Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Politics

FDA puts the squeeze on vaping

Vape Away

The federal government on Thursday banned the sale of e-cigarettes to anyone under the age of 18 and required manufacturers to disclose their ingredients and submit their products to the government for approval.

The Food and Drug Administration’s action, which represents the first time the government has regulated the booming market of e-cigarettes, seeks to clamp down on devices that have become increasingly popular, especially among young people, even as they have been subject to almost no oversight.

The agency, which first said it intended to regulate e-cigarettes in 2014, also imposed the regulations on cigars, hookahs and pipe tobacco.

The effort is a response to long-standing concerns about what health experts call a “Wild West” atmosphere involving the multi-billion dollar e-cigarette industry. The battery-powered devices heat up flavoured, nicotine-laced liquid, turning it into a vapour that the user inhales, or “vapes.

Washington Post – The federal government is about to begin regulating the booming e-cigarette market

Not very surprising, because the absence of the dead hand of government regulation on the emerging vaping industry has long irritated governments, both in Washington, across the states and abroad.

Why should they steal customers from big tobacco and yet not kneel before the powers that be in Washington so that they can get their slice of the relatively lightly regulated and taxed vaping pie?

I smell the stale stench of big tobacco in this as well, for the vaping culture has cut into their US revenues and both big tobacco and local and state governments are losing out.

Key Pointers:

  • The new regulations generally require manufacturers whose products went on sale after Feb. 15, 2007, to get approval from the agency to continue selling their products. These reviews will allow the FDA to scrutinize ingredients, product design and health risks, the agency said. It added that it will allow the companies to keep selling their products for two years while they submit their applications and then for an additional year while the FDA reviews the submissions.
  • The rules also ban the distribution of free samples. Officials suggested they might eventually consider banning flavours in cigars and e-cigarettes, but said the topic needs more research. [JG - Let me guess...Cannabis flavour perhaps??]
  • In recent weeks, the e-cigarette industry has gotten support from some public health experts. In late April, a group of tobacco-control experts, writing in the journal Addiction, urged the FDA to be “open-minded” about e-cigarettes, saying that the products can result in a reduction in traditional smoking. And recently, the Royal College of Physicians concluded that e-cigarettes were likely to be beneficial to public health in Britain.

The long and the short of it is that by medicalising vaping they can put the brakes on an industry that they feel is under-regulated and under-taxed, and in so doing, slow down tax loses from tobacco revenues and appease the lobbyists of big tobacco.

This is all very well and not very surprising, but the problem with vaping is that the key ingredients of vaping fluid are fairly common-place, essentially propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine for the liquid, diluted nicotine and flavouring.

So excessive government intervention at this stage could probably lead to the entire industry going underground as home-made or black market manufacture. Given the pressure on tax revenues and from tobacco lobbyists I suspect that draconian is going to be the way to go for quite a while…

The Only Real Truth in Politics

The Only Real Truth in Politics

I did in fact lie yesterday when I said I would vote “None of the Above” as I was unaware that UKIP were on the ballot. Still a 50% political commitment is better than most politicians, isn’t it?

After all, voting UKIP in Scotland is as much a “F*** YOU!” as anything else isn’t it? Might even do some good.

Scottish Libertarians? – Better luck next time.

If I’d actually have heard anything from you prior to arriving at the ballot box I might have voted for you. As it is “libertarian” is bandied about by too many on the centre left for me to take your word on it.

P.S. – Yes, I have read section 66(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and if the rossers want to arrest me for it they are welcome. It will just give me another platform on which to say to all politicians at large “You’re all gits and I hate you“.

Here endeth the lesson.

Voting with Mother

One Child One Vote

While I am not a great believer in the democratic process, when given the opportunity to vote* I make the effort to do so, even if it is just to send the message to “those who would rule us” that they are all a bunch of gits and I hate them.**

My voting pattern has shifted from the tribal Labour of my youth, through core Conservatism in my thirties, followed by a brief flirtation with Liberal Democracy before emerging into the rightful libertarian anarchy of spoilt ballot papers in my forties.

Given that the current incumbent in my constituency is SNP (Scottish National Socialist German Workers Party) and his nearest rival is the candidate for Jeremy Corbyn’s reanimated corpse of Old Labour some Tory twit named Murdo Fraser, I suspect that a spoilt ballot will again be my personal choice with “None of the above” scrawled across the ballot.

