Friday, December 20, 2013

The Bill of Rights Doesn’t Apply to the States


Rightly or wrongly, one of my favorite articles I wrote for Beards of Fury was “Religion and the Government.” It’s my favorites because I think it was somewhat well written, it defended my point well, and it started a healthy debate, and that’s what I want to address here. One of the biggest points used to discredit my thesis was that the First Amendment does mean the federal government can’t even endorse religion and that, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment applies to the states. Let’s assume that the First Amendment does mean the federal government can’t endorse religion; it still doesn’t mean the First Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Exhibit A is the Blaine Amendment. The Blaine Amendment, which was proposed in 1875, states: “No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.” For reference, the Fourteenth Amendment passed in 1866. If the Fourteenth Amendment meant the Bill of Rights applied to the states why was this amendment proposed?

Now, some people will say, “It’s the Due Process Clause that incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. I’ll let Lawrence Vance provide Exhibit B. Go ahead Mr. Vance: “If the Fourteenth Amendment ‘incorporates’ the Fifth Amendment, then why did the framers of the Amendment find it necessary to repeat verbatim the ‘due process [sic]’ clause of the Fifth Amendment?”

Finally, some say, “No, it’s the Privileges and Immunities Clause that incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.” Well, enter Exhibit C and Mr. Vance one more time: “The ‘privileges or immunities [sic]’ of the Fourteenth Amendment couldn’t possibly be a reference to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights for the simple reason that it had a history of contrary usage before the Fourteenth Amendment was ever thought of; the privileges and immunities preceded the Bill of Rights.”

So, the bottom line is that the First Amendment, no matter what it says, applies only to the federal government.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

What Rob and James Think About A&E Suspending Phil From "Duck Dynasty"

 
Bearders and beardettes, we received a great question from a fellow bearder asking us our opinion concerning A&E suspending Duck Dynasty cast member Phil for his recent comments during a GQ interview - well, here is what we think, feel free to leave your comments!

To the Members of BoF:

First off we do not agree with what Phil said. BoF is a group for everyone and anyone... who supports beards, the idea of a three party system, and freedom. Now, that being said, Phil certainly has the right as an American, and an individual human being to feel whichever way he wants.

On the same token, A&E is a privately owned television channel (half owned by the Hearst Corporation and half owned by the Disney-ABC Television Group), and so its private owners have a right to suspend any employee for whatever reason. Who knows what is in the contracts the Duck Dynasty people signed with A&E?

So, to us, is freedom of speech a factor in this case? No, it is not. A&E has an image they want to keep, and whether or not one likes Phil being suspended, they have a right to do it. Charlie Sheen was never late for the filming of any episode of “Two and a Half Men,” but he was still fired by CBS for his out of work antics. Military members who get in trouble out in town also get in trouble with their command because they are supposed to uphold a certain image.

In the end, this might totally bite A&E in the ass. While the owners of the channel have the right to do what they want, viewers also have the right to protest and hurt the show’s ratings. Prior to this, A&E apparently had asked the family not to mention God or pray during the show, and the family threatened to find another channel to air it, so it will be interesting to see what happens now. In Hollywood, money talks, and Duck Dynasty is a huge ratings draw for A&E.

Beard on,

Rob & James

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Must Read Books: Economics


"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

Do you know who said that? My hero, Murray Newton Rothbard, said that. What's he really saying? This: "Hey. I get it; maybe you decided to not learn about economics because, after all, it's boring. But, Jesus, H. Christ, who the fuck do you think you are trying to explain to everybody how an economy should run if you never took the time to properly learn it?" Well, I'm here to tell you economics is not boring, and you should learn it because it effects your life. All you need is the correct literature, and I know three must read books on the subject.

First on the list is Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. This is the book to start with in you economic journey. It's a simple read, it's not long, and it's "the quickest was to learn how to think like an economist." I'm talking about an excellent economist. The book starts off with the lesson: Frederick Bastiat's broken window fallacy, and then puts that lesson into real world situations like rent control, minimum wage, the military, and savings.

Next on the list is the man himself, Murray Rothbard and his Man, Economy and State. Grounded in the Austrian School of Economics, Rothbard builds upon his teacher Ludwig von Mises and shows us that economics is nothing more than humans acting, seeking means to achieve ends. Because he's from the Austrian school, there's no complicated math; just stone cold logic. Like Hazlitt, it's simple to read. How simple? Rothbard uses the creation of a ham sandwich to explain complicated principles!

Finally, there's Mises' Human Action. This is the book that made it clear economics wasn't about complicated mathematical formulas, but "human wants and desires." Praxeology, the study of human action, is introduced in this treatise, and from there, Mises takes you on a trip of logic inducing economic concepts. This book was published before Man, Economy, and State; however, Rothbard is an easier read, and reading him before Mises will make reading Human Action easier. Like Rothbard, Mises is one of my heroes. In fact, because of this cat I always remembered my ex-girlfriend's birthday because she was born on the same day as Mises.

There's the list. The list won't make economics boring or complicated. And you won't be ignorant. And, seeing it's Christmas, (yea, I say Christmas; sue me), they make great gifts. Now, you, your family, and your friends won't be ignorant.

Religion and the Government


Do you know what I can't believe I have to do? I can't believe I have to do two things; defend the Constitution, and defend religion, and it's all because of an article I saw about a cross that sits on government land in San Diego that must come down because it's "unconstitutional." As an anarcho-capitalist, I can't believe I have to defend the Constitution, the very thing that was created specifically to create a bigger, more powerful government, (a different topic for a different day). As an atheist, (more of a deist), I can't believe I have to defend religion. However, since we have the Constitution and religion is mixed with politics, I figure we use the Constitution as intended, even when it comes to religion. That means, per the Constitution, governments can display religious symbols all they want.

First of all, the people who claim this is a victory for religious freedom say the government can't endorse religion. Really? Where in the Constitution does it say that? Oh, that's right, it doesn't say that. It says the government can't establish a religion. Just look at the dictionary: "endorse" means "to support;" "establish" means "to create." The government can't create a national religion and have you support it through taxation; just like the Church of England did to the colonists. Man, did the British do them dirty!

Secondly, the people who still claim this is a victory for religious freedom base it on the constitutional grounds of the wall of separation between church and state. Yes, that phrase that's found in Article...oh, what a minute, that's not in the fucking Constitution either. That phrase was written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. What had happened was, after TJ was elected president, the Baptists wrote Jefferson that, while they do enjoy religious freedom in Connecticut, the state legislature, run by Quakers, is giving them this right, and they feared they could be forced to join a state church. The Baptists tried to appeal to TJ's firm stance on religious freedom when they wrote: "...we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states..." Translated: "We know the president can't make laws, (my how the times have changed, huh?), and that congress can't override state laws, but can you do something about this?" The reply: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Translation: "I feel for you dog, but, like the First Amendment says, I, nor congress, can get involved with religion." Jefferson was saying the federal government stays out of religion, not religion stays out of the federal government; people constantly take this out of context.

And finally, there's this: "The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." What's this? That's the preamble to the Bill of Rights? Never seen it before? I'm sorry you had such shitty teachers. Or, maybe, you should've went to class that one day. In a nutshell, the preamble to the Bill of Rights says these first ten amendments, to make those bastard anti-federalists happy, will prove the federal government will not abuse natural rights. That's right, the First Amendment, and the whole establishment clause, applies only to the federal government. That's why the Danbury Baptists wrote "...the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state..." They knew if Connecticut wanted to establish a state church, the federal government couldn't so squadoosh about it. And this cross in San Diego? Put on local government land which means the First Amendment's establishment clause wouldn't apply to the state anyway.

So, there's my defense. Religious symbols can be proudly displayed on local, and federal government property. The only thing the federal government can't do is create a national church and make people support it through taxation and commit to its services, (by the way, James Madison said just that in his 1789 speech before congress on debating the Bill of Rights; it's not my fault y'all don't know history). And this atheist, Constitution hater, used the Constitution to prove it.

As a side note, if my points seemed to ramble on, it's because it's late, and I'm drunk. I will have no recollection of having written this come tomorrow morning. However, it doesn't change the fact that I'm right, more or less.

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Karl Marx: Great Beard, Bad Ideas


Karl Marx is known for two things, having a great beard and creating the theory of Marxism.  While one is a great achievement that should be commended the other was a rather out of reach idea that led to many of the worst and most oppressive government regimes in history. Of course our bearded friend didn't mean for it to end up that way but like many good willed, yet misguided ideas, they become a nightmare…much like the idea of using Cylons (robots) as a form of labor in Battlestar Galactica. The outcome can be catastrophic.  

To understand why Marxism led to these corrupt and oppressive regimes you have to look at the definition. Now this is where many leftists will say "Nuh uh, you don't know what it means" since that is usually their defense but this IS the definition and it explains so much.  Let's use the always-trusted Merriam-Webster.  "Marxism: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially :  a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society. A classless society." That right there says it all.  A society in which there are no classes, everyone is equal.  No poor people? That sounds just as amazing and just as believable as living in the Peppermint Forest from Candy Land. It is almost impossible to have a classless society where nobody answers to anybody else.  The moment you let the government redistribute wealth and control production and commerce you just set up government officials as the ruling class. It leads to them being very rich and the regular workingman being very poor. It's why people in North Korea are starving and resort to eating grass. It's why people from Cuba will risk their lives on rickety boats to get to Florida, no matter what Michael "Ton-O-Chins" Moore says about their healthcare system.  They aren't coming because they want to check out the lines at Disney World. 
Now, I've heard people make the argument that the original Native Americans had a system of sharing and giving to the common cause of the tribe but those were basically large extended families with a hunter/gatherer system and bartering.  These weren't nations made up of hundreds of millions of people that drive cars and play Xbox.  Who is going to make your Xbox under a classless society? Someone making that Xbox is working for a boss and they are working for someone else.  If everyone was set at an equal income, who is going to decide to create these products and put all the effort into them?  There is no incentive for it.  If you are trading rabbit furs for someone's corn and squash crop you are basically equals but if you want to have a society with massive production then someone is going to be working for someone else, plain and simple.  A classless society on a scale of a nation like America is a complete fantasy. 

It is impossible for the government to make people equal.  The only person that can raise someone up out of his or her current station is the individual. No matter how much the government assists or gives them handouts it is ultimately up the individual to do something.  A government can't make all of its people rich but it sure as hell can make many of them poor.  The examples I stated above along with Communist China and the USSR are great examples.  The average person lived in squalor while the government officials lived like nobility, the very opposite of a classless society.  The private sector has its issues with corruption but can you think of anybody more corrupt than a politician?  Giving them too much power is like giving a fox the key to the henhouse or your Snapchat access to Anthony Weiner.  You end up with socialist nations such as Venezuela under Hugo Chavez that through government owned media, shut down his critics and political opponents.  People will praise socialism in European nations, but remember that these nations are still kept in check by not having complete state ownership of everything and while they're touted as great by those on the left they still are not even close to being classless societies. They still have their poor and their very rich.

Basically our good buddy Karl was a dreamer.  He wanted everybody to be equal but he didn't understand human nature.  He probably should have just been satisfied with growing and maintaining a great beard and left the political theories and thought to others because you're more likely to be ruled by Lord Licorice than live in a classless society.





Thursday, December 12, 2013

Heigh-ho, the Derry-o, Chicago Farming Here I Go

 
The other night at work a friend told me something that I thought was a joke, Louis Farrakhan is a farmer, well, at least in the eyes of the government. I sat there waiting for the punch line, but alas, the real joke is on us, the tax payers, because Louis Farrakhan and 929 other entities in the city of Chicago are getting federal subsidies for their "farms." These so-called farms are not out in the areas surrounding the windy city...they are smack dab in the middle of the damned thing. Seriously, are you fucking kidding me Ghost Rider?

No, Ghost Rider is not kidding - he never kids.

After a quick search I found several articles about this, including one from The Blaze. According to a report titled "Farm Subsidies and the Bog Dogs," released by the government watchdog group Open the Books, and based on information and data received from the US Department of Agriculture and through the Freedom of Information Act, we really do have farms in Chicago! However, if you were to check out the addresses of the farms, you would find mansions and office buildings where dirt, vegetables and tractors are supposed to be. And how much has gone to these farms? Sadly, it isn't chicken feed. Between 2008 and 2011 our great government, which is now spying on us, forcing us to get health care and targeting those who speak out against its policies, has given fake farmers like Louis Farrakhan about $6.2 million.

I am stressing the fact that Louis Farrakhan, (Louie to me, because we are tight as George Michael's pants), is part of this because (1) his existence and what he has said over the years about people of the Jewish faith make me want to support abortion and (2) the farm his group, "Three Years Economic Savings, Inc., supposedly runs is at his home address where only hate grows...not corn. The piece of cow pie received almost $104,000 between 2008 and 2011. Out of the 930 groups that received farm subsidies in the city of Chicago, Farrakhan's group was the 12th highest recipient with almost $104,000 in government finding. Louie, where are my beets man?

The sad part about all of this is that the shitbags who are cheating the system are hurting real farmers with real problems, who could really use the money. Hopefully, now that this scam has come to light, it will be corrected. HA! I am sure Eric Holder is writing a very stern letter to Louie and company as we speak.

In the end, maybe the real reason I find myself extremely pissed off about this is not due to what I see as fraud committed by Louie and the 929 other groups, or the tax dollars wasted on them, but due to me not capitalizing on a great opportunity! Do you know how many peppers I have grown in tote boxes on the patio outside my apartment?  Probably more than Louie, so I have missed out on three years of government funding. Dammit!

However, perhaps all is not lost, and I can find an apartment rooftop in Chicago and start a farm that will rival Pepperidge Farm. Then Louie and I can go down to the local farmers market and sell our bullshit together!

Sunday, December 8, 2013

It's Christmas, Not Xmas


Ah, it's that time of year again. The time for mall parking lots to be filled to the brim, music channels to play "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer," gifts to be bought, and people to get all politically correct (PC). Yep, it's Christmas, the holiday where Christians celebrate the birth of Christ, and quite frankly, I find myself getting more and more pissed off each year over how much our society has become filled with pussies.

Why? Well, one can hardly call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree without someone correcting them and calling it a "Holiday tree." No, douchebag; it's a Christmas tree. School districts are cancelling Christmas concerts, Christmas toy drives and have changed the lyrics to classic Christmas songs have been altered, all in the hopes of not offending people. Well, in a country where almost 80% of its citizens affiliate themselves with a Christian religion, who do the PC police really think they have a better chance of offending? Normally, when the odds are 80/20, betters take the 80%, but not here. To get off the Christmas topic for a second, this past Easter season, the managers of my apartment complex sent out a flyer announcing they would be having an egg hunt for the kids, and that there would be an "oversized bunny there." Are you fucking kidding me? (Maybe I should have put that in quotes, because I think that's how I started off an email to the front office of where I live). "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, if it's an oversized rabbit, it's a fucking Easter bunny." (There. That one gets quotations because I know I wrote that in the email). We came to the agreement that I won't be getting any further flyers stuck in my door announcing the presence of any more PC holiday figures.

Now, I am not saying that "Happy holidays" is not an inappropriate greeting during this season. Those of the Jewish faith celebrate Chanukah, and then there is Kwanza, so I get "Happy holidays," - to an extent. If you don't know the holiday someone celebrates, it is fine to wish them and their family "Happy holidays," however; when you know what a person celebrates, don't be afraid to say "Christmas," or whatever holiday the individual observes.  One of my best friends is a priest and he told me he was at a Hallmark store once buying a Christmas gift for a relative. He was in his normal priest clothes, with Roman collar, and when he checked out the cashier said "Happy holidays." Someone who does not care would not have said anything. My friend? He cares, and he responded with something to the extent of "If you cannot tell what I celebrate by the clothes I wear, that's sad." And it is.

In New York City right now atheists paid for a billboard to read "Who needs Christ during Christmas? Nobody," and "Christ" has an "X" going through it. Well, since in Old English, "Christmas," means "Christ's mass," it is pretty apparent that in order to have Christmas, one must have Christ. People can have a day to give gifts to others, but that's not Christmas. That's a day.

Do atheists have the right to put up ignorant billboards? Of course. Just like Rev. Phelps and his inbred Westboro Baptist Church congregation have the right to incite everyone and their mothers with what they do, atheists can do the same. That is what is great about our country. We have rights that not everyone else in the world enjoys. I would love to see atheists operate in places like Iran during Ramadan. They would probably find it hard to hold picket signs with stubs where their hands use to be.

Do some believe that Christians took pagan symbols and made them their own, (i.e. Christmas trees)? Sure, but quite frankly I don't give a shit. This isn't an article debating such things, history is written by the winners, and the last I checked, Frodo and company defeated the Witch-king - so deal with it. In the end, I just want people to be comfortable in saying "Merry Christmas," singing Christmas songs without worrying about offending anyone and being jolly.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Saturday, December 7, 2013

My Gedankenexperiment

 
You know what I fucking hate? I hate it when people say this to me: "We have to spend to grow the economy; that's how an economy grows." You don't understand, I really, really, really, really, really hate hearing that statement. Spending money makes an economy grow? I'm sure people will say, "But, of course," and then back it up with spending creates demand, and blah, blah, blah. If spending grows the economy, then let's have a thought experiment.

Let's say 101 people are traveling, by plane, with an enormous supply of paper and a printing press. They're on their way to show the United States government a new, great way to print more money. As luck would have it, the plane crashes on a deserted island and all of the people, paper, and printing press survive the crash.

One of the people decides that they will form a new country with a benevolent government with economic equality for all, where poverty and greed no longer exist. The person is elected president of the new government and their first act as president is to give everybody else a job in the new government; their second act is to print enough money, (they call it Islanders), to give all 101 people $300,000.00.

Well, the people have the money to spend, so, there's that demand, but how are they going to buy food, beverages, clothes, houses, medical care, or vehicles? An intelligent person might say, "Trade with another country for those things." Sounds great! One problem. The only money these people have is their currency, and no other country would accept it if that country cannot purchase on invest anything in this new country.

Is this a tough thought experiment? Not at all. The super intelligent person will realize that these people have to produce something first in order to demand something else. If they do that, then they can trade with each other as well as foreign countries. So, no, it's not spending that creates demand that grows an economy; it's production that creates demand that grows an economy.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

For Our Ukrainian Followers...


This is a quick one, and is directed toward our Ukrainian followers, (because we actually have quite a few): where do you stand concerning the protests going on in your country right now? Are you pro the current government which leans toward Russian support, or do you side with the opposition and side with the European Union? As an American, I am totally ignorant with this whole issue, although judging a book by its cover, I could probably pick a side. However, since we have a following of Ukrainian bearders, I want to provide you a place to get your point across. Feel free to make comments in the comment section below. This is just an off the cuff post, so I want to see if it goes anywhere.

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Who Wants Utopia?


"You need to stop thinking you can create a utopian society." "You live in a utopian fantasy world." "The utopia you want will never exist; get with reality." As a libertarian, (people familiar with me know I prefer to call myself an anarcho-capitalist or Rothbardian, but we'll use libertarian), I hear those phrases all the time. Apparently, a society where others leave each other alone; defend themselves from aggression; act voluntarily; and believe stealing, bodily harm, and fraud are wrong, is a perfection that is ridiculously impossible. Yet, I've never claimed such a society to be utopian. I realize people will still do dumb and hurtful things. When you get right down to it, you can see who is trying to create the perfect society.

Liberals, progressives, Democrats, whatever you want to call them, are the ones who claim if we just pass enough laws, violence, poverty, disease, destruction from natural disasters, racism, and urban decay will cease to exist. Human action? Free thinking individuals? We can totally plan and control that.

Conservative, right-wingers, Republicans, whatever you want to call them, are the ones who claim if we just pass enough laws, drugs, sin, immoral behavior, porn, premarital sex, and abortions will evaporate while religion and businesses will forever boom. Human action? Free thinking individuals? We can totally plan and control that.

Right and left claim if we just fight every nation on earth, peace and national security will forever flourish. Customs we don't understand? Religions we don't know of? Who cares? Other countries thinking we need to stay out of their affairs? Why? Blowback? No such thing exists.

No, I don't claim I can create a utopian society. Unlike the left, right, and center, I don't claim to predict, control, or plan free thinking individuals. No, I just want to be left to do as I please, without harming another soul, but defend myself if somebody attempts to harm me. I thought that was freedom?

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Rob Faust and James Millman Give Thanks...

 
Happy Thanksgiving bearders and beardettes! Because today is a day to give thanks for what we have, we thought we would share with everyone what we are thankful for!

We are thankful for:
  • a president who has united our country - not divided it,
  • a bi-partisan Congress that works together for the betterment of all of us,
  • civil rights leaders Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for being outspoken opponents of gangs targeting women and Jews when playing "knockout,"
  • the NSA for keeping tabs on us,
  • Senator Harry Reid for bringing House bills up for vote in the Senate,
  • Speaker Boehner for his willingness to get emotional and cry,
  • the IRS for targeting President Obama's political opponents,
  • AG Eric Holder for giving Mexican drug cartels guns...and wanting to limit our ability to legally obtain them,
  • President Obama for keeping promises,
  • HealthCare.gov for being user friendly,
  • Spike Lee for Tweeting the correct address of George Zimmerman,
  • a lower unemployment rate for African Americans since Obama took office,
  • everyone being able to keep their health insurance and low deductibles,
  • for ObamaCare not adding a dime to our deficit,
  • the closing of Gitmo,
  • Peace in Egypt since the overthrow of President Mubarak, (the people just adore Morsi),
  • the thought of a nuclear Iran,
  • the defense of our Bill of Rights and Constitution by our elected officials,
  • unbiased and thorough coverage of all the scandals surrounding the White House - especially by MSNBC,
  • Republicans blaming third party candidates for their losses instead of piss poor campaign management,
  • Jay Carney,
  • Uncrustables and Goobers,
  • Ohio and Texas,
  • Mayor Bloomberg for helping us make smart diet decisions, and
  • President Obama's teleprompter.
Hot damn, we sure have a lot to be thankful for! In all seriousness though, we are thankful for our family and friends and for all of you, our fellow bearders and beard supporting beardettes! From all of us at Beards of Fury, have a HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Why the Commerce Clause Doesn’t Legalize Obamacare

 
What's causing the president's low approval ratings? It's probably his failure of Obamacare thus far. The website doesn't work. Half of it isn't built yet. People who like their health insurance lost it even though he repeatedly claimed you could keep it. Now, you may say, "That's right. Sergio. That's why he should've never tried to have government control health care; the government doesn't do anything right, and this proves it."

"Congress has the power to regulate commerce. It says so in the Constitution. So it's legit. Stop complaining; it'll work." Why is it that people who say this leave out the whole statement about regulating commerce? Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states, foreign nations, and Indian tribes. So, to all the people who believe that congress can force you to buy something under the commerce clause, would you tell France to buy health insurance from American companies, or American vehicles? Would you threaten to sue them under the commerce clause if they didn't? Of course not because it's not what "regulate" under the commerce clause means.

Yes, "regulate" means "control." But here's the thing people, words have many definitions, and you must see how that word is used in a sentence to know what definition is being used. "Regulate" also means "to make uniform." "Similar" is probably a better definition.

Why did the founding fathers want to make commerce "similar" with the states? Well, during the days of the Articles of Confederation, the federal government did not have the power to create tariffs; that was up to the individual states. And the states were setting different tariffs for different states. But the founders were all about free trade, and wanted goods to flow between all of the states. So when they decided to scrap the Articles and make a new constitution, they decided only the federal government can set tariffs among the states. And the tariff was, and is, zero dollars allowing the free flow of goods.

As you can see, the commerce clause has nothing to do with the government forcing people to buy health care, or anything for that matter; it was meant to encourage trade among the states. However, in this day and age, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper liberals and conservatives use to wipe their asses after they shit out their agendas.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Is Democracy the Answer?

 
Do you believe in freedom? Do you believe in liberty? Do you believe those are American principles? Do you believe the founding fathers wanted freedom? I believe you do believe in freedom and liberty and that's what America oozes and that's what the founders sought to give Americans. If you truly believe in those things, then stop talking about the greatness of democracy. Stop claiming America needs to spread democracy. Democracy isn't freedom; it's tyranny with a fancy name to make it look like freedom exists under democracy.

Seriously, do a search for the United States Constitution. Bring up the text. Now do a search of the document and tell me how many times the word "democracy" appears in the damn thing. I'll wait. Done? That's right, the word "democracy" doesn't appear once in the writing. What does appear in the screed? A republican form of governments. What is a republican form of government? A government that keeps the majority in check and protects the rights of the minority. You know, what freedom really means.

So, if a republic keeps the rights, liberties, and freedoms present for all, what is a democracy? I didn't graduate from Harvard University, but I did graduate from the University of Memphis which is the Harvard of Memphis, and even I know a democracy is majority rules; the rights of the minority are not safeguarded. If the majority says it is so, then it is so, others be damned what they want.

Even the founding fathers knew this. Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself," said John Adams. Benjamin Franklin claimed, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

So you see, if you truly love freedom, liberty, and rights, by looking to our founding fathers and the document they created, and knowing what democracy means, you understand why they created a republic. "I see, mi querido príncipe. We must go back to our republican roots for freedom to exist once more! Democracy isn't the answer for freedom, republicanism is the answer!" Not quite. Murray Rothbard has the answer. Read his work; I don't want to do everything for you.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Barack Hussein Obama II – The Real “Teflon Don”


I remember when I was younger hearing about the mobster, John Gotti, "NY Post" headlines of "I Forgotti," and how nothing seemed stick to him. Also, having hailed from Rhode Island, a state where corrupt politics is "politics as usual," I am pretty use to officials being brought up on RICO and other charges. After a while though, John Gotti was found guilty, and he went to jail. And in my home state, Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci, a staple in RI politics who seemed to be impervious to anything, hell he even made a comeback after assaulting a man with a cigarette, (lit), back in the mid-eighties, still went to jail. Gotti and Cianci as it turns out, did not wear suits made out of Teflon. There is someone though I think who does though, President Obama, and while I am not saying he has does anything that is "jail worthy," he has done some shady shit, and he is just lucky enough people out there drink his Kool-Aid.

President Obama was going to be the president who united our country, not divide it. Maybe it really was the other way around because when Harvard Professor and Obama friend, Henry L. Gates Jr., (an African American), was arrested for disorderly conduct after slamming his door on a white police officer who was responding to a possible break-in. President Obama said "the Cambridge Police acted stupidly..." This of course led to the "Beer Summit," and all was forgotten. Then there was the Hispanic male who shot an African American in self-defense, you know, the George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin incident. The case of course turned into a "white on black" race crime with celebrities basically calling for the head of Zimmerman, and Spike Lee even Tweeting an incorrect address for the Zims. President Obama could have used this time to sooth our divided country, but instead he said, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon." So much for helping thing out, but that's okay because nothing sticks to the president.
One thing that is good about the president is that he apparently reads the newspaper. Thank God, because without doing that, how else would he have heard about "Operation Fast and Furious," where we gave weapons to drug cartels, lost some and later an ATF officer was murdered, or the IRS targeting his political adversaries. Hell, Eric Holder even tried to claim he didn't know anything about "Fast and Furious." And yet, nothing stuck to Obama.

On 12 September 2012, our embassy in Libya was attacked, during which our ambassador and three other man were slaughtered. What did President Obama do? He went to bed and got up the next morning for a flight to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser. Later, during a debate with Gov. Romney, Obama had the audacity to say "The suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our UN ambassador, anybody on my team, would play politics or mislead when we lost four of our own, governor, is offensive." Well, there was the whole blaming of the event on an internet video that had almost no views prior to it getting blamed. And what has been done about the attackers? Nada, but still the shit just slid off Obama's suit.

How about the rest of Obama's foreign policy? On day one of his first term in office, he signed an order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay - almost five years later, it's still open. As a senator, Obama chastised President Bush for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but President Obama has since supported the overthrow of leaders in two countries, (how did that go for the Egyptians), and has basically turned his back on Israel in support of talks with Iran, a country filled with anti-Semites. But does anyone really care? No, well at least no one who works for MSNBC or has an Obama Phone.

We have the NSA spying on us and foreign dignitaries, the Justice Department going through AP emails and the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen, but still no one, including our president has been held responsible.

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like you healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away from you, no matter what.” Those were words said by President Obama, and during his first term prior to Obama Care becoming law, after it was passed, during his reelection campaign, and basically right up to when over four million Americans lost their plans due to Obama Care, he continued to say a variation of that exact quote, time, and time again. And what about the one where he said he wouldn't sign a bill that added a dime to our deficit? How much is Obama Care costing us now? Still, the sheep "baaa" every time he says anything.

The latest scandal to popup is the possibility that the jobless rate numbers were altered in order to help President Obama right before the election in 2012. According to the NY Post, the 7.8% jobless rate, which was 8.1% prior, may not have been all that accurate. Yea, perhaps the NY Post isn't the best thing to depend on, but was the National Enquirer wrong when they reported presidential nominee, and former senator, John Edwards had a love child?

Now, Rep. Issa, (R-CA) has vowed to bring about a congressional hearing concerning the possibility that the jobless rate numbers were altered, but can we really expect anything out of it? Did anything happen after the same type of hearings were conducted on the Benghazi attack, Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the screw-up of the HealthCare.gov rollout, or anything else for that matter? Was anyone really held accountable? Fired? Imprisoned? No, they were not, because President Obama has a suit made of Teflon and those who grab on tight enough have that shit run off onto them too.

It's too bad, because if people really sat back and took a minute to analyze all that he has said, all that has been proven false, and his lack of taking responsibility for anything, maybe a light would turn on and people would wake up. The fact is, more African Americans are unemployed under Obama than Bush, people are being dropped from their health coverage like it's hot, and really nothing will be done about it.


 

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

How General is Your Welfare?


If you are fortunate to be just like me, which I doubt, you find yourself partaking in a few adult beverages at your favorite public house or saloon every now and then; for me, usually more now than then. It was at one of these fine establishments the other day I started some witty banter about the government's role in health insurance is not valid when another patron uttered this: "Health care is a right. Besides, under the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution, it's legal." The phase "general welfare" does appear in Article One, Section One. Yet it does not mean what this gentleman wants it to mean. No, the word "welfare" in the Constitution doesn't mean free goodies; it means well-being. All we need to do is turn to an eighteenth century dictionary; the first Constitution of the USA, and the man who wrote the Constitution to see this is true.

First, the expression "welfare" as defined in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified, meant "Happiness; success; prosperity," all according to Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language" (published 1755). Now, I understand it's 2013, so let's see what an updated dictionary says. According to "The Free Dictionary," the first definition of "welfare" is "Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. Prosperity." The second meaning, added later to usage of the English language is "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government to people in need." The second meaning, what we would define as "welfare," didn't exist at the time of ratification. "Welfare" then means especially as ratified, "well-being."

Also, if you paid attention in history class, (and you had about 13 chances to do so), the first Constitution of the USA was the Articles of Confederation. "Welfare" was lifted from Article III and placed in the new Constitution. What did Article III say? This: The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." If you notice, the article talks about protecting your well-being, just like Article One, Section One of the Constitution, ("The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...").

Now, let's see how the true definition fits in with Article III: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general well-being, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever, [emphasis added]." How about the twisted definition? "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general governmental aid, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever, [emphasis added]." It looks like the first one makes sense.

Finally, when opponents of the new Constitution were worried that the expression "general welfare" was going to get mangled and Congress would take it to mean what we now know welfare to be, (go figure, Patrick Henry was right), James Madison, the guy who wrote the fucking Constitution, put their worries aside in Federalist 41: "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars." What did he mean? He meant, "I wrote an introduction stating that we can collect and spend money, and then listed exactly what we can spend the money on." Alas, healthcare isn't in the list. Oh, he even alluded to the Articles of Confederation when addressing the "welfare" worriers: "The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are 'their common defense, security or their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.'" What's he saying to those who oppose the phrase "general welfare?" Hey, motherfuckers, it meant 'well-being' two days ago, and it still means 'well-being!'"

As you can see, the term "general welfare," legally speaking, means "prosperity," or "well-being." You know, like that recent NFL player, worried about concussions, quit football, saying, "I need to worry about my welfare." He didn't mean government assistance. Therefore, healthcare as government assistance is not constitutionally valid. Should we see people receive healthcare? Yes, but there are better ways, and you have no Constitutional authority to do so.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Voting Stright Ticket - Lazier Than Uncrustables

 
One of the recurring themes here at Beards of Fury, (BoF), is our belief that the two party system that we have does not work. Rob Faust popped the BoF cherry against the two party system with his column "Two Parties, Zero Sense," in which he pointed out votes cannot be stolen by third party candidates. I do find it funny though that the same people who are against third party candidates in the Republican party are also some of the biggest Tea Bag, er, Tea Party supporters out there. What is the Tea Party but a third party within one of the main parties? And how has that experiment gone so far? Isn't it hard to get someone elected when they have to start off their ads with "I am not a witch?" Sergio Leonard, in his piece, "My Problem with Democrats and Republicans," pointed out quite clearly that Republicans and Democrats are not really in favor or against policies per se, they are for themselves, and against their opponents, therefore, their agreeing or opposing a policy just depends on who holds the power in Washington, DC at the moment and not their conscious. Finally, our newest member of the BoF writing staff, Dave Deshawn Gosling, asked why people care about what Miley Cyrus is doing, and not so much about what our leaders are in "Apathy Kills, But I Don't Care," and are therefore content with whatever happens on Election Day. My beef with the two party system is will all of the aforementioned type of mindless zombies, and probably more so the biggest simpletons of them all in my humble opinion - the straight party ticket voter.

 At the top of our ballots, we have an option to vote for all the candidates of a particular party or "straight ticket." It's easy, you fill in that selection and voila! You're done, and, you're an idiot.

I think one of the reasons people have such a hard time supporting third party candidates is because those that despise third parties don't like individual politicians, they only like their party. All that matters to a straight ticket voter is what comes at the end of a politicians name signifying their party affiliation, whether it's a (D) or an (R). When people have the attitude of "Anyone but..." the name following the "but" wins.

Voting the "straight ticket" option to me just proves someone has not taken the time to get to learn all they can about who is running. I have particular issues that are near and dear to me. Before going to vote I research the candidates and see who best fits what I believe in, and who I think will be the best person overall for the state I reside in and our country as a whole. Sometimes, the candidate I vote for may not be the individual who is all for what I am, but to me they are still the best candidate for the job. These candidates are normally people who vote with what they think is right, and not how their party leaders tell them to vote.

Maybe people vote straight ticket without thinking because they are afraid they might like what is on the other side if they were to do some actual research before casting their vote. Rhode Island's Democrat General Treasurer, Gina Raimondo, has done a lot for pension reform. For those unfamiliar with Rhode Island, the state is the largest employer, so unions basically run it. Raimondo has shown a lot of courage standing up for what she believes, going against the grain of her own party, but a Republican straight ticket voter in RI would not know of her without doing research.
A person lazy enough to only vote for one party, time and time again, no matter what their candidates pledge, really should move to a country run by a dictator. At least then, they will be able to vote one way 24/7, unless they want to lose one of several body parts.


Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Deck the Halls With BoF Balls!


Apathy Kills, But I Don't Care



Let's talk about apathy for a moment, shall we? I know, I know, you do not give a fuck. Feel free to continue not giving a fuck while you hear me out. It is your right as an American, and you are not alone! Many people I talk to also do not give a fuck. They all seem to say similar things, "What difference can I make?" or, "Screw it, I don't know enough about it to care." After talking to them further, I find that they are quite capable of caring about how Miley did at the VMAs, why their fantasy football team sucks, or perhaps even about what dumb shit just got posted to YouTube.

What makes these things so easy to care about when so many more important issues are ignored? Perhaps it is because they are easily accessed and are presented with the audience's understanding in mind. After all, nobody would read a thousand page Twitter post, no matter how many retarded hashtags it has in it. Important legislation however, is not only difficult to understand in the first place, often times most people's access to it is framed by some sort of biased media. The 900 some page Affordable Care Act was so difficult to understand that most representatives voted for it without even reading it.

Could it be that this is done on purpose? What if I didn't want you to understand the tax code so that no matter what you did, you probably do not entirely comply with it? What if I never clearly state my opinion so that I can always backtrack on any position? This all creates an environment where the population of a country feels they have no ability to impact the decisions of the government. Once the environment sets in, apathy sets in. It you can't control it, why care about it?

Perhaps the two party system in Rob Faust's "Two Parties, Zero Sense" can cause apathy. If there are only two options and they both suck, why give a shit? People need to wake up and discover themselves, decide what their values are, and align themselves behind candidates who really support their position. Until that happens, eh, fuck it - never mind.

My Problem with Democrats and Republicans



Did you get a chance to read Rob's post on the two party system? If you did not, you should. I found it amazing. This probably does not surprise people. However, I want to take advantage of Rob's post, it fresh in our minds, and state, I too, have a huge problem with Democrats and Republicans. I am not just talking about politicians. I am talking about everybody who claims they are one or the other; this includes everyday people. What is my problem? All of these people have zero principles. How so?

Politicians are for what their party does when their guy is president and against what the other party does if their guy is not president, even if they were for the policy when their guy was president. Confusing? Here are some examples: Right now, Republicans are against Janet Yellen and her policy of printing money if she is the next Fed Chairwoman; they did not have a problem when George W. Bush nominated Ben Bernanke and he went on a money printing spree during W.'s terms. Dick Cheney, during W.'s presidency, said deficits do not matter; now deficits matter to Republicans because a Democrat occupies the White House. When W. was president, then Senator Barack Obama said deficits showed a lack of leadership, and Democrats agreed; now that he is president, Barry and the Democrats have no problems with deficits. Democrats were anti-war when W. was president; now they cannot find enough places to bomb the shit out of.

And for everyday people? You keep voting these non-principled assholes into office. Then you complain about the way the government turns out. "But what am I supposed to do, Sergio?" Show your displeasure by voting for a different candidate or not voting at all. Send a message you have principles. But that is the problem; as long as you keep voting for your guy, you are just showing you have no principles either. As long as you guy beats their guy - that is all that matters.

You see? Democrats and Republicans: no principles. "Just win baby!" That is the motto of both parties. Can you see my displeasure?

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The ACA - Obama's Abomination

 
When the 111th Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka the "Affordable Care Act," (ACA), then Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), said "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." Democrats said the ACA was not a tax, and then the US Supreme Court affirmed the law partly on the basis that it is indeed a tax, and President Obama claimed about 30 times if you like your plan, you can keep it. President Obama used jokes to make fun of the ACA's opposition and during the 2008 Presidential Election, Republican VP nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan, was portrayed as a man who wanted to throw grandmas off a cliff - and the media drank their Kool-Aid and went along for the ride. Unfortunately, millions of Americans are getting run over by the Obama Care bus.

Now look at what is happening - there has been issue after issue with the HealthCare.gov website, people cannot signup because of server and other problems, the number of those who have signed up is dismal, (the latest numbers are 3% of the official projected numbers, but this is no surprise to Obama and his cronies),  there is no federal mandate for background checks on the people who work the ACA phone lines, so, in theory, you could be giving your SSN and other personal information to convicted felons, and, (pause for a breath), people are indeed losing their health insurance plans!

Love or hate the idea of Obozo Care, this plan was sold to the American people on lie after lie after lie: premiums are going up, deductibles are rising, plans are being lost, and the ACA will add to our already huge deficit. White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney twitches during his Q&A sessions with the press, (when they ask him tough questions that is), United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius squirmed her way through a Senate hearing on the HealthCare.gov website, and what has the President done? About the same thing he did right after finding out about the attack on our embassy in Libya - nothing, (unless of course, you consider backtracking, and coming up with creative ways to change the meaning of his previous statements concerning us being able to keep our plans and our doctors something).

Edie Littlefield Sunby, a stage-four cancer survivor recently wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, in which she blamed the ACA for her loss of health care coverage. She wanted to know what happened to the promises our President made concerning us being able to keep our plans and our doctors. Without the health plan and doctors Sunby had, she knows she would probably be dead right now. How did the Obama administration react? Dan Pfeiffer, a top advisor for the President sent out a Tweet blaming Sunby's insurance provider for her loss in coverage. Insurance companies are dropping people for great health care plans like it's hot not because they are greedy, but because they have to do something to deal with the influx of people they have to insure. And those deductibles and premiums? They're rising like a guy watching porn.

My heart goes out to those who did not drink the President's Kool-Aid or believe his tall tales concerning the ACA, and who and have lost their coverage or have seen their premiums and deductibles rise through the roof. They are the victims of all the lies that helped an egotistical man get his way to build a legacy. Those who drank from his cup, and in turn poured glasses for their friends and family, and are now feeling the pain, are reaping what they have sown, and I could care less about them. It's too bad millions of informed voters are now paying the price of millions of idiots.

In the end, apparently when President Obama said we would be able to keep our plans, and we would be able to keep our doctors, "Period," he really should have used a semicolon. Words mean things Mr. President, and I wonder how many people will die because you lied.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Two Parties, Zero Sense



The other day a friend of mine made the statement that he dislikes Libertarians because we have a two party system and they steal votes from Republicans. I disagree with this thinking for a number of reasons. I think the two party system has done great damage to our nation and that you shouldn't have to vote for a "lesser of two evils" to make an impact.

If you agree with everything or even a majority of what a Democrat or Republican stands for, then you should vote for them. What if you don't though? Is everyone that's for lower taxes also against gay marriage? If you support certain social programs do you also have to support abortion? I'd like to think that people aren't as cookie cutter as that. Voting straight party is about as cookie cutter as it gets. It requires little thinking and no looking at things on an issue by issue basis. That's almost robotic.

Now let's take into account that both parties have led us to the place we are today. Both have led to increased government and excessive debt. Would a true fiscal conservative vote for that? Both parties have led to terrible foreign policy and bombing nations that never attacked us. Why vote for them if you disagree with these policies? The lesser of two evils? Sometimes it's hard to tell which is the lesser when they're both so bad. Voting for the lesser of two evils is basically deciding on which party you want to rape you.  You just have to decide which one will be less unpleasant, but really is any rape pleasant?

Recently Ken Cuccinelli lost the Virginia governor election to Terry McAuliffe. Republicans were quick to blame it on votes "stolen" by Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. There's no such thing as stolen votes. No candidate owns these votes. Sarvis didn't sneak into Cuccinelli's place one night and find them in his sock drawer along with his secret porn stash, (don't worry we won't tell Santorum). These were votes that Cuccinelli didn't earn. Maybe Republicans should look at the extremely small voter turnout or the GOP's currently low approval rating. A third party didn't lose the election for Cuccinelli, that blame lies elsewhere.

Why would someone want a two party system? Since when do people want less options? It's like when you have only one or two cable providers in an area. The service is usually shit. Democrats and Republicans are basically like those shitty cable providers. When you think they're the only options you settle for them. You end up voting for people that you never would if you really stuck to your ideals. When Bush was in office many Republicans disliked McCain because of his criticisms of Bush. They also thought he was too moderate but in 2008 he was their man and every Republican had a copy of "Faith of My Fathers" sitting in their bathroom. Republicans once called Romney a RINO and the engineer of Romneycare. In 2012 they touted him as a smart conservative and great businessman. Then there's Obama, who bombed Libya and extended the Patriot Act. War and the Patriot Act were two huge issues for Democrats during Bush's term but they mean much less to them now that Obama has done the same. People gave up on their "convictions" instead of looking for a third party that suits them better. They voted on (R) or (D) instead of on the issues. That's what a two party system gives you.

Maybe people like less options when it comes to voting.  Maybe they like it simple and don't necessarily care about the results as much as they like to complain about them. Though maybe someday people will want more options.  Maybe they'll grow a little backbone and vote on issues as opposed to canned cookie cutter parties or the "lesser of two evils".

Friday, November 8, 2013

Minimum Wage, Maximum Racist?


Guess what? I am confused again. This time it is because of minimum wages, living wages, or whatever they are called now.

You see, those who care so much about the poor, these compassionate people, demand that wages be at least set to a minimum, (I think the demand is now $15 per hour), people just cannot live on the current $7.25 per hour. Does that not sound reasonable? As Lee Corso would say: not so fast! I am about to show you all something that brings about my confusion.

Economist Walter Williams, (and fellow economist Thomas Sowell), know some history most people do not know, ignore, or overlook. What history am I talking about? Tell them Professor Williams: "During South Africa's apartheid era, the secretary of its avowedly racist Building Workers' Union, Gert Beetge, said, 'There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job, (minimum wage), as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans.' The South African Nursing Council condemned low wages received by black nurses as unfair. Some nurses said they wouldn't accept wage increases until the wages of black nurses were raised. The South African Economic and Wage Commission of 1925 reported that 'while definite exclusion of the Natives from the more remunerative fields of employment by law has not been urged upon us, the same result would follow a certain use of the powers of the Wage Board under the Wage Act of 1925, or of other wage-fixing legislation. The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed.'"

He has more, and it deals with the USA: "Our nation's first minimum wage came in the form of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. During the legislative debate over the Davis-Bacon Act, which sets minimum wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, racist intents were obvious. Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., supported the bill, saying he had 'received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.' Rep. Miles Allgood, D-Ala., complained: 'That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort is in competition with white labor throughout the country.' Rep William Upshaw, D-Ga., spoke of the 'superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor.' American Federation of Labor President William Green said, 'Colored labor is being sought to demonize wage rates.' The Davis-Bacon Act, still on the books today, virtually eliminated blacks from federally financed construction projects when it was passed."

So, somebody, anybody, and let us put economic principles aside like the law of supply and demand and how that economic law even applies to human labor even though some people think it does not, please explain to me how the minimum wage laws that were put into place by racists to keep blacks from, (paraphrasing here), taking jobs from the white man is supposed to, this time, help poor peoples' standard of living?

Oh, if you think Professor Williams, (who teaches at George Mason University in my home state of Virginia), and his buddy Professor Sowell are hack white dudes who just do not get it, search their names and you'll find out they're black.