soul-destroying, time-wasting, human interaction-killing distractions as well.

My advice to those feeling financially overwhelmed by Christmas? 

Fight the power! Tell the retailers to stuff it. Ignore them. Bake cookies and wrap them for friends if you must, and explain to you kids that you just can't afford a mountain of presents, but that you love them very much. Trust me, they will appreciate a few well-thought out presents more than a glut of junk. Find fun free things to do, watch the Christmas movies on TV and sing along with the Christmas songs. Gathering with friends and family and counting your blessings doesn't cost anything besides the price of food and drinks.

If your children eventually decide they do want to indulge in pop culture and retail pursuits (and they will), great! Hopefully you will have taught them to distinguish the good from the bad and to keep such things in their proper place, and that is somewhere down the ladder way below God, family and friends.

Hugging the latest gadget from Best Buy just doesn't compare to the warmth of human interaction, although I've seen a few people embrace an Xbox with an ardor that bordered on pornographic...

* - If any of you were as naive as me, believing this is a new phenomenon, I refer you to the timely article, Roosevelt's Movable Feast Sparked Outrage in Year of Franksgiving

Johnny Cash - Thanksgiving

The Thanksgiving TSA Opt-Out Week!

By Hugh Farnham

It's that time of the year again.  Dragging your roll-around through terminals, the lines, the bad airline food and... getting a nude-ray photo of your body courtesy of the Federal Government. 

 

Most citizens don't know it is their right to "opt out" of going through the millimeter ray scanner.

 

These nude-ray scanners have a very salty past and there are many reasons to say "No":  

 

-   Potentially these scanners, especially the X-Ray backscatter units, could contribute to a higher risk of cancer

 

-  Having the Federal Government take a naked photo of you is a gross violation of your 4th Amendment rights (and no, I don't believe the machines immediately erase the photos)

 

-  The procurement of these machines is a scandal in itself, with Chertoff, the former head of DHS, working as a lobbyist to get these funded

 

- The TSA is more about getting compliance and submission than actually finding terrorists.  After billions spent, how many real rabid terrorists have they found?  0.

As you go through the security screening line, if you are told to go through the scanner simply say "I exercise my right to Opt Out".  The TSA screener is then bound to honor your request and you will be sent through secondary screening.  Without the X-Rays.

In 2010, when the Opt Out Week first started, the TSA shut down the scanner machines rather than face confrontation over the use of them.  We will see what they do this year.  Please share your experiences here at Western Hero.

Travel safe and happy holidays to all our readers of Western Hero!

California: Canary in the Coal Mine

America's Future? Look to California

For those not paying attention, California became a one-party state this past election. The Republican caucus of the state’s House and Senate has shriveled to such insignificance that the GOP can no longer oppose anything.

The State of California:

"the state’s unemployment is among the highest in the country, and is trending down very slowly"

"Large parts of the state, notably in the interior regions, suffer unemployment in the 15% range and high"

"Old-style liberals might point out that California’s progressive policies have not done much for the working- or middle-class folks often trumpeted as its beneficiaries. Instead income inequality has grown far more than the national average."

"the state, with 12% of the nation’s population, account for one third of its welfare cases."

"Domestic migration has been negative for 18 of the past 20 years; immigration from abroad is at the lowest point in the past two decades."

"In terms of growth in college-educated residents, only San Diego managed to add more than the national average from 2000 to 2010; both the Bay Area and Los Angeles were considerably below." (See “The U.S. Cities Getting Smarter The Fastest“)

"California, remarkable for its population growth over the past century, now is heading toward “zero population growth,” notes economist Bill Watkins; the state now barely grows 1% a year."

"Los Angeles, the state’s largest urban area, grew less, in total numbers, in the last decade than at any time in the last 100 years."

Add to this their crushing structural debt, and well… You get the picture. Progressives have turned America’s promised land into hell on earth.  Today's Okies are heading in the opposite direction, with club-wielding state revenue thugs at the state line attempting to block their exit.

California is now a pure progressive experiment.  The Petri dish has been sterilized of GOP taint.  I can’t wait to see what happens.

* - All quotes are from Joel Kotkin’s article, The Crack Up of California. It’s worth a read.