None of the Above

That being said, there is a bit of a difference with my visit to the voting booth on Thursday as this will be my first involvement in devolution (voting for a member of the Scottish Parliament to represent my constituency here in Perth), but also I will not be the youngest voter there, not by a long chalk.

It will be the first parliamentary election in Scotland in which 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote, under the provisions of the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Act.

Scottish Parliament Election 2016

I’m a great believer in the viewpoint that “No taxation without representation” works both ways and since, by-and-large 16 and 17 year old’s don’t pay tax (VAT accepted), I don’t believe they should have the vote.

Indeed the only reason that they have the vote is that Alex Salmond and his bunch of SNP halfwits came to the not very surprising conclusion that 16 and 17 year old’s were a bit more susceptible to lefty propaganda, especially during the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum.

Now I might be prepared to make an exception for the referendum as it was billed as a “once in a generation” plebiscite and 16 and 17 year old’s had as much to lose as anyone in Scotland, but the extension to other Scottish elections is going too far.

It’s got nothing to do with “expanding democracy” or any of the other meaningless twaddle that is often talked about and everything to do with gerrymandering the ballot because 16 and 17 year old’s are more likely to vote for left-wing parties, after all they have precious little to “Conserve” all of it coming from the Bank of Mum and Dad.

So I’ll be going to the polls much later than usual on Thursday, by which time, I hope, the newly appointed voters will be doing their homework or tucked up in bed with their teddy bear “Aloysius” and a nice hot Ovaltine.

For myself, I’ll be taking a bright red bingo pen and a clothes peg for my nose, after all, its a dirty, smelly business this voting malarkey.

* – When in residence in Penang, Malaysia I am not entitled to vote as Article 119 of the Constitution of Malaysia defines voting rights as only for Malaysian citizens and I hold a mere long-term resident visa.

** - Utter contempt is too mild to describe the depth of my animosity towards politicians, councillors and their ilk.

Shoddy Absurdia

Regular readers will know I have little or no time for the only country on the planet that forbids women from driving. They also stone homosexuals. I on the other hand have got stoned with homosexuals. I have also been in cars driven by women. The times we live in eh?

It’s coming out. I knew. I just knew the camel-fucking bastards were up to their fucking necks in 9/11 (and the rest).

I don’t care for their depravity but depravity is just that. Being implicit in the murder of nigh on 3000 people is another matter entirely. I don’t care if they want to make my ancestors who embuggered monks on Lindisfarne and stole their plate look civilized. But that was over a thousand years ago. Things move on. The last gift my country got from Norway was a Christmas Tree. What have we ever got from Saudi Arabia? Hatred, evil and 15/19 on 9/11.

The time has come…

We build nuclear because Saudi you have nothing but oil. Nothing. I mean nothing. Let’s put this bluntly. This is not Islamophobia – oh, no! This is straight horror at our bending-over for a vile regime. I have visited some of the great Mosques of the World. I was treated with respect and I showed them respect.

I have dirty little secret. I do. I like photographing religious buildings and Islam does seem much more amenable than Catholics for example.

This is not Islam. This is an unspeakably corrupt regime we have enabled.

This has to end. Now.

Oompa Trumper

This is not a post about abortion per-se and I hope any comments reflect that. No, this is about the moral vacuum that is Donald Trump and of the many, many reasons he should never be President his flip-flops on the subject are just one. But one hole is sometimes enough and this should be enough. If you want the full sp then reason has it here. It is a good article. I shall not quote from it directly because I had independently come to much the same conclusions. Great minds think alike? Not really. These are obvious observations.

My distinct impression in the abortion “debate” in the US is that there is usually very little middle-ground and that is why it rages on with immense passion on both sides of the fence. Now, that might seem a bad thing and in some ways it is. My point being that that is because it is something that people’s opinions on come right from the core of their moral being. It is something that whether “pro-choice” or “pro-life”* people care about with a passion. I understand that. I understand why people care fundamentally about either the autonomy of the woman or the rights of the embryo/fetus. It is an important moral question and should be treated as such but The Donald managed to change between five different positions in three days. On such a fundamental issue that is remarkable even by Trump’s lamentable standards. It goes without saying that on something that is also a major political issue in the US and has been for a long time (Roe v. Wade was 40 years ago for example) that is to be, at my most generous, politically naive. No wonder the US Christian Right can’t stand him any more than a fervently “pro-choice” atheist Democrat does.

