Obama Perverts Ex-Im Bank into Competitor for Domestic Banks

[Rheo]

American Thinker:

 

 

Acting without any legal authority, President Obama has overridden the federal charter of the Export-Import Bank, and turned it into a competitor for domestic loan business, in utter defiance of the law. Hardly anyone has noticed or seems to care.

 

Speaking at a Boeing assembly plant in Everett, Washington Friday, President Barack Obama announced a bold new plan to help American exporters: he would broaden the services of the Ex-Im Bank to help grow our exports.

Now, that sounds good on the face of it. The Ex-Im Bank is chartered as an export-funding source with a very narrow, specific charter. It exists in an odd area of commerce that requires some background.

 

When a US manufacturer wants to sell to a foreign country, the local banking regulations and currency controls of that destination government sometimes make it difficult or impossible for the buyer to pay a US vendor promptly. Local interest rates may be too high; the local banks may be untrustworthy or otherwise unable to cooperate smoothly with a US bank; the destination country may simply have rules that only allow payments occasionally, so the timing of the shipment may cause the customer to be unable to pay for a year or two, or ever.

 

In view of this problem, many foreign countries have their own export finance banks -- government-chartered agencies that produce short term financing on good risks -- only on good risks -- so that the peculiarities of the (usually third world) destination country don't kill a good transaction. Sometimes they're paid immediately, sometimes in six months, or a year or two... the idea is that the government is better off if its manufacturers are not scared out of exporting to such countries by banking issues. And again, barring unforeseen revolutions or currency collapses, these deals should only be about good investments.

 

 

Poof! goes the charter...

 

 

Misrule by Mismanagement

 

 

This administration is abusing government, by using agencies for purposes other than their constitutional or statutory functions. This government by executive fiat grows ever more random, ever more disconnected from the reality of the legislation that chartered these departments and agencies as they wander ever farther afield.

 

[Pepper]

bump

[raygun]

I was going to post that despite the Ex-Im Bank having been instructed to not fund/support domestic fossil fuel endeavors, they did not, however, have any qualms about giving Petrobas in Brazil enormous sums of money to aid in their offshore drilling efforts in the Gulf. Until I seen that was posted already in the comments.

 

Curiously enough, its interesting to note the comment about a man named Soros being heavily invested in Petrobas. Imagine the shock and horror of disovering gambling going on in the casino!

 

Another comment: "The initiative orders the Ex-Im Bank to disregard its requirement to loan only on export shipments, and instead to loan operating cash to put companies in a better position to export (a goal with no substance whatever)....Here we have an ideal situation for fraud and thievery..."

 

Well, gee, do ya think Bastiat may have had it right?

 

The law perverted! And along with it all the collective forces of the nation! The law, I say, not only turned aside from its proper end, but made to pursue a directly contrary end! The law become the instrument, instead of the restrainer, of all kinds of cupidity! The law itself perpetrating the very iniquity that it is its function to punish! Certainly, if this is so, it is a serious matter, to which I should be allowed to call the attention of my fellow citizens...

 

...Man can live and enjoy life only by constant assimilation and appropriation, that is, by a constant application of his faculties to things, by labor. This is the origin of property.

 

But, in fact, he can live and enjoy life by assimilating and appropriating the product of the labor of his fellow man. This is the origin of plunder...

 

...It is in the nature of men to react against the iniquity of which they are the victims. When, therefore, plunder is organized by the law for the profit of the classes who make it, all the plundered classes seek, by peaceful or revolutionary means, to enter into the making of the laws. These classes, according to the degree of enlightenment they have achieved, can propose two different ends to themselves when they thus seek to attain their political rights: either they may wish to bring legal plunder to an end, or they may aim at getting their share of it.

 

Woe to the nations in which the masses are dominated by this last thought when they, in their turn, seize the power to make the law!

 

Until that time, legal plunder is exercised by the few against, the many, as it is among nations in which the right to legislate is concentrated in a few hands. But now it becomes universal, and an effort is made to redress the balance by means of universal plunder. Instead of being abolished, social injustice is made general. As soon as the disinherited classes have obtained their political rights, the first idea they seize upon is not to abolish plunder (this would suppose in them more wisdom than they can have), but to organize a system of reprisals against the other classes that is also injurious to themselves; as if, before justice reigns, a harsh retribution must strike all, some because of their iniquity, others because of their ignorance.

 

No greater change nor any greater evil could be introduced into society than this: to convert the law into an instrument of plunder...

 

But once let the disastrous principle be introduced that, under the pretext of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law can

take from some to give to others

, to draw off a part of the wealth acquired by all classes in order to increase that of one class, whether farmers or manufacturers or merchants or shipowners or artists or actors; then certainly, in that event, there is no class that does not demand, with good reason, to have a hand in making the laws; that does not vehemently claim its right to vote and to be considered eligible; that would not overthrow society rather than fail to obtain that right. Even beggars and tramps will prove to you that they have an incontestable right to vote. They will say to you: "We never buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying a tax, and part of that tax is given by law, in bounties and subsidies, to men richer than we are. Others use the law to raise artificially the prices of bread, meat, iron, and cloth. Since everyone exploits the law to his own profit, we too want to do so. We desire to have it grant us the

right to public relief,

which is the poor man's share of the plunder. To this end we must become voters and legislators, so that we may organize the dole for our class in grand style, as you have organized protective tariffs in grand style for your class. Do not tell us that you will act on our behalf, that you will throw our way, as M. Mimerel proposes, a sum of six hundred thousand francs, to keep us quiet and as a bone for us to gnaw on. We have other demands, and, in any case, we want to act for ourselves, as the other classes have acted for themselves!"

 

...M. de Montalembert, adopting the thought expressed in a famous proclamation of M. Carlier, said: "We must make war on socialism." And by socialism, we must take it that he means plunder, according to the definition of M. Charles Dupin.

 

But what kind of plunder did [Montalembert] mean? For there are two kinds. There is

extralegal

plunder and

legal

plunder.

 

As for extralegal plunder, such as theft or fraud, which is defined, provided for, and punished by the Penal Code, I do not think that we can, in all truth, decorate it with the name of socialism. It is not this that systematically menaces the foundations of society...

 

...The law sometimes sides with the plunderer. Sometimes it commits plunder with its own hands, in order to spare the beneficiary shame, danger, and qualms of conscience. Sometimes it places this whole apparatus of courts, police, constabularies, and prisons at the service of the plunderer, and puts the plundered person, when he defends himself, in the prisoners' dock. In a word, there is

legal plunder

, and it is no doubt this that M. de Montalembert is talking about.

 

This kind of plunder may be merely an exceptional blemish on a nation's legislation, in which case, the best thing to do, without too many tirades and jeremiads, is to eliminate it as soon as possible, despite the outcries of the vested interests. How is it to be recognized? Very simply. All we have to do is to see whether the law takes from some what belongs to them in order to give it to others to whom it does not belong. We must see whether the law performs, for the profit of one citizen and to the detriment of others, an act which that citizen could not perform himself without being guilty of a crime. Repeal such a law without delay. It is not only an iniquity in itself; it is a fertile source of iniquities, because it invites reprisals, and if you do not take care, what begins by being an exception tends to become general, to multiply itself, and to develop into a veritable system. No doubt the person benefited by the law will raise loud cries of protest; he will invoke his

acquired rights

. He will say that the state has an obligation to protect and encourage his industry; he will allege that it is good that the state should enrich him, because, when he is richer, he spends more and thus showers wages on the poor workers. Take care not to listen to this sophist, for it is precisely by the systematic elaboration of these arguments that

legal plunder

will itself be systematized.

 

This is, in fact, what has happened. The prevailing illusion of our age is that it is possible to enrich all classes at the expense of one another—to make plunder universal under the pretext of

organizing

it. Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest-free credit, etc., etc. And it is the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of

socialism

...

 

So, what do you do? You want to prevent socialists from having a hand in the making of the laws. You want to keep them from entering the legislature. You will not succeed, I venture to predict, while within the legislature laws are passed in accordance with the principle of legal plunder. Your idea is too iniquitous, too absurd.

 

This question of legal plunder must be decided once for all, and there are only three solutions:

• That the few plunder the many.
  
• That everybody plunders everybody else.
  
• That nobody plunders anybody
  

...Robespierre sets up an opposition between

liberty

and

property

. These are two rights of different origin: one comes from Nature; the other is socially instituted. The first is

natural

; the second,

conventional

...

 

In any case, it is certain that Robespierre, following Rousseau's example, considered property as a social institution, as a convention. He did not connect it at all with its true justification, which is labor. It is the right, he said, to dispose of the portion of goods

guaranteed by law.

..

 

...Let us now proceed to consider the consequences of the two systems...

 

The first result is to open an unlimited field to the imagination of the utopians...

 

...Once it is accepted in principle that property derives its existence from the law, there are as many possible ways of organizing labor as there are possible laws in the heads of dreamers. Once it is accepted in principle that it is the responsibility of the legislator to arrange, combine, and form persons and property in any way he pleases, there are no limits to the imaginable ways in which persons and property can be arranged, combined, and formed. At this moment, there are certainly five hundred proposals in circulation in Paris for the organization of labor, without counting an equal number of proposals for the organization of credit. Undoubtedly, these plans are mutually contradictory, but all have in common this underlying thought: it is the law that creates the right to property; it is the legislator who disposes of the workers and the fruits of their labor as an absolute master...

 

A second result is to arouse in all these dreamers a thirst for power. Suppose I conceive of a system for the organization of labor. To set forth my system and wait for men to adopt it if it is good, would be to assume that the initiative lies with them. But in the system that I am examining, the initiative lies with the legislator. "The legislator," as Rousseau says, "should feel strong enough to transform human nature." Hence, what I should aspire to is to become a legislator, in order to impose on mankind a social order of my own invention.

 

Moreover, it is clear that the systems which are based on the idea that the right to property is socially instituted all end either in the most concentrated privilege or in complete communism, depending upon the evil or good intentions of the inventor. If his purposes are sinister, he will make use of the law to enrich a few at the expense of all. If he is philanthropically inclined, he will try to equalize the standard of living, and, to that end, he will devise some means of assuring everyone a legal claim to an equal share in whatever is produced. It remains to be seen whether, in that case, it is possible to produce anything at all.

 

In this regard, the Luxembourg has recently presented us with a most extraordinary spectacle. Did we not hear, right in the middle of the nineteenth century, a few days after the February Revolution (a revolution made in the name of liberty) a man, more than a cabinet minister, actually a member of the provisional government, a public official vested with revolutionary and unlimited authority, coolly inquire whether in the allotment of wages it was good to consider the strength, the talent, the industriousness, the capability of the worker, that is, the wealth he produced; or whether, in disregard of these personal virtues or of their useful effect, it would not be better to give everyone henceforth a uniform remuneration? This is tantamount to asking: Will a yard of cloth brought to market by an idler sell at the same price as two yards offered by an industrious man? And, what passes all belief, this same individual proclaimed that he would prefer profits to be uniform, whatever the quality or the quantity of the product offered for sale, and he therefore decided in his wisdom that, although

two

are

two

by nature, they are to be no more than

one

by

law.

 

This is where we get when we start from the assumption that the law is stronger than nature...

 

But when, on the contrary, acting on the principle that not labor, but the law, is the basis of property, we permit the makers of utopias to impose their schemes on us in a general way and by decree, who does not see that all the foresight and prudence that Nature has implanted in the heart of man is turned against industrial progress?

 

Where, at such a time, is the bold speculator who would dare set up a factory or engage in an enterprise? Yesterday it was decreed that he will be permitted to work only for a fixed number of hours. Today it is decreed that the wages of a certain type of labor will be fixed. Who can foresee tomorrow's decree, that of the day after tomorrow, or those of the days following? Once the legislator is placed at this incommensurable distance from other men, and believes, in all conscience, that he can dispose of their time, their labor, and their transactions, all of which are their property, what man in the whole country has the least knowledge of the position in which the law will forcibly place him and his line of work tomorrow? And, under such conditions, who can or will undertake anything?

 

...a cry arises:

The right to property is a creation of the law

. Consequently, the legislator can promulgate at any time, in accordance with whatever theories he has come to accept, decrees that may upset all the calculations of industry. The worker is not the owner of a thing or of a value because he has created it by his labor, but because today's law guarantees it. Tomorrow's law can withdraw this guarantee, and then the ownership is no longer legitimate.

 

What must be the consequence of all this? Capital and labor will be frightened; they will no longer be able to count on the future. Capital, under the impact of such a doctrine, will hide, flee, be destroyed. And what will become, then, of the workers, those workers for whom you profess an affection so deep and sincere, but so unenlightened? Will they be better fed when agricultural production is stopped? Will they be better dressed when no one dares to build a factory? Will they have more employment when capital will have disappeared?

 

And from what source will you derive the taxes? And how will you replenish the treasury? How will you pay the army? How will you meet your debts? With what money will you furnish the tools of production? With what resources will you support these charitable institutions, so easy to establish by decree?

 

...I shall conclude with a few words on the Association for Free Trade. It has been very much criticized for having adopted this name. Its adversaries have rejoiced, and its supporters have been distressed, by what both consider as a defect.

 

"Why spread alarm in this way?" said its supporters. "Why inscribe a

principle

on your banner? Why not limit yourself to demanding those wise and prudent changes in the customs duties that time has rendered necessary and experience has shown to be expedient?"

 

Why? Because, in my eyes at least, free trade has never been a question of customs duties, but a question of right, of justice, of public order, of property. Because privilege, under whatever form it is manifested, implies the denial or the scorn of property rights; because the intervention of the state to equalize wealth, to increase the share of some at the expense of others, is

communism

, as a drop of water is just as much water as the whole ocean; because I foresaw that the right to property, once weakened in one form, would soon be attacked in a thousand different forms; because I had not given up my solitude in order to work for a mere reduction in customs duties, which would have implied my adherence to the false idea

that the law is prior to property

, but to fly to the rescue of the opposite principle, compromised by the protectionist system; because I was convinced that the landed proprietors and the capitalists had themselves implanted, in the tariff, the seed of that communism which now frightens them, since they asked the law for additions to their profits, to the detriment of the working classes. I saw clearly that these classes would not delay in claiming also, by virtue of equality, the benefit of

the law for the equalization of wealth

, which is

communism

...

 

In recent times, a universal tremor has spread, like a shiver of fright, through all of France. At the mere mention of the word

communism

everyone becomes alarmed. Seeing the strangest systems emerge openly and almost officially, witnessing a continual succession of subversive decrees, and fearing that these may be followed by decrees even more subversive, everyone is wondering in what direction we are going. Capital is frightened, credit has taken flight, work has been suspended, the saw and the hammer have stopped in the midst of their labor, as if a disastrous electric current had suddenly paralyzed all men's minds and hands. And why? Because the right to property, already essentially compromised by the protectionist system, has been subjected to new shocks consequent upon the first one; because the intervention of the law in matters of industry,

as a means of stabilizing values and equilibrating incomes

, an intervention of which the protectionist system has been the first known manifestation, now threatens to manifest itself in a thousand forms, known or unknown. Yes, I say it openly: it is the landowners, those who are considered property owners par excellence, who have undermined property rights, since they have appealed to the law to give an artificial value to their lands and their products. It is the capitalists who have suggested the idea of equalizing wealth

by law. Protectionism

has been the forerunner of

communism

; I say more: it has been its first manifestation. For what do the suffering classes demand today? They ask for nothing else than what the capitalists and landlords have demanded and obtained. They ask for the intervention of the law to achieve balance, equilibrium, equality in the distribution of wealth. What has been done in the first case by means of the tariff, they wish to do by other means, but the principle remains the same:

Use the law to take from some to give to others

; and certainly since it is you, landowners and capitalists, who have had this disastrous principle accepted, do not complain, then, if people less fortunate than you are claim its benefits. They at least have a claim to it that you do not.

 

But finally people's eyes are beginning to open, and they see the nature of the abyss toward which we are being driven because of this first violation of the conditions essential to all social stability. Is it not a terrible lesson, a tangible proof of the existence of that chain of causes and effects whereby the justice of providential retribution ultimately becomes apparent, to see the rich terrified today by the inroads made by a false doctrine of which they themselves laid the iniquitous foundations, and whose consequences they believed they could quietly turn to their own profit? Yes, protectionists, you have been the promoters of communism. Yes, property owners, you have destroyed the true idea of property in our minds. It was political economy that gave us this idea, and you have proscribed political economy, because in the name of the right to property it opposes your unjust privileges. And when the adherents of these new schools of thought that frighten you came to power, what was the first thing they tried to do? To suppress political economy, for political economy is a perpetual protest against the

legal leveling

which you have sought, and which others, following your example, seek today. You have demanded of the law something other and more than should be asked of the law, something other and more than the law can give. You have asked of it, not security (that would have been your right), but a

surplus value

over and above what belongs to you, which could not be accorded to you without violating the rights of others. And now, the folly of your claims has become a universal folly. And if you wish to ward off the storm that threatens to destroy you, you have only one recourse left. Recognize your error; renounce your privileges; let the law return to its proper sphere, and restrict the legislator to his proper role. You have abandoned us, you have attacked us, because you undoubtedly did not understand us. Now that you perceive the abyss that you have opened with your own hands, hasten to join us in our defense of the right to property by giving to this term its broadest possible meaning and showing that it includes both man's faculties and all that his faculties can produce, whether by labor or by exchange.

 

The doctrine which we are defending arouses a certain opposition because of its extreme simplicity; it confines itself to demanding of the law security for all. People can scarcely believe that the machinery of government can be reduced to these proportions. Moreover, as this doctrine restricts the

law

to the limits of

universal justice,

it is reproached for excluding fraternity. Political economy does not accept this accusation. This will be the subject of a forthcoming article.

 

Excerpted from: The Law, Frédéric Bastiat, June, 1850 (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)

[Rheo]

So many good paragraphs to hightlight....

Went with this one...

 

This kind of plunder may be merely an exceptional blemish on a nation's legislation, in which case, the best thing to do, without too many tirades and jeremiads, is to eliminate it as soon as possible, despite the outcries of the vested interests. How is it to be recognized? Very simply. All we have to do is to see whether the law takes from some what belongs to them in order to give it to others to whom it does not belong.

 

We must see whether the law performs, for the profit of one citizen and to the detriment of others, an act which that citizen could not perform himself without being guilty of a crime. Repeal such a law without delay. It is not only an iniquity in itself; it is a fertile source of iniquities, because it invites reprisals, and if you do not take care, what begins by being an exception tends to become general, to multiply itself, and to develop into a veritable system

 

No doubt the person benefited by the law will raise loud cries of protest; he will invoke his acquired rights. He will say that the state has an obligation to protect and encourage his industry; he will allege that it is good that the state should enrich him, because, when he is richer, he spends more and thus showers wages on the poor workers.

 

Take care not to listen to this sophist, for it is precisely by the systematic elaboration of these arguments that legal plunder will itself be systematized.

[Rheo]

What must be the consequence of all this? Capital and labor will be frightened; they will no longer be able to count on the future.

 

Capital, under the impact of such a doctrine, will hide, flee, be destroyed. And what will become, then, of the workers, those workers for whom you profess an affection so deep and sincere, but so unenlightened?

 

Will they be better fed when agricultural production is stopped? Will they be better dressed when no one dares to build a factory? Will they have more employment when capital will have disappeared?

[Rheo]

Another highlight:

 

To suppress political economy, for political economy is a perpetual protest against the legal leveling which you have sought, and which others, following your example, seek today. You have demanded of the law something other and more than should be asked of the law, something other and more than the law can give. You have asked of it, not security (that would have been your right), but a surplus value over and above what belongs to you, which could not be accorded to you without violating the rights of others.

 

And now, the folly of your claims has become a universal folly. And if you wish to ward off the storm that threatens to destroy you, you have only one recourse left. Recognize your error; renounce your privileges; let the law return to its proper sphere, and restrict the legislator to his proper role.

 

You have abandoned us, you have attacked us, because you undoubtedly did not understand us. Now that you perceive the abyss that you have opened with your own hands, hasten to join us in our defense of the right to property by giving to this term its broadest possible meaning and showing that it includes both man's faculties and all that his faculties can produce, whether by labor or by exchange.

[raygun]

Put your gun away, remove all intoxicating substances from arms length, prevent your access to any of that.

 

Read Bastiats treatise in its entirety.

 

I don't know the measure of your constitution, but it took me at least a month to come to grips with the sense of hopelessness.

 

The coup de gras should be when you encounter how glowingly Bastiat makes reference to the government of the United States of America; at that time - 1850 - perhaps that was true.

 

If you're like me: you'll be kneeling in prayer before the Porcelein God's Throne and relinquishing all sustenance for a week's time.

[Rheo]

Would like to hear/see this in an ad,...........

 

To suppress political economy, for political economy is a perpetual protest against the legal leveling which you have sought, and which others, following your example, seek today.

 

You have demanded of the law something other and more than should be asked of the law, something other and more than the law can give. You have asked of it, not security (that would have been your right), but a surplus value over and above what belongs to you, which could not be accorded to you without violating the rights of others.

 

And now, the folly of your claims has become a universal folly. And if you wish to ward off the storm that threatens to destroy you, you have only one recourse left. Recognize your error; renounce your privileges; let the law return to its proper sphere, and restrict the legislator to his proper role.

 

You have abandoned us, you have attacked us, because you undoubtedly did not understand us. Now that you perceive the abyss that you have opened with your own hands, hasten to join us in our defense of the right to property by giving to this term its broadest possible meaning and showing that it includes both man's faculties and all that his faculties can produce, whether by labor or by exchange.

[raygun]

I post this Truth to be universal:

 

The constitutional government of the United States of America has no place for the third party; political history has shown that the two parties in power either embrace the platform's of the third party, or die.

 

It is my assertion that the GOP has more in common with the Democrat Party of 1938 (and the contemporay Democrat Party more on common with the Communist Party 1932), than the Nationalist parties contemporary to those times.

 

How is that possible? The respective parties adopted (and shed) the necessary planks of the third party's encroaching platform so as to remain in power. That's all any political party has an interest in: becomeing appointed to the various committees whereby public largess can be controlled by them.

 

Eventually the third party becomes extinct, and yet the remaining, i.e., orginal, parties bear no semblence to their original platforms (except for their name).

 

This may or may not result in a change of name, e.g., Whig / Republican.

 

I dare say that when the powers-that-be ascertain they lost an election because of party ideology / platform plank(s), that they will adapt.

 

The only thing that I see that scares the crap out of the powers-that-be are a significant number of electrate voters lost because they didn't accomodate Ron Paul planks into their platform.

[Rheo]

Lost me on the Ron Paul saving the world.

 

The Republican party is no where near the Democrats, but yes.....time to step up...say You Liar, and state your case.

 

Stop letting the media define your message. We the people like it when your voice speaks our truth. The left has their reps and we have ours...let them speak unfettered, unedited, unagendaed, etc.

 

We have a voice and a choice. Why do we get silenced?

[raygun]

Ron Paul's not going to save the world, let alone the American political system.

 

Compare and contrast ALL current center to center-right candidates platform with Ron Paul's.

 

Lets agree to set aside the 20% of Paul's wacko libertarian principles that will NEVER fly this millenium.

 

Betwen either (or both) social / fiscal conservatisim, where can non-Paul candidates feets be held to the fire?

 

How many of the "conservative" legislators elected to office because of TEA party outrage, are being held accountable on their record?

 

The TEA party is doing what this election cycle?

 

In light of Bastiat's polical economy, where's the problem? Is it gays? Is it Israel? Is it drugs? Maybe some other fringe libertarian issue? If none of those, then where's the problem posited by Bastiat?

 

Since the record-breaking, overwhelming victory in the 2010 election, is the Republic better off or worse? If the latter WHY? It was the dag nabbed TEA party that voted 'em into office no?

 

What is the TEA party incidently?

 

So the TEA party just rolls over this one, eh?

 

I'm breakin' out pitch-forks and tar-torches for y'all...

[Rheo]

Ron Paul's not going to save the world, let alone the American political system.

 

Compare and contrast ALL current center to center-right candidates platform with Ron Paul's.

 

Lets agree to set aside the 20% of Paul's wacko libertarian principles that will NEVER fly this millenium.

 

Betwen either (or both) social / fiscal conservatisim, where can non-Paul candidates feets be held to the fire?

 

How many of the "conservative" legislators elected to office because of TEA party outrage, are being held accountable on their record?

 

The TEA party is doing what this election cycle?

 

In light of Bastiat's polical economy, where's the problem? Is it gays? Is it Israel? Is it drugs? Maybe some other fringe libertarian issue? If none of those, then where's the problem posited by Bastiat?

 

Since the record-breaking, overwhelming victory in the 2010 election, is the Republic better off or worse? If the latter WHY? It was the dag nabbed TEA party that voted 'em into office no?

 

What is the TEA party incidently?

 

So the TEA party just rolls over this one, eh?

 

I'm breakin' out pitch-forks and tar-torches for y'all...

Save the pitch -forks and tar-torches.

With this is a start.

 

 

And if you wish to ward off the storm that threatens to destroy you, you have only one recourse left. Recognize your error; renounce your privileges; let the law return to its proper sphere, and restrict the legislator to his proper role.

[raygun]

I'm unclear about the matter based on your reply. Are you suggesting that I should move on?

[Rheo]

I'm unclear about the matter based on your reply. Are you suggesting that I should move on?

No worries. My replies are often vague and based on my own perception at the time......

 

No suggestion of the kind. You are welcome here to discus any topic. do it with respect, we good.

[raygun]

I'd like to agree to disagree 'bout the Ron Paul thing.

 

I think I've said my thing.

 

You go girl.

[Rheo]

Continue.

[raygun]

Fine.

[Rheo]

Ha.

Say it in one letter or less.

 

I apologize if I derailed the conversation. One topic leads to another......

 

continue.