D13theColonel vs. Mathius Part V: States Rights vs Federal Authority

Continue on folks  😀

statesrights1

statesrights2

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. This argument is pointless, de facto.

    This admendment, thought to be the most powerful when added, it moot.

    Since the Federalists claim “commerce clause” allows the Fed’s open-ended action on all things under the sun, they claim all the power they need, and as such the 10th IMPROVES Federal control claims, not lessens it.

    The States say “you can’t by the 10th”, but the Fed’s win by saying “well, the commerce clause is a delegated power, and according to the 10th, we can do anything”

    • You are correct, sir. But, never the less, I wish to make a States Rights argument in favor of abolishing the Commerce Clause.

      • You stole my thunder…..but as in most thunderstorms….they can reform.

        • Reform is impossible.

          Given the Commerce clause has been wholly abused by the Feds to increase their power….
          …such power includes reforming the Commerce Clause….
          …but as that clause is where the Fed’s get their power, and by the law of political power, they will never give it up, and given they hold exclusively the power to change the clause…

          ..they never will.

          End of story.

          One can rant and argue in fairy tales, and at the end make one feel good that in a fairy tale the good guy wins, but reality is. Thus such fairy tale arguments are pointless.

          The only route to State rights is seccession. But even then, that was tried once. How’d that work for ya !?

          • Damn, I need to be better in my answers,,,,,,reform was to mean reforming my thoughts as you went exactly where I was going to go….starting the debate…..not reforming the commerce clause, which I agree, can never be reformed….it just needs to go away.

        • Probably the only real way to break Federal power is the economic failure of Federal Government.

          When the Fed’s are no longer able to pay out the largess they have promised, the dependents on this largess will abandon the Fed’s and look locally for support. The States will have to step up and fill the gap, and again by de facto, take power away from the Federals.

          Once this spiral starts, nothing the Feds can do to stop it. The Union will reform into more of a trading block of 50+ independent states under one national idenity, much like the unreachable dream of the EU – all different but we are European – so the USA will be “we are all different but we are all American”

          • Black Flag,

            I know you’re a busy pirate, but if you could spare a moment to rip JAC to shreds, I’d appreciate it.

            JAC seemed to be asserting that the peaceful use of a bathroom by a member of the “wrong” gender infringes on some (unspecified) right of the other users of the “correct” gender.

            If I understood him correctly, his assertion seemed to be that, because he has a right not to shower with someone of the “wrong” gender, they cannot use the shower because doing so would violate his right not to shower with them – thus they must go elsewhere.

            The analogy I used, which JAC altered, which I now alter again (for clarify):

            Bob doesn’t want to eat with Jim. Bob has a “right” to not have to eat with Jim. Bob is eating in his favorite restaurant. Jim wants to sit down an eat.* Bob asks Jim to wait or go elsewhere. NOPE! Jim gets the judge to declare that he can eat anywhere and anytime he wants so Bob must now ban himself from Jim’s presence, thus infringing on Bob’s “right” to not have to eat with him. [Therefore Bob is justified in passing laws restricting whether Jim is allowed to use said restaurant.] (altered for clarity, conclusion added by Mathius to reflect JAC’s conclusion as I understand it.)

            Ignoring the irrelevant fact that JAC felt it necessary to involve a judge in his analogy, I am inferring that – in JAC’s opinion – Bob’s desire to not eat with Jim somehow creates an imposition on Jim. Which, of course, makes no sense.

            JAC, of course rejects any similarity between this analogy and bathrooms because ::magical hand-waving:: bathrooms are special.

            I’m sure your pirate hat is twitching, so I’ll leave it to you to dive in.

            *Flag objects! All property must be owned. What does the restaurant owner say? The restaurant owner doesn’t care and refuses to weigh in pending hearing your thoughts on the matter.**

            **It’s just an analogy, please address the substance of JAC’s muddy thinking, not the flaws in the analogy which exists solely for the purpose of getting you up to speed quickly.

            • Mathius,

              What “right”?
              Definitely not “his rights”. He has none here to claim.

              The only right in this matter that is germane is the right of property ownership.

              If the owner of that washroom says that “women go here, men go there” by the biological definition of man/woman, then that is that.

              If the owner says “I don’t care”, then that is that, regardless of the “wish” JAC has. JAC has NO RIGHT to undermine or overwhelm the owner’s right to determine the use of his own property (and of course, neither does anyone else, regardless of the claim “they are a woman in a man’s body”)

              Yes, it is a simple and straight forward as that – “Who owns the property and what is his rules?”

              Any drift from that principle undermines the principle, and since that principle unscores everything in society (property ownership), should it be undermined in this matter, then property ownership EVERYWHERE is undermined.

              • Yes, yes.

                Now back here in the real world, we have schools which are debating this – again, in the real world – where the property is deemed to be “public.”

                Are you able to stretch that big brain of your into IMAGING a world where things work slightly less perfectly that you think it should? Where we need to deal with the world AS IT IS, not AS IT SHOULD BE? Surely you’re capable of pondering such a thing.

                JAC’s thinking is that the discomfort of one child means that another child should have to use a different restroom.

                Here in the REAL WORLD, this is determined by laws and rules as passed by states and ruled on by judges and there doesn’t seem to be a clear conclusion.

                If you can see your way past your perfect society wherein someone “owns” the school – that someone being able to make a final ruling – and talk about the REAL WORLD, I would like your take, especially as it applies to JAC’s apparent “Liberty for me, but not for thee” position.

                If nothing else, will you stipulate that, ceterus paribus, “your discomfort does not create an obligation on my part.”

                ———–

                I’ll leave that up there, but I think I figured a way to let you have your cake and eat it, too. Amending the analogy:

                Bob has decided to be a nudist.
                Bob lives next door to JAC.
                JAC asserts he has a “right” not to have to see Bob naked.
                Bob wants to be naked in his own yard.
                JAC assert that this violates his (JAC’s) “right” not to have to see Bob naked.
                JAC refuses to leave his house lest he see Bob sunbathing.
                JAC asserts that Bob’s choices are controlling his (JAC’s) freedom to use his own property.
                JAC forcibly relocates Bob in “self defense.”

                Mathius says: Your discomfort does not create an obligation on someone else.
                JAC says: Bob was violating my “right” not to see him naked, so Bob had to move.
                Buck says: Why didn’t JAC just build a fence?

                I think that’s a pretty reasonable analogy since it removes the uneven property ownership aspect and replaces it with them being on equal footing (both fully sovereign). Tell me if you think I botched it.

            • I thought of an even better way to put it for you so you’ll actually answer my question.

              Suppose we live in Black Flag’s utopia.

              1,000 individuals have gotten together and built a society. For the benefit of economies of scale they erect a “public” school available to all students in the community. Though it is, of course, located on private land, the contract regarding the construction and lease of the land to the shareholders in the community states that the rules of the school will be determined by a school board consisting of elected members of the community. You, Black Flag, are chairman of this committee.

              Before you sits a petition from JAC. The issues are the same as before, please don’t make me spell them out again.

              As this is a private community on private land which has conferred to your committee the delegated powers of ‘land owner,’ you have absolute authority. To the best of your knowledge, the community itself has not formed a solid consensus (JAC’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding) and the panel is evenly split. (Mathius posits that the tide of history is on his side).

              Beyond innuendo and vague fearmongering, there is no evidence to suggest that trans children have or intend to use the bathroom for anything other than the standard purposes.

              The question stands thus: with the deciding vote, you – BLACK FLAG – have to determine whether to rule in favor of:
              A. JAC assertion that his daughter’s discomfort and “right” to not use the bathroom with a trans child creates an obligation on the trans child to go elsewhere.
              -or-
              B. Mathius’ assertion JAC’s child’s sensibilities are JAC’s child’s problem and not some other kid’s. That if she feels so strongly about it, she can wait or self-exile, but not control the actions of a third party.

              Though, as you’ve stated, property rights override all in this case, the terms of your contract to the committee states that you will make a best effort to respect the rights and freedoms of all students in your rulings. How do you rule?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                You need to slow your brain, or your fingers.

                A simple “Would you as owner of the facility allow boys/men to use the same locker room, showers and bathroom as girls/women, at the same time?

                My gym, by the way has a shared locker room. But it has many private rooms for shower and dressing, and SEXUALLY SEGREGATED shower rooms. So the “commons” area is where people finishing dressing, like putting on shoes and hats, and where they store their belongings, in the lockers. EVERYONE retreats to one of the other two areas to dress and shower.

                Oh, the larger shower rooms have doors on each shower, but a common dressing area. And boys are not allowed in the larger girls shower/dressing room and visa versa.

  3. Mathius formally objects to the federal government abrogating states’ rights through questionable use of the 10th Amendment.

    • You are going to be no fun on this one, are you. Why are you agreeing with the Colonel on this? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm….putting on thinking cap….hiding Red Bull from Mathius because he will not tell me where my raptors are.

      • Would it make you feel better if I told you I thoroughly support the federal government taking over all – yes all – states rights through legitimately passed Constitutional amendments?

        —-

        And what raptors might those be? The very calm domesticated ones I recently acquired?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          You confessed to that desire a long time ago here at SUFA. I do have a pretty good memory you know.

          It went along the lines that you felt the Federal Govt. should be the only Govt. with States acting as administrative units of the Federal Govt.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Which was Wilson’s, the progessives poster boy’s undying wish. Coming to past with each and every day.

            As long as one does not resort to armed insurrection all the government has as a weapon is money that they both take from the peoples labor via taxes and also created out of thin air. Which by all reasoning is counterfeit because every dollar printed devalues every dollar that preceeded it. That was the argument the US Government used about “counterfeit” money Looks real, feels real, can be exchanged for goods and services, it’s real as much as any dollar the Federal Reserve prints. Bitcoin anyone?

            Don’t take the funds and the ties between the Feds and States are never connected

          • Accurate except for “confess,” which implies it’s a bad thing I’m getting off my chest.

            I “confess” this in the same way I “confess” my favorite color*.

            *Blue, in case you were wondering.

  4. Mathius formally objects to the federal government using federal funds as a way to control things at the state level which they cannot otherwise control.

  5. Mathius formally objects to the fact that half of his pizza cheese is stuck to the box and his lunch is ruined.

    • That is what you get for eating a cheese pizza….which, by the way violates my rights because I cannot eat the same thing…therefore….you can no longer have one.

  6. Off topic on the four Iranian speed boats approached a Navy warship to within three hundred yards….and all we did was blow a siren and filing a complaint? We probably sent them another 1.3 billion for being in the Strait of Hormuz.

    First, the Iranians are extremely lucky I was not in command. Secondly, the ship’s commander is extremely lucky that I am not his boss. He would be home already and out of the Navy.

  7. For Mathius: I promised you a response concerning Hillary Clinton and classified information. I refer you to USC, Title 18, section 2071. I will save you the time;;

    (a) “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, Obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both.

    Now before you get your panties in a wad over the reference above with intent…..read section b which DOES NOT deal with intent.

    (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding , map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall FORFEIT his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

    Seems pretty simple to me. If you want the UCMJ version….I can also do that and she is subject to both even as a civilian.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Like the guy who was a Clinton staffer and went into the archives during Bush’s reign and removed and destroyed papers that were injurious to Clinton’s legacy. Nothing happened to him if memory serves me. Just a slap and an admonistion to not do that again. He is still an advisor to the Clintons.

      • SANDY BERGER

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Passed away last year. Did some reading on him. Has anybody really noticed that anti-war sentiment of Vietnam seemed to be awaken in guys like Berger only after Nixon became president.
          One of his most noyible oversights was to not pass on information that he was briefed on by the DOE that the Chinese and their attempts and possible success in stealing the designs of US nuclear warheads, Didn’t feel it was important and only briefed the president 14 months after a pattern of their behavior was established. Stole and destroyed classified documents from the archives, only charged with a misdemeanor, continued advising Hillary on foreign policy while she ran for president. Praised by Obama upon his death. i guess Harvard law grads stick together.

  8. And now, D13 gives KUDOS to Obama.

    Not long ago, GM was building cars in Flint, Michigan and you could not drink the water in Mexico…..under his administration, Gm now builds cars in Mexico and you can’t drink the water in Flint, Michigan. “HOPE and CHANGE” delivered. Is this a great country or what?

  9. States rights to be discussed in morning….writing now.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      Any discussion of State’s rights should include a list or discussion about those things which SHOULD be within the Federal “authority” or “powers”.

      The Federal Power should be linked to those VALUES or PRINCIPLES which ALL, or almost all, Americans would agree are universal within our borders.

      Principle: Thou shalt NOT use force against others except in self defense or retaliation against another initiating force against you.

      US Power: The Fed govt shall be restricted to use of FORCE in self defense of the Nation or in retaliation for an “unprovoked” attack against the US.

      • No problem, sir. You may also chime in anytime. No one is going to like my state’s rights position anyway.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Want to bet? I agree with you and I get a free migration passage to the Republic of Texas. I’ll even say “ya’ll” instead of “YO” or “yus guys”, but I’ll probably say earl instead of oil and aboot instead of about. but what the heck, I’ll assimulate.

          • I am sorry but the pronunciation of oil….is a’ll…..we have a’ll wells not oy e L….we damn sure don’t have “earl” but when you come here, you will be given the appropriate documents. ( Texas pass port, yes they do exist, proper footwear that do not say Nike or some such, real hats made from 8XXX Beaver or greater. You will be given a Texas dictionary..we do not speak Spanish nor English, we speak Texan. You will be required to carry weapons….long guns or handguns….( not “rifles” nor “pistols” ), your children and/or grandchildren can carry them to class. you must wave at out of state licenses….it is hilarious to see them respond with the middle finger because they do not understand the word “friendly”…you will learn that our speed limit signs are for bicycles and baby strollers…you must drive the speed of the traffic around you and that includes rare icy days. We measure in time not distance. Our air is cleaner in spite of the EPA..and we have abundant and cheap energy. Gasoline today is $1.59. Texas is building TWO intrastate refineries despite the courts and the EPA saying that we cannot. Who, exactly, is going to stop us? We are building our own gold depository and will do business internationally despite the commerce clause. Who will stop us?