So what makes The Donald like this?

Well, recently there was a documentary on C4 presented by Matt Frei about the Trumpster. It included an interview with Mr Trump’s ex-butler who now runs a shop in Miami selling high-end tat of the sort that Elvis would have considered tacky for his Jungle Room at Graceland. Frei asked if Trump visited and the answer was in the affirmative. Frei followed up by asking what in particular Trump bought most. The answer was, “mirrors”.

And just like that I knew! Most of us take our moral positions from some sort of basis whether it be the Bible or Marx, The Book of Mormon or those of Ayn Rand. Whatever. It means that we believe in something external to ourselves. Or put it another way our morality is comes from something other than ourselves.

Some people believe in God (for example) and try to follow Him.

Trump though believes he is God. And a capricious one at that. What is right is what is good for The Donald and because He is the supreme being so he can make it up on the fly. I mean who dare question God himself because whatever God says is right is right by definition. Trump is a malignant narcissist. And that more than anything else is why he should never be President of the USA.

*I dislike both those terms.

Schadenfreude in the Panama Papers

The Panama Papers - Mossack Fonseca

The Panama Papers are an unprecedented leak of 11.5m files from the database of the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm, Mossack Fonseca. The records were obtained from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, which shared them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The ICIJ then shared them with a large network of international partners, including the Guardian and the BBC.

What do they reveal?
The documents show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes. Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens.

A $2bn trail leads all the way to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin – is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married.

Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.

An offshore investment fund run by the father of British prime minister David Cameron avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by hiring a small army of Bahamas residents to sign its paperwork. The fund has been registered with HM Revenue and Customs since its inception and has filed detailed tax returns every year.

The Grauniad – What are the Panama papers?

As a libertarian and someone who believes that all tax is theft, I have some measure of sympathy and indeed support for those who go to extraordinary lengths to avoid taxation and government meddling in the private affairs of citizens, for example Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin who paid a 15% exit tax on his US assets to expatriate to Singapore in 2011.

Those who are unworthy of such libertarian acclaim are those who use illegal means to hide wealth arising from bribery and corruption or who enforce taxation on the little people, but evade it themselves.

Traditionally, this has been 3rd world dictators or the governors of oil rich provinces in Nigeria and such places who essentially steal the wealth of their own populace / electorate. So it was not surprising to find these “usual suspects” in the Panama papers.

Even Vladimir Putin is not someone that I am particularly surprised at given that he has ruled Russia as President and proxy for nearly 20 years.

The sorts of names that you don’t expect are the legislators of modern Western countries such as Iceland’s PM (but not I suspect for long), Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson. Bastards like this who illustrate Leona Helmsley’s view that “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes”* should face the full force of the law.

[EDIT: and as predicted, less than a day later he's quit]

For UK politicians and business leaders, it is not just tax evasion that the Panama papers might reveal, but also crimes committed under the Bribery Act 2010 and earlier criminal statutes. For example, those cosy little 3rd world arms deals so recently brought to life in the BBC’s adaptation of John Le Carre’s “The Night Manager”.

I suspect that quite a few of the worlds elite will be having sleepless nights over the revelations and since the papers go back 40-years, I expect we will be pissing on the graves of quite a few ex politicians and members of the elite as well. GOOD!

* – Leona Helmsley disputes that she ever said this.

Quick! Fetch the Augur!

The ancients believed strongly in the power of Augury, the literal interpretation of various aspects of birds that provided fore-knowledge of both good and evil.

The bird visiting with Mr. Sanders is apparently a female House finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) a species native to North America and unknown in the ancient world, albeit similar to European and North African finches.

Those of us familiar with “I Clavidvs” may recall the omen of Herod Agrippa’s owl:

After Passover in 44, Agrippa went to Caesarea, where he had games performed in honour of Claudius. In the midst of his speech to the public a cry went out saying “this is not the voice of a man but of a god” and Agrippa did not publicly react.

At this time he saw an owl perched over his head. During his imprisonment by Tiberius a similar omen had been interpreted as portending his speedy release and future kingship, with the warning that should he behold the same sight again, he would die.

He was immediately smitten with violent pains, scolded his friends for flattering him and accepted his imminent death. He experienced heart pains and a pain in his abdomen, and died after five days*.

Wikipedia – Herod Agrippa

Whether the actions of this little bird has any significance or none it is always interesting when the lives of the great, those who would hold themselves as lords over us, are interrupted by the inquisitiveness of the most insignificant.

* – The disease which killed Herod Agrippa also killed his grandfather Herod the Great in a similar manner and became known throughout the Middle East as “Herod’s Disease“. I suspect that the idea of being consumed alive by maggots is not the easiest of deaths.

Tricky Dicky is long dead, time his war died too

Is it time to end the war on drugs

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.

We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

John Ehrlichman, who served as domestic policy chief for President Richard Nixon when the administration declared its war on drugs in 1971 as reported in Harpers this month

Why particularly this should come out now about Ehrlichman, one of the more unlovable of the Watergate conspirators, some 17 years after his death is unclear, but certainly any movement towards ending this unproductive and unwinnable war is a step forward.

The only beneficiaries have been the drug cartels, the politicians and those agents of the governments such as the DEA, prison service and local and federal law enforcement agencies.

Indeed the increasing militarisation of police to deal with drugs on the streets of America has lead to a further alienation between the police and the communities they are meant to protect and to serve.

Enough already, time for it to end.

Beyond the Swedish Model

All Parliamentary Group on Prostitution

British men who use prostitutes while abroad on stag parties should be prosecuted in the UK under new laws that make paying for sex illegal, according to a report backed by a senior MP.

Sex tourists and businessmen who pay for prostitutes on expense accounts would also be criminalised under the proposals in the Sex Buyer Law report published today.

The report, commissioned for the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Prostitution by the campaigning group End Demand, says payment for sex in the UK should be made illegal and recommends Parliament “strongly considers” extending the offence to payments abroad.

Sex tourists who pay for prostitutes abroad ‘should face prosecution in UK’ (Independent)

So not only are we talking about the government proposing to turn the dynamics of the sex trade upside down and making what is already a grey area in UK law actually illegal (for the men so desperate for a shag that they have to lay out cold hard cash for it), but we are also going to criminalise that which other countries have already decriminalised and some of them (like Germany) only relatively recently.

How’s that going to work then? PC Plod & co. outside the whorehouses of Old Amsterdam then? No. Thought not. Just because the US Government thinks they can get away with extra-territoriality (one of the worst aspects of good old British colonial justice), the UK’s own Social Justice Warriors want a slice of the action.

Whilst this is allegedly meant to “help” your average streetwalker in that she can no longer get done by the police for soliciting (and therefore presumably no longer has to do “favours” for the boys in blue to turn a blind eye to her activities), what will not help her is if the “Johns” are too shit scared to approach her for fear of being arrested for what is already a somewhat fraught exchange at best.

As with drugs the current model of legalisation used in Holland and Germany strikes the right balance between allowing the ladies to go about their business in a non-threatening environment with tax being collected and their health being monitored.

The Swedish model does none of that, it simply persecutes the male (who are the primary purchasers of sex), without providing any other benefit in the name of “reducing demand” because of over-exaggerated claims of “sex trafficking”.

The authors of this report, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution should be all given “a short drop and a sudden stop” preferably with hempen ropes, because it is the only way to stop this sort of bansturbating nonsense.

Christ on an electrically charged moped give me strength.

Vote Shrillary you gender traitors

Madeleine Albright in New Hampshire

MANCHESTER, N.H. — As Democrats consider Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the second time, women are wrestling with a difficult question: whether they have an obligation to get behind someone who is closer than anyone has ever been to becoming the first female president.

And with her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, outdrawing her in support among young women, Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy has turned into a generational clash, one that erupted this weekend when two feminist icons, Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem, called on young women who supported Mr. Sanders to essentially grow up and get with the program.

While introducing Mrs. Clinton at a rally in New Hampshire on Saturday, Ms. Albright, 78, the first female secretary of state, talked about the importance of electing a woman to the country’s highest office. In a dig at the “revolution” that Mr. Sanders, 74, often speaks of, she said the first female commander in chief would be a true revolution. And she scolded any woman who felt otherwise.

“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Mrs. Clinton, 68, laughed, slowly clapped and took a large sip of her beverage.

<snip>

Ms. Steinem, 81, one of the most famous spokeswomen of the feminist movement, took the sentiment a step further on Friday in an interview with the talk show host Bill Maher. Explaining that women tend to become more active in politics as they become older, she suggested that younger women were backing Mr. Sanders just so they could meet young men.

“When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’ ” Ms. Steinem said.

Realizing that this was potentially offensive, Mr. Maher recoiled. “Oh. Now if I said that, ‘They’re for Bernie because that’s where the boys are,’ you’d swat me.”

Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright Rebuke Young Women Backing Bernie Sanders

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m neither a woman, nor a part of the US electorate, but surely if you’re down in the polls because your target demographic won’t support you, the last thing you do is get a bunch of geriatrics to start calling them “Uncle Tom’s” or making childish remarks about “Going where the boys are”.

If a man had said these things the cries of “Sexism” and “Misogyny” would have gone through the roof, as it is they are passed-off as “misspoken” remarks or some other such media related bullshit.

The only relief I have is that Shrillary is so in thrall to her own self-image that she can’t see that it is antics like this that have alienated her from the very young female voters that she needs to win the presidency.

For these same young female voters, the outright socialism of Bernie Saunders has more appeal than the screeching of Shrillary. She is yesterday’s woman and represents nothing but the failures of the past.

Thank god for that.

Bernie and the Unicorn of Free Everything

Whatever Else, He’s Either Ignorant or a Liar

I can’t stand this and now my friends in Zanzibar are going to be treated to a rant !!!

It’s that blasted Ted Cruz. He’s certainly my pick of the availables at this point. I was even willing to forgive his not understanding the “natural born citizen” Constitutional requirement for the privilege of serving as President of the U.S., since apparently most of the elite libertarian legal eagles don’t either, and I am bitterly, bitterly sorry to say that that includes Randy Barnett, who gave a sobworthy (in parts) presentation on the issue to the Washington Journal. You can see for yourselves — link’s below. (C-Span, not embeddable.) –(You probably won’t see why I’m so disgusted by his performance unless I tell you, though.)

However, I’m just now getting around to watching Debate #6, and Ted is in the hot seat. He’s just been asked if he’s a “natural born citizen.” Butter wouldn’t melt as he snidely skewers (as he thinks) those who would dare to raise — quote — “the Birther issue.” In a voice dripping with disdain.

Now, given the authoritative Constitutional weight of people like Barnett and others at The Volokh Conspiracy*, I can understand and forgive the average layman and even the average lawyer and maybe even the average Constitutional lawyer for going along with the idea that birthplace is immaterial– though Shrill, or her staff, thought it important enough to bring up the birthplace issue vis-á-vis the Gentleman from Wherever-the-hell-he’s-from, when they were running against each other back in 2008. However, Ted DOES stick on side about being a Constitutional attorney, or at least his fans and promoters do. (I’m trying to be fair, even though I am royally p.o.’ed.)

So now, back to his answer in the debate. First, and the least of the issues, he says it’s only the “extreme” fringe who think eligibility requires not just one but TWO citizen parents.

Not so. There is a valid argument for that understanding, which is that at the time of the Founding the wife’s citizenship automatically followed that of the husband. Therefore if the wife was not a citizen, it would mean the husband wasn’t either. Mind you, that’s the argument. I don’t say it’s correct; in fact it overlooks uncommon cases that were in fact discussed by the Founders, such as Pop as already passed on or the child is illegitimate. But it’s not “extreme.” And it’s what most non-Proggies who have an opinion seem to believe.

But here is the real problem. He says that the courts have said time after time that people having a parent who is a citizen are natural born citizens (regardless of birthplace).

This is flatly untrue. Yes, such people have been found to be American citizens, but not natural born citizens. In fact they aren’t even native citizens, which specifically means citizens born on American turf: natives-by-birth, so to speak. This is an obvious difference** and so fundamental that only an ignoramus or a liar could say such a thing. So Ted, which is it? Are you openly showing your flat ignorance or are you lying — you know this distinction perfectly well — and hoping nobody will notice?

Disgusting!

He has the nerve to back this remarkable position up by saying that “after all, if it were true then Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal wouldn’t be eligible either” — and so they aren’t, but not because of extra-American birth: Rubio born in Miami, Jindal in Baton Rouge. Birthplace not an issue with them. Their problem is parentage. But worse yet, he goes on to add that even THE DONALD wouldn’t be eligible, because although he was born here his mother wasn’t. (She’s from Ireland.)

You fool! As long as she (or she and her husband, or only her husband, depending on your theory about whether it takes one or two citizen parents) was a citizen — naturalized or statutory, makes no difference, which is why the “anchor baby” 14th Amendment comes into the controversy — as long as some non-zero number of parents were ALREADY citizens when the babe was born, the parent(s) citizenship is automatically inherited by the baby**. If Ma Trump was already naturalized when she popped Bonnie Donnie, he IS natural born. (Leaving aside the issue of one parent or two, of course.)

This really is baby stuff. And even Randy Barnett, If I Remember Correctly, does not make such an uninformed claim.

The reason I was going to vote for Ted was that he’s obviously the least worst of the bunch having any chance of the nomination. But if this is not flat-out lying, then he’s not only completely ignorant (or confused, as in deer-in-the-headlights confused, or having what we Computer Types call a Kernel Panic), he’s also unaware of how ignorant (or confused) he is — or else he’s perfectly aware and lying about THAT, claiming that his opinion is the one the courts have gone by all these years.

Horsefeathers!

So now what. I have to vote against whatever fool and/or criminal the Dims put up, which means I have to vote for the Heffalump candidate.

At this point, those are the only grounds on which I can urge people to vote for Ted in the general election — if he’s the candidate.

–J.

Ted Cruz in Debate #6, 1/14/16, Fox, Bartiromo and Cavuto, around 22 minutes in, maybe a bit more:

Randy Barnett’s discussion is actually pretty good in the first half. He presents the opposition’s (that would be me) argument honestly and reasonably thoroughly. It’s in the second half of his remarks that he comes up with an ingenious but, to me, not entirely convincing argument, and then ends on a most undignified note (and remember, I’m a longstanding fan of Prof. Barnett; much more than any of the other Volokhites, except in some respects David Bernstein). Now I feel jilted by both of my Libertarian Legal Loves. It’s not FAIR !!! :>((

40 minutes.

Randy Barnett: “Natural Born Citizen” Presidential Requirement

*Not Prof. Laurence Tribe, interestingly enough — per Barnett, Prof. Tribe’s understanding of “natural born” IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF ELIGIBILTY is the same as mine: A citizen parent at the time of the candidate’s birth, AND must be born on American soil. But, says Randy, this poses no problem for Tribe because Tribe is not an Originalist of any stripe but rather a Living Constitutionalist, so is not hampered by this little departure from the Rules.

**Not true that there are only two classes of American citizens: For purposes of Constitutional eligibility at least, there are three: Naturalized, statutory (for children born abroad of citizen parents), and natural born. Only those in the last category are eligible.

–No, that does not make anyone a “second-class citizen.” There is theoretically no such thing in the U.S. To serve as President is a privilege, not a right. There is no other post in the entire Federal government that is restricted to natural born citizens.

2016 – Another bad year for Shrillary?

Shrillary vs Comrade Bernie

Mrs Clinton has been flexing her muscles in Iowa in the hopes of finally punching through what she’s described as the “highest, hardest glass ceiling”. So you’d expect the women of Iowa to give her a helping hand on the way to having a female occupant of the White House. But there are worrying signs for Mrs Clinton that the sisterhood is letting her down.

One poll has given Mr Sanders a double-digit lead over Mrs Clinton among 18 to 34-year-old women. Tad Devine, Mr Sanders’ senior campaign adviser, has put it down to a youthful suspicion of all things “phoney”. By contrast, “with Bernie there’s authenticity”. His stance on social issues like abortion has also done him lots of favours with 20 somethings.

The danger for Mrs Clinton is that history is about to repeat itself. In Iowa in 2008, Barack Obama defeated her, and it was in part women he had to thank for his victory then.

Women won’t help Hillary Clinton make history

The possibility that Shrillary could be ‘out-leftied’ by Comrade Bernie Sanders was something that I initially dismissed as “Nah – never happen”, but leading into the Iowa caucuses they are both neck and neck in the polls with Comrade Bernie trailing Shrillary by 1-to-2 points.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve no love of Comrade Bernie and his 18 Trillion dollar bill for fixing America (yes, that’s Trillion with a ‘T’), but since this Marxist schmuck has absolutely no chance of winning the Presidency, the possibility that he might sufficiently embarrass Shrillary in the primaries for her support to desert her would be both ironic and deeply satisfying.

She knows that this is last chance city to gain the White House as even 2020 will be too damn late for her, but is she really prepared to go for broke, bringing herself to near bankruptcy for a race to the crown that is slipping from her fingers?

I do hope so.

Deploy the Rubber Nuclear Weapons!

Cuban Missile Covers - Lubricated

 Jeremy Corbyn has suggested that Britain should keep its fleet of nuclear submarines but have them patrol the globe without nuclear weapons.

The Labour leader suggested Britain could keep Trident submarines without the nuclear warheads, in a move that will placate the unions who fear abandoning the deterrent could lead to job losses in shipyards in Cumbria and Scotland.

With Labour in the process of reviewing its defence policy, Mr Corbyn’s comments raise the prospect that deploying British nuclear submarines armed with only conventional weapons could become the party’s official position.

Mr Corbyn also said that he would never “press the button” to launch nuclear weapons, adding that he didn’t think “David Cameron would either”. Number 10 firmly denied the accusation.

Jeremy Corbyn says he would keep submarines patrolling the world without any nuclear weapons

Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is worthwhile reviewing whether Trident is an appropriate solution given the restrictions and limitations placed upon its use by the US Government, but nevertheless, disarming them whilst retaining the rather expensive technical platforms they are reliant upon is an exercise in futility, all so that Jezza can keep in with the unions. It’s like a rerun of the 1970′s, something Tony Benn would have come out with.

Mr Corbyn floated the idea during a wide-ranging interview BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show in which he also suggested opening up a line of communication with so-called Islamic State and called for a “sensible dialogue” with Argentina over the British-controlled Falkland Islands.

As for his comments about simply ignoring the wishes of the Falkland Islanders and doing a dodgy deal with the Argentinians over sovereignty, “Go fuck yourself, Jeremy”. If self-determination means anything it is the Falkland Islanders that get to choose, not some moron in London.

He also pledged to repeal Conservative trade union laws banning sympathy strikes and did not rule out allowing the return of flying pickets.

Christ on a moped, so we’re going to return full circle to the bullshit of the 1970′s, with wildcat strikes and violent thugs roaming the country in minivans to destroy the economy like it did last time? Remember when Labour had to go begging for money to the IMF?

No, No, No, No, No!

Keep pushing the rhetoric Jeremy, because it will ensure that you never get elected and it makes the collapse of Labour even more likely every day you remain as leader, but everything that comes out of your mouth I find absolutely repellent, as will many who remember the dying days of the Wilson/Callaghan regime.

Interview: Ronald Coase

Herewith economist Dr. Ronald Coase, interviewed in 2002 by Richard Epstein for the Liberty Fund’s “Intellectual Portrait” series. Dr. Coase sketches his background, and then discusses such topics as public utilities, in particular the water supply and the Post Office, how these came to be state-owned in Britain, and the reasoning that led to the state-owned BBC. Notes that the Educated Classes approved: for it was necessary to raise the tone of the culture of the lower classes. He explains that having started as a socialist, sheer observation persuaded him that free enterprise works better. He discusses the famous Lighthouse Example, and states that in the end, governments are necessary to determine (i.e. define) what will be the property rights, and to enforce them.

About an hour.

Violence remains at the heart of the left

Egg thrown at a Tory

Over the past 48 hours, delegates, MPs, journalists and exhibitors who are attending the annual gathering of the nation’s governing party have been punched, spat at, kicked, subjected to racist abuse, sexist abuse and other general threats of violence.

- The Telegraph

I’m not a Tory, not by a long chalk, but it’s a personal thing. I don’t like the intrusive and nanny state aspects of the Tories, as a result, I don’t tend to vote for them, except as a protest and I don’t fund them.

But some on the left, firmly believe that having their arguments decisively, if not overwhelmingly, rejected at the ballot box, feel they have the right to turn up outside the Tory party conference and intimidate, spit and throw eggs at the attendees for little more than supporting a different political vision.

So inured are we to the childish, yet violent behaviour of the left, that for the most part we are more disgusted than surprised, but could you imagine the opposite happening? A bunch of sneering Young Conservatives turning up to protest at the Labour Party conference? No – me neither.

This is the fundamental problem at the heart of the left – that when their arguments are rejected by the electorate, they don’t seek better arguments, they just reach into their grab-bag of socialist solutions for what has worked in the past and try and apply that.

The problem being that strikes and sit-ins and the rest of the panoply of student union politics seldom works in the real world for the simple fact that the real world is not made up of 20-something’s who’ve never had a job and have too much time on their hands.

As the left crumbles, expect more intimidation and “Direct Action”, but the more they do it, the more the general populace will become alienated by it and contemptuous of those who practice it.

%d bloggers like this: