Didn't Mike Lee used to be considered a "liberty" politician? What about this then... [Archive]

Ender

09-29-2016, 08:19 PM

Mike Lee is still very conservative/libertarian.

Here is his POV on the issue.

States Should Decide
Sen. Mike Lee on conservatives, libertarians, and why the feds should let states make their own rules.

Nick Gillespie from the October 2014 issue - view article in the Digital Edition

Since 2011, Republican Mike Lee has served as the junior senator from Utah. During that time he's made a name for himself as one of the more libertarian-spirited members of The World's Greatest Deliberative Body. He's been critical of both Democrats and Republicans, but he's also been constructive, proposing more oversight on federal surveillance activities as well as innovative tax reform plans. In June, Reason TV's Nick Gillespie spoke with Lee about conservatives, libertarians, and why the feds should let states make their own rules.

Q: You take aim at a lot of Republican policy mistakes as well as Democratic ones. Do you see the Obama administration as a continuation of the George Bush years in terms of growing government interference in the economy, reckless foreign policy, and reckless disregard for Americans' civil liberties?

A: I would certainly say that civil liberties have suffered under this administration. I think we've seen more government surveillance in this administration, and I think it's troubling to a lot of Americans. I voted against the reauthorization of the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Amendments Act [in 2008], and I did so at a time when there were very few Republicans willing to do that.

Q: Do you primarily identify as a conservative rather than a libertarian? And is that a meaningful distinction to you?

A: Generally I call myself a conservative, sometimes a constitutional conservative. My focus is on the fact that when we maintain a consistent effort to restrain the government's power and influence to those powers identified in the Constitution, that's where we strike the right balance between what kind of government we need and what kind of government we don't want.

Q: Talk a little bit about your federalism. For instance, recently you said that the definition of marriage should be remanded to the states or lower levels of government.

A: It's not that it should be remanded to the states. It's that that's a state power. It always was state power. It never was or should be federal.

Q: What about things like drug policy, or online gambling? You recently introduced a law saying that the federal government should dictate online gambling policy and that seems to be a contradiction. I assume you think it's OK for the states to decide on gambling if it's horse racing or something like that?

A: States should be the entities that decide on issues of gambling that takes place within the state. But where you've got gambling that takes place online, the online world is an interstate and an international network of wires. It really becomes an interstate exercise the minute you take it online. If you think about it, this is actually a necessary step to take to respect each state's right to decide whether or to what extent to allow gambling and that's necessary in order to preserve each state's right to decide. Otherwise, you could have one state here or there authorizing gambling and if no one is able to prohibit Internet gambling, then people in every state would be able to gamble.

Q: Would that be such a horrible outcome though? Shouldn't the individual choose? Shouldn't it be up to an individual to just say, "I want to bet on a sports game," or "I want to bet on the Preakness even though I live 3,000 miles away from the horse track?"

A: Again, I'm approaching this from the standpoint of federalism. I don't think it's the federal government's job to say that every state must recognize gambling, nor is it the government's job to say that states may authorize Internet gambling. This is an appropriate step toward making sure each state may decide on its own what kind of health, safety, and morals legislation it wants to come up with. The best way for the federal government to respect the sovereignty of the states is to place legislation like this so that one state's law can't be easily circumvented.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/06/states-should-decide

Brian4Liberty

09-29-2016, 08:26 PM

They should list Adelson as a "co-sponsor".

Brian4Liberty

09-29-2016, 08:35 PM

Actual text of the bill. At least it's short and simple.

S.3376 - A bill to ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal Government lawyers. 114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

Text: S.3376 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)All Bill Information (Except Text)

There is one version of the bill.

Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (09/21/2016)

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3376 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3376

To ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial
instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined
by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal
Government lawyers.

__________________________________________________ _____________________

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

September 21, 2016

Mr. Cotton (for himself, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Graham) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary

__________________________________________________ _____________________

A BILL

To ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial
instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined
by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal
Government lawyers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAFFIRMATION OF PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET
GAMBLING.

The Memorandum Opinion for the Assistant Attorney General of the
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, dated September 20,
2011, shall have no force or effect for the purposes of interpreting
section 5362(10) of title 31, United States Code.

ProIndividual

09-29-2016, 08:39 PM

His (Lee's) point of view is a garbage rationalization for crony capitalism, violation of individual liberty, and anti-free market legislation. Sickening.

Jesse James

09-29-2016, 09:21 PM

anybody who is shocked about this should pay attention more. Mike Lee has been a supporter of this for years. nothing new.

specsaregood

09-29-2016, 09:48 PM

You aren't against crony capitalism, aren't a free market advocate, and aren't for individual liberty? What a question...

We must be reading a different bill, as what I see simply says that unelected bureaucrats can't change or determine the laws.

ProIndividual

09-29-2016, 11:33 PM

Some people are fine with tyranny as long its local or their Constitution-fetish is satisfied. Principles over parchments, people. Liberty, justice, free markets first, not structure of constitutions.

NewRightLibertarian

09-29-2016, 11:51 PM

I'm not sure about this bill, but I have seen a troubling pattern from Lee for years. I think he may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, but a very convincing one. I remember he co-sponsored an NDAA resolution with Feinstein that was TERRIBLE beyond belief. That has always made me leery of him. He also is closer to Ted Cruz than Rand Paul, which is another bad sign.

osan

09-30-2016, 06:21 AM

Mike Lee is still very conservative/libertarian.

I dunno about that. His words strike me as those of just another statist hack. But let us take a play by play... perhaps I am wrong:

Here is his POV on the issue.

Sen. Mike Lee on conservatives, libertarians, and why the feds should let states make their own rules.

More of that 10th Amendment nonsense. The 10A is an affront to all liberty. If we are to admit any validity of the Constitution, at the very least we may say without uncertainty that the Framers should have stopped at the 9A. I suppose they wanted a nice round number and therefore pulled the hideous 10A from their codpieces.

A: I would certainly say that civil liberties have suffered under this administration. I think we've seen more government surveillance in this administration, and I think it's troubling to a lot of Americans. I voted against the reauthorization of the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Amendments Act , and I did so at a time when there were very few Republicans willing to do that.

He calls it "troubling"? It's like being "troubled" watching your house burn down, knowing your children are still inside.

And in typical style of a filthy politician, he could not help but plug his "record" on voting down FISA. He's off to a flying start.

A: Generally I call myself a conservative, sometimes a constitutional conservative. My focus is on the fact that when we maintain a consistent effort to restrain the government's power1 and influence to those powers identified in the Constitution, that's where we strike the right balance between what kind of government we need and what kind of government we don't want2.

Sweet Jesus...

1: He apparently fails to see the problem deeply coupled with having to maintain a constant fight against government encroachment and the resulting tyranny. Granted it is subtext, but the very structure of that fragment of sentence basically screams at us the message that governMENT is deadly poison to life itself.

2: There is so much that is so deeply and woefully wrong here that I could literally write a book on it and barely know where to begin. But to merely skate the surface - he accepts the presumption that we "need" government. The definition of that need is tacit and obviously unquestioned and most likely in his mind unquestionable. Again, the very structure of the grammar he employs strongly suggests force and shows the distasteful equivalence of that which he claims we "need" v. that which "we don't want", the two being the demon spawn of the incestuous relations between tyranny and corruption. There is so much implied in this fragment that is so telling of the mindset of the man who spoke them. In neither good conscience nor concern for my self-respect and credibility could I deem such a man one dedicated in any serious manner to liberty.

A: It's not that it should be remanded to the states. It's that that's a state power. It always was state power. It never was or should be federal.

A money shot right there, folks. He goes on about something that has no material reality of its own. His words would be semantically no different were he to have said, "It's that that's a unicorn power. It always was unicorn power." They are literally equal in that here "state" and "unicorn" are equally non-existent. They are but vapors of thought. I will not ascribe his apparent beliefs, as made manifest in the quotation, as the product of evil, but of sore and dangerous blind-ignorance. Based on this, it is clear to me that he is just another poor fool who has consumed way too much of the Constitutional Kool-Aid.

The physical reality of what he suggests translates thusly:

"It's not that it should be [I]remanded to the regional mob bosses. It's that that's a regional-mob power. It always was regional-mob power. It never was or should be central-mob.

A: States should be the entities that decide on issues of gambling that takes place within the state. But where you've got gambling that takes place online, the online world is an interstate and an international network of wires. It really becomes an interstate exercise the minute you take it online. If you think about it, this is actually a necessary step to take to respect each state's right to decide whether or to what extent to allow gambling and that's necessary in order to preserve each state's right to decide. Otherwise, you could have one state here or there authorizing gambling and if no one is able to prohibit Internet gambling, then people in every state would be able to gamble.

Blah blah... each STATE... blah blah... Not word one about the rights and desires of the individual. FAIL^FAIL

A: Again, I'm approaching this from the standpoint of federalism. I don't think it's the federal government's job to say that every state must recognize gambling, nor is it the government's job to say that states may authorize Internet gambling. This is an appropriate step toward making sure each state may decide on its own what kind of health, safety, and morals legislation it wants to come up with. The best way for the federal government to respect the sovereignty of the states is to place legislation like this so that one state's law can't be easily circumvented.

OK, so I then return to my oft-repeated example: if states' rights are so all-fired sacred, then when MS decides it's time to return to "separate but equal", nobody really has much to say about it. If "states" have the right ("states rights" - the term makes my skin crawl just to type it out for the sheer creep-factor) to self-determine and if we are a "democracy", as so many claim, then there is no problem with sweeping up all the KneeGrows and keeping them bottled up in "communities" or even shipping them to Liberia.

Perhaps I am operating from a different play book, but Mike Lee is no devotee of freedom. He may think he is, but that would only indicate to me his deep and desperate need for a very serious augmentation of his education on such affairs.

Jesse James

09-30-2016, 06:50 AM

Mike Lee has never claimed to be a libertarian, so what's the problem? Did you also hate Ron Paul when he thought it was ok for states to have their own gun control?

Krugminator2

09-30-2016, 07:08 AM

Mike Lee has never claimed to be a libertarian, so what's the problem? Did you also hate Ron Paul when he thought it was ok for states to have their own gun control?

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian on the judiciary. A lot of the stuff Ron Paul would be okay with violates the 14th Amendment.

This bill is not consistent with the 10th Amendment. It effectively bans online gambling for everyone. There is no evidence that anyone from Utah plays on Nevada's sites. Nevada has a pretty elaborate geolocation system to make sure you can't just a use a VPN. And even if someone from Utah could play in Nevada, it still would not be okay to create a federal law banning poker in other states.

The only reason Lee supports this is because he took 50k in illegal contributions from a guy who is now in prison for using his bank for most of the poker transactions in this country and Lee wants to make clear he is clean. http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2015/12/08/sen-mike-lee-donate-jeremy-johnsons-campaign-contributions/76991040/

John F Kennedy III

09-30-2016, 07:13 AM

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian on the judiciary. A lot of the stuff Ron Paul would be okay with violates the 14th Amendment.

This bill is not consistent with the 10th Amendment. It effectively bans online gambling for everyone. There is no evidence that anyone from Utah plays on Nevada's sites. Nevada has a pretty elaborate geolocation system to make sure you can't just a use a VPN. And even if someone from Utah could play in Nevada, it still would not be okay to create a federal law banning poker in other states.

The only reason Lee supports this is because he took 50k in illegal contributions from a guy who is now in prison for using his bank for most of the poker transactions in this country and Lee wants to make clear he is clean. http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2015/12/08/sen-mike-lee-donate-jeremy-johnsons-campaign-contributions/76991040/

Yep. Fuck Lee.

Jesse James

09-30-2016, 07:14 AM

Krugminator2

09-30-2016, 07:18 AM

Yep. $#@! Lee.

I wouldn't go that far. I still think he is a great Senator.

John F Kennedy III

09-30-2016, 07:22 AM

to be clear, obviously what Lee is doing is shitty.

but he has supported this very bill for years. seriously. this bill isn't new. he has been like this for years. there's no reason to hold him on a pedestal. he's not a libertarian. he is a Ted Cruz type candidate (maybe less war hawkish)

honestly, he is a lot like Gary Johnson.

It's because fairly or not he used to be considered a Liberty candidate. This thread simply demonstrates that he isn't. As someone who was out of the loop for a few years, I appreciate this thread.

Mike Lee was one of the like 10 "Politicians We Can Trust" in that infamous thread I made in 2012.

Jesse James

09-30-2016, 07:28 AM

It's because fairly or not he used to be considered a Liberty candidate. This thread simply demonstrates that he isn't. As someone who was out of the loop for a few years, I appreciate this thread.

Mike Lee was one of the like 10 "Politicians We Can Trust" in that infamous thread I made in 2012.

Amash, Rand, Massie. I think it's safe to say he is still in the top 10. I can't think of 6 others who would be ahead of him.

But not sure he is quite a "liberty candidate".

specsaregood

09-30-2016, 07:39 AM

It's because fairly or not he used to be considered a Liberty candidate. This thread simply demonstrates that he isn't. As someone who was out of the loop for a few years, I appreciate this thread.

Mike Lee was one of the like 10 "Politicians We Can Trust" in that infamous thread I made in 2012.

I'll have to ask again, what is your problem with this bill?

Jesse James

09-30-2016, 07:50 AM

This bill is not consistent with the 10th Amendment. It effectively bans online gambling for everyone. There is no evidence that anyone from Utah plays on Nevada's sites. Nevada has a pretty elaborate geolocation system to make sure you can't just a use a VPN. And even if someone from Utah could play in Nevada, it still would not be okay to create a federal law banning poker in other states.

The only reason Lee supports this is because he took 50k in illegal contributions from a guy who is now in prison for using his bank for most of the poker transactions in this country and Lee wants to make clear he is clean. http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2015/12/08/sen-mike-lee-donate-jeremy-johnsons-campaign-contributions/76991040/

This is the problem with the bill.

specsaregood

09-30-2016, 07:54 AM

This is the problem with the bill.

This bill does not ban online gambling, it only reaffirms it and says that unelected bureacrats can't change/make up laws on their own.

If this bill "bans online gambling for everyone", since it hasn't passed yet, that would mean that online gambling is currently legal.

presence

09-30-2016, 08:10 AM

Reaffirmation of prohibition on funding of unlawful internet gambling

law is an intelligible principle of right,
necessarily resulting from the nature of man;
and not an arbitrary rule,
that can be established by mere will, numbers or power[]
law recognizes the validity of all contracts which men have a natural right to make,
and which justice requires to be fulfilled: such, for example,
as contracts that render equivalent for equivalent,
and are at the same time consistent with morality,
the natural rights of men, and those rights of property, privilege,
which men have a natural right to acquire by labor and contract.

Lysander Spooner 1845

economic regulation is slavery by another name

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/spooneruos.htm#p5

Krugminator2

09-30-2016, 08:23 AM

This bill does not ban online gambling, it only reaffirms it and says that unelected bureacrats can't change/make up laws on their own.

Online poker is not illegal in this country. It is neither illegal to offer online poker nor to play online poker. There is no law that says otherwise. It is a legal gray area about whether a bank can knowingly process online gambling transactions. Even then, John Ashcroft's law firm wrote a legal opinion stating that it is okay for banks to process online gambling transaction.

Sheldon Adelson believes online gambling would cannibalize Vegas casinos. He believes the easier it is for people to gamble from their home, the fewer people will go to brick and mortar casinos. That is what this is about. Adelson was in the online poker business at one time. The only reason online poker was passed in Nevada is because the make up of online poker players is different from other casino gamblers so some casinos thought having just poker would be an addition not a subtraction.

This is cronyism at its worst. I get that Mike Lee doesn't want to go to prison. I don't hate Mike Lee for this. But there is no Constitutional and certainly no libertarian argument for his position. http://www.sltrib.com/home/3855100-155/utah-prosecutor-wants-grand-jury-probe

Ender

09-30-2016, 09:31 AM

I dunno about that. His words strike me as those of just another statist hack. But let us take a play by play... perhaps I am wrong:

Here is his POV on the issue.

More of that 10th Amendment nonsense. The 10A is an affront to all liberty. If we are to admit any validity of the Constitution, at the very least we may say without uncertainty that the Framers should have stopped at the 9A. I suppose they wanted a nice round number and therefore pulled the hideous 10A from their codpieces.

He calls it "troubling"? It's like being "troubled" watching your house burn down, knowing your children are still inside.

And in typical style of a filthy politician, he could not help but plug his "record" on voting down FISA. He's off to a flying start.

Sweet Jesus...

1: He apparently fails to see the problem deeply coupled with having to maintain a constant fight against government encroachment and the resulting tyranny. Granted it is subtext, but the very structure of that fragment of sentence basically screams at us the message that governMENT is deadly poison to life itself.

2: There is so much that is so deeply and woefully wrong here that I could literally write a book on it and barely know where to begin. But to merely skate the surface - he accepts the presumption that we "need" government. The definition of that need is tacit and obviously unquestioned and most likely in his mind unquestionable. Again, the very structure of the grammar he employs strongly suggests force and shows the distasteful equivalence of that which he claims we "need" v. that which "we don't want", the two being the demon spawn of the incestuous relations between tyranny and corruption. There is so much implied in this fragment that is so telling of the mindset of the man who spoke them. In neither good conscience nor concern for my self-respect and credibility could I deem such a man one dedicated in any serious manner to liberty.

A money shot right there, folks. He goes on about something that has no material reality of its own. His words would be semantically no different were he to have said, "It's that that's a unicorn power. It always was unicorn power." They are literally equal in that here "state" and "unicorn" are equally non-existent. They are but vapors of thought. I will not ascribe his apparent beliefs, as made manifest in the quotation, as the product of evil, but of sore and dangerous blind-ignorance. Based on this, it is clear to me that he is just another poor fool who has consumed way too much of the Constitutional Kool-Aid.

The physical reality of what he suggests translates thusly:

Blah blah... each STATE... blah blah... Not word one about the rights and desires of the individual. FAIL^FAIL

OK, so I then return to my oft-repeated example: if states' rights are so all-fired sacred, then when MS decides it's time to return to "separate but equal", nobody really has much to say about it. If "states" have the right ("states rights" - the term makes my skin crawl just to type it out for the sheer creep-factor) to self-determine and if we are a "democracy", as so many claim, then there is no problem with sweeping up all the KneeGrows and keeping them bottled up in "communities" or even shipping them to Liberia.

Perhaps I am operating from a different play book, but Mike Lee is no devotee of freedom. He may think he is, but that would only indicate to me his deep and desperate need for a very serious augmentation of his education on such affairs.

You DO know that the "Civil" War was to take away State's Rights and bring everything under the banner of the central government? The constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to bring power to the central government and weaken the states. Lincoln's war finished that.

States Rights is a KEY issue in individual rights. This may not be perfect, but walking toward State's Rights is moving toward freedom.

And right on Jesse James.

Mike Lee has never claimed to be a libertarian, so what's the problem? Did you also hate Ron Paul when he thought it was ok for states to have their own gun control?

specsaregood

09-30-2016, 09:38 AM

Ender

09-30-2016, 09:48 AM

I wouldn't go that far. I still think he is a great Senator.

As do I-

Ender

09-30-2016, 10:02 AM

Mike Lee usually comes in the top 3 in congressional conservative issues.

Beats Rand many times; he also has co-sponsored many things with Rand and backed him on innumerable issues.

https://www.conservativereview.com/members/mike-lee/liberty-card/

Here's a terrific Mike Lee rant about liberty to Congress:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/mike-lee-to-congress-do-you-even-liberty-bro

Brian4Liberty

09-30-2016, 11:15 AM

We must be reading a different bill, as what I see simply says that unelected bureaucrats can't change or determine the laws.

At face value, I agree. And thankfully it is a simple bill, with not much hidden. But it is aimed very specifically. What about the myriad of other laws undermined by bureaucrats? Why just this one?

And anything proposed by hardcore neoconservatives like Cotton and Graham should be highly suspicious. In this case, it seems to be nothing more than a crony favor to one of their biggest individual benefactors.

Mike Lee usually comes in the top 3 in congressional conservative issues.

Beats Rand many times; he also has co-sponsored many things with Rand and backed him on innumerable issues.

https://www.conservativereview.com/members/mike-lee/liberty-card/

Here's a terrific Mike Lee rant about liberty to Congress:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/mike-lee-to-congress-do-you-even-liberty-bro

Agree. Mike Lee is certainly one of the best on many issues. Raging at our allies and ignoring our enemies is not a winning strategy, so this is essentially a tempest in a teapot.

Of much more concern is the alliance that this may represent. Romney allied himself heavily with neoconservatives. Chaffetz did the same thing. Have Mormon political leaders decided that more and more they will align with neoconservatives? That would be unfortunate. If libertarians continue to flame Lee, while the neocons are giving him flowers and money, it won't help bring him closer to the libertarian side.

specsaregood

09-30-2016, 11:18 AM

At face value, I agree. And thankfully it is a simple bill, with not much hidden. But it is aimed very specifically. What about the myriad of other laws undermined by bureaucrats? Why just this one?

I'd wager that Sen. Lee would support most bills aimed at limiting bureaucrats. I know Randal does. Are we only supposed to want to limit bureaucrats on issues we agree with?

Brian4Liberty

09-30-2016, 11:47 AM

I'd wager that Sen. Lee would support most bills aimed at limiting bureaucrats. I know Randal does. Are we only supposed to want to limit bureaucrats on issues we agree with?

I'd rather he sponsor or co-sponsor a more generalized bill. Or a whole host of other issues rather than one so specifically targeted to benefit a neoconservative donor.

Ender

09-30-2016, 11:49 AM

At face value, I agree. And thankfully it is a simple bill, with not much hidden. But it is aimed very specifically. What about the myriad of other laws undermined by bureaucrats? Why just this one?

And anything proposed by hardcore neoconservatives like Cotton and Graham should be highly suspicious. In this case, it seems to be nothing more than a crony favor to one of their biggest individual benefactors.

Agree. Mike Lee is certainly one of the best on many issues. Raging at our allies and ignoring our enemies is not a winning strategy, so this is essentially a tempest in a teapot.

Of much more concern is the alliance that this may represent. Romney allied himself heavily with neoconservatives. Chaffetz did the same thing. Have Mormon political leaders decided that more and more they will align with neoconservatives? That would be unfortunate. If libertarians continue to flame Lee, while the neocons are giving him flowers and money, it won't help bring him closer to the libertarian side.

Most Mormons are Libertarians at heart and the younger Mormon voters were really Ron Paul supporters.

Mormons are very cautious with politics as they have been ravaged by the government; they are a conquered people much like the Indians. Up until 1970, you could still legal shoot a Mormon on sight in Missouri. So, most in the political spectrum play it smart. A few like Orrin Hatch are real neocons- HE GOT AN F RATING FROM CONSERVATIVE REVIEW- https://www.conservativereview.com/

But most are completely for liberty.

Mike Lee is not perfect but he is a good man, much like Rand.

Brian4Liberty

09-30-2016, 02:53 PM

Most Mormons are Libertarians at heart and the younger Mormon voters were really Ron Paul supporters.

Mormons are very cautious with politics as they have been ravaged by the government; they are a conquered people much like the Indians. Up until 1970, you could still legal shoot a Mormon on sight in Missouri. So, most in the political spectrum play it smart. A few like Orrin Hatch are real neocons- HE GOT AN F RATING FROM CONSERVATIVE REVIEW- https://www.conservativereview.com/

But most are completely for liberty.

Mike Lee is not perfect but he is a good man, much like Rand.

Yeah, but I'm talking more about the high-level operatives, not the average Mormon. Similar to other religions with agendas and back-room alliances. Your average Catholic has no clue as to what goes on in the background, any more than your average CNN viewer has about what is really happening behind the curtain. Neoconservatives have done pretty well making back-room arrangements and coalitions with Catholics, evangelicals, and now, apparently Mormons. Once again, not your average member of these religions, just selected influential members or leaders. Not a vast conspiracy, just standard back-scratching. They will align with you on something, and in return you will help them with their issues and candidates.

Brian4Liberty

09-30-2016, 02:56 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTtpWgrhS78

Ender

09-30-2016, 02:58 PM

Yeah, but I'm talking more about the high-level operatives, not the average Mormon. Similar to other religions with agendas and back-room alliances. Your average Catholic has no clue as to what goes on in the background, any more than your average CNN viewer has about what is really happening behind the curtain. Neoconservatives have done pretty well making back-room arrangements and coalitions with Catholics, evangelicals, and now, apparently Mormons. Once again, not your average member of these religions, just selected influential members or leaders. Not a vast conspiracy, just standard back-scratching. They will align with you on something, and in return you will help them with their issues and candidates.

I knew a few "high-level" LDS & they are not in cahoots with neocons.

specsaregood

09-30-2016, 03:09 PM

I'd rather he sponsor or co-sponsor a more generalized bill. Or a whole host of other issues rather than one so specifically targeted to benefit a neoconservative donor.

You mean like these that he is a cosponsor on?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/226

Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015
States that the purpose of this Act is to increase accountability for and transparency in the federal regulatory process by requiring Congress to approve all new major regulations.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/980

This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to specify the types of water bodies that are "navigable waters" and therefore fall under the scope of the Act. Groundwater is considered to be state water.

The Army Corps and the EPA may not promulgate rules or issue guidance that expands or interprets the definition of navigable waters unless expressly authorized by Congress.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/255

Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2015 or the FAIR Act

This bill modifies general rules governing civil forfeiture proceedings to: (1) ensure that a person contesting a civil forfeiture has legal representation without regard to whether the property subject to forfeiture is being used by such person as a primary residence; (2) increase the federal government's burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings to clear and convincing evidence; (3) require the government, in addition to showing a substantial connection between the seized property and an offense, to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the owner of any interest in the seized property used the property with intent to facilitate the offense or knowingly consented or was willfully blind to the use of the property by another in connection with the offense; and (4) expand the proportionality criteria used by a court to determine whether a civil forfeiture was constitutionally excessive.

And that is just a quick glance at page 1 of 9, where he has cosponsored one of Sen. Paul's bills, I'm quite certain there are many more just like you said you'd rather he did.

Brian4Liberty

09-30-2016, 03:15 PM

I knew a few "high-level" LDS & they are not in cahoots with neocons.

So do I. He backs all Republicans and doesn't really know what a neoconservative is. In "cahoots" without even knowing it. Many Republicans are like that. Surface level knowledge, although this person has connections.

Brian4Liberty

09-30-2016, 03:30 PM

You mean like these that he is a cosponsor on?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/226

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/980

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/255

And that is just a quick glance at page 1 of 9, where he has cosponsored one of Sen. Paul's bills, I'm quite certain there are many more just like you said you'd rather he did.

Looks good to me!

Ender

09-30-2016, 04:14 PM

So do I. He backs all Republicans and doesn't really know what a neoconservative is. In "cahoots" without even knowing it. Many Republicans are like that. Surface level knowledge, although this person has connections.

That can be a problem with that community. They were almost utterly destroyed by the gov.; they complied and survived- however part of the take-over was to force all LDS students into gov schools so they could be reconditioned. The leaders did everything they could to keep the people alive and so obedience to the gov became a priority. It is now ingrained in the culture, although the younger voters are becoming more and more libertarian. Ron Paul was very popular with all my friends and 1000's went to hear him speak.

osan

09-30-2016, 05:16 PM

You DO know that the "Civil" War was to take away State's Rights and bring everything under the banner of the central government?

Your point?

The constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to bring power to the central government and weaken the states. Lincoln's war finished that.

Yes, and?

States Rights is a KEY issue in individual rights.

How do you reason?

This may not be perfect, but walking toward State's Rights is moving toward freedom.

I see no inherent coupling between the two at all, so if you could explain this to me, I would very much appreciate it. Seriously, it evades me.

So long as there is a "state" that in any measure stands apart and above the individual in authority, purport, and immunity from responsibility, all talk of "states rights" is pure nonsense insofar as them leading the way to freedom, so far as I can see. But if you have a convincing spin on this, please do share.

asurfaholic

09-30-2016, 05:40 PM

Otherwise, you could have one state here or there authorizing gambling and if no one is able to prohibit Internet gambling, then people in every state would be able to gamble.

Oh, the HORROR

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/75/75258f71ed5ec11e6f2e1b20cdecdc40ff7493f04659b7704a ac1040442e7a7a.jpg

Ender

09-30-2016, 05:47 PM

Your point?

Yes, and?

How do you reason?

I see no inherent coupling between the two at all, so if you could explain this to me, I would very much appreciate it. Seriously, it evades me.

So long as there is a "state" that in any measure stands apart and above the individual in authority, purport, and immunity from responsibility, all talk of "states rights" is pure nonsense insofar as them leading the way to freedom, so far as I can see. But if you have a convincing spin on this, please do share.

Small local government, by the people, is always closer to freedom than big centralized government by the repubocrats. We are currently ruled by Big Centralized Gov; bringing things into a more local level gives the average person a voice in what, or what not, is acceptable. Local governments can be where the real power lies for freedom.

This is why the Not-So-Civil War was fought. It was expressly to remove local government power and put it all in the hands of a big centralized corporation that would eventually remove all individual liberty. Bringing things back to the states is a major step in recognizing individual rights. Local city and county governments are even more important. If knowledgeable, freedom-loving, like-minded, people are involved, THIS becomes a foundation where people can begin to breathe life back into the fundamental rights of all men.

The only other choice is to find an empty island somewhere and hide.

osan

09-30-2016, 08:05 PM

Small local government, by the people, is always closer to freedom than big centralized government by the repubocrats. We are currently ruled by Big Centralized Gov; bringing things into a more local level gives the average person a voice in what, or what not, is acceptable. Local governments can be where the real power lies for freedom.

Well, to my thinking, Texas isn't small, yet it is a "state", which is in turn the exact entity to which 10A refers.

How small does a state have to be? County? San Bernardino County CA is almost 3x the size of NJ.

I would also point out that there are serious problems with the notion of "states rights". The protections of the 2A are a prime example. If here in WV I don my .45 and drive into NJ with it, chances are excellent to certain that I will end up in a jail cell in short order.

Think about how hazardous this can become. Imagine a "law and order" community where speeders are executed. Yes, it is very extreme, but the example is valid in any event.

The only governing principles should be those of proper human relations. Anything other than that is all but absolutely guaranteed to end up in the disparagement of human rights.

This is why the Not-So-Civil War was fought. It was expressly to remove local government power and put it all in the hands of a big centralized corporation that would eventually remove all individual liberty.

All well and good, but a morally and intellectually bereft people are equally dangerous whether acting in their typically moronic and corrupt manner in small groups or large.

The point so many people seem to miss is that it's not the size of the governing body that makes or breaks freedom, but the individual - how he thinks and acts.

Bringing things back to the states is a major step in recognizing individual rights.

Not necessarily. Tell me that you believe that were full 10A "rights" restored tomorrow to the 13 black states such as NY, NY, MA, CA, and so on, that those states would begin to migrate back toward freer conditions. I don't. Not for a minute. In fact, the few remaining restrictions on state behavior would likely fly away, first thing. Can anyone here imagine NY state suddenly respecting the right of their people to keep and bear arms? Hell no. They would go on a wild campaign to eliminate the right. Then what? It would be rebellion or lay down for it.

Federalism is a two-edged sword, just as with all other things. Under one set of circumstances, it causes all manner of problems for people. Under another, things are better... or could be, but never are because the vast majority of humans are assholes.

Local city and county governments are even more important. If knowledgeable, freedom-loving, like-minded, people are involved, THIS becomes a foundation where people can begin to breathe life back into the fundamental rights of all men.

The only other choice is to find an empty island somewhere and hide.

Tyranny can exist at any level of government, regardless of how small it may be. I agree that smaller is better, but it is no guarantee.

Danke

09-30-2016, 08:34 PM

oyarde

09-30-2016, 08:54 PM

Were there any cases of Mormons being shot on sight just because they are Mormons and the perpetrator getting away with it? How is that legal, especially after the 14th amendment?

Probably , in the 1830's Gov Liliburn Boggs ( Mo )issued such an executive order and three days later 18 were killed at Hauns Mill. Probably about 1847 Pres Buchanan sent 1/3 of the american Army to Utah for the Utah War.

Danke

09-30-2016, 08:57 PM

Probably , in the 1830's Gov Liliburn Boggs ( Mo )issued such an executive order and three days later 18 were killed at Hauns Mill. Probably about 1847 Pres Buchanan sent 1/3 of the american Army to Utah for the Utah War.

Again the first amendment doesn't allow that. And with the 14th amendment all states were incorporated.

Ender

09-30-2016, 08:57 PM

Were there any cases of Mormons being shot on sight just because they are Mormons and the perpetrator getting away with it? How is that legal, especially after the 14th amendment?

The 14th Amendment was in 1868.

This was in 1838:

Massacre

On October 30 at approximately 4 p.m., the militia rode into the community. David Evans, a leader in the community, ran towards the militia, waving his hat and calling for peace. Alerted to the militia's approach, most of the Latter Day Saint women and children fled into the woods to the south, while most of the men headed to the blacksmith shop. Unfortunately, the building was a particularly vulnerable structure as the widely spaced logs made it easy for the attackers to fire inside. The shop became a deathtrap, since the militia gave no quarter, firing about 100 rifle and musket shots into the building.

After the initial attack, several of those who had been wounded or had surrendered were shot dead. Members of the militia entered the shop and found 10-year-old Sardius Smith, 8-year-old Alma Smith (sons of Amanda Barnes Smith), and 9-year-old Charles Merrick hiding under the blacksmith's bellows. Alma and Charles were shot (Charles later died), and a militia man known as "Glaze, of Carroll county", killed Sardius when he "put his musket against Sardius's skull and blew off the top of his head."[7] Later, a William Reynolds would justify the killing by saying, "Nits will make lice, and if he had lived he would have become a Mormon."[4] Seventy-eight-year-old Thomas McBride surrendered his musket to militiaman Jacob Rogers, who then shot McBride and hacked his body apart with a corn knife. Several other bodies were mutilated, while many women were assaulted. Houses were robbed, wagons, tents, and clothing were stolen, and horses and livestock were driven off, leaving the surviving women and children destitute.

By the end of the massacre at least 17 Mormons were dead: Hiram Abbott, Elias Benner, John Byers, Alexander Campbell, Simon Cox, Josiah Fuller, Austin Hammer, John Lee, Benjamin Lewis, Thomas McBride (78), Charley Merrick (9), Levi Merrick, William Napier, George S. Richards, Sardius Smith (10), Warren Smith (44), and John York. Thirteen more had been injured, including a woman and 9-year-old child. A non-Mormon sympathizer was also killed. Three of the 250 militiamen were wounded, but none fatally. After the massacre, the dead were placed in an unfinished well and covered with dirt and straw. The survivors and their wounded gathered at Far West, Missouri for protection.[5]

Mormons left the US proper and began the long trek to what is now Utah, in 1846-47.

Danke

09-30-2016, 09:00 PM

The 14th Amendment was in 1868.

This was in 1838:

Mormons left the US proper and began the long trek to what is now Utah, in 1846-47.

That is precisely my point. I was responding to a law that was on the books in 1970.

ProIndividual

09-30-2016, 09:11 PM

Online poker is not illegal in this country. It is neither illegal to offer online poker nor to play online poker. There is no law that says otherwise. It is a legal gray area about whether a bank can knowingly process online gambling transactions. Even then, John Ashcroft's law firm wrote a legal opinion stating that it is okay for banks to process online gambling transaction.

Sheldon Adelson believes online gambling would cannibalize Vegas casinos. He believes the easier it is for people to gamble from their home, the fewer people will go to brick and mortar casinos. That is what this is about. Adelson was in the online poker business at one time. The only reason online poker was passed in Nevada is because the make up of online poker players is different from other casino gamblers so some casinos thought having just poker would be an addition not a subtraction.

This is cronyism at its worst. I get that Mike Lee doesn't want to go to prison. I don't hate Mike Lee for this. But there is no Constitutional and certainly no libertarian argument for his position. http://www.sltrib.com/home/3855100-155/utah-prosecutor-wants-grand-jury-probe

If I had more rep, I'd give it to you. This is exactly right. I play poker professionally (low level, not balling out), and every attack on online poker has been driven by crony capitalism, guised as family values and "aid" for the .6% of gamblers who are considered "addicted" gamblers. Black Friday (April 15th, 2011) on forward have been orchestrated by these brick and mortar casino interests and their crony capitalist enablers in government. Lee not wanting to go to prison I get, but he is no "Liberty Senator", and he cannot be trusted, that's for sure.

He may be a conservative, but the conservative vision is not liberty. The libertarian one is.

Ender

09-30-2016, 09:14 PM

That is precisely my point. I was responding to a law that was on the books in 1970.

Actually it was until 1976- and Mormons left the area so they wouldn't be shot; it wasn't a law in the territory of what is now Utah. ;)

Most people didn't realize that the Extermination Order had never been rescinded; the Governor rescinded it with an apology to the LDS Church.

Ender

09-30-2016, 09:17 PM

If I had more rep, I'd give it to you. This is exactly right. I play poker professionally (low level, not balling out), and every attack on online poker has been driven by crony capitalism, guises as family values and "aid" for the .6% of gamblers who are considered "addicted" gamblers. Black Friday (April 15th, 2011) on forward have been orchestrated by these brick and mortar casino interests and their crony capitalist enablers in government. Lee not wanting to go to prison I get, but he is no "Liberty Senator", and he cannot be trusted, that's for sure.

Lee was not part of that probe- the article says:

Correction • This story has been corrected to reflect that Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings did not classify Utah Sen. Mike Lee as a "possible target" in a potential grand jury investigation.

I am sure Lee doesn't care if you gamble or not- he is just trying to bring state's rights back.

Danke

09-30-2016, 09:18 PM

Ender

09-30-2016, 09:52 PM

You are being very imprecise in your language. I said in 1970. You said " up until 1970. "

My point is, how could that law withstand any challenge, with the enactment of the 14th amendment. Have there been any cases since the 14th amendment that that law was challenged and The Supreme Court said it was legal?

I meant I thought it was rescinded in 1970, but it was 1976.

This is, from a blog, all I found on any court decisions:

Several years ago, I spoke with a Latter-Day Saints historian, who told me that survivors of the Massacre sued the state of Missouri over the deaths of their loved ones, taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court, he said, backed the state on the grounds that the killings were perfectly legal.

Meanwhile, the Extermination Order remained on the books in Missouri until rescinded by executive order of Governor Christopher S. Bond on June 25, 1976. So until 1976, it was perfectly legal to kill a Mormon in Missouri. Did that make it right?

Danke

09-30-2016, 09:57 PM

I meant I thought it was rescinded in 1970, but it was 1976.

This is, from a blog, all I found on any court decisions:

What year of that massacre was the court referring to?

Krugminator2

09-30-2016, 10:09 PM

Lee was not part of that probe- the article says:

I am sure Lee doesn't care if you gamble or not- he is just trying to bring state's rights back.

"A previous version incorrectly stated that he did. Under Utah Code, "target" has a specific legal definition. Rawlings says "Lee is a person we would like to have a conversation with concerning allegations surrounding the 2010 Senate campaign, as well as other significant issues under review and for which a Utah State grand jury, if one is impaneled, will be asked to issue subpoenas."

The updated version doesn't sound better. Obviously he has been feeling the heat on this. He just gave back 50k in campaign donations from this guy and he has taken this out of character position.

This has been around for awhile.. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/mike-lee-jeremey-johnson-straw-donors

I don't want to keep going around in circles. The thread has run its course. This is the complete 180 degree opposite of states rights. Mike Lee is bullshitting. That isn't really up for debate. It doesn't make him a bad Senator. It just makes him bad on this issue. He had to come up with some reason to justify this.

P3ter_Griffin

10-01-2016, 12:24 AM

I am sure Lee doesn't care if you gamble or not- he is just trying to bring state's rights back.

I don't see great prospects for federally mandated liberty so I'm receptive to 'state's rights' as a means forward. It is an argument that is much more palatable to the masses, I think, than 'abolish government entirely'. And at the same time provides the atmosphere for a successful free-state project to be a truly free-state.

But Mike here is advocating in favor of using the federal government to support the State's oppression of it's people. He is taking the saying 'state's rights' literally, as if States do actually have rights and it's citizens' right are only those granted to it by the State. And we of course know that is not correct.

This I think is the difference between advocating for state's rights as the solution rather than as, possibly, the best means forward to achieving liberty. I think the saying itself lends to the idea that it is the solution-- 'state's rights'- 'we can just build this magnificent government on the state level'. But that is the very same reason I think it is more palatable to the masses; their imagination of governance can still run wild. I'd rather it be called 'federally forced secession' but I don't think that would sell as well.

And I completely agree with you Mike is one of the best we got. I'm not trying to harp on him by this post I just think its worth pointing out that we should not be advocating for literal state's rights like Mike is doing here when proposing the tenth amendment/states rights, instead for the decentralization of the decision making process.

osan

10-01-2016, 06:35 AM

Actually it was until 1976- and Mormons left the area so they wouldn't be shot; it wasn't a law in the territory of what is now Utah. ;)

Most people didn't realize that the Extermination Order had never been rescinded; the Governor rescinded it with an apology to the LDS Church.

And how, then, does this play to your notion of "states' rights"? Notice the arbitrariness of the order itself. Could have been Catholics, Knee-Grows, Jooz, Chromos, Muzzle-hims (oh wait...), Polish, Filipinos... anything you care to name in the way of a partition, real or imagined. What if it were a gay governor issuing the order to put the brakes on women, all to strains of "it's raining men... Hallelujah it's raining men!"?

It is my considered opinion that most people are severely lost in the maze of mental bull-dinky in which they do not even know they are living. Call the very existences of "state" and "government" into question and they look at you as if you just sprouted a dead fetus from the left side of your head. The assumptions under which they labor are almost wholly tacit. More saliently, these assumptions are so deeply rooted in the psyche that to deny the existence of such things is for the average man no different than any other instance of DOG (Denial Of Gravity) syndrome. They simply deem you completely off your rocker, which is ironic in kingly fashion.

Ender

10-01-2016, 09:12 AM

And how, then, does this play to your notion of "states' rights"? Notice the arbitrariness of the order itself. Could have been Catholics, Knee-Grows, Jooz, Chromos, Muzzle-hims (oh wait...), Polish, Filipinos... anything you care to name in the way of a partition, real or imagined. What if it were a gay governor issuing the order to put the brakes on women, all to strains of "it's raining men... Hallelujah it's raining men!"?

It is my considered opinion that most people are severely lost in the maze of mental bull-dinky in which they do not even know they are living. Call the very existences of "state" and "government" into question and they look at you as if you just sprouted a dead fetus from the left side of your head. The assumptions under which they labor are almost wholly tacit. More saliently, these assumptions are so deeply rooted in the psyche that to deny the existence of such things is for the average man no different than any other instance of DOG (Denial Of Gravity) syndrome. They simply deem you completely off your rocker, which is ironic in kingly fashion.

So- a BIG State should manage all the rules while a LITTLE State should simply obey?

How about the use of marijuana? Should states have the freedom to say yes on this and tell the Fed to take a hike? Or is the Fed Gov the almighty god and we have no other choice? Granted there is always corruption with power but the local citizens can disrupt corruption much faster in cities, counties or states than they can a huge Fed.

The founding of the country was based on states rights to rule themselves w/o a huge central gov to rule them.

The corruption of this original purpose is what Hamilton wanted and what he got. Lincoln finished it.

Ender

10-01-2016, 09:14 AM

I don't see great prospects for federally mandated liberty so I'm receptive to 'state's rights' as a means forward. It is an argument that is much more palatable to the masses, I think, than 'abolish government entirely'. And at the same time provides the atmosphere for a successful free-state project to be a truly free-state.

But Mike here is advocating in favor of using the federal government to support the State's oppression of it's people. He is taking the saying 'state's rights' literally, as if States do actually have rights and it's citizens' right are only those granted to it by the State. And we of course know that is not correct.

This I think is the difference between advocating for state's rights as the solution rather than as, possibly, the best means forward to achieving liberty. I think the saying itself lends to the idea that it is the solution-- 'state's rights'- 'we can just build this magnificent government on the state level'. But that is the very same reason I think it is more palatable to the masses; their imagination of governance can still run wild. I'd rather it be called 'federally forced secession' but I don't think that would sell as well.

And I completely agree with you Mike is one of the best we got. I'm not trying to harp on him by this post I just think its worth pointing out that we should not be advocating for literal state's rights like Mike is doing here when proposing the tenth amendment/states rights, instead for the decentralization of the decision making process.

Completely agree with this.

erowe1

10-01-2016, 11:47 AM

Lee's about the same as Cruz.

They've never really been liberty candidates. But they've been more helpful to Rand than the rest of the Senate.

osan

10-01-2016, 03:04 PM

So- a BIG State should manage all the rules while a LITTLE State should simply obey?

Neither did I write nor did I imply such a thing. I was making clear that ANY "state" tends to be a problem precisely because it is a so-called "state".

How about the use of marijuana? Should states have the freedom to say yes on this and tell the Fed to take a hike?

You're clinging to the validity of the notion of "state". I reject it wholly because there is no such a thing. "State" exists in your head and nowhere else. Replace it with "unicorn" and you have the same difference. One is equally as insubstantial as the other.

Therefore, I cannot say that a "state" has the authority to tell the so-called "feds" to piss off because it is no different from saying that a unicorn holds such authority. The only valid authority is that of the individual. There is no other. What passes for "state authority" is naught but the arbitrary criminal will of a subset of the population falsely claiming to be part of "the state" or "government". This is a lie. It is a gigantic lie. It is the greatest of all lies. It is the unforgivable lie.

Or is the Fed Gov the almighty god and we have no other choice?

Because there is no "federal government", the answer is obviously "N/A". We always have a choice. We can go along with the confabulations of a subset who deem themselves authorities over the rest, or we can tell them to fuck off, refuse to obey, and then kill them to the man when Theye predictably send their armed agents to impress you by force to Theire wills. This ain't rocket surgery.

Granted there is always corruption with power but the local citizens can disrupt corruption much faster in cities, counties or states than they can a huge Fed.

I don't know where it is you live, but in my world there is no such disruption that would not meet with blood and death. But do be my guest and try in my repulsive home town of NYC. If I had millions, I would bankroll you just to prove how wrong you are on this point that you could gather up 100K people to disrupt the municipality. You would be met by 40K well armed cops and probably the national guard. You and your followers would be killed off until either there was nary a one of you remaining among the living, or until you hoisted the white.

Your belief that small local governance would somehow be different from the large cuts no muster in today's context. The minds of people are poisoned so severely that barely a nit of reason and sense remains to the average man. We live in a nation that put that filthy bastard into the Office... TWICE. Before that, they put in Bush, and Clinton... Can you imagine what depth of corruption and stupidity it took to seat BILL FUCKING CLINTON as president of the United States? I had plenty of trouble with Reagan, but Clinton was the new low that hoisted the Klown Prezident to primacy.

In a nation so peopled, to think that smaller governance was going to somehow going to make the booboos all better is not within reason. If we made the county-level the highest, there would still be endless troubles for the reasons I previously stated. The root of the problem is not in "the state" or "the feds", but in the mind and heart of the average man. The mean is the telltale of what a nation is and shall likely become. Today, the meaner is a blithering, willfully blind, functional imbecile who wants what he wants and is more than happy to lean on "government" to get it for him. So long as the felonies carry the imprimatur of the "state", Mr. Meaner sleeps almost soundly at night, for he has been afforded the phony baloney justification for the crimes committed in his name.

The founding of the country was based on states rights to rule themselves w/o a huge central gov to rule them.

And that was as large a mistake as having this hulking, lurching federal government. I dont give a rat's ass how large my cage is; how beautifully appointed; or whether it is gilt. It is still a cage and I will not have it. We are ALL slaves in this world, no matter to which corner you may repair. There is no freedom, but only degrees of oppression and constriction. At the end of the day, no matter where you go, Big Brother has you under his thumb the moment you displease him. Show me a land where this is not the case. So-called "rule of law" mitigates nothing because BigBro can call you into one of his courts any damned time he pleases, for any reason fair or foul, honest or not. And you will, under ultimate penalty of death, have to show yourself there, comport by his rules, and prove your innocence, all talk of that until proven guilty notwithstanding.

Spit on the sidewalk in Manhattan and you can be cited and summoned to court where you will have to explain yourself and justify how you are not to be called to pay for your "crimes".

I do not believe that scale has that much effect on the problem. Some, yes - even notable, but so what? As I wrote, a cage is still a cage and I see no reason to acquiesce to the tyranny of one's fellows. Accession to the smallest of tyrannies is accession to all.

Ender

10-01-2016, 04:09 PM

Neither did I write nor did I imply such a thing. I was making clear that ANY "state" tends to be a problem precisely because it is a so-called "state".

You're clinging to the validity of the notion of "state". I reject it wholly because there is no such a thing. "State" exists in your head and nowhere else. Replace it with "unicorn" and you have the same difference. One is equally as insubstantial as the other.

Therefore, I cannot say that a "state" has the authority to tell the so-called "feds" to piss off because it is no different from saying that a unicorn holds such authority. The only valid authority is that of the individual. There is no other. What passes for "state authority" is naught but the arbitrary criminal will of a subset of the population falsely claiming to be part of "the state" or "government". This is a lie. It is a gigantic lie. It is the greatest of all lies. It is the unforgivable lie.

Because there is no "federal government", the answer is obviously "N/A". We always have a choice. We can go along with the confabulations of a subset who deem themselves authorities over the rest, or we can tell them to $#@! off, refuse to obey, and then kill them to the man when Theye predictably send their armed agents to impress you by force to Theire wills. This ain't rocket surgery.

I don't know where it is you live, but in my world there is no such disruption that would not meet with blood and death. But do be my guest and try in my repulsive home town of NYC. If I had millions, I would bankroll you just to prove how wrong you are on this point that you could gather up 100K people to disrupt the municipality. You would be met by 40K well armed cops and probably the national guard. You and your followers would be killed off until either there was nary a one of you remaining among the living, or until you hoisted the white.

Your belief that small local governance would somehow be different from the large cuts no muster in today's context. The minds of people are poisoned so severely that barely a nit of reason and sense remains to the average man. We live in a nation that put that filthy bastard into the Office... TWICE. Before that, they put in Bush, and Clinton... Can you imagine what depth of corruption and stupidity it took to seat BILL $#@!ING CLINTON as president of the United States? I had plenty of trouble with Reagan, but Clinton was the new low that hoisted the Klown Prezident to primacy.

In a nation so peopled, to think that smaller governance was going to somehow going to make the booboos all better is not within reason. If we made the county-level the highest, there would still be endless troubles for the reasons I previously stated. The root of the problem is not in "the state" or "the feds", but in the mind and heart of the average man. The mean is the telltale of what a nation is and shall likely become. Today, the meaner is a blithering, willfully blind, functional imbecile who wants what he wants and is more than happy to lean on "government" to get it for him. So long as the felonies carry the imprimatur of the "state", Mr. Meaner sleeps almost soundly at night, for he has been afforded the phony baloney justification for the crimes committed in his name.

And that was as large a mistake as having this hulking, lurching federal government. I dont give a rat's ass how large my cage is; how beautifully appointed; or whether it is gilt. It is still a cage and I will not have it. We are ALL slaves in this world, no matter to which corner you may repair. There is no freedom, but only degrees of oppression and constriction. At the end of the day, no matter where you go, Big Brother has you under his thumb the moment you displease him. Show me a land where this is not the case. So-called "rule of law" mitigates nothing because BigBro can call you into one of his courts any damned time he pleases, for any reason fair or foul, honest or not. And you will, under ultimate penalty of death, have to show yourself there, comport by his rules, and prove your innocence, all talk of that until proven guilty notwithstanding.

Spit on the sidewalk in Manhattan and you can be cited and summoned to court where you will have to explain yourself and justify how you are not to be called to pay for your "crimes".

I do not believe that scale has that much effect on the problem. Some, yes - even notable, but so what? As I wrote, a cage is still a cage and I see no reason to acquiesce to the tyranny of one's fellows. Accession to the smallest of tyrannies is accession to all.

Like I said- find yourself an island.

Some of us are trying to figure a way to have liberty here.

devil21

10-01-2016, 06:20 PM

I was never sold much on Mike Lee. His background is rife with establishment connections. Just read his Wiki entry.

He was friends with Harry Reid's son Josh. Senator Reid was the Lees' home teacher. Lee recalls as a child how Senator Reid once locked him and Josh in their garage as a practical joke

Clerked for Alito, staff attorney for Jon Huntsman, etc. Lawyers in general are not to be trusted as libertarian due to the oath they take to the bankers.

Ender

10-01-2016, 07:26 PM

I was never sold much on Mike Lee. His background is rife with establishment connections. Just read his Wiki entry.

Clerked for Alito, staff attorney for Jon Huntsman, etc. Lawyers in general are not to be trusted as libertarian due to the oath they take to the bankers.

I'm pretty sure Lee's a decent man- his scores on important issues for liberty are A's- plus Orrin Hatch is trying to get rid of him. When a neocon creep like that is trying to wipe out Lee, you can bet he's a danger to their global elitist group.

Just sayin'.

osan

10-01-2016, 07:38 PM

Like I said- find yourself an island.

Some of us are trying to figure a way to have liberty here.

Understand. What I am getting at is that until enough of us clear our minds of the psychotic belief in unicorns, nothing can change fundamentally for the better. So long as we believe in "state" and "government" as currently constituted, both explicitly and tacitly, we will never do anything other than replacing one tyranny with another. That makes no sense in the context of a goal of proper human freedom because, once again to the nauseous, a cage is a cage no matter how expansive, brilliantly appointed, and thick the gilding.

Doing something like this is, IMNSHO, worth doing right. Otherwise, I see no sense in doing it at all. In this case, "right" means starting with the basics, which is to learn what proper freedom is. It is my suspicion that, given the proper foundational knowledge, a strong fight for rightful freedom would ensue with greater dispatch than many might expect. But that requires enormous reeducation of tens of millions of people, at the very least. My pessimism arises out of my estimation of the chances of that ever happening. I wish I could say otherwise, but...

devil21

10-01-2016, 08:50 PM

I'm pretty sure Lee's a decent man- his scores on important issues for liberty are A's- plus Orrin Hatch is trying to get rid of him. When a neocon creep like that is trying to wipe out Lee, you can bet he's a danger to their global elitist group.

Just sayin'.

Unlikely to be a danger to it when he was raised in it from childhood.

Just sayin'.

But I guess anything's possible.

Ender

10-01-2016, 09:29 PM

Understand. What I am getting at is that until enough of us clear our minds of the psychotic belief in unicorns, nothing can change fundamentally for the better. So long as we believe in "state" and "government" as currently constituted, both explicitly and tacitly, we will never do anything other than replacing one tyranny with another. That makes no sense in the context of a goal of proper human freedom because, once again to the nauseous, a cage is a cage no matter how expansive, brilliantly appointed, and thick the gilding.

Doing something like this is, IMNSHO, worth doing right. Otherwise, I see no sense in doing it at all. In this case, "right" means starting with the basics, which is to learn what proper freedom is. It is my suspicion that, given the proper foundational knowledge, a strong fight for rightful freedom would ensue with greater dispatch than many might expect. But that requires enormous reeducation of tens of millions of people, at the very least. My pessimism arises out of my estimation of the chances of that ever happening. I wish I could say otherwise, but...

We really are in agreement, osan. Especially on the reeducating.

Ender

10-01-2016, 09:34 PM

Unlikely to be a danger to it when he was raised in it from childhood.

Just sayin'.

But I guess anything's possible.

Well, let's all keep track of track records in voting and what is being sponsored. I think if we all work together we may be able to nail the few that may open a wider path to freedom.

Here's one scorecard on every congressman- House and Senate- very informative.

https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard

P3ter_Griffin

10-01-2016, 10:35 PM

Lee's about the same as Cruz.

They've never really been liberty candidates. But they've been more helpful to Rand than the rest of the Senate.

Maybe I have an irrational disliking for Cruz but I don't feel this way at all.

P3ter_Griffin

10-01-2016, 10:39 PM

Understand. What I am getting at is that until enough of us clear our minds of the psychotic belief in unicorns, nothing can change fundamentally for the better. So long as we believe in "state" and "government" as currently constituted, both explicitly and tacitly, we will never do anything other than replacing one tyranny with another. That makes no sense in the context of a goal of proper human freedom because, once again to the nauseous, a cage is a cage no matter how expansive, brilliantly appointed, and thick the gilding.

Doing something like this is, IMNSHO, worth doing right. Otherwise, I see no sense in doing it at all. In this case, "right" means starting with the basics, which is to learn what proper freedom is. It is my suspicion that, given the proper foundational knowledge, a strong fight for rightful freedom would ensue with greater dispatch than many might expect. But that requires enormous reeducation of tens of millions of people, at the very least. My pessimism arises out of my estimation of the chances of that ever happening. I wish I could say otherwise, but...

Cutting down the scope though also cuts down on the amount of educating that needs to be done. I had to look it up, Wyoming, the state with the smallest population, only has about 600k people.

Jesse James

10-01-2016, 10:50 PM

Lee's about the same as Cruz.

They've never really been liberty candidates. But they've been more helpful to Rand than the rest of the Senate.
Cruz seems more hawkish. What does Lee think about the NSA?

Jesse James

10-01-2016, 10:53 PM

Maybe I have an irrational disliking for Cruz but I don't feel this way at all.
Cruz seems more fiscally libertarian

P3ter_Griffin

10-01-2016, 11:30 PM

Cruz seems more fiscally libertarian

It probably has less to do with any position that either have taken and more about the character of the individuals.

Cruz strikes me as an individual that is doing the calculated actions that need to be done and saying the calculated things that need to be said to gain power. And that his motives remain behind the scenes, which are: shedding the outraged conservative group of the anti-militarism and the policy of normalization of relations with Israel that Ron had advocated for. He even so much as called himself the heir to the liberty movement while in the primary against Rand. Basically, he is a squirrel IMO. But infuriatingly directed at taking attention away from what Ron had started.

Jesse James

10-01-2016, 11:37 PM

yah, unless there was no better choice i would no vote for either

osan

10-02-2016, 03:49 AM

Cutting down the scope though also cuts down on the amount of educating that needs to be done. I had to look it up, Wyoming, the state with the smallest population, only has about 600k people.

The people there may also be better predisposed to the ideas. You don't find too many entitlement sorts out there.

erowe1

10-04-2016, 03:48 PM

Maybe I have an irrational disliking for Cruz but I don't feel this way at all.

How did you feel before Cruz entered the 2016 presidential race? I think that experience understandably colored most of our views on him.

And don't take my statement as too high of praise. Merely saying that he's more of an ally to Rand than the rest of the Senate (except maybe Lee) is setting a very low bar.

P3ter_Griffin

10-07-2016, 01:06 PM

How did you feel before Cruz entered the 2016 presidential race? I think that experience understandably colored most of our views on him.

And don't take my statement as too high of praise. Merely saying that he's more of an ally to Rand than the rest of the Senate (except maybe Lee) is setting a very low bar.

I honestly had no clue that he existed before the 2016 presidential race. Or at least no distinct memory of him.

I don't know if ridding the senate of Cruz would be like 'cutting of the nose to spite the face' or 'removing a tumour'. So I sure as hell am not going to do anything to keep him in the senate but I won't shit on other people's attempts to do so.

tommyrp12

10-12-2016, 06:25 PM

He is in a debate now on CSPAN. I didn't get to read the thread but he seems to be doing ok.

H. E. Panqui

10-12-2016, 08:17 PM

Ender

10-12-2016, 08:58 PM

...stop focusing on the puppets!! ...focus, FOR ONCE, on the puppet-master$!!

...lee is yet another republicrat monetary ignoramus...having had a microphone in front of his hole many times and NEVER MENTIONING, for one example, 'THE DEBT THAT OUGHT NOT TO BE DEBT' [approx. half the 20 trillion 'dollar' debt] is an indictment of his monetary ignorance....

...monetary ignoramus, unconscious warmonger/imperialist, drug war apologist, stinking republican...he sucks like all republicrats suck...

...anyone confusing lee or any of the rest of them as a 'liberty' candidate has a twisted, ignorant notion of 'liberty'..

...word...

Really.

Mike Lee on Budget & Economy

Balanced Budget Amendment with supermajority to circumvent
Congress may take some meaningful steps toward reducing the deficit and perhaps even produce a balanced budget, but in the long run the old spendthrift habits will re-emerge--they always do. So after we change the culture of over-spending in Congress, we have to ensure that it STAYS changed. A singe stop will permanently solve this problem: enacting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. An ideal balanced budget amendment would contain at least five elements:

Equalize Revenues and Outlays.
Spending May Not Exceed a Fixed Percentage of GDP: I would put the figure at 18%; as of 2011m federal spending is 25% of GDP.
Supermajority Vote to Circumvent: I favor a 2/3 requirement. I care less about the precise margin that about stopping Congress from approving deficit spending through a simple-majority vote.
Supermajority Vote to Raise the Debt Ceiling.
Supermajority Vote to Increase Taxes.

Source: The Freedom Agenda, by Sen. Mike Lee, p. 63-72 , Jul 18, 2011

Our economy cannot survive this ruinous level of debt
Federal spending has skyrocketed from roughly 2% of GDP a hundred years ago to over 25% in 2011. Stated differently, for every family of 4, the federal government has already incurred $200,000 in debt and is adding new debt of roughly $22,000 per year.

Politicians recognize the problem but are incapable of fixing it.
Source: The Freedom Agenda, by Sen. Mike Lee, p. 1-2 , Jul 18, 2011

Congress wants praise; incapable of fiscal responsibility
Congress has become fundamentally INCAPABLE of fiscal responsibility, and attempts to enforce spending discipline on it and to restore constitutionally limited government will ultimately fall short of a balanced budget amendment. Having accumulated a staggering debt exceeding $14 trillion, Congress is clearly unable to wield the debt-accrual power responsibly. Members of Congress face an overwhelming, five-fold set of circumstances tempting them to engage in reckless spending. As they spend TRILLIONS of dollars each year, members of Congress are:

prompted by a genuine desire to leave a tangible mark on society and otherwise make the world a better place.
motivated by a desire for praise and adoration.
spending on a massive scale that tends to distort their sense of perspective.
operating without any clear parameters delineating the boundaries of their substantive authority.
spending without any real limit on the amount of money they have at their disposal.

Source: The Freedom Agenda, by Sen. Mike Lee, p. 51-53 , Jul 18, 2011

A balanced budget amendment is essential
Deficit spending facilitates the continuing growth of the federal government. It is far too tempting to shift the cost of today's federal expansion to future generations. Until we require Congress to operate under a balanced budget, that expansion will continue. A balanced budget amendment is essential to restoring the original, proper role of the federal government.
Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, www.mikelee2010.com, "Issues" , Jul 19, 2010

Constitutional amendment for balanced budget
Deficit spending facilitates government growth. Like most state and local governments and nearly all households, the federal government should not spend more money than it receives. We need a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance its budget. Deficit spending should be permitted only where (1) 2/3 of both houses of Congress agree that a specified amount of deficit spending is essential to the well-being of the country, and (2) that decision is ratified by 3/4 of the States.
Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, www.mikelee2010.com, "Issues" , Jul 19, 2010

Demand a Balanced Budget amendment.
Lee signed the Contract From America

The Contract from America, clause 3. Demand a Balanced Budget:

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.
Source: The Contract From America 10-CFA03 on Jul 8, 2010

Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate.
Lee signed the Contract From America

The Contract from America, clause 6. End Runaway Government Spending:

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
Source: The Contract From America 10-CFA06 on Jul 8, 2010

Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge.
Lee signed the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge to limit government

[The Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge is sponsored by a coalition of several hundred Tea Party, limited-government, and conservative organizations].

Despite our nation's staggering $14.4 trillion debt, there are many Members of the U.S. House and Senate who want to raise our nation's debt limit without making permanent reforms in our fiscal policies. We believe that this is a fiscally irresponsible position that would place America on the Road to Ruin. At the same time, we believe that the current debate over raising the debt limit provides a historic opportunity to focus public attention, and then public policy, on a path to a balanced budget and paying down our debt.

We believe that the "Cut, Cap, Balance" plan for substantial spending cuts in FY 2012, a statutory spending cap, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is the minimum necessary precondition to raising the debt limit. The ultimate goal is to get us back to a point where increases in the debt limit are no longer necessary. If you agree, take the Cut, Cap, Balance Pledge!

I pledge to urge my Senators and Member of the House of Representatives to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:
Cut: Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
Cap: Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
Balance: Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

Source: Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge 12-CCB on Jan 1, 2012

Disapprove of increasing the debt limit.
Lee co-sponsored Joint Resolution on Debt Limit

Congressional Summary:JOINT RESOLUTION: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That Congress disapproves of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted on Jan. 12, 2012.

Congressional Vote: Vote #4 in the House: 239 Yeas; 176 Nays; Senate declined to vote on the Resolution.

OnTheIssues Explanation: On Jan. 12, 2012, Pres. Obama notified Congress of his intent to raise the nation's debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion, two weeks after he had postponed the request to give lawmakers more time to consider the action. Congress then had 15 days to say no before the debt ceiling is automatically raised from $15.2 trillion to $16.4 trillion. Hence the debt ceiling was increased.

In Aug. 2011, the US government was nearly shut down by an impasse over raising the debt ceiling; under an agreement reached then, the President could raise the debt limit in three increments while also implementing $2.4 trillion in budget cuts. The agreement also gave Congress the option of voting to block each of the debt-ceiling increases by passing a "resolution of disapproval." The House disapproved; the Senate, by declining to vote in the 15-day window, killed the Resolution. Even if the resolution were passed, Pres. Obama could veto it; which could be overridden by a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate. The House vote only had 57% approval, not enough for the 67% override requirement, so the Senate vote became moot. The same set of actions occurred in Sept. 2011 for the first debt ceiling increase.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Mike_Lee.htm