U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[kratz]

FJAG,

My earlier post was made to keep the discussion within US politics, your reply mangled some of intent, but replying will detract from a USA discussion.

[

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Personal opinion is great, “the idea marrying an object is stupid”. Free to hold that thought.
Free to consider gay marriage, but blind to opposing views, shutting down any discussion with a weak non sequitur.
Offering red herring deflection, with over generalization.

What other views on gay marriage are there? The SCC and SCUS both agreed that banning gay marriage was non-constitutional, so I dont really see what other views count?

Also, I'm not sure what deflections, red herrings, or over generalizations I'm guilty of in a thread where every fourth post is about how "the left" is 100% something or how muslims must hate gay people.

Finally- clearly the guy marrying his computer is trying to make some sort of political point, but it's a bad point if you compare human-human love with an inanimate object

 

[Loachman]

a private bakery in Manitoba that refuses to bake a cake on the grounds that the couple are celebrating a gay wedding would be in breach of the Code and could be run through the system for that.

The owner of the bakery also has a constitutionally-protected right to freedom of religion. Any attempt to force him/her to do something contrary to his/her beliefs attacks that right. That is not acceptable.

Being forced to compromise one's religious beliefs is far more injurious than being denied a cake, especially when there is another bakery just down the street.

I also recall hearing about a photographer running into problems after declining a request to photograph a gay wedding. The baker does not have to attend the wedding and see things that revolt him, at least. Why should a photographer be forced to do so?

Should a Catholic priest, a rabbi, or an imam be forced to marry a gay couple?

A religious belief is a powerful "bona fide and reasonable cause" in such matters, in my opinion.

 

[FJAG]

FJAG,

My earlier post was made to keep the discussion within US politics, your reply mangled some of intent, but replying will detract from a USA discussion.

[

I did get that. My point is that I always thought that the USSC Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision was a strained one based on the fact that the majority put much emphasis on the fact that Hobby Lobby was a "closely held" corporation with "religious objections" to abortion and therefore contraception provisions required under Obamacare.

Hobby Lobby has some $4 billion in revenues and is far away from being a mom and pop bakery. I have a hard time understanding why a closely held stock company should be treated any differently from a publicly traded one vis a vis laws of general application particularly ones that apply to the health care and/or human rights issues of its customers or employees.

My intent to point at Canadian law is that this country, at least, considers that all "persons" whether individuals or corporations, whether private or public are the same (within the modifiers contained in the Code itself)

Much of the problem in the US is that unlike Canada (where each of the jurisdictions' Human Rights Codes are semi constitutional [ie making all other legislation within the province subject/subordinate to the various HR Codes]) in the US there is a broad and inconsistent legal patchwork starting with the Constitution (which only applies to several specific rights) to a myriad of often conflicting Federal and State laws and regulations. One would think that within a federation, the basic human rights of citizens should be uniform across the country. (and I say that knowing they aren't entirely within Canada either but we're a lot closer)

[cheers]

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45]

Also, I'm not sure what deflections, red herrings, or over generalizations I'm guilty of in a thread where every fourth post is about how "the left" is 100% something or how muslims must hate gay people. [/quote]
Serious question?

Finally- clearly the guy marrying his computer is trying to make some sort of political point, but it's a bad point if you compare human-human love with an inanimate object

Do you consider nature to be inanimate objects?  You don't want to discriminate against ecosexuals.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Serious question?

Do you consider nature to be inanimate objects?  You don't want to discriminate against ecosexuals.

First one- yes, serious question. I've added points, backed facts, and explained my opinions. I dont see how that qualifies as red herrings, deflecting, etc

Second- I think that "human" is a reasonable starting point for any consideration of marriage. Perhaps we should just get rid of marriage altogether then. Would save thousands of divorces

 

[kkwd]

Interesting, recent research seems to conclude the Democratic party efforts to discredit Trump don't seem to be working. The research was conducted by private firms and Democratic campaign arms. These polls included swing voters, a very important group.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/teflon-trump-democrats-messaging-242607

More than that, no single Democratic attack on the president is sticking — not on his temperament, his lack of accomplishments or the deals he’s touted that have turned out to be less than advertised, like the president’s claim that he would keep Carrier from shutting down its Indianapolis plant and moving production to Mexico.

Voters are also generally unimpressed by claims that Trump exaggerates or lies, and they don’t see the ongoing Russia investigation adding up to much.

 

[Jarnhamar]

First one- yes, serious question. I've added points, backed facts, and explained my opinions. I dont see how that qualifies as red herrings, deflecting, etc

Well I don't think you were being singled out in the above response (could be wrong) but as for red herrings and deflecting, from what I believe I've noticed, I find you introduce them at times when talking about Trump or Antifa. If seems to me like you really don't like Anti-Antifa topics and almost seem to bring them off the rails on purpose.  I find it interesting too because when you self-described your political views we were 100% identical.

Second- I think that "human" is a reasonable starting point for any consideration of marriage. Perhaps we should just get rid of marriage altogether then. Would save thousands of divorces

Grown men leaving their families to pretend they're 6 year old girls. Kids who think they are half wolf. People who disable themselves on purpose. Nothing really surprises me.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Well I don't think you were being singled out in the above response (could be wrong) but as for red herrings and deflecting, from what I believe I've noticed, I find you introduce them at times when talking about Trump or Antifa. If seems to me like you really don't like Anti-Antifa topics and almost seem to bring them off the rails on purpose.  I find it interesting too because when you self-described your political views we were 100% identical.
Grown men leaving their families to pretend they're 6 year old girls. Kids who think they are half wolf. People who disable themselves on purpose. Nothing really surprises me.

I don't dislike antifa topics, I just don't hold the opinion that antifa is anything more than a fringe movement that ultimately will have little impact on anything. I think some over state their importance (as some on the left for with nazis / kkk) with the intent of deflecting attention from their own "teams" issues.. I also think Trump is a bombastic buffoon.

As for the nature of people, I agree that there are plenty of interesting folks. However, marriage is something only for human-human relationships. If the guy who leaves to pretend he's a 6 year old wants to marry his "mom" (not genetic of course) and it doesn't impact me I couldn't care less. I'm even not against polygamy if it's mutual since it doesn't impact me. I really never understood people's fascination with being against gay marriage for the same reason. What does anyone care who someone else has sex with (so long as it's consenting, human, and if legal consenting age?)

 

[Jarnhamar]

As for the nature of people, I agree that there are plenty of interesting folks. However, marriage is something only for human-human relationships. If the guy who leaves to pretend he's a 6 year old wants to marry his "mom" (not genetic of course) and it doesn't impact me I couldn't care less. I'm even not against polygamy if it's mutual since it doesn't impact me. I really never understood people's fascination with being against gay marriage for the same reason. What does anyone care who someone else has sex with (so long as it's consenting, human, and if legal consenting age?)

"Doesn't impact me" can be a slippery slope though can't it?" While I generally agree and if something isn't affecting me I don't care but I can think of a number of things that doesn't impact me directly BUT I still don't want to coexist with it (Shira law, female genital mutilation, child abuse, hardcore drug use).  If the state wants to allow stupidity like that are they going to be held to the same rules and laws as the rest of us? Is there some things out there we as a society can just say no that's stupid.

I always got a kick out of how states viewed as more traditionally racist or homophobic ironically have the highest number of viewings for gay and interracial porn when stats are released by porn companies.

 

[a_majoor]

The real issue with things like gay marriage is an indirect attack on the family and institutions like the church. Normalization (i.e. who cares, its up to them) may have happened on its own, but the idea here is to use the power of the State to force obedience from everyone. It is, in fact, a Cultural Marxist ploy to ultimately weaken families and institutions which could oppose the State, and atomize people so nothing stands between them and the State.

Demonstrations of State power are a big part of this, which is why, for example was the Mayor of London fined $10,000 for refusing to declare a "Pride" day (the mayor at that time had put the issue outside of civic bounds by refusing to declare for anyone...), or why are Christian small businesspeople set upon for not baking a cake (when there are plenty of other vendors willing and able to do so). When the State intervenes and forces compliance, it also silences dissent among others. Very few people or organizations have the time and resources to fight the State, and indeed this has been turned on its head, now you get forces into a confrontation because "the process is the punishment".

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sexual activity and marriage are two different things; don't confuse a right to make whoopee with a right to marriage.

Sexual activity is the private business of consenting adults.

The purpose of marriage is to create a stable child-rearing arrangement for the benefit of children, which is why the state has an interest in the institution.  If the state isn't going to enforce limitations with children in mind, it should get out of the business of recognizing any kind of marriage, entirely, and allow adults to create and enter their own contracts with respect to partnership, survivorship, etc.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The real issue with things like gay marriage is an indirect attack on the family and institutions like the church. Normalization (i.e. who cares, its up to them) may have happened on its own, but the idea here is to use the power of the State to force obedience from everyone. It is, in fact, a Cultural Marxist ploy to ultimately weaken families and institutions which could oppose the State, and atomize people so nothing stands between them and the State.

Demonstrations of State power are a big part of this, which is why, for example was the Mayor of London fined $10,000 for refusing to declare a "Pride" day (the mayor at that time had put the issue outside of civic bounds by refusing to declare for anyone...), or why are Christian small businesspeople set upon for not baking a cake (when there are plenty of other vendors willing and able to do so). When the State intervenes and forces compliance, it also silences dissent among others. Very few people or organizations have the time and resources to fight the State, and indeed this has been turned on its head, now you get forces into a confrontation because "the process is the punishment".

I think you are wrong in two major points- First, I would argue that you are wrong in that gay marriage is a realization that the state and church are separate in western democracy. The religious version of marriage can exist outside of the legal version of marriage. if the state wishes to issue marriage licences outside of the religious context than that fits with the separation of the estates. The religious entities I would also say should have the right to marry people or not based on their convictions (though more churches do than dont now). The state offering a solution outside of religion should be a good thing in our society. The state isn't forcing you into marrying a guy, but has in the past sent people to jail for homosexual sex, killed homosexuals, and denied homosexuals the same rights offered to any other citizen. Which is denying freedom and forcing compliance with a pre-ordained social norm?

Second- I think that your definition of family is outdated. Merriam-Webster defines a family as, "a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head" (in the context of this conversation). In this definition there is absolutely no reason why a gay couple could not and do not count as a "family". So, how is gay marriage an attack on the family when it is fully congruent with the definition of family? I know gay families who are closer to traditional families in that they have children who they care for, lead happy healthy lives, and press all the important judeo-christian values. I also know traditional families where the dad was out cheating while his wife went into labour, got caught DUI trying to get to said labour, than beat his wife when she found out about the infidelity. So, which one then is the assault on family?

I think your assertion of a marxist ploy is, at best, melodramatic. I'm not necessarily against a business being allowed to make its own rules, even when they're bigoted and stupid. However, my question back then, is if the businessman is a good christian than why dont they follow the teachings of the scripture? As Jesus said in Romans 13:8, "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." Or  "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God." Or perhaps Romans 14:2-6, "One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand". I think a lot of christians fail in the regards of the philosophy behind Jesus rather than literal meanings.

Finally- is the state outlawing gay marriage not a demonstration of state power? I dont see how legalizing the interactions of people which were largely accepted within society is more of a demonstration of state power than continuing to outlaw them. I would counter-argue that conservative states that continue to rule outside of the supreme court are the ones who are, in fact, demonstrating excessive state power.

 

[a_majoor]

What the rise of populism is actually a reaction to. While most people would not think of things this way (it certainly takes a great deal of historical education to understand where the Progressive era started and go even further back to its roots), people most certainly see the end results of these changes, and want to undo them as being detrimental to their rights, freedoms and personal well being, and ability to reach their own personal goals:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/1913_the_turning_point.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Curry serves on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute and on the Board of Distinguished Advisers of the Ronald Reagan Center for Freedom and Understanding.  He is the author of Common Sense Nation: Unlocking the Forgotten Power of the American Idea from Encounter Books.  You can preview the book here.

 

[a_majoor]

What the rise of populism is actually a reaction to. While most people would not think of things this way (it certainly takes a great deal of historical education to understand where the Progressive era started and go even further back to its roots), people most certainly see the end results of these changes, and want to undo them as being detrimental to their rights, freedoms and personal well being, and ability to reach their own personal goals:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/1913_the_turning_point.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Curry serves on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute and on the Board of Distinguished Advisers of the Ronald Reagan Center for Freedom and Understanding.  He is the author of Common Sense Nation: Unlocking the Forgotten Power of the American Idea from Encounter Books.  You can preview the book here.

 

[YZT580]

'Second- I think that your definition of family is outdated. Merriam-Webster defines a family as, "a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head" (in the context of this conversation). In this definition there is absolutely no reason why a gay couple could not and do not count as a "family". So, how is gay marriage an attack on the family when it is fully congruent with the definition of family? I know gay families who are closer to traditional families in that they have children who they care for, lead happy healthy lives, and press all the important judeo-christian values. I also know traditional families where the dad was out cheating while his wife went into labour, got caught DUI trying to get to said labour, than beat his wife when she found out about the infidelity. So, which one then is the assault on family?'

From Webster, the complete definition:  a group consisting of parents and their children/the children of two parents/a group of people closely related by blood.  That is from 1975.  It is easy to change the definition and then say 'see you are wrong'!  Some, not all, in fact probably not even a majority, have been stampeded into accepting a definition that they know is morally wrong but the slur of being homophobic or racist or whatever has effectively shut up their individual right to express their own beliefs and misgivings.  There is no medical evidence that suggests that there is a 'gay' gene or that some are genetically disposed towards same sex relationships. So the only impetus for change has been the legislative and political agitating of the only group that had a need to see the change i.e. the lgbt community itself.  There is ample evidence that suggests that it is harmful but we either ignore or gloss over those bits of evidence and indeed we have curtailed all speech regarding this.  It has become fashionable to out your child before the child even knows what it is you are talking about.

 

[McG]

There is ample evidence that suggests that it is harmful ...

Then it should be easy for you to present a few facts and references to substantiate your position.  Also, maybe I am a little slow today but, could you clarify what is the "it" that you claim is harmful?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

'Second- I think that your definition of family is outdated. Merriam-Webster defines a family as, "a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head" (in the context of this conversation). In this definition there is absolutely no reason why a gay couple could not and do not count as a "family". So, how is gay marriage an attack on the family when it is fully congruent with the definition of family? I know gay families who are closer to traditional families in that they have children who they care for, lead happy healthy lives, and press all the important judeo-christian values. I also know traditional families where the dad was out cheating while his wife went into labour, got caught DUI trying to get to said labour, than beat his wife when she found out about the infidelity. So, which one then is the assault on family?'

From Webster, the complete definition:  a group consisting of parents and their children/the children of two parents/a group of people closely related by blood.  That is from 1975.  It is easy to change the definition and then say 'see you are wrong'!  Some, not all, in fact probably not even a majority, have been stampeded into accepting a definition that they know is morally wrong but the slur of being homophobic or racist or whatever has effectively shut up their individual right to express their own beliefs and misgivings.  There is no medical evidence that suggests that there is a 'gay' gene or that some are genetically disposed towards same sex relationships. So the only impetus for change has been the legislative and political agitating of the only group that had a need to see the change i.e. the lgbt community itself.  There is ample evidence that suggests that it is harmful but we either ignore or gloss over those bits of evidence and indeed we have curtailed all speech regarding this.  It has become fashionable to out your child before the child even knows what it is you are talking about.

The definition is the definition.... language and social norms change. As for the rest provide some evidence not in the form of a random blog entry

 

[YZT580]

IT is any family relationship that is based upon anything other than the traditional male, female.  With regards to evidence to back up that statement, the U.S. census reports that the children of single parent families are more likely to end up arrested, have less likelihood of completing a college education, with more than likely come from a lower income family and will likely earn significantly less than the child of a two parent family.  With regards to LGBT relationships, the children of those relationships are starting to reach an age where they can speak out and a number of them, while expressing love for their parents also spoke of the void in their lives because they only experienced contact with a single sex as parent.  4 of them testified in a recent (January) hearing the the U.S. Court of Appeals regarding the same sex marriage laws in several southern states.  I quote one letter: "We want to thank you for giving voice to something that we learned by experience: Every human being has a mother and a father, and to cut either from a child's life is to rob the child of dignity, humanity, and equality," the letter states.  The same harm occurs in split marriages incidentally. 

 

[McG]

So, still no sources?  You talk in broad brush generalities and cannot reference anything specifically aside from the anecdotal inputs of four individuals?  You stated "ample evidence" and yet you cannot link to even mention of any sort of statistically significant study?  And why are you talking about statistics on single parent families?  Those don't prove your point.  In fact, absent any other statistics, those numbers would seem to suggest that LGBT parents are better than single parents regardless of sexual orientation.