Seriously flawed in it’s very concept, the bill grants private operators the ability to operate as-if they are the chartering government itself, sans the payback at the voting booth. Contracts could extend far beyond term limitations, and the ‘authorities’ created would be of a new design.
It will place those who fail to pay the private concern as immediately liable for fees as-if it were a government entity. It also brings back the spectre of eminent domain, and abuse of authority.
It also grants special rights to those who profit from such projects as described in the bill from paying property, sales or use taxes taxes.
I live in Tim Walberg’s district. In fact, his residence of record is about 10 miles from my house. Those of you that live in a Rural setting may appreciate that this is “right around the corner”. I’ve not been a huge fan of Tim Walberg because of his repeated support for the PATRIOT ACT. I once confronted him over his support for this act at a tea party meeting and he and I got into it a bit. Anyhow…I smiled this morning while doing some quick research for this piece to discover Walberg sponsored legislation (albeit in 2015) to reform Civil Asset Forfeiture. Good job, Tim!
I hope Tim continues his Civil Asset Forfeiture reform efforts in the new congressional session.
The new leader of the United States Government, on the other hand, disappoints on this front. Many of you may have seen this video, I made this post for the benefit of those who have not.
A Texas lawmaker has the audacity to introduce legislation that requires the State Government there convict a fellow of a crime before they gank his stuff! GASP! What’s Trump’s solution? Ruin the lawmaker’s career!
I think we need to call out bad actors on Civil Asset Forfeiture (and other violations of civil liberties and due process), whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or a beloved (by many, not I) newly elected President. I recognize he’s not the only bad guy in this regard. Civil Asset Forfeiture was popular during alcohol prohibition — the better part of 100 years ago. Let’s hope Mr. Trump sees the error of his ways in the future.
One thing is for sure: he must NOT be given a pass simply because he’s a Republican (at least he says he is now — he was a Democrat between 2001 and 2009).
Nope, this sort of thing NEVER happens in elections.
I’ll have to admit, I liked last night’s Presidential Debate…most of it.
Unlike the previous debates where the “expert” journalist moderators quickly lost control of things and the topic firehosed everywhere (except for the question being asked), Chris Wallace did a fair job of keeping a handle on things.
The media blacked out Wikileaks story was mentioned early on, in which Clinton tacitly acknowledged the authenticity of them during her answers.
Clinton digging a bigger hole for herself by claiming the Russians had a hand in the release of internal e-mails that democrats never thought would ever see the light of day (and did she forget that “donation” to the Clinton Foundation for Uranium Mining Rights???).
We certainly cannot forget the next generation of terrorist attacks her in America due to her ill-conceived “asylum” program from Syria. Break out the tissues while she spins a tale of woe on the “migrants”. OABTW, how anyone can really “vet” someone’s record, when there is no government to contact regarding said record?
Let me start out by saying this article makes a lot (and I do mean a lot) of collectivist statements. That makes sense that a person that would promote a statement such as “Black Lives Matter” would be a collectivist. In fact, if I had to summarize what’s wrong with this article (and the Black/Blue Lives Matter movements) succinctly, that would be the word I’d use: collectivism. The article starts:
Dear fellow white people, let’s have an honest talk about why we say “All Lives Matter.” First of all, notice that no one was saying “All Lives Matter” before people started saying “Black Lives Matter.” So “All Lives Matter” is a response to “Black Lives Matter.” Apparently, something about the statement “Black Lives Matter” makes us uncomfortable. Why is that?
Now some white people might say that singling out Black people’s lives as mattering somehow means that white lives don’t matter. Of course, that’s silly. If you went to a Breast Cancer Awareness event, you wouldn’t think that they were saying that other types of cancer don’t matter. And you’d be shocked if someone showed up with a sign saying “Colon Cancer Matters” or chanting “All Cancer Patients Matter.” So clearly, something else is prompting people to say “All Lives Matter” in response to “Black Lives Matter.”
Many of the people saying “All Lives Matter” also are fond of saying “Blue Lives Matter.” If you find that the statement “Black Lives Matter” bothers you, but not “Blue Lives Matter,” then the operative word is “Black”. That should tell us something. There’s something deeply discomfiting about the word “Black.” I think it’s because it reminds us of our whiteness and challenges our notion that race doesn’t matter.
How do the current crisis period and the current presidential election impact each other?
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” (attributed to Margaret Mead)
Insofar as I have been able to research, historical consensus is that the American Revolution began with the Stamp Act Congress (October 1765), and ended with the ratification of the Bill of Rights (December 1791). This twenty-six year effort to secure independence from the British Crown, and establish a free and independent republic (America’s original “crisis period”), was unique in the entirety of human history. By this I mean that, rather than simply swapping one set of rules for another, or one set of political leaders for another, the patriots of America’s founding generations created, from scratch, a nation dedicated to and based upon the proposition that every man and woman stands equal before the law, and has a God-given and inalienable right to a life of Liberty and Justice. Yet, the sum total of soldiers, sailors, statesmen, sages, and shopkeepers who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause that established the freest and most prosperous nation ever known – made most of the sacrifices, did most of the work, and made nearly all of the major decisions – amounted to merely three percent of the total American population of the time . . . evidence for the credibility of what historians refer to as “The Law of The Vital Few.”
In contemporary America, every economic, social, and political trend seems to indicate that the United States are already in the fourth crisis period of our national history. Given this, the question seems fair to ask: Where now are the sages, statesmen, investors, entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs . . . and even leaders . . . who will guide us through not only this crisis, but also the austerity and rebuilding that will surely be needed once the crisis has passed? More importantly, would we know how to recognize such producers and leaders when they arrive?
A Transcription from the national archives. IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
(the remainder below with appropriate emphasis added.)