Bass Pro Shops   Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing   The Fishing Syndicate  Carver Covers  Tight Lines Guide Service  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle 
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 100

Thread: Looks like 4 more years !

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commiechew View Post
    Biased? maybe but fairly accurate.

    Don't care to acknowledge this little tidbit?






    *Rasmussen Reports’ final White House Watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2.0% Popular Vote lead over Republican Donald Trump.[55] After all 136+ million U.S. votes were counted, Hillary Clinton lead the Popular Vote by 2.1%.



    so, your weighted average just might be using biased polling information.
    I already acknowledged, but anyone can find a biased report that makes every single president we've ever had look bad.
    But doesn't that poll play against your Trump claim?
    We all know how accurate that poll was for the election don't we.
    And besides that, Hillary needs to be a nobody to the Democrats now. She had her chance and partly blew it and partly had it stolen, but I don't care for her either and only voted for her as the less of two bad choices. With what's been going on, I was correct. For all her BS, I really don't think she would be trying to destroy our country, national parks, VA healthcare, planet, etc. by giving it to the lobbyists and biggest donors. I really have a feeling these tariffs are going to bite a lot of working people in the butt and have the opposite affect as a 'job creator' that he claims also. Why are we spending money and taking our reserves from their families to 'guard' the border when immigration is the lowest since 1971? It's purely to try to justify that stupid wall and now our military is supposed to pay for it? WTH? I thought we needed all those billions for new war toys and what about Mexico paying for it?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brent View Post
    I already acknowledged, but anyone can find a biased report that makes every single president we've ever had look bad.
    But doesn't that poll play against your Trump claim?
    We all know how accurate that poll was for the election don't we.
    And besides that, Hillary needs to be a nobody to the Democrats now. She had her chance and partly blew it and partly had it stolen, but I don't care for her either and only voted for her as the less of two bad choices. With what's been going on, I was correct. For all her BS, I really don't think she would be trying to destroy our country, national parks, VA healthcare, planet, etc. by giving it to the lobbyists and biggest donors. I really have a feeling these tariffs are going to bite a lot of working people in the butt and have the opposite affect as a 'job creator' that he claims also. Why are we spending money and taking our reserves from their families to 'guard' the border when immigration is the lowest since 1971? It's purely to try to justify that stupid wall and now our military is supposed to pay for it? WTH? I thought we needed all those billions for new war toys and what about Mexico paying for it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Brent View Post
    I really don't think she would be trying to destroy our country, national parks, VA healthcare, planet, etc. by giving it to the lobbyists and biggest donors. I really have a feeling these tariffs are going to bite a lot of working people in the butt and have the opposite affect as a 'job creator' that he claims also. Why are we spending money and taking our reserves from their families to 'guard' the border when immigration is the lowest since 1971? It's purely to try to justify that stupid wall and now our military is supposed to pay for it? WTH? I thought we needed all those billions for new war toys and what about Mexico paying for it?
    Now this is what I call some real SHRIEKING!

    Just think, if you replaced the Donalds name with the Hillary name in every news items of the day for the past year, and vice versa, you think you'd be CHEERING instead of SHRIEKING?

    What do you think?

    lmk... better, let us know...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Californians would benefit from Cox’s conservative leadership (That's John Cox who is now within striking distance of being elected governor of the infamously liberal state in November).

    The state is ranked worst for individual income taxes and 48th overall by the Tax Foundation’s 2018 State Business Tax Climate Index.

    Cox would work to cut state taxes so that Californians would see more take-home pay and small businesses would be more able to grow, succeed, expand and create more jobs.

    This includes the hugely unpopular gasoline tax that the Democratic California Legislature and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown imposed on drivers last year.

    The expensive welfare and government dependency programs that California’s liberal leadership has embraced and enacted over the years have also made it the “poverty capital of America,” as Kerry Jackson wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commiechew View Post
    Californians would benefit from Cox’s conservative leadership (That's John Cox who is now within striking distance of being elected governor of the infamously liberal state in November).

    The state is ranked worst for individual income taxes and 48th overall by the Tax Foundation’s 2018 State Business Tax Climate Index.

    Cox would work to cut state taxes so that Californians would see more take-home pay and small businesses would be more able to grow, succeed, expand and create more jobs.

    This includes the hugely unpopular gasoline tax that the Democratic California Legislature and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown imposed on drivers last year.

    The expensive welfare and government dependency programs that California’s liberal leadership has embraced and enacted over the years have also made it the “poverty capital of America,” as Kerry Jackson wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.
    Yea, Just like Arnie did right?
    .

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commiechew View Post
    Now this is what I call some real SHRIEKING!

    Just think, if you replaced the Donalds name with the Hillary name in every news items of the day for the past year, and vice versa, you think you'd be CHEERING instead of SHRIEKING?

    What do you think?

    lmk... better, let us know...
    WTH are you talking about as usual dolt? I hate Hillary and if she did this stupid crap I would have the same opinion. Unlike you, I don't blindly support an idiot just because I don't like the other party. As for you, stupid is as stupid does moron.
    I'm for the USA not a damn party and what's being done with the support of morons like you is a danger to our country. Answer this. Would you rather be communist or have a completely Democrat run government? Don't laugh, this may be a real question if the country keeps getting ripped apart from the inside. A Dictatorship would be more likely than communism, so you OK with Don and his revolving crew of yesmen running everything from here on out?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Ease up there cowgirl... Take a breath.

    Has the California backlash against liberal craziness finally begun?
    By Peggy Grande

    California's red-leaning areas may be rising up against the state's longstanding liberalism.

    In a state consumed by conservation and environmental issues, one highly endangered species has long gone unnoticed and unprotected – the California Conservative. Is it still possible to rescue them from the brink of extinction? Can their numbers be revived? And can they thrive here once again?

    While the nation continues to view California as a homogeneous voting block of individuals in lock step with an increasingly progressive liberal agenda, for Common Sense Californians up and down the left coast state, there’s a sense that a different tide is rising.

    The ripple began in Los Alamitos where the city council voted to opt out of California’s sanctuary law. And it was followed by Orange County who voted to join the U.S. Department of Justice in challenging the state’s sanctuary city laws. This decision was echoed by the city of Escondido and later this month San Diego County will also vote to join their ranks in this federal lawsuit. Other municipalities are lining up to consider doing the same.

    California has always been the tip of the spear. Often the genesis of art, influence, ideas, style and entertainment, we also take the lead in ways that are less admirable with high state tax, high gas tax, high costs of living and housing, an out of control homeless problem in our urban areas, declining test scores in schools, increasingly inaccessible and cost-prohibitive health care, and many of our major cities often appear on lists of the least-livable cities in the U.S.

    A supermajority of Democrats at the state level has presided over a tragic decline in virtually every statistic and has championed expensive and detrimental ideas such as the multi-state tax, a failing high speed rail project and of course the most recent sanctuary state status. These consequential endeavors are concocted in the cocoon of Sacramento, isolated and unconnected to the effect those decisions have on everyone else who lives in the state. They spend money as if it’s theirs. It’s not. It’s mine and every other taxpayer’s in California. Yet we have no voice and many of our representatives no longer represent us, if they ever did.


    Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State.



    For those of us who don’t make the policies, but must live under them, we feel Sacramento’s presence in our daily lives in ways - and in places - we shouldn’t. In our grocery stores if you want to take your purchases home in a bag, there’s a per bag fee. (As my own personal protest, I don’t pay for bags and just throw all the items back in my cart and loose into the back of my car.) And in the most ridiculous and egregious example of overreach, the state legislature says it will arrest any waiter who gives a customer a plastic straw if they don’t ask for one. With all the problems in our state, I don’t think that jailing unsolicited straw distributors in restaurants should be a top priority.

    But common sense has not prevailed here for a long time. Nor has democracy. With a jungle primary system in our elections, the top two candidates in the primary go on to the general election – regardless of party. So what this meant in the 2016 election is that nearly 800,000 Californians only had one Republican on their entire ballot to vote for – Donald Trump. Is the left so afraid of democracy that they must tip the scales in their own favor to prevent a different view point or ideology? And how surprised would people across the nation be to see what the 2016 electoral map of California looked like when broken down by county, not just painted with one big coat of blue from top to bottom?

    Surprising, but true, there actually are conservatives in California, but we have been silenced and powerless far too long and now are finding an unlikely alliance with common sense Democrats who feel abandoned by their party and realize it no longer represents them.
    It appears those in power here who have championed policies that continue to steer California further and further left may now have overplayed their hand. And the backlash has begun, with no end in sight. In fact, common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle are coming together in solidarity to challenge policies and governing that has left them to endure the consequences of the decisions of their lawmakers, which has made life more expensive, more challenging, more dangerous, and in some instances even putting them into potential legal jeopardy.

    For example, business owners now face the quandary of being in compliance with the feds or being in compliance with the state with their employees and their immigration status. This is not a partisan issue. This is the very type of issue that continues to make California a difficult place to do business and disincentivizes businesses to come here – and continues to drive successful businesses and taxpayers out of the state.

    When over 1 million Californians who are here illegally now have California driver’s licenses, and when Californians have paid into the state’s higher education system and have a difficult time accessing it, and then when they do, they pay fees that illegals don’t pay, it’s no wonder why Common Sense Californians are outraged.

    Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for many years before switching to the Republican Party. When asked why he changed parties, he said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party left me.” That seems to be a sentiment being echoed by Common Sense Californians up and down the state as many blue blood Democrats and Reagan Democrats feel like their party no longer reflects their values or priorities. Though it’s unlikely that a singular candidate or issue will fully unite the state, California would be smart to put forth common sense candidates who are talking to – and listening to – common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle. Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State – not in Sacramento – but in cities and counties where common sense Californians still reside.

    Just putting a few things up and asking a couple of questions... Why would that anger some to the point of blowing their head gasket? Too much compression? You might need a valve adjustment? I would say, "Open yourself up to some possibilities, try something different. Nothing changes unless a change is made..."

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commiechew View Post
    Ease up there cowgirl... Take a breath.

    Has the California backlash against liberal craziness finally begun?
    By Peggy Grande

    California's red-leaning areas may be rising up against the state's longstanding liberalism.

    In a state consumed by conservation and environmental issues, one highly endangered species has long gone unnoticed and unprotected – the California Conservative. Is it still possible to rescue them from the brink of extinction? Can their numbers be revived? And can they thrive here once again?

    While the nation continues to view California as a homogeneous voting block of individuals in lock step with an increasingly progressive liberal agenda, for Common Sense Californians up and down the left coast state, there’s a sense that a different tide is rising.

    The ripple began in Los Alamitos where the city council voted to opt out of California’s sanctuary law. And it was followed by Orange County who voted to join the U.S. Department of Justice in challenging the state’s sanctuary city laws. This decision was echoed by the city of Escondido and later this month San Diego County will also vote to join their ranks in this federal lawsuit. Other municipalities are lining up to consider doing the same.

    California has always been the tip of the spear. Often the genesis of art, influence, ideas, style and entertainment, we also take the lead in ways that are less admirable with high state tax, high gas tax, high costs of living and housing, an out of control homeless problem in our urban areas, declining test scores in schools, increasingly inaccessible and cost-prohibitive health care, and many of our major cities often appear on lists of the least-livable cities in the U.S.

    A supermajority of Democrats at the state level has presided over a tragic decline in virtually every statistic and has championed expensive and detrimental ideas such as the multi-state tax, a failing high speed rail project and of course the most recent sanctuary state status. These consequential endeavors are concocted in the cocoon of Sacramento, isolated and unconnected to the effect those decisions have on everyone else who lives in the state. They spend money as if it’s theirs. It’s not. It’s mine and every other taxpayer’s in California. Yet we have no voice and many of our representatives no longer represent us, if they ever did.


    Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State.



    For those of us who don’t make the policies, but must live under them, we feel Sacramento’s presence in our daily lives in ways - and in places - we shouldn’t. In our grocery stores if you want to take your purchases home in a bag, there’s a per bag fee. (As my own personal protest, I don’t pay for bags and just throw all the items back in my cart and loose into the back of my car.) And in the most ridiculous and egregious example of overreach, the state legislature says it will arrest any waiter who gives a customer a plastic straw if they don’t ask for one. With all the problems in our state, I don’t think that jailing unsolicited straw distributors in restaurants should be a top priority.

    But common sense has not prevailed here for a long time. Nor has democracy. With a jungle primary system in our elections, the top two candidates in the primary go on to the general election – regardless of party. So what this meant in the 2016 election is that nearly 800,000 Californians only had one Republican on their entire ballot to vote for – Donald Trump. Is the left so afraid of democracy that they must tip the scales in their own favor to prevent a different view point or ideology? And how surprised would people across the nation be to see what the 2016 electoral map of California looked like when broken down by county, not just painted with one big coat of blue from top to bottom?

    Surprising, but true, there actually are conservatives in California, but we have been silenced and powerless far too long and now are finding an unlikely alliance with common sense Democrats who feel abandoned by their party and realize it no longer represents them.
    It appears those in power here who have championed policies that continue to steer California further and further left may now have overplayed their hand. And the backlash has begun, with no end in sight. In fact, common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle are coming together in solidarity to challenge policies and governing that has left them to endure the consequences of the decisions of their lawmakers, which has made life more expensive, more challenging, more dangerous, and in some instances even putting them into potential legal jeopardy.

    For example, business owners now face the quandary of being in compliance with the feds or being in compliance with the state with their employees and their immigration status. This is not a partisan issue. This is the very type of issue that continues to make California a difficult place to do business and disincentivizes businesses to come here – and continues to drive successful businesses and taxpayers out of the state.

    When over 1 million Californians who are here illegally now have California driver’s licenses, and when Californians have paid into the state’s higher education system and have a difficult time accessing it, and then when they do, they pay fees that illegals don’t pay, it’s no wonder why Common Sense Californians are outraged.

    Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for many years before switching to the Republican Party. When asked why he changed parties, he said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party left me.” That seems to be a sentiment being echoed by Common Sense Californians up and down the state as many blue blood Democrats and Reagan Democrats feel like their party no longer reflects their values or priorities. Though it’s unlikely that a singular candidate or issue will fully unite the state, California would be smart to put forth common sense candidates who are talking to – and listening to – common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle. Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State – not in Sacramento – but in cities and counties where common sense Californians still reside.

    Just putting a few things up and asking a couple of questions... Why would that anger some to the point of blowing their head gasket? Too much compression? You might need a valve adjustment? I would say, "Open yourself up to some possibilities, try something different. Nothing changes unless a change is made..."
    That reminds me of that Winston Churchill joke, about Democracy being the 2nd worst kind of government. Instead of Democracy let's insert Liberalism. I'll do the joke now, being a Liberal is having the 2nd worst political beliefs. What is the number one worst political beliefs?? Being a Conservative!!! My point is, "I don't agree with all the tree huger stuff the enviro's are doing to the state." (which the Liberals support) But what would happen if the Conservatives took over??? I fear something like the drinking water wouldn't be safe to drink. Or they would really get us in an economic mess, or in another state budget disaster!!! Just like Trump is doing on an National Level!!

    If you don't believe that, what happened to the Big Conservatives on this board, "After" Trump got elected President??? They ran for the Hills, when it was going to be proven that Conservationism was even worse then what Obama was doing!!!
    Last edited by etucker1959; 04-11-2018 at 12:40 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    61

    Default

    When the Supreme Court Stopped Economic Fascism in America We Can Resist the Headlong March into Economic Tyranny
    Richard M. Ebeling
    by Richard M. Ebeling


    Seventy years ago, on May 27, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court said no to economic fascism in America. The trend toward bigger and ever-more intrusive government, unfortunately, was not stopped, but the case nonetheless was a significant event that at that time prevented the institutionalizing of a Mussolini-type corporativist system in America.


    In a unanimous decision the nine members of the Supreme Court said there were constitutional limits beyond which the federal government could not go in claiming the right to regulate the economic affairs of the citizenry. It was a glorious day in American judicial history, and is worth remembering.


    When Franklin Roosevelt ran for president in the autumn of 1932 he did so on a Democratic Party platform that many a classical liberal might have gladly supported and even voted for. The platform said that the federal government was far too big, taxed and spent far too much, and intruded in the affairs of the states to too great an extent. It said government spending had to be cut, taxes reduced, and the federal budget balanced. It called for free trade and a solid gold-backed currency.


    But as soon as Roosevelt took office in March 1933 he instituted a series of programs and policies that turned all those promises upside down. In the first four years of FDR’s New Deal, taxes were increased, government spending reached heights never seen before in U.S. history, and the federal budget bled red with deficits.