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

[specsaregood]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[Ender]

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]

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-...enate-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-...enate-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-...enate-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]

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]

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

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

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...enate-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]

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]

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]

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

[Ender]

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]

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 $#@!s.

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]

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.

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?

[oyarde]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/3855100-1...and-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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

[Ender]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.