            So come on down, we have great things going.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              I do have a pair of boots in the closet, so check #1. I do have a good ear so I pick up foreign languages quickly check #2, Even though I lived in SoCal, I never learned any spanish except for the cuisine, check #3 I am not suicidal, so driving 65 or whatever the posted limit is, when the traffic is doing 90 or 120, I keep pace. Check #4. (I did work a lifetime ago for Western Geophysical and drove the highways between Houston and Galveston,…plus vast experience in Europe and Boston) No problem with any firearm and use of said tools. I always thought they were standard equipment issued with every new pickup in ranch country, for varmit control, what ever it may be, Check #5. Having lived in N/E, NY and CA when I 1st went to Texas the familiarity was un-nerving. With living in NC for the past 21 years no problem check #6 ….do I pass?

  10. Here it is folks. Now, they want to let Tranny’s SLEEP with female students on field trips and HIDE this from parents.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/23/md-schools-dont-tell-parents-transgender-males/

    Let’s also get one thing clear. A boy or man who dresses like a girl still has the same sexual desires as a normal male. This would be an “over my dead body” issue as a father. It’s time to take education out of the governments hands, privatize ALL of it!

      • Again, it is not about rights but demanding acceptance and approval. You will approve or I will punish you.

        • I will not deny that, for some it is. For some, it is not enough that they get treated equally, everyone needs to acknowledge their Special Snowflake status and treat them the way they think they should be treated, including the use of specialized pronouns (“xer”!), et cetera. And to that I say, BAH HUMBUG.

          For my part it’s more along the lines that “your lack of acceptance does not justify an imposition on them.” If we can clear that hurdle, everything’s fine in my book.

          It gets a little murky when we look at businesses because I ask myself “would you be ok with a barbershop refusing to serve black people.” And if the answer is no (it is), then how do I justify being ok with them not serving trans people? So the government has carved out a concept of semi-private ownership which is, again, a murky concept, but which allows the government to enforce non-discrimination practices on otherwise private businesses. It’s all a bit of a mess, but it worked pretty well for desegregation so… ::shrug::.

          But for my money, I don’t have any standing to suggest that you have to “accept” them. Only that you can’t discriminate against them, or create laws which do so.

          Don’t like trans-folk? Don’t be friends with them. That’s your business.

          • . It’s all a bit of a mess, but it worked pretty well for desegregation so… ::shrug::.

            Ummm..have you actually seen the product of desegregation? Everywhere I look, blacks still hang with blacks….hispanic with hispanic, asian with asian……..lunchrooms in a desegregated school look like racial enclaves. No matter what dams you throw up….water still seeks its own level.

            AND….just so you can be prepared, I have sent a clandestine raptor force to rescue my raptors which you have obviously drugged…..this clandestine force will be wearing breathing apparatus to prevent air contamination which obviously attacks the brain cells.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              “Birds of a feather flock together” old saying but still holds true. Even subsets of the groups form cliques.

    • To “head them off at the pass” so to speak before our “experts” jump on the bandwagon, most transvestites (dressing, no sex change) are hetro sexual. Many, if not a majority of transgender folk are too. The stats are there, I do not have time to look them up. Back in the days of abnormal psychology, back to Freud and Hirschfeld this was known. Of course, there is no more “abnormal”.

      The always interesting question in the field back when I was a psych major is “why”? Why should a male identify and emulate a woman and yet be drawn to them sexually? One hundred plus years later and there still are no good answers.

    • You seem to have information I do not regarding the sexual orientations of transsexuals. My understanding is that they are somewhat, but not completely, independent factors, but what do I know?

      Regardless, what is your opinion of a lesbian sleeping in the girls’ room on said field trip (or gay male in the males’ room)?

      I mean, if a trans individual (born male) is sleeping in the girls’ dorm and has an attraction to females, how is that different than a biological girl sleeping in the girls dorm who has an attraction to females? (or, again, same scenario for males)

      • I cannot for the life of me see the relevance. If you do the research you will find that these paraphilias have an incredibly strong sexual component. But see, you are a member of the IKNOWITALLGENERATIONNOTHINGTHATHAPPENEDBEFORECOUNTS! So, feel free to ignore the previous 6,000 years. You will anyway.

        • It’s a simple question, SK, and you didn’t answer it:

          In light of your hostility to the idea of a trans-student sharing the dorm, what is your opinion of a lesbian sleeping in the girls’ room on said field trip (or gay male in the males’ room)?

          • Based on Liberal thinking, gays have been sharing such room for all of time, with few problems. But it is irrelevant none the less. Putting a boy in a girls hotel room, just because of a mental illness, isn’t going to end well. One thing that you seriously fail to understand is that being a transvestite is a mental condition, not a physical one. The male Tranny’s can still over power a female. Did I mention that they are mentally ill?

        • Now that I have returned, here goes. Note, we are I think now talking about 18 year olds, not 6 year olds. We are talking about people who have achieved the age of consent, who can vote and may be drafted. It is up, in a free society, to THEM to decide if they want to board with a tranny or a gay student of the same sex. How simple was that! You, on the other hand want to force it, using law of all things, on children.

          A long, long time ago, before the wife and I tied the knot, we were smart enough to have the raising kids discussion. Now, my eldest son, in full disclosure, did not and he is paying the price where the kids are allowed to roam free by Mommy when Dad thinks perhaps 5 Am is a bit too early to start the day. Anyway, Denise and I, back in the 1970’s saw the incredible pressure being placed on kids, even then to “grow up” and fast. We decided to use our own upbringing as a guide. Things, thoughts and attitudes were introduced gradually as they achieved the maturity to understand them. I think we did pretty good. Nobody turned into a bible thumper (neither were we) . Everybody understands that folks are wired differently and a couple of them might even agree with you on this issue.

          I remembered while I was doing the four hour drive for the one day vacation this interesting TV reality show, “JAZZ”. If you have not seen it, it’s about a gender confused boy, pre-teen, who lives as a girl. Everyone from Grandma down to his brother accepts him. The school accepts him, the girls soccer team accepts him. Neighbors accept him. He is on meds to stunt his maturation until they go ahead with slice and dice. So, everything is cool, right? Well not really, Jazz is on anti-depressants. Jazz ran out of anti-depressants on one episode and had a melt-down. So Jazz has issues far beyond Jazz’s sexual identity. Jazz will unfortunately probably be a candidate for suicide some day. Now, you will NOT find me telling you or Jazz that what is going on is a bad idea. The kid appears and acts female in all aspects. If one is to believe the parents, the child has always been this way. What I am saying is that he/she is one of those folks that all the good intentions and pretentions in the world will probably not be able to save. In this instance and of course others, we are talking about a birth defect which affects the brain. We now acknowledge that there are behaviors that are “built in”. This is one of them. There is no answer, there is no pretty solution. What we cannot do as a society is screw up everyone else catering to a problem that cannot be solved in a false hope that you can cure true gender dysphoria.

          Try to remember something else here, you have your specialties that you have studied in life and I would not question you on them. I have mine. You cannot answer most of what I have written on this subject without taking the time to go back and read the literature. What you do think, how you think or feel or consider “fair” are really quite immaterial. I do not, as a 69 year old like gravity much anymore. But, I cannot wish it away because it is no longer “fair” to my aging body and joints. I am pissed though that we did not follow through on the space program so I could spend my last years at 1/6 G on Luna .

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Gman….This will put a further nail in the coffin of “public schools” run by the (State) Back in the early 70’s when bussing became law. Sending inner city kids to schools in the ‘burbs. and those predominately “white” kid to the inner city schools. To accomplish that kids had to be bussed in LA usually over 100 miles R/T. The goal was to integrate and eliminate segregation, (right)? Even though I was NOT still in the public school system, I can attest that NO kids from the community that I had lived in were bussed. The parents pulled them out and sent them to “private” schools, predominately the Catholic run schools. When I was still in school LAUSD had 100 3 year senior high schools. The CFS (private) also had 100 senior High schools. The only kids that were subjected to bussing were the inner city kids. Did it integrate the neighborhood. Absolutely not. At least not the way they thought. Besides whites, asians are the next largest demographic group, then hispanics and blacks are barely present…..The school factory had to be filled by inner city blacks, and it in turn created a war zone around the school until police would form a cordon around the school at the beginning and end of the day. This mandatory bussing continued until the advent of charter schools. The white population at the school is < 42% while the neighborhood is 80%+. 62% receive food allowance, now this is in a neigborhood that is an upper middle class area with houses that still range in the $2M price category. The non white population at school is predominantly asian and hispanic taking advantage of the special high level curriculum. The blacks dropped back to a very small #. The overall school population is 1/2 of when I was there.

      The affect of this edict by the government will further erode the public school systems. Parents will vote by putting the kids in private school again and the poor will suffer even though they also may wish to avoid this high minded government dictate. LA I'm sure will jump on the band wagon due to being nut to butt with the Feds on funding. but that area in LA is a conservative area, regardless of the film industry presence.

      The mandatory PUBLIC schools or schooling until some age which is mandatory should not be a laboratory especially when it flies in the face of the public. Leave the wide open experimentation to the college level, where CHOICE rules. Even as liberal as CA is the PEOPLE continued to pass laws and amend their constitution to block what they even consider abnormal behavior. The black robes wizards overruled the people numerous times.

      What really hacks me off though is that so many groups blame the troubles of the youth on not enough parental control, parents are ignoring their responsibility etc, but yet when parents do try and excert control, at least until 18, the State says you can't do that.

  11. Note to Buck..While the Estate tax has an exclusion of 5+ million, the other special little tax that may explain why I have seen taxes affect the lower middle class. The Gift Tax, which the exclusion is only 14,000. Seem’s that the DEATH Tax is not just one tax, but several, can’t let anyone get ahead after all.

    • I would cautiously suggest that poor people aren’t frequently getting gifted $14k+.

      I would also cautiously point out that a person in the lowest bracket who receives, say, a 15k gift, would only be taxed on that extra 1k. That 1k would be taxed at the effective rate, which is essentially nothing.

      Thus, while, yes, technically, the “Gift Tax” does hit the poor, it doesn’t really in practice.

      Though, again, I defter to Buck (who, again, is NOT my father.

      • Sure it affects the poor, that’s my whole point. Example, a poor black mother of 4 inherits a 50,000 house in a nice neighborhood, fully furnished, taxed at 75,000. The house has been for sale for 3 years when the death of the owner occurred. Now, the poor black women has a tax debt, with a Due By date, on a house that won’t sell at market value. Guess what….the poor black women is still poor and not going to gain squat from having to sell the house and furnishings for a fraction of the value that’s being taxed. In fact, she may still owe money.

        I’ve watch it happen to a friend who lost his mother. By the time it was all said and done, he owed taxes, AFTER the sale of the home.

        • G – I need more facts. She inherited a house worth $50K. What taxes!?

          • The story didn’t sit right with me either.. either details are missing / wrong or, possibly, she had no idea about taxes and filed incorrectly and screwed herself? That’s giving it the benefit of the doubt.

            I just can’t see this scenario in the real world.

            • My guess is he’s mixing up his type of taxes – perhaps real estate taxes were in arrears?

          • You and Mathius are really out of touch with whats going on out here. 🙄

            • You still haven’t laid out facts for your little example.

              • I would think you know this stuff, but, your dealing with the wealthy folks prmarily, which I would expect. The Gift Tax, is equal to the estate tax, but the name is just different. Under my example, the gift, valued at 75K is 30,000 (40%) . Thats the same as the Estate Tax, but our wonderful thieves in DC just named it differently. The poor women in the example could NEVER afford to pay this tax. Now there are also other issues that us poor folk would have to deal with. The house in question can’t be sold it not in proper code and repair. Most homes owned by the elderly will need some expensive repair. I would say that most people would have to hire someone to do these repairs, basically tripling the cost from the get go. A poor woman with 4 kids is basically screwed. First, she must make an agreement with the repair folks, to get paid “AFTER SALE”. This is common, but the price also goes up.

                Are you with me now? The LOWEST exemption isn’t really 5+ million, it’s 14K. The only difference is the name of the theft….errr…tax. I have witnessed this first hand. The claim that the death tax only affects the rich is true, What is ignored is the Gift Tax (along with other expenses not normally associated with the rich). It’s pure theft , period.

              • What are you not understanding here???

                If I gave you a gift of $75K, NO ONE WILL NEED TO PAY A PENNY OF TAX!!! Unless of course I already gave away $5,450,000. And even then I would be liable for paying the gift tax, not you as the recipient.

                Everyone can either gift during life or leave at death $5,450,000. A gift in excess of $14,000 merely reduces your $5,450,000. No tax is due unless you exceed your $5,450,000. A gift of $75,000 does not result in any gift tax unless the donor previously gifted $5,450,000.

                Either you are making up stories or were seriously misinformed.

              • Buck, I may suggest you look up what a Gift Tax is. It is separate from the estate tax. Or maybe the IRS just decided to screw people and steal from them knowing they can’t afford the services you provide. Regardless, I have seen it.

              • G – you are dead wrong on this. This is what I do for a living. It’s called a ‘unified credit’ for a reason. Everyone – rich or poor – has $5,450,000 to give away free of gift or estate tax, either during life or at death. I suggest you do a quick Google search on this before blathering nonsense.

              • G – for instance, I just had a client transfer his interest in a business to a trust. The business was valued at aprox. $9,000,000. No taxes because his wife elected to split the gift (remember, everyone has $5,450,000 to give away).

                I assure you there are no gift taxes due as a result of the gift of a $75,000 house, unless the donor has previously made gifts of $5,450,000.

              • Buck, Just Passing On What I Was Told. This happened late 09 early 2010. The person this happened too wasn’t a dishonest person, just a normal working family Guy.

      • I dunno….seems I saw a bill board that read ” I am Mathius’ father” …it showed a rather scary black mask…

      • And no Mathius – a gift is not income to the recipient.

        You should know better…

        And yes, I AM YOUR FATHER

        • The amount in excess of the exclusion isn’t income? Maybe I was hung over that day in law school….

          • Maybe you should go to law school first…

            No it’s not income, it’s a gift and is subject to gift tax (but no gift tax is due because of the credit!)

    • Briefly put, there is a nearly $5M unified credit – this can be used during life or upon death. If you give a gift of more than $14K, you file a gift tax return and the amount in excess of the $14K reduces your $5M.

      So no – no gift tax due until you transfer more that $5M.

      Of course, any estate planner worth his salt will tell you to make use of the $5M during life as opposed to at death…

  12. Reposting from yesterday because it didn’t get enough traction…

    ———————————————————————————–

    To back away a bit from our rather heated conversation re trans (not quite sure how the thread on the Estate Tax wound up here, but ok). Let’s discuss the following:

    Fundamentally, the idea of Trans is the idea that a person who was born male “identifies” or “feels” that they are actually female (or vise versa).

    As such, I would like to consider what it means to “feel” like a member of a particular sex.

    What does it mean to “feel male” or “feel female”?

    Mathius’s unsubstantiated opinion: Surely it’s not about whether you pee standing up.* It’s about how you dress, how you act, how you interact with others. It’s about whether you are “effeminate” or “masculine.” A biological male who eschews “manly” activities such as sports in favor of say dolls and dress-up may come to consider that the “meaning” of being a male is to be “manly” and, since he is not “manly,” he is not male. Since he identifies with “feminine” behaviors and “feminine” personality trades, he identifies as a female.

    Given my personal take on the subject, what say you about the roles that genders play in our lives and on the development of our children’s self-perceptions?

    *sometimes I sit

    ————————————————————————————

    And, just to be extra clear, I’m not really asking about trans, per say. The question is more generally about the expectations we – as a society – place and enforce on children based on their genders, and how this affects kids who don’t fit into those molds. What should these standards be (if anything)? How should they be enforced by peers, by parents, and by non-parent-adults? How does this affect the mental health of children who our outside the norm?

    • And what is wrong with sitting? it sure keeps the toilet seat down for the ladies who seem to think that it should be down all the time…and it sure prevents splattering and it sure eliminates the aiming procedure.

      • And, for us Texans, we have to have greater distances between the water level and the seat…for obvious reasons. **ahem**

        • I thought that Texans having sagging balls was an old wives tale. Learn something new everyday 😀

          • Now that was funny…….wishful thinking, of course….but funny.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Gman…You stole my quip…..by the way colonel, an old wrapping paper tube improves the aim and reduces the splashing.

            My Mom taught us to clean up after ourselves at a very young age. “You enjoy cleaning up the piss, you do it”, Or if you ever had the head cleaning details in the military. Especially at the club after a friday saturday night. What a disgrace. Even cows hit the trench better.,,,I will not even get into the womens facilities. That was horrifying

            • Yes sir, before becoming an officer, the two duties I hated…Latrine duty and “clipper” duty on KP…..I wonder if any of the youngsters on here even know what one is….Hint: It is not a ship or boat and it is not for hair products.

              Actually, the female latrines were the worse because I hated dealing with the…ummm…searching for the politically correct statement here…..the “paper work” ?

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              Please note Xmas time there is plenty of tubes available, and are for one use only. A piece of PVC for untrainable guests and family members is advisable

        • 😮

  13. This ought to be fun.0……………….

    State’s Rights…..Defined : “all rights not vested by the United States Constitution in the federal government nor forbidden by it to the separate states. (Cite Merriam Webster)…………….
    or
    1. All rights not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor denied by it to the states.
    2. The political position advocating strict interpretation of the Constitution with regard to the limitation of federal powers and the extension of the autonomy of the individual state to the greatest possible degree. (Cite: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)…………………

    Or

    1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the rights and powers generally conceded to the states, or all those powers claimed for the states under some interpretations of the Constitution
    2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a doctrine advocating the severe curtailment of Federal powers by such an interpretation of the Constitution
    states’ righter n
    (Cite: Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014)

    Or
    the rights belonging to the states, esp. with reference to the strict construction of the Constitution by which all rights not delegated to the federal government belong to the states.
    (Cite: Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved)

    Or

    Get the hell out of my State (Cite: D13)

    Now as you can readily see, there are numerous definitions by the “so called” smart people. I prefer my own definition but we all know that is not possible….for now. In addition, it is not necessary to expound upon history as the only “real” freedom loving independents………..were those that were willing to fight for autonomy….better known as the War Between the States. (Civil War is a misnomer). The fight for State’s rights got over shadowed by the use of slavery…..which WAS NOT the main reason for the War Between the States. State’s rights not only included the right to own and/or use slavery but the right to set your own price for goods that you produced. If you wanted to sell cotton to the Pennsylvania for $50 per bale and sell the same good to New York for $100 per bale, you were free to do so. State’s rights encompassed many facets that caused the War Between the States but slavery usurped the real reasons and was focused on because the northern tier of States did not like the cheap labor….even though the largest slave owners lived in the North…..with the largest slave owner being a black. Make no mistake about it, D13 does not believe in the use of slavery and would not have back then but that is not the issue. State’s Rights was NEVER about moral compass.

    Now, having brought up moral compass, let us not address the 10th Amendment, which is there for all to read but let us address the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” (This is where everything got off course but to continue )….

    The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government. The Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states. (That said….it was more broadly interpreted). The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the regulatory authority of the States. (Then came this..) The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. Of particular importance here, is the prevention of protectionist state policies that favor state citizens or businesses at the expense of non-citizens conducting business within that state. (D13 asks….does anyone see a problem with this?)

    Now, we have this…. “The meaning of the word “commerce” is a source of much of the controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of “commerce” affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power. Moreover, what constitutes “interstate” commercial activity has also been subject to consistent debate.” (D13 finds this to be particularly troubling, which will be discussed later).

    Now what is even more devastating to a State’s autonomy, is the following: “Beginning with the landmark case of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., the Court recognized broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity—most importantly, that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce. 301 U.S. 1 (1937). Shortly thereafter, the Court began to embrace a wholesale shift towards a deferential approach to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. Decisions like Darby and Wickard demonstrated the Court’s willingness to embrace regulation of transparently intrastate activity. Recognizing the development of a dynamic and integrated national economy, the Court employed a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, reasoning the even local activity will likely affect the larger interstate commercial economic scheme”.

    (This was the actual beginning of the usurping of State’s autonomy on a GRAND SCALE….and what is even more interesting is that the court did not define what it meant by “substantial effect” and “cumulative effect”. This is where laws are purposely left ambiguous so as to facilitate more liberal definitions).

    In 1995, there is another landmark case which, thankfully, the court rejected an even broader definition of the Commerce Clause. In Lopez v. United States. Lopez argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools, while the government claimed that this fell under the Commerce Clause since possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions. The Chief Justice rejected the government’s argument and held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that “[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.” The Lopez holding was later affirmed when the Court overturned the Violence Against Women Act for its reliance on the Commerce Clause in making domestic violence against women a federal crime.”

    The above two cases emphasize a distinction between economic and non-economic activity, with the Court hesitating to allow federal regulation of the latter in deference to traditional state authority. Additionally, these two cases reveal the Court’s hesitancy to uphold legislation that relies heavily on inference to show a connection with interstate commerce. Again, I find this to be particularly troubling. Not in the fact that the distinction was drawn, as it should be, but still leaving open ended………….what is actually interstate commerce, and, therefore, subject to Federal jurisdiction. Technically, everything can be construed as interstate commerce under the current definitions.

    Now, some actual personal observations. Let us start with cattle. Under the commerce clause, the United States prohibited the overseas sale of cattle. In addition, the commerce clause also prohibited the sale of cattle at greater prices. The government claimed that while the local (meaning United States, in this case) markets were contracted with the US government at specific prices, it was unfair competition for smaller cattle producers to sell internationally at higher prices, and since it “substantially affected” the US cattle market, the regulation fell under the commerce clause…….even though the US government was not and will not buy cattle from the smaller producers. In addition, under the commerce clause, we are not allowed to approach the industrial sector (packing plants and such) to sell our cattle at prices more competitive than the bigger producers….again it is considered unfair advantage.
    I can keep going on a personal note. This pertains to the oil and gas producers. The Federal Government, under the commerce clause, has regulated the price which we can sell our natural gas and refined oil to the Northeast. For example, I can sell natural gas to Arkansas at higher prices than I can sell it to the Northeast. The commerce clause was used to force producers to sell at fixed prices to the Northeast because of the weather and that higher prices created an unfair advantage to the southern states that did not need as much heating and fuel oil or natural gas. The same for refined oil…..unless you are in the pocket of Hillary Clinton and Obama, who have given exemptions to their largest donors but still will not let the smaller producers have the same exemptions….UNLESS YOU PAY THEM FOR IT. Pay for play, doncha know. This prompted the bumper stickers down here of “Let the bastards freeze in the dark”. I still have one on my unnecessary third car.

    Lastly, we produce and harvest asparagus and alfalfa from our Mexico operation and wish to sell it in the United States at a cheaper price. The commerce clause prohibits us from selling it without price regulation, yet, under NAFTA the commerce clause is strangely silent. Why is it silent? Again, unless you donate to the Clinton Foundation or the Obama money fest, you do not get the exemption. Pay for play, doncha know.

    So, first of all, States should be independent. They should be allowed to set their own prices for their own goods. IF New York does not have natural gas in abundance, the price should be significantly higher than the warmer states. Supply and demand should always prevail. It works both ways….if New York supplies something that we do not have, I should expect to pay a higher price if I really want it. So, I am for economic independence for all states.

    Secondly, the use of Federal funds as a coercive threat to succumb to Federal Rules that do not fall under the commerce clause nor the Constitution, should be illegal.

    Third…States should be allowed to exercise its own authority in civil matters and let the market place decide whether or not it is practical. For example, if I do not wish to sell a frigging cake to anyone for any reason….it is not the business of the Federal Government.

    Fourth…States should be allowed to barter and use whatever monetary exchange that they wish to use. If I want to trade cattle from Texas for wheat from Kansas…I should be free to do so.

    So, how do you change this? Do not pay attention to the law. The Federal Government has already set the standard for that. For now, the only real weapon that the Federal government has is the use and dependence upon Federal Funds. States should divest themselves of Federal Funds and quit living off the teat.

    There is a lot more but this is long enough.

    • Are you trying to kill me with that wall of text?

      Ok, fine.

      Definitions – agreed. Powers not granted to the feds, and not denied to the states, belong to the states (or the People).

      Get the hell out of my State (Cite: D13)

      Get the hell out of my Country, then! 😛

      • Get the hell out of my Country, then!😛NOT A PROBLEM….let us go like we wanted to in the first place.

        • You have my blessing!

          Take your share of the national debt with you.

          And don’t forget to build a Wall(tm) on your Northern border, too Hell, we’ll even pay for it.

          • We will also apply for foreign aid. You will give it to us because we now become an even more important trading partner. The main trade route with Mexico is through the Republic. There are no major trade routes even through San Diego unless it is whores and drugs and California depends upon that to finance their sanctuary cities. As to the wall, when you elect the Don, tell him to build it but we will not pay for it. However, you may be one of those who have said that if Trump is elected, you will leave the country. If so, you need to bring my raptors with you when you leave your country….but you may have a tough time espousing your liberal jibe here. But you are welcome.

            • but you may have a tough time espousing your liberal jibe here.

              Maybe not that hard a time.. Texas has been looking more and more purple of late…

              At the current rate, I think we’ll probably flip it blue in 3 or 4 more general elections.

              • You better take another look……91% of the counties are republican.

              • Sure. Rural little counties with 1,000 people. But there are a couple blueberries in your tomato soup.

                Austin, Houston, Dallas.

                And they’re growing.

                Fast.

                ::insert maniacal laughter::

    • The fight for State’s rights got over shadowed by the use of slavery…..which WAS NOT the main reason for the War Between the States.

      Agreed, generally, though it gave “my side” the moral high ground, which was nice.

      The War Between the States Civil War was about economics and power, pure and simple. Same as it always is in one flavor or another. We, the North, were overpowering you in Washington and y’all didn’t care for that, so you tried to up and leave. So, you tried to grab the moral high ground with States Rights(!) and we one-upped you with Abolition(!!). But, really, it was about neither of these. You wanted out because you were losing economically and were feeling taken advantage of and we wanted to keep you in for the exact same reason.

      Slavery was, at best, a footnote. And, by way of evidence, I’ll point out the the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free all slaves.. just the ones in rebel states. It annoys me that it’s taught that way in schools, but you know what they say: history books are written by the victors.. and boy did we wipe the floor with you. 😉

      ——–

      I do wonder, though, had we just let y’all ride off into the sunset, how long before you would have gotten around to abolishing slavery? Just an idle curiosity…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        There were two factors working against slavery. The South would have had to partner with other nations. Those nations were abolishing slavery and probably would have put pressure on the South to stop the practice.

        At the same time industrialization and mechanization were developing. So when mechanized methods come along the Slaves would have been released by the plantations. What I can not see is if they would have become free or their price reduced to where the smaller farms and individual families could afford them. But given the abject poverty of many in the south I expect the slaves would have been simply freed. Some might have been retained to run equipment or changed to labor for wages.

        People tend to forget that keeping slaves did cost money. Thus my belief that mechanization combined with international and some internal pressure would have abolished slavery by the early 1900’s, at the latest.

        • So when mechanized methods come along the Slaves would have been released by the plantations.

          I don’t believe this as far as I can throw it.

          Slave labor is cheaper than non-slave labor, period. Mechanization or no mechanization, the plantations weren’t going to give up free labor. They might reduce their labor force or – more likely – lease out their excess to other (smaller) plantations. But they’re never going to say “gee, golly, we just don’t have use for you anymore, so have a nice life.” Give me a thousand slaves (and no sense of right-and-wrong) and I will find a way to turn a profit on that.

          And, anyway, there’s plenty of agricultural work that still – even today – requires a massive commitment of unskilled manual labor. Strawberry fields come to mind.

          What I can not see is if they would have become free or their price reduced to where the smaller farms and individual families could afford them.

          Ding ding ding ding.

          One of the arguments I heard for why non-slave-owners supported so aggressively the right to own slaves is that they hoped, someday, to be slave owners themselves. Now, maybe this is “leftist propaganda,” but it has the ring of truth to it.

          People tend to forget that keeping slaves did cost money.

          Who forgets this? Guards, more guards, food, housing, equipment, probably some level of medical (a sick / injured slave is no good to you), training (as necessary). It adds up, I’m sure. Though it’s not exactly like the owners were coughing up for luxury accommodations..

          But does it trump the economic value of having someone do a lifetime of otherwise-free work for you? I think not.

          and some internal pressure would have abolished slavery

          What internal pressure was that?

          […] by the early 1900’s

          So another 35 years of slavery? At least?

          That’s an entire generation of men and women born and dying in slavery.

          That’s a pretty big deal.

          I don’t know, if you said to me, “we can avoid war, but it means that slavery continues for another generation” that I would have opted to avoid the war. Certainly war is bad, and states’ rights are important, but letting a moral evil like slavery perpetuate for (at least) another 35 years? No, sir.

          • Mechanization Is Occurring in modern times to lower costs of human labor. Maintaining 5 or 6 human laborers, would be an expensive even back in those terrible slave days. Farming has time limits. It’s also very dependent on weather, can’t plow mud, if you know what I mean. Mechanization was inevitableft, because the need for crops was always increasing. The huge farms today couldn’t operate with human labor and horses alone. Even the Amish have limits.

            By the way, since Washington DC raised the minimum wage, jobs are being lost and Mechanization is being considered.. just an example of Liberal policy failure. Nothing new really.

      • Objection….the North did not defeat anything…….the South just quit fighting for awhile.
        (See how well I learn your use of semantics).

        However, I will say KUDOS to you on a serious note. You are the first “Yankee” that actually acknowledged the reasons of the War Between the States. I cannot call it the Civil War…I see nothing civil about war. ( Come on..you have to grant me that one…it was actually profound even from a Texan).

        As to riding off into the sunset….I wonder what would have happened. Texas was not a slave state although some were here. We only joined the Southern rebellion in order to become a Republic afterwards. I really do not think that slavery would have been an issue much.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          What do you mean Texas was not a slave state? Sounds like your playing that Semantics game Mathius taught you.

          • I know that some text books refer to all Southern States as slave states and that Texas was considered a “Southern State”…however, slaves owners did not prosper here. The only plantations that existed were southeast along the Louisiana border where the cotton was. However, in order to admit Texas to the US, the US Congress voted to admit Texas as a slave state because of the southeastern area. The vast cattle industry did not employ slave labor at all. The residents of southeast Texas were actually transplants from other southern regions. However, putting semantics in use, I suppose that one single slave made Texas a slave state….but don’t you find it funny that they were not employed in the industry that required a greater amount of help? Most ranch spreads employed blacks and Chinese as cooks and helpers. Key word was employed and blacks and Asians made the same money as the wranglers.

            • One thing I do remember from Feherenbach’s history of Texas is that Blacks as slaves were there in almost the same numbers as whites in the mid 1800’s. Your emigrants from the East brought them with them in many cases.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        As stated here economics was the overriding force causing the war between the States. One of the biggies was the imposition of tariff/duty on cotton produces when sold or trying to sell at a higher price, ie more profitable price to other countries, like England and France. Forcing the sale at a marginal price to the mills in New England, The mills being staffed by cheap immigrant labor. As immoral as slavery was and i do know by reading many people looked upon the blacks as lessor forms of life whether one was a slave owner or not.

        However, slaves were PROPERTY. At NO time did the people who objected to slavery offer fair compensation to the owners for their property. Just demanded they be freed. And at the same time complained about the influx of freed slaves up north as unfair competition for jobs. As JAC points out mechanization and international pressure would have doomed the practice in time. True but at the time there was no way around the conunderum and still provide cheap cotton up north.

        I also read that slaves were to valuable to do really dangerous jobs and they hired Irishmen for those….no property loss there when blasting powder prematurely exploded.

        • At NO time did the people who objected to slavery offer fair compensation to the owners for their property. Just demanded they be freed.

          You’re not entitled compensation for releasing something you don’t own.

          The “property” of a slave is the body and labor of that slave. The rightful owner of that body and labor is his – not the slaver.

          If you steal from me, then the government demands you give it back, you are not entitled to “fair compensation.” Or rather, you are, and that fair compensation is zero.

          The slavers stole the body and labor of the slaves and were not entitled to squat. They might, if we’re fair, have a claim against whoever sold them said slave in the first place as the seller of stolen property has to return the money. (if I sell you a stolen car and the police take it back to its owner, you have a right to demand I refund you – I imagine the same principle might apply – but you don’t have standing to have the police pay you back for taking away something that’s not yours to begin with). Then again, I don’t know how these laws apply when you knowingly accept stolen goods, and whether, given the morals of time period, it would have qualified as “knowingly accepting stolen goods”…

          As Flag might note: The owner of a “slave’s” body and labor is the slave, not his alleged “master” regardless of whatever laws might be in place. If his “master” is the seller, he does not own the property, and therefore he cannot confer ownership to you. If you do not own it, you cannot demand compensation when it is taken away from you by its rightful owner – in this case, the “slave.” Thus, the purchase is the point at which you should recoup your losses since the seller never completed his end of the deal – that deal being to give you a human being in exchange for money – and since he did not (could not) give you a human being, your money is still yours and you are entitled to it back.

          I would also suggest that you own the victim of your slavery some remediation for the harm you have done him and the theft of his labor. But I’ll leave that out of the equation for the time being. I’ll only note that, far from paying slavers for their property, the correct / moral answer would have been to demand the slavers release and pay back their former slaves for their work and lost-freedom.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            1. Aren’t you the one always telling BF to anchor his answer in the real world and not the ideal?

            2. Reality: The slaves were “property” dating from thousands of years prior to the Civil War. They were property at the time of the war.

            3. The Congress had no authority to declare existing property “not property”. One reason many of us recognize the actions of the Govt. surrounding the Civil War as the biggest turning point in Constitutional law. That being that is was undermined.

            4. Even under the system today “retro-active” laws are prohibited. The idea of reparations to the slaves would have to have been based on making slavery illegal in the past, when it was legal.

            The Civil War is just one of those examples you asked me for when one group imposes its will on another that in turns destroys the brotherhood of common citizenship in a society. Don’t bother going off on “what about the slaves”? I am specifically addressing how major social changes are made in the larger body politic.

            • 1. Aren’t you the one always telling BF to anchor his answer in the real world and not the ideal?

              Fair point.

              In the real world, following the Emancipation Proclamation, you no longer had (in rebel states) a government right to own people. This could be viewed either as “taking” your property, or “recognizing” that you didn’t own it to begin with. In the South, presumably, the former would be the dominant thinking. In the North, obviously, the later.

              However, since the North ended up wiping the floor with the South, the North got to decide which one view was enforced.

              Now, as a mater of perspective as a time-traveler, I can overlay my views and say, the “right answer” would have been to free the slaves and bill the “masters,” but I recognize that that is not practical for the time and place, thus I suggest the realistic “compromise” of just freeing them.

              2. Reality: The slaves were “property” dating from thousands of years prior to the Civil War. They were property at the time of the war.

              Reality: The slaves were human beings and not property. That that was not the prevailing belief of the time and place does not change matters one iota.

              That said, with the obligation to root responses in the real work, I stipulate that slaves were effectively property at the time and can safely and reasonably be thought of as such in terms of consideration following their release.

              3. The Congress had no authority to declare existing property “not property”. One reason many of us recognize the actions of the Govt. surrounding the Civil War as the biggest turning point in Constitutional law. That being that is was undermined.

              I’m not sure I disagree with you here. I think, had we not been at war, there’s no way this would have worked without an Amendment or, at least, a SCOTUS ruling.

              But, since y’all decided to up and rebel, well.. all bets are off. Taking the moral high ground, sticking it to the South, and giving added incentive to the slaves to foment an insurrection within your insurrection was a master stroke.

              You don’t get to complain about the way the game is played after you’ve stormed out of the room.

              4. Even under the system today “retro-active” laws are prohibited. The idea of reparations to the slaves would have to have been based on making slavery illegal in the past, when it was legal.

              EHHHHHHHH…….

              Ex post facto laws are prohibited. That is, they cannot make something a crime after you’ve done in, and then charge you for it.

              I’m not so sure you’d be right on this as they’re making slavery illegal going forward but reparations would probably fall under civil damages, not criminal. You’d have to consult a Constitutional lawyer on this one, but I wouldn’t offer nearly as much certainty as you seem to be doing.

              That said, I was arguing more from a moral standpoint than a legal one. You could be right that reparations to the slaves would have been illegal/unconstitutional, but from a moral standpoint, you’ve stolen time, labor, and freedom from a human being and you have to, to the best of your ability, remediate that.

              The Civil War is just one of those examples you asked me for when one group imposes its will on another that in turns destroys the brotherhood of common citizenship in a society. Don’t bother going off on “what about the slaves”? I am specifically addressing how major social changes are made in the larger body politic.

              I’m not sure what you’re getting at here… maybe I just haven’t had enough Red Bull yet. Can you rephrase or clarify?

            • I wrote a big reply, but I don’t see it. ::sigh::

              Just assume I wrote an annoying typical Mathius response and move on with your life.

    • Of particular importance here, is the prevention of protectionist state policies that favor state citizens or businesses at the expense of non-citizens conducting business within that state. (D13 asks….does anyone see a problem with this?)

      Nope. Seems fine to me so far.

      We’re one COUNTRY. We shouldn’t be able to engage in economic warfare between states. This feels like a legitimate use of the Commerce Clause.

      • Boom !

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13, Mathius

        The problem with the argument is that it is describing intrastate commerce.

        It was the commerce that was authorized for regulation, not the citizenship of the people doing business within a State.

        Thus the clause should not be used to mess with State regulations governing business within the State, even if non residents had different rules than residents.

        Example. Idaho’s attempt to restrict flow of its timber resources to out of state mills was determined to violate the Commerce Clause restrictions by the Fed. Not because out of state mills could not buy the timber, but because the State tried to stop the timber from being shipped to out of state mills. The out of state companies could have purchased the timber and then resold it to in state mills. But this requirement restricted the interstate trade of the timber in question. Thus it violated the Fed rules per the Commerce Clause.

        • The problem still exists today, friend JAC…..the Commerce Clause still tries to restrict intra-state movements. We pay no attention to it but they still try. Case in point, Texas still mines and uses coal within the borders of the state. However, the EPA tried to prevent this using the commerce clause saying that “any wind that blows” creates interstate nature.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            You brought up the price fixing of natural gas sent to the States in the more northern climates, like New England, New York etc. New York would have plenty of it’s own in state NG if Cuomo didn’t ban fracking. Does that State import gas resources from only wells that did not use that technical breakthrough?

            The inconsistancy of the applications of the commerce clause are so astounding. Example, the FDA banned the making of pickled herring, in the US, killing the industry in Maine using processes that have existed literally forever. But at the same time allow the importation of the same product made the same age old way from Canada.

            Isn’t the FDA’s power been dented a bit after the SCOTUS ruling on raisins the other year? You’d think if it holds for one food, it’d apply to all produces the FDA dictates price controls on. Or does it take an individual case each and every time.

    • Colonel, you’re going to like this one…

      ——————

      Now, we have this…. “The meaning of the word “commerce” is a source of much of the controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of “commerce” affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power. Moreover, what constitutes “interstate” commercial activity has also been subject to consistent debate.”

      Commerce means commerce.

      Financial business transactions. Selling stuff, buying stuff, shipping stuff, employing people, that kind of thing.

      Commerce does not mean “anything even remotely or tangentially related to something that might have to do with money and a state line.”

      For example, I could argue – I wouldn’t, but I could – that SUFA is a matter of interstate commerce. You see, I’m on here at work. I am, thus, using my work’s funds to pay for my time, internet service, and computer to argue with you. You, being in Texas (or at least someone on here) is also at work, but in a different state and using company funds to read my ramblings. Thus, we have created some sort of interstate commercial affect. Thus, we can conclude SUFA is a matter of interstate commerce and, thus, the Feds are granted authority to regulate it.

      But, of course, that’s nonsense.

      I could argue – I wouldn’t, but I could that local schools are a matter of interstate commerce because they employ teachers and purchase materials from across state lines. Even where that might not be the case, the students graduate and will be employed in other states and affect commerce that way. As such, the federal government has the authority to regulate schools, too.

      But, of course, that’s nonsense.

      Generally, I hate slippery slope arguments, but here it applies. If you open the door as wide as the government has with regards to the definition of “commerce,” you can define pretty much any activity to be under its purview.

      So, while I am hardly a strict constructionist by any means, I would suggest we need to opt for a tighter definition of this word – especially when it’s given so much weight in the balance against states’ rights. States rights become meaningless in this context since the federal government can appropriate any power it wishes and find some connection to interstate commerce to justify it. And that is not the intent behind this clause – quite the opposite, in fact.

      • Ok…..where is Mathius and what have you done with him….perhaps it is the threat of the ferocity of my counter attack…..but, you sir….are correct. It does need tightening significantly.

        • D13’s *ahem* “relations” *ahem* with Mrs.13 affect his mood. His mood affects his business decisions. His business deals with other businesses across state lines.

          Thus D13’s and Mrs.13’s bedroom habits fall under the purview of the federal government, who now mandates relations 3x (+/-1) / week. You will receive a pamphlet in the mail with 1-2 weeks detailing the specific *ahem* “approved activities” you will be required to engage in.

          Janet Reno has been retained to monitor compliance and will sit in as necessary. Her notes will be reviewed by the relevant subcommittee in the Senate.

    • Lopez argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools, while the government claimed that this fell under the Commerce Clause since possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions

      What a nonsense justification.

      “affecting general economic conditions”.. hoo boy.. talk about a broad scope.

    • He declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that “[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

      Bullseye.

    • Technically, everything can be construed as interstate commerce under the current definitions.

      I exhale carbon dioxide.

      Some of the CO2 finds its way into your crops in Texas.

      You have a slightly better harvest as a result of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

      My breathing is interstate commerce.

    • Secondly, the use of Federal funds as a coercive threat to succumb to Federal Rules that do not fall under the commerce clause nor the Constitution, should be illegal.

    • Third…States should be allowed to exercise its own authority in civil matters and let the market place decide whether or not it is practical. For example, if I do not wish to sell a frigging cake to anyone for any reason….it is not the business of the Federal Government.

      Ehhhhh… you’re wandering into 14th Amendment territory. Stay on topic!

    • Fourth…States should be allowed to barter and use whatever monetary exchange that they wish to use. If I want to trade cattle from Texas for wheat from Kansas…I should be free to do so.

      I’m not sure what you mean.. does “Texas” own cattle, or just Texans?

      Why can’t you currently barter? Is this an actual thing that you can’t barter? Bartering is literally just trading without currency.

      Can you clarify?

      • Yes..sir I can clarify….I cannot, legally, take 100 head of cattle across state lines and trade with a Kansas farmer for a like amount. If the government finds out, we are in violation of the commerce clause and we have a formal letter to that. I will find it and quote for you tomorrow.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Can we expond on this a bit. I don’t want to get into get into “bartering”. Let’s just say that you have 100 head of cattle at your ranch and there is a buyer in Kansas that will buy and tendered an offer at $50/lbs on th hoof. You are saying the US Federal Government can and will judge whether they will allow that sale or not? State of Texas has no problem, the transhipping State of Oklahoma has no problem. Kansas up at the stock yards and meat packing plants has no problem….why is the feds involved? There’s no impediment to trade imposed by any State border. I’ll only bring in one caveat and that is some disease the cattle may be carrying, they’d want to know so it doesn’t get spread beyond your ranch., as an example. That could affect the national well being.

          When I took a class on Constitutional Law in college, the commerce clause was discussed. One of the prime drivers of writing the Constitution and putting aside the “Articles of Confederation” was that States were placing impediments of intersate trade on their individual borders. The Commerce Clause as taught back in the dark ages, was saying the feds were insuring that free trade will not be hindered within the “nation” by the individual States, and the Federal government will guarentee that. Nothing what so ever about “Intrastate” trade. That was left entirely up to the State to handle. But even that has been bastardized. Buying insurance is a major case to point at as an example.
          The Feds are doing precisely what the writers of the Constitution were trying to prevent. Colonel, you pointed out natural gas. Sure the N/E would like it to be cheaper due to the occassional chilly periods up there (sarc) The feds force a cheaper price to that region, where then you can sell to Arkansas at a higher price, but a far less demand. Much less, the Feds up until recently banned the sale of Natural Gas internationally. If protection of critical indigeneous industry and promotion of “Free Trade” is the Feds prime objective I see then violating that premise at every corner. Why NAFTA? WHY the TPP? Why the sale of 20% of our Enriched uranium industry to Russia? Those deals have and will destroy American businesses. If an american manufacturer puts their prices to high…..no sale. They have to come down in some fashion. The price of NIKE’s sure as hell didn’t come down when they moved their manufacturing to Indonesia. The CEO just bragged on his return to the shareholder. Which is also in turn is fair because that is capitalism. It’s just that the government and unions have placed so many hurdles in the way, companies had no choice.

          • You bring up some great points…..I will answer you this afternoon…as I have a couple of things to do….but to give you a teaser….I can sell cattle in lots of 25 head without restriction to an individual…..but you cannot sell cattle in four 25 head lots. I cannot sell cattle to independent packers….we go to auction and the price is control by……………..packers.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              There is a small independent meat processing plant in the area. You can bring in beef, hogs etc to be processed for you or sold to them for sale as finished product in their store. They are constantly battling the Feds and the FDA trying to shut them down. The fact that they continually MEET all FDA and food safety requirements the feds can not do so. The small local company claims that it is only because the feds HATE sending inspectors out to the small operations and much prefer sitting in an office in a huge mega corporate plant like Sandringham in Kinston. Collect the pay, but do their weekly inspection, or what ever cycle they have, from the comfort of a one stop shop. Is the product any better from Kinston than the small guy in Trenton. I seriously doubt it. After following some trucks on the road to Kinston carrying poultry, I rarely buy store bought poultry anymore. Most of the birds were DOA, due to the freezing rain. Did they just throw away those several thousand dead birds, I doubt it. That is precisely why when a few people get sick a billion eggs are destroyed, once in those mega plants all tracking is lost. Why is several million pounds of beef destroyed, same reason.

              Just think about how shellfish is handled. Each and every bag has a key code on it. That tells you who, what, when, where, in case of illness. If illness occurs other than your own processing fault a very specific target is known and can be rectified immediately. I do know the difference between good and bad, ie spoiled seafood, or food for that matter. What you can not see is pollutants etc. Through those codes bad handling, or poaching from closed and polluted beds be tracked and shut down immediately.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            The japanese when trying to break into the US electronics market used a very predatory technique. The US market was by far and away the largest market in the world. The US manufacturers made good products. The vast percentage of the US products stayed in the US. The vast percentage of the Japanese products stayed in Japan and Asia, Even that market was small compared to the US market.

            The Japanese imported to the US without sale warehouses full of their products. US Customs permitted it, “We’re just warehousing not selling”. Well they did eventually sell at hugely lower prices, absolute basement and at a loss prices. Of course the consumer flocked to those products and they were not any better than US products and at the time worse in quality. The Japanese also raised the prices to their largest market to compensate those losses. The US manufacturers in turn, seeing that they had no entry into Japanese markets due to Japanese rules and a negligable foot print in other parts of asia, 1st cut R&D to reduce cost. That limited new and better products, still not enough so prices came down until they were GONE, wiped out and the Japanese and then Korean, then others took the entire market. This was entirely enabled by the US government, by not playing the SAME game as the Japanese did. Could have stopped them cold. Free trade implies to me an even playing field. Where that does not occur we should not play.

            I will conceed that many safety rules are in place for a good reason. There are also a lot of BS rules also. Like stopping GE dumping PCB’s in the Hudson, god knows the Love Canal, etc. A company can not be allowed to move just to be able to avoid the high level safety and environmental safeguards by moving. End result is a Bhopol. Or the literal slave labor manufacturing in PI under Marcos and Indonesia by Suharto (i believe him Sukarno maybe) you get the picture. Can the Chinese buy at their wages the very same products they’re manufacturing for the US and Europe now? Not many can. Are the workers in Mexico really benefiting from the manufacturing transfer there? Not much, why are they still crossing in droves? The worker is not receiving the benefit, the grandee on the hill in his hacienda is reaping the vast bulk of the money. Can the majority of the poor in this country purchase those products, Yes… as SK says his Pop said, “we here in the US have the richest poor people in the world”.

            Europe at that time protected their indigenous manufacturers, and those prices were HIGH but for a different reason. They did NOT want the people just blowing their money on consumer products like a TV or stereo instead of food, rent/mortgage, clothes etc. In other words neccessities of life, NOT I wants. Just try and sell a Stereo or TV that you bought at the exchange at US prices to an Italian. Would have landed you in the stockade so fast….after you suffered the Italian penalties.

    • States should divest themselves of Federal Funds and quit living off the teat.

      GO FOR IT!

      As a (massive) donor state, if beneficiary states don’t want my money, they’re free not to take it.

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    The meaning of “Commerce”. I have posted this before. Guessing not many read it. I suggest you take the time

    Key points:

    The meaning of “commerce” was deliberately changed via academic legal types who lost their arguments before the Supreme Court as part of FDR’s attempt to take over the economy. It is after the FDR period that the Courts started to undermine all prior cases which limited the Federal role via the “definition” of commerce.

    Commerce at the time of founding included “navigation/shipping”, transport (canals, waterways and roads) and the trading of goods (buying and selling) primarily agricultural or manufactured.

    The purchase of materials for manufacture into finished goods was not commerce. Selling cattle across state lines would be commerce, as would buying and selling beef or other food products.

    The interesting criteria is that commerce applies to merchants, which in turn was limited to those who purchased and sold things. Thus the buying and selling of cattle or perhaps “hides” would be a merchant’s activity. But that would not involve buying wholesale and selling retail, necessarily. But the wholesaler of today would clearly be a merchant and thus conducting commerce.

    https://www.i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Commerce-Clause-2.pdf

  15. Mathius…….As a (massive) donor state, if beneficiary states don’t want my money, they’re free not to take it….No, we are not and I point to forced subsidies as an example. You have heard me state many times on here that we, as a cattle operation, are forced to take $ 80,000 per year NOT TO GROW CORN. We are a frigging cattle ranch and do not want to grow corn…..we cannot give it back…the government literally will not take it. We cannot deny it….the government literally says no. The years that we sent it back, they gave us a credit, unasked for, on tax returns. this is the fallacy of the damned government and your money. So, we get a tax free subsidy to not grow corn…and we turn around and give it to charity and take an $ 80,000 deduction off our taxes when we did not use our money….we used your money and you still gave out a deduction. Thank you.

    • Next time the government crams 80k down your throat, feel free to send it my way. I’ll ensure it finds its way to good causes!

      • Does this bother you? These unasked for subsidies that is just wasted money…however, two of our neighbor ranchers by pickup trucks and crap. IS this the type of world you lefties want? People who do not give a damn about how your money is spent? A government that is unaccountable? We will get another check in September…..the fiscal year of subsidies.At least we stand by our principles and do not spend the money…we give it to charity. One half goes to the St Jude hospital in Memphis and the other half goes to the Shriner’s burn clinic in San Antonio.

        Now in fairness, the checks arrive no matter who is in charge. All you have to do is own 10,000 acres or better and you automatically get the money. This is nothing more than price control. I hope you do realize that if we grow the corn anyway, we cannot get it to market? We also cannot sell it overseas….like our cattle. We cannot even take it to Canada nor can we take it to Mexico….just like we cannot bring our asparagus into the United States. Some system.

        • Does this bother you? These unasked for subsidies that is just wasted money

          Yes – I would need to know a lot more about agricultural subsidies and soil-banking before I could offer anything resembling an informed opinion, but yes. As a general concept, it does bother me.

          IS this the type of world you lefties want? People who do not give a damn about how your money is spent?

          No, though again, I require more information to offer a strong opinion.

          We will get another check in September…..the fiscal year of subsidies.At least we stand by our principles and do not spend the money…we give it to charity.

          I’m not kidding. I’ll take it.

          Seriously, preschool is ridiculously expensive.

          One half goes to the St Jude hospital in Memphis and the other half goes to the Shriner’s burn clinic in San Antonio.

          So give me 14k and split the rest between St. Jude and the Shriner’s.

          The 14k will go to the good cause of educating a young lady who is brilliant and will probably wind up curing cancer some day.

          Now in fairness, the checks arrive no matter who is in charge. All you have to do is own 10,000 acres or better and you automatically get the money. This is nothing more than price control. I hope you do realize that if we grow the corn anyway, we cannot get it to market? We also cannot sell it overseas….like our cattle. We cannot even take it to Canada nor can we take it to Mexico….just like we cannot bring our asparagus into the United States. Some system.

          If I’m not much mistaken, the Blue Shirts have long tried to limit, remediate, and roll back these kinds of programs. It is the Red Shirts pulling this crap.

          Much like your loathed “vote buying” handouts that the Blue Shirts do through welfare, etc, this is the Red Shirt version.

          That’s just my understanding, again, I haven’t done any research.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          What excuse is there for NO importation of your asparagus? One sees all sorts of other produce in the market from Mexico? Even Amy Vanderbilt (ettiquete) says Asparagus is the ONLY food to be eaten with your fingers even in the most elegant setting. That’s what finger bowls are for.

          • LOL…..because we are not a registered agent to supply asparagus to the United States. We simply sell it to the Mexicans…..we do not produce that much ( 2,000 acres ) so we cannot get into the “controlled” market. However, I could sell it to Del Monte in Mexico at Mexican prices and then Del Monte can bring it across. Now, I can become a registered agent for the low low price of $250,000 or I could send a large donation to the Clinton Foundation, get an audience with Clinton and receive a dated exemption that can be renewed with renewed donations. My point is, that a single person or a small entity cannot beat the Washington establishment. Washington and its surrogates ( FDA, EPA, etc) are all on the take.

            We did not do proper investigation on horses…we also raise quarter horses. They had the proper paperwork from the Mexican authorities. we had the proper licensing to drive them to the border…..and the horses were certified disease free. However, they were not certified by the United States….they were to be quarantined for 90 days. We lost them at the border because we were already through the Mexican side and on the American side of the bridge. WE never got them back. They were destroyed and we received no compensation and lost our argument in arbitration. So much for NAFTA. There was no free trade…..just controlled trade.

            We also experience a similar problem in Mexico with water. Land owners do not own the water on their land. You must have a permit to drill a well or to even have a stock pond. We have a ten year permit to have our own well for the low low price of $ 832,500 pesos or about $45,000 USD. Even then, you are also regimented on the amount of water that you can irrigate with or pump. We sell water to our neighbors because they do not have the funds to drill wells…much less pay their government. It is the same there…..pay for play.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              If memory serves me correctly the vast majority of the NAFTA deal was negotiated during Bush I’s reign. Clinton obviously carried the ball forward and signed it into law. Just like TPP, Obama started it and if it hasn’t yet been implemented, will be by whomever is President next term. Hillary or Trump. It’ll make no difference.

              I never dealt with international trade like the Colonel, the AAA baseball league, but used to travel quite a bit. With the exception of one incident going to Canada, coming back to the US was usually a very unpleasant and abusive experience, by the US Border Patrol and Custom Service. One episode, was a friend of mine and I went on a holiday and shopping trip to Montreal. We paid all applicable Canadian taxes, their products pay what’s due. Wasn’t much, we didn’t care. Went home and the Canadians waved us through as returning Americans. Stop at the US border and we of course had things to declare, we had been shopping. Take the items and receipts into the customs office, and had a very small duty to pay, we expected it. However, the agent saw that we had paid all the Canadian taxes like the VAT. They instantly got huffy and told us to return to Canada and get our money back. We said, we do not care, it’s not a lot. Our time is worth more than getting a refund. They would not let us proceed. We had to reenter Canada, go through their customs which left their agents shaking their heads wondering why the US were such asses. They did refund the money. We then had to go through the whole entire process on the US side again. Showed the receipt of the refund, paid our duty due, which was just a few dollars after exceeding our limit a little. 3 hours pissing around over < $20……seems like a minor thing, but I never had any experience like that traveling to any foreign country ever, before or after the formation of the EU. Only in the US. I made a quip as we were leaving about what happened to NAFTA and you thought the agents were going to explode and arrest us. It always seemed they operate much like the IRS, very arbitrarily just to intimidate and exert power.

              The entry into Canada issue was related to the soldiers killed in Afghanistan, by friendly fire. The soldiers had come from that area that I was crossing at and the agents were retaliating, understandable, but a pain. Took 10 hours to resolve.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    A little something to read with your morning coffee. Now the R’s need to goad the D’s into continuing to harp on voter ID as awful, discrimination, bad, ugly, vile, etc. etc.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/americans_affirm_voter_id_laws.html

  17. Dale A Albrecht says:

    This is related because it does deal with commerce, specifically Hillary’s and Bil’s commerce.

    http://observer.com/2016/08/hillarys-secret-kremlin-connection-is-quickly-unraveling/?ref=yfp

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    Sir, I am going to need to see some references to this restriction on selling cattle across state lines. I am not aware of any such Federal control.

    The Feds have rules for transport and record keeping. The States have brand inspection requirements.

    Cattle move between ranches in large numbers in my part of the country. One rancher selling hundreds of cows, cow/calf pairs, or yearlings to another, in another State.

    Granted, most feeder cattle are sold at auction or directly to brokers, who then transport them to the feed lots, in another State. But to my knowledge that is primarily a method of convenience for most small ranches.

    So please, can you provide some background on this.

    The same for your Corn CRP would be nice as well. I am not aware of programs restricting production that are not tied to the CRP program. Which is acreage specific, not production.

    • As to corn….will have to get the documents from our manager (foreman) but it is acreage specific….however, will honor your request and post them as soon as they are sent to me.

      As to cattle…there is no prohibition on selling breed cattle or calves to other ranches. None at all. however, you cannot sell directly to a packing house. You will go to auction and it is invitation only unless you are selling breed cattle. There is no provision concerning transportation of cattle to anywhere. I can load up as many trucks as I want or as many rail cars as I want. The only restriction is destination. All cattle are inspected for disease and/or proper care…such as no steroids, etc.

      The concept of paying farmers and ranchers for not growing certain crops is strictly to limit production to keep prices stable. There is no other reason.

      Brand inspection is looked at with a cursory glance….but only really looked at hard if a certain brand has filed rustling complaints with their respective associations….ours would be registered with the Southwestern Cattleman’s Association. Brands do not mean much anymore except at auction houses. Your reputation rides with the brand. For example, we very rarely have to “show” the cattle because our reputation for range fed with no steroids is immaculate. BUT, we still have to go through the auction process. We are not large enough to sell directly to the packers….that is reserved for those that have exemptions. Out operation is a 5,000 head cow calf operation. But we are tied directly with the 6666 brand, better known as the “four sixes”.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13thecolonel

        Then your prior statement that you can not sell to a fellow rancher in Kansas is false???

        What auctions must you be invited to? All our auction yards are open. But these yards do not sell to “packers” as far as I know. You will see the brokers buy cattle at the auction yards, but again these are then shipped to the feed lots. Those being in eastern MT and in Utah.

        I never followed cattle past the feed lots so I do not know how the Slaughter House and Packing Plants acquire their cattle. I could see how associations of feedlots would hold auctions for the processors though, thus being by invitation only.

        But here is the key point. I do not know of any FEDERAL LAW that is forcing this arrangement to take place. Unless there is a “food safety” rule preventing processors from buying livestock directly from ranchers.

        As for this claim: “The concept of paying farmers and ranchers for not growing certain crops is strictly to limit production to keep prices stable. There is no other reason.”

        Sorry, but false. The CRP program was developed to help reduce soil erosion and loss of marginal pasture lands. It was expanded in the late 80’s and the 90’s to focus on wildlife habitat and riparian area protection. It has been used by Environmentalists to pay for keeping lands out of production without paying for the habitat themselves. Instead pushing the cost of their goals onto the general tax payers.

        If your Corn limits are acreage driven it must be part of either the CRP program or the ethanol production restrictions. Just guessing anyway.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          JAC….I have read about the last part of your comment. Millions of acres of land that was set aside for the reasons you noted, being marginal or to protect wildlife habitats. Great concept and rational. However millions of acres have gone under the plow to produce corn for ethanol production forgoing the subsidy to not produce because the farmer gets more money from the ethanol plant than the check to leave it fallow by the government. Plus being marginal, more chemicals have to be used to produce any worthwhile yields and then creating more environmental damage. My statement may not be totally correct extactly in all cases, but holds true in all together to many cases.

        • No sir, not false,,,,,,I should have been more explicit and said breed cattle….same with horses. However, I was referencing the question to me about bartering. There is a “rule” ( I will also include this request to our manager to get the exact wording ) that I am sure was designed to protect something but specifically restricts bartering with livestock….especially pigs and chickens. At any rate, we still have to register with the US Government.

          However, familiarize yourself with the case of Wickard vs Filburn 317 US 111. This particular case pertained to wheat to use for feed. It has been expanded by rule to cover all agriculture. The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate), and is therefore within the purview of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn’s relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.

          I only pointed this out to show that it was indeed economics related. The commerce clause has been significantly amended by rule, It is dangerous. Very dangerous.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Very critical case in the 30’s when the FDR administration decided to expand the “commerce clause” in it’s absolute broadest sense.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            My Texican friend, you need to pay closer attention to my words.

            I said the CRP program was not about price controls. The programs you cited and those on corn today are NOT CRP programs.

            They are attempts to control prices and supplies. To the Central Planner it is not always about price, even if it is the bottom line to us. Sometimes they are really trying to create or discourage supply. Shows how DUPID they are.

            I do not deny what has happened to the Commerce Claus and was one of if not the first at SUFA to make this point. At the time I believe I said if we could fix just one thing it would be the Commerce Clause.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Here is a taste of the Fed. control of food prices and production.

    http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/regulations-and-trade-barriers

    • I don’t really have time to get into food price regulations, and I’m nowhere near the level at which I would myself to be “informed” enough to have an opinion worth listening to.

      That said, I don’t (generally) like the idea of price controls.

      I don’t like the idea of the feds telling the Colonel when and where and how he can sell his cows.

      I don’t like them saying we can’t import this, or export that (excluding reasonable environmental or safety considerations).

      I don’t like them saying we need to use corn ethanol in our cars.

      I don’t like them paying people not to grow things.

      I don’t like them paying people to grow things.

      I don’t (necessarily) think the laws need to be consistent at a federal level as what works on the Nebraska plains does not necessarily make sense in SoCal’s scrub country.

      I do not like giving water subsidies that make it economical to grow friggin’ rice in the middle of the desert. IN THE DESERT, FOR CRYIN’ OUT LOUD!

      I do not like it, JAC-I-Am, I do not like that Uncle Sam!

    • In short, I want Sam to watch out for the environment, food quality, animal treatment, worker safety. Other than that, I want him to butt out.

      If there is a reasonable claim as to why he needs to interfere beyond this, I’m all ears.

      But it’s not a legitimate power of Uncle Sam’s to manipulate the marketplace just because he can. Nor to give subsidies to buy votes. Nor to keep certain prices down. Nor to prop certain prices up.

      The market for growing and consuming food is broad and dynamic enough that I’d rather let it just take care of itself. No one needs one of the Colonel’s cows. If he can’t grow them effectively, or he can’t price them effectively, that’s his problem and I’ll go eat some pulled pork instead. Let the market sort it out.

      Disclaimer: I am amendable to hearing arguments against practices that lead to the farming collapse and the Dust Bowl. I am not super informed about that either, but obviously, would like to avoid a repeat there.

      Disclaimer II: There is probably some serious grounds for wanting a diversified growing culture in America – that if a blight, for example, wipes out all the corn, you want to be growing other stuff too. I support activities that address this concern in the least invasive manner practicable as I consider this a potential national security / general welfare threat and a self-directing market is not likely to take this into sufficient consideration.

      Disclaimer III: Something something Monsanto is evil yada yada yada..

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Mathius…..on your last two comments, I have absolutely no conflict. The 1st sentence in the reply I’m attaching to is dead on. That is looking out for the “GENERAL WELFARE” ie all, not just a few select few.

        Related issue about corn and ethanol. Back when I was still working the company was planning on building an operations center in Egypt. After riots and Obama and Hillary said Mubarack must go and Egypt went totally to hell, the company located elsewhere. In this specific case it was Johannesburg South Africa. What were the Egyptians rioting about JOBS and FOOD. Obviously foreign companies went elsewhere impacting more jobs and creating an even larger problem, but food in the form of corn was also limited and mostly unreachable by the people there. They specifically were saying at the US…you’re selling corn to create ethanol to run your cars at prices we can not compete with and we’re starving. All because Obama want to curtail climate change.

        • So close..

          you’re selling corn to create ethanol to run your cars at prices we can not compete with and we’re starving. All because Obama want to curtail climate

          As if the ethanol requirements have anything to do with protecting the environment..

          Also, not for nothing, I’ll point out that the ethanol required was mandated in 2007. Now, I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think Obama was the President in 2007. If I’m not mistaken – and correct me if I’m wrong – that was a certain Texan who shall remain nameless.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Ethanol has been slowly bleeding in for decades. My point is that his policy of the continued subsidies and price supports when the people in Egypt were begging for food plus his agenda of removing Mubarack, Climate change was one of his issues, but also decrying the import of foreign resources. OK we’re pretty near self sufficiency if not so…ethanol support should be GONE, goodbye, adios, ciao….The creation of ethanol uses more energy to create/gallon than what is derived per gallon at the end. Would it have been any different if McCain, that would be total speculation. i’m cynical enough to say NO

          • There were several opportunities to get rid of the ethanol mandate since we know know that it is a losing proposition, more energy goes into making it by current processes than comes out. So, hile one is SUPPOSED to learn from ones mistakes, we just ramp them up instead.

            • The alcohol mandate is tied to the oxygen mandate. The theory was that you can make gasoline burn cleaner in older cars if you add a molecule that includes oxygen. Originally refiners used methyl tertiary butyl ether but that turned out to be a ground water pollution problem so the refiners switched to ethanol as a safer alternative. The EPA has steadfastly refused to lift the oxygenate requirement despite the fact that it does not reduce emissions in modern computer controlled engines. In addition to the oxygenate mandate there is also the biofuels mandate which is the ethanol requirement you are discussing. It is supported by the corn lobby and by the ethanol producers who are getting a nice subsidy.
              Once again it is government interference in the market place that creates the problems.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Science be damned (sarc)

                Theory: The government despite it’s words about relying on scientific fact and evidence are really operating strictly on political agendas and cronyism.

                Espouse a theory, experimentation and proof that the theory and process is correct is supposed to be repeatable.

                Proof: The government is operating on the scientific method. We know that they operate 100% of the time infallibly without variation on my theory stated.

              • And, another thing. The availability of good old fashioned eating, sweet corn here in North Jersey is spotty every summer and the prices are .50 per cobb at best. This summer .75 is more like it.

              • There is no more science and some people who I know who used to LOVE science are on this pseudo Lysenko bandwagon.

                They used to say that what we referred to as the “social sciences” psychology, sociology etc were NOT science in any way because outcomes were so different and unpredictable. Now, it is the real hard sciences that have fallible under the same spell. You build the experiment around the result you expect to obtain.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                When I lived in Italy, food was very inexpensive compared to the US. Always fresh, very little preservative packed available. I never ever had any illness due to eating anything anywhere, including seafood at the beach. Meat from the butcher fruit, drinking the water and NOT bottled etc. Upon return to the US, NY to be precise, I got so sick, I thought I’d die. Intestinal issues from the reservoir system.

                As I said the food was very affordable. Anybody could afford good wholesome FOOD. Obviously there was some high priced stuff, but that was special, for the rich gentry. Given there was very little refrigeration, food was fresh and generally local. Food was seasonal. When strawberries were in….you ate strawberries and a lot of them…..Once the EU got going, I noticed that the food was generally much higher and much more not locally or regionally produced. Market prices in Amsterdam were seriously high, even compared to US prices. Just to get fresh seafood to a market that was from Brittany France, was expensive and affordable to but a few. The costs to get it there and stay fresh was huge. Items like oranges which were cheap anyway were now just rotting in Sicily, because through the EU trade deals and the fruit most of the time not perfectly orange without artificial coloring could not be sold. generations old small business were being shut down because they could not afford to buy the fancy equipment and meet the bureaucrats rules set in Brussels. Even though there was never a health issue. If they had one they would not have stayed in business, they’d be shunned. Businesses force to close in one country because in France or Germany there was a similar (bigger) business and competition was not to be tolerated. The EU bureaucrats said about the now unemployeed, well you can go anywhere now to try and find a job…..they had had one right where they lived. I know a lot of people that got caught up with that especially from the new countries admitted to the EU and the PEOPLE were not happy. The governments really do not give a damn about the people it’s about power….period.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Stephen….Usually you only have to look as far as WHO funded the research/science project. The “scientists” and researchers are NOT and I repeat NOT going to risk their money by coming out with results that do not conform to the grantors predisposed cause.
                By carefully selecting the data used the desired results will be the outcome every time.

                Just like the Climate scientists in the UK doing the work for the UN climate study threw out the russian data because it did not fit their predetermined results.

              • Part of the problem is just human nature. Once the environmentalist have obtained a victory in the form of legislation, they are loath to back track and admit a mistake. Hence the spotted owl, red legged frog in CA, oxygenates and alcohol continue despite evidence that they are all hoaxes.

              • I once sat on a plane next to a person employed by the NRC. He was working on some document at the time. I asked him if they had ever done a study on the death rates associated with coal and nuclear from mining to end use. His response was the nuclear is much more dangerous. End of conversation. Of course that did not answer my question as danger is potential deaths not actual deaths.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      JAC…my 1 & 2 reply will be in jest.

      1) Milk and by-products price control….PETA would argue that the animals used for the production of the base product are slaves treated inhumanely and should be immediately release. Besides, we don’t need any milk except from Momma’s teat…..honest end result will be the dairy cows will be stew meat and hamburger and not freed.

      2) We should not be using as much sugar as we do now, at any price…. Sugar cane should be used exclusively for the production of RUM to be used in our dear Dread Pirates grog.

      Interesting note….Europe banned the use of corn syrup as a sweetener after proving the detrimental affects on health. I do not believe they have a very large indigenous sugar cane business, mostly from sugar beets or imported. If their prices for real sugar are so much lower than ours, their people healthier from the lack of using chemically artificial sugars, and consume more sweet pasteries and candy than I’d ever dream of using, it really shows how insane our USDA and government policies are.

      Can it be logically argued that producers of products that use these chemically created sweeteners use them to avoid the use of SUGAR at the government inflated prices. Which then in turn cause untold health issues that are not in other countries, or much less.

      • I’m surprised that no one has bothered to mention that it’s likely that ALL of these regulations and laws have a lobbyist who makes sure that politicians have plenty of money for the next election, not to mention how the sudden increase in stocks from the companies the lobbyists represent will help turn a low 6 figure salaried politician into a millionaire before the next election.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Dale

        The cows will have to be destroyed as they are prime contributors to Global Warming. 🙂

        Corn syrup is more expensive to produce that pure sugar from cane. Without price supports via import restrictions, Corn syrup would be reduced naturally.

        Artificial sweeteners were created primarily in response to Govt. programs scaring everyone about the use of sugar drinks. But yes, driving up sugar costs would make artificial sweeteners more profitable.

        Perfect example of how the arrogant Central Planners are unable to see all the cause/effect relationships of their goals and actions.

        • The cows will have to be destroyed as they are prime contributors to Global Warming

          I volunteer to destroy them!

          BBQ sauce will be involved.

          Perfect example of how the arrogant Central Planners are unable to see all the cause/effect relationships of their goals and actions.

          As if “Central Planners” have anything to do with this.

          This is about handouts and market manipulation in favor of supporters and business interests.

          This isn’t communist China making a determination to raise a price. This is some sociopath in a smokey room cooking up an import tariff so that his pal (and backer) will be more profitable.

          These are handouts, pure and simple, and have nothing to do with central planning,

          You think the “government” actually gives a shit about your sugar intake? Of course not. They only care that their pals, who sell sweeteners, make more money, and therefore contribute more money. Any “programs” which serve the function of scaring people away from one thing exist for the purpose of getting you to use alternatives which serve the interests of those in the halls of power. Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            The central planners are the administrations and the administrative agencies under them. Regardless of political persuasion. Be it local, State or Federal. Jesus said it right…”he who is without sin cast the first stone” For any politician to castigate any member of the opposition is hypocrisy at it’s best. To use of the word “Honest” when it comes to a describing a politicion is a contradiction in terms

            My very 1st corporate job in 1970 was as a plant maintenance engineer. This was in an electronics plant in LA (not Lower Alabama). One day an inspector came through and dinged us for not having the correct law abiding electrical outlets in the plant. It seems that a law had been passed requiring a type of outlet that would not create a spark causing an explosion if there was pure LOX present. We were forced to by law to change out each and every outlet in the plant. Arguing that we had NO such gas present in the plant, never used in any shape of form in the operation LOX fell on deaf ears to the inspector and our appeals. The law was the law regardless of it being totally unapplicable in our case. We researched and found only ONE manufacturer made these parts available in our area and to create a market got to the elected representatives to pass a law requiring their use.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            This I copied from your response above:

            As if “Central Planners” have anything to do with this.
            This is about handouts and market manipulation in favor of supporters and business interests.
            This isn’t communist China making a determination to raise a price. This is some sociopath in a smokey room cooking up an import tariff so that his pal (and backer) will be more profitable.
            These are handouts, pure and simple, and have nothing to do with central planning,

            This was exactly one of the peeves the South had with the North. The North and manufacturers were putting in place tariffs and duties on the exportation of raw cotton and importation of things needed to produce said product, forcing the sale at a reduced price up north instead of a higher price England would and could pay, and then forced the purchase of tools and equipment from the north due to the high cost imposed on the import from international manufacturers……heck that was one of the main grievences against England with the revolution. Funny how the screw turns isn’t it.

            Bottom line “He who has the gold makes the rules” Take that any way you want. It hold true, then, now and tomorrow.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            It is absolutely the Central Planners. Who the hell do you think most of the bureaucrats are? The idea that the economy can be managed is a truly PROGRESSIVE belief. Keynes ring a bell?

            Not being China does not negate exactly what is going on. Arrogant academics and bureaucrats who think they can calculate what is best then implement those “controls” via regulations.

            IT IS ALL ABOUT CENTRAL PLANNING. Just because the power is spread among several agencies does not change that fact.

          • BBQ sauce does not go on beef!

            • Thank you, maam,,,,,thank you. NO sauce goes on beef. Sheesh…amateurs.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                But then again PORK rules when it comes to BBQ. I do not use sauce on my pork ribs. Just salt and pepper, with a some red pepper flakes for a kick.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              Sure does on a brisquit or those giant dino size beef ribs in Texas. I do keep it off the sausage though.

            • Sauce absolute DOES go on beef.

              Teriyaki on steak is one of the great joys of this world.

              BBQ sauce on my bacon cheeseburger is another.

              If you want to prove me wrong, ship me a cow and I’ll do a comparison test.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                See we can agree on many things……I do hate NC vinegar based sauces, Mustard based SC sauces. Sweet tomato KC sauces. Maybe a Memphis dry rub at times.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Dinner time. Have to try a new restaurant that opened up yesterday. Simple food and the menu looks good. We’ve been anxious for this opening. The owner opened the best bar in the city with only limited food. Like cheese and crackers etc. No real kitchen. Then he bought the dead end alley next door. Really created a nice outdoor space. 1/2 covered in case it rains. Still limited food. No kitchen. Then he bought the next building and has been renovating it to be a full restaurant with full food service. All the hurdles by the State and city have delayed the opening, but he is also doing it all without debt and the banks. and 90% by his own and his father’s labor. He could have brought it online a lot faster if he went into debt servicing the banks, and also hiring outside contractors. Heck I’m surprised he didn’t get sued for limiting commerce. The great thing is he is open 7 days a week. The bar stays open until 0200. The police are usually there enjoying last call themselves. But all restaurants close by 2000 and no later than 2200. He will stay open until 0200. After 0100 a smaller subset menu is used just so the kitchen can start slowing down and cleaning and prepping for tomorrow. Because the bar is usually full until closing and we usually want some substantial food late. being a local bar/restaurant most people walk and have no risk of a DWI. The owner is a Yankee, and being a Patriot fan during football season is recommended. Unfortunately most people bleed Carolina Blue here and I’m a persona non grata when it comes to collegiate basketball.

            • Amen. You set ’em straight!

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Bottom line we said the same thing. The animals will be destroyed unless the Peta folks want them in their streets chomping on their lawns, Obama want them gone because the the methane released relieving intestinal pressures and needs to curtail climate change. Pretty soon we’ll need to buy carbon offset credits for our natural body functions.

          Remember when Madonna made that song and video and there was a bull fight in it. There was a desclaimer at the end that said, that this bull was NOT harmed during the filming of this video. However, what they neglected to say was that the bull was destroyed after. No fighting bull that survives its contest with the Matador’s or Picadores ever returns to the ring. They usually are destroyed and used as food to the poor, but destroyed none the less. reason, these bulls are smart and aggressive anyway….they will absolutely take out the matador the next time.

          I was using artifical sweeteners and corn syrup interchangeably…sorry. Both are chemical processes, not just squeezing and spinning, being a pure mechanical process. The artificially high cost of sugar has caused the increased use of these artifical lethal sweeteners. Without government intrusion much less it’s flawed analysis about sugar in general, the far more hazardous chemicals are used creating more profit for those companies.

          Heck….we all drank lots of real sugar laden soda pop as a kid. Diabetes was negligable and being overweight not even a thought. Again reference personal experience. 4400 kid high school. Exactly (2) kids went to the nurses office for their insulin shots. No personal injection in the locker room. That was for heroin users. Of course there were some and I mean some overweight kids. A little chucky but could have been a late exit from adolesence. The fact that there were 1 in several hundred kids that might be a bit overweight but not in the least be considered obese, There were also only just a handfull of kids that were technically OBESE. Now it’s the inverse…..My belief is one the dietary regimen brought on by government action. Legal action by we can not have any injury ever. Plus 24/7 news cycle that makes everyone fear letting their kids loose and make them stay home cowering in their rooms. Of course they’ll play video and computer games, they can’t go out and play out in the street or park.

          Interesting note. When I was working in the EU. 1st off when the whistle blew there was not a european in sight in the office. Here in the US you worked until the job was done. We were all exempt here and also there and not entitled to overtime no matter the hours worked. 2nd, every hour you computer went to sleep and you could not work. It forced you to get up, take a break and a walk, take a piss. It actually was nice. Here I’d start sometimes at 0400 in the morning and all of a sudden you’d realize it’s 1400. No breakfast, no lunch, no health break. Then back at it until 2200 or sometimes 0200 the next morning.

          Retirement was a total relief.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    CLASH of CULTURES. You Texicans just don’t understand us westerners do you. I told you Public Access is a serious issue to us freedom loving folks.

    Your brethren will become a scourge if they keep up their practice of locking people out. Folks up here will not take well to these lands becoming “private hunting farms”.

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/letters-from-the-west/article97790302.html

    • Why the hell do you sell it then? I would be willing to bet that they will open the lands. I know one of the families and they have a rather ***dubious*** reputation. Just remember this, if you sell land… expect private ownership. You cannot cross fences down here..you will get shot. However, we do have some nice open land in the Big Bend area. We tried buying some of that land some time ago….did not even get out of the batter’s box.

      I can understand it. The same thing is happening in New Mexico…public land being bought up and fenced.

      • By understanding it, I mean that I like to walk public access land as well.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13thecolonel

        Do not misunderstand. This was private land. The parcel mentioned was actually a large amount owned and managed by Boise Cascade timber company. It is not all contiguous land, but very large contiguous parcels.

        My point, and that of the story, was that our Cultural traditions here were such that most large land owners allowed public access for things like hunting, fishing, hiking and sometimes cutting firewood.

        The immigration of Californians and Coloradans, and now Texicans has changed all that. One of the first things you see after out of state buyers arrive is the NO TRESPASSING and NO HUNTING signs.

        And crossing fences can get you the same result in these parts. Although the fence itself was not enough to justify shooting. It had to be posted in some manner. However, when growing up we were taught to find someone to ask permission if there was a fence. But since “open range” was our law most people did not maintain fences. You never knew whether you were on private of Govt. land.

        Times have changed of course.

        By the way, we have been discovered. Check out this month or last months copy of The Economist. There is a story on the folks running away to N. Idaho and Montana. In the flipping Economist no less. Won’t be long before the uber rich from Europe start showing up and driving prices even farther out of reach.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          A similar case happened in Maine years ago. The timber companies allowed access to do all of the activities you mentioned. Sometimes the companies charged a modest access fee, just to help maintain the roads on the tracts of land. They had to be graded to handle the piddly SUV’s as opposed to big logging trucks. Some people objected and took them to court saying, it’s our right and we should be allowed access for free. Private land that is. Needless to say the courts ruled in favor against the companies in most instances. The other activity that got huge tracts closed off was by the eco-terrorists, they objected to the cutting of the forest and subsequent replanting, not that it was primal forest anyway, but 3rd 4th cutting who knows. They hammered nails into the trees, driving up the costs to find the nails, but making it extremely dangerous to cut he tree or mill it. Instead of following the practice of Nature Conservancy that buys the land at a fair agreed upon price, the terrorist made it useless to the company. Either the company fenced and patroled the land keeping everybody out, or they sold it. The uber rich dudes that bought the land then posted it and the end result was the same….NO PUBLIC access. I saw it happen in VT also and know some of the people that set up their very own private camps on vast tracts of land they got at bargain prices at the time. But still way out of reach for most of us. Only Ted Turner and Tom Brokaw need apply.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            But then the wind companies come through and they do permanent damage to the mountains than the timber companies ever dreamt to doing and the eco dudes are all for it, it’s renewable you know. The mountains sure as hell aren’t That granite does not rejuvenate. The hypocrisy of it all.

        • Understand….and I like the philosophy and I would dare say that most of you honored and did not abuse the privilege of being on private land. We have not had good luck with allowing hunting but, then again, we only have 52,000 combined acres in two different parcels…hardly enough room to do anything. we did have a lot of trouble with poachers because we are also very rigid on game management. So, unfortunately, we posted our property….we also had the problem of allowing friends on to camp and fish our stock tanks…and they would leave trash and debris and even smoldering camp fires. So, we had to nix that as well. The only thing we allow now are supervised trail rides and we also allow some boy scout camping in some areas. They are pretty good at packing out what they pack in………our Texas location had the problem of illegal….errr…..unlawful immigrants that are very destructive and very trashy. We do, however, post no trespassing signs in English and Spanish warning them trespassing and the consequences thereof……

          But i love the “westerners” and their love of the land. Too bad you are being invaded by California….especially. They have no love of the land….just look at their own state.

          I dare say that most of those that are “invading” your area will not like the winters…..I now they do not last very long here in the hot summers….

  21. Dale A Albrecht says:

    When it is so important when a case is traveling through the appeals process as to which court it will be heard in all the way up to the supreme court that says that the courts are political not based on law. I’ll try and make my case. The justices constantly say they made their ruling based on their “interpretation” of the law. That says it is being pushed through some form of ideology that may be subconcieous but not based strictly on the law as written. When we hear or read that the prosecution or court is making law not just ruling on it says that the words are in many cases being the BROADEST interpretation instead of the narrowest, which is the fairest and closer to the intent than a broad interpretation., which actually twist words in only ways that lawyers can dream of.

    Way back in the Dred Scott days, the case that Judge Tenney is so castigated for was an exact ruling of the law and constitution as it was at that time. The ruling against Dred Scott or Frederick Douglas whomever it was not based on a single swing vote by him but unanimous by the court. This was right in the middle of the national debate of the morality of slavery. The court ruled on the law. He said you want a different ruling change the law and the constitution. but yet he goes down as a villan today, because he didn’t make law. His court constantly ruled in favor of property rights as defined, not just some seizure like the courts rule today for the “greater good” whether fair compensation is offered or not.
    Judge Robert’s made law by interpreting Obamacare in the broadest sense possible instead of the narrowest. The court was ideologicaly split and he swung the ruling.
    is it immoral or doesn’t feel good that someone may suffer due to the lack of healthcare, sure, that’s not the point. can the government force me to buy a product or services I do not want or need, now it can based on Judge Roberts one guy. Has our health services achieved more efficiency or better for all the people. Absolutely not…..while at the same time exempting a whole class of people from the law…ie muslims. If it’s not good for them or against their religion, its not good for all. What about strict adherants of the NO ABORTION is right and is murder. Be they Catholics or any other person who objects is told to pound sand and pay up.

    Judge Tenney at the time was not a slave owner. His family was on their plantations, but when he inherited them, he freed them. They were his property and he could do as he wished. He did not let his personal convictions interfere with the law. Take Jefferson. He was a slave owner, wrote some pretty good stuff on liberty and such. Today, people feel he should have freed his slaves before and or in his will. I dare say, he could NOT. He was so far in debt, someone else technically owned them. So they may have in reality have been used as collateral so therefore tied to a creditor, tying his hands regardless of his personal beliefs. George Washington, didn’t free the slaves on his estates. They were not his to free. They were his wife’s, Martha Custis.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    I want to make a point about FASCISM, and its link to the culture of Central Planning by Govt.

    If Govt does not own or control the means of production the concept of centrally planning large scale economic or social changes becomes moot. The socialists wanted central control via outright ownership or at least Govt. ownership. Communists, as we know were just a variation of the global socialists. They only differed in the means of converting us imbecile Capitalists to their lifestyle.

    But then along came a new group called Progressives. These folks figured out that in Capitalists countries you could REGULATE and thus plan and control things via Govt. regulations. This new “Third Way” led to the Fascist movement, Mussolini being one of the first to try it on full scale. After Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson showed him how it could be done.

    I bring this up because the Dem party and Progressives try to deny their linkage to the Fascist political/economic system. Partly because Fascism got a bad name with Hitler and Mussolini’s later alliance with the same. There is a way they play this game, which involves hiding/changing the definition. Surprise, surprise.

    In the early 1900’s the definition of Fascism was a political/economic system by which Govt. controls the means of production and transportation via regulations and partnerships with selected business entities. Thus the “guild system” of Fascist Italy, which led to similar “guild” partnerships during the Wilson and FDR administrations.

    But today you will see the Progressives try to claim that Fascism is the control of Govt. by private enterprise. This is A LIE and deliberate attempt to change the meaning of the term. Why? I do not know for sure except it allows them to claim that Capitalists trying to protect their own interest are Fascists, and of course everything linked to that name.

    Because Political Correctness has taken hold and because the Truth can be harmful to the Progressive psyche, we are not allowed to call them Fascists.

    Now in their defense, just a little, the modern Progressives have shed what was one of their most obvious features. The one that is common among all the Fascist movements in Europe in the early 20th Century. That trait was a strong sense of NATIONALISM.

    I give you Teddy Roosevelt as the classic Progressive of that era, followed by Wilson. Strong control and use of Federal Power for National objectives. The “GREATER GOOD” became popularized by this movement and these people.

    Today’s Progressive does not often display that Nationalistic trait, making them more of a Socialist but still relying on Govt. control rather than outright Govt. ownership.

    Side Note: After watching the primaries this year it appears the Progressive movement is splitting into two major parts. The Socialist and the modern Fascist. There are obviously many Progressives who now view public/govt. ownership of major parts of the economy as not only acceptable but desirable.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I like your posts.

      Sort of brings back the defenses case and who they pointed at during the Nurenburg Trials about eugenics. And also the cases against the German judges.

  23. Gotta give the Liberal’s credit, when it comes to stupid, they are Kings of the Mountain.

    Mediaite reports that VP pick Tim Kaine linked opponent Donald Trump today to Ku Klux Klan “values,” which aren’t “American values.”

    Only for this to come out: This is pretty rich coming from the party of the KKK, the Democrats, and that at a California Klan rally back in March of this year, the KKK’s Grand Wizard Will Quigg expressed his support for Hillary as president.

    As the Gateway Pundit noted, Hillary’s campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan. So much for Hillary’s and Kaine’s “American values.”
    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/vp-pick-kaine-trump-has-kkk-values

  24. Question for the Colonel and/or Mathius. What, if anything, will be next on the debate list?

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    I remember raising this issue about three years ago while still in Oregon. I also recall the reaction I got from some of the SUFA ladies. Looks like some women in academia agree with my conclusion.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/reconsidering_the_female_franchise.html

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      With that link, I thought it is a good time to ask if anyone saw any national newspaper this morning with Hillary saying that she will work very hard to make sure there is NO conflict of interest with The Clinton Foundation and her if elected president. I didn’t catch if she saif “If” or “when”. Citing the unprececdented and unique relationship between her and the foundation. The only way a conflict of interest can be avoided at all is if the foundation ceases operations completely and Bill takes a vacation to a beach somewhere.

      Can anyone with half a brain believe that? The government could easily prove conflicts of interest between her and the foundation. if they chose to press the issue. Conflict of interest issues that even hinted at a conflict were aggressively prosecuted by the DOJ, especially if they are pertaining to a potenial rival to the throne.

  26. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Granted the 7.0 earthquake had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the Clinton’s, their foundation etc……but the recovery sure as heck does. When the US State Dept under Hillary named Bill the lead in the recovery efforts and so did the UN. Where this truly was a disaster with in the initial quake 250-300K killed, millions displaced that is a disaster. Compare that to just 3 villages with a few hundred killed in Italy. No comparison.
    Major articles have been written on how pay to the foundation to play in the recovery was first and formost on Bill’s agenda. Haiti is still a wreck. Not to say it wasn’t a wreck before politically but they now have a ruined country on top of that. Bill as president forcefully reinstalled a president that Haiti threw out, with Carters assistance. The formerly deposed and reinstalled president went after his opponants with a vengence and was immediately thrown out again. With the threats of american intervention if they didn’t take him back. What is an interesting side note is how 1/2 of that island ,the Dominican Republic, be stable and not despoiled, wheras the Haiti half has as long as I remember a real disaster. Papa Doc, Baby Doc etal.

    http://www.voanews.com/a/five-years-after-the-haitian-earthquake/2594607.html

    If the Clinton foundation and Bill’s obvious skill at fund raising and alleged organizational skills, if he had stayed focused on Haiti and devoted all his foundations efforts to the recovery of that nation I might have some respect. But I do not. If it doesn’t line his pockets or fill his enormous ego it just doesn’t warrant attention.

    Like why would his charitable organization be anywhere near a financial deal about enriched uranium with the russians.

  27. Ah Yes, Lobbyist’s and Democrats in bed again: http://theantimedia.org/epipen-scandal-worse/

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      She gets a bill through Congress along with Obama’s signature requiring all shools to have a supply of Epipen’s on hand. Due to early expiration requires those un-used to be replaced $1800 in a year…..Then heaven forbid they relocate to the Netherlands for tax relief.

      I do not know of any product that has been around for any time, much less 50 years without change, not fall into a gradual decline in price.

      As a side from her bio, She was granted an MBA from the University of WVa without completing even 1/2 of the required curriculum. This apparently had been done so by the university under pressure of her father, governor of WVA. now Senator. The university has since revoked the degree and those involved at the university resigned…..But she and her Father march on.

  28. To Mathius…..thank you very much for the civil discourse. I enjoyed it.

    To Gman….thank you, sir, for the threads.

    To all whom participated: Thank you for keeping the discussions free of anger and name calling.

    PS: Mathius……do you know the trouble you created by giving my raptors Red Bull? Please bring your children down for me to baby sit…..I will fill them up on red skittles and Dr Pepper and turn them back over to you.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    A shot across the bow, or in other words, a Black Flag warning sign.

    A comment from one of the central banking economists in Jackson Hole this week.

    “”Fiscal expansion can replace ineffective monetary policy at the zero lower bound,” Sims said. “It requires deficits aimed at, and conditioned on, generating inflation. The deficits must be seen as financed by future inflation, not future taxes or spending cuts.””

    This is our children’s future. We are so screwed.

    If you have not heard, the focus of the meeting was that the Central Bankers have run out of options and are calling for Govt’s. around the world to take action to get the “world” out of its economic doldrums. Because you see, growth is not meeting the Central Bank “inflation goals”.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Pardon my economic possible misinterpretation of inflation, but if we have a loaf of bread that sells for $2.00/lb in 1990, and today, that very same loaf costs $3.50 with no changes or enhancements, isn’t that a total illusion of increased wealth or a healthy economy? The baker claims look at my increased revenue. 1990 I made X dollars and today I make X+$’s without selling any greater number of loaves…the apparent increase in wealth is only brought about by the devaluation of the currency. To me a true sign of a healthy and efficient economy is that as products gain in efficient production the price should come down not up. The only industry that actually demonstrated that was the computer industry. each generation was 5X better than the last at the same original cost. Then it came down as efficiency took hold and the technology became more of a commodity. Now the companies are forcing change by built in obsolesence and lessor quality forcing the purchase of their newest product.

      I for one am not looking forward to the day my Blackberry becomes unsupported. Not only is it doing all I want it to do, but it’s replacement costs almost $700.00, much less the battery is integrated into the chassis and CAN NOT be removed or replaced, requiring the purchase of a new unit. I have yet to have a rechargable battery last more than 2-3 years.

      What I could buy back in 1972 with my income then would buy me not one thing more at my income in 2010 when I retired, yet I was making 10X the income.

      I will only grant one dispensation and that is about automobiles. A vehicle today is so much more reliable than back then, but all cars could be maintained by the owner instead of having to take it to a dealer. I did own a Volvo back then and that was state of the art back then.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Damn, now everybody knows. I posted this so you could read the absolutely ignorant comments. The sad thing is that “The Economist” and the “Washington Post” focused only on the “preppers” living in the rural areas. They failed to note that most people in the “Intermountain West” have similar views about self sufficiency.

    Another note: Last winter the power went out in North Idaho for anywhere from 3 days to a week, depending on where you lived. Nobody freaked out and nobody starved or died of exposure. How the hell did that happen?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/wp/2016/08/27/2016/08/27/a-fortress-against-fear/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_americanredoubtnew630%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

%d bloggers like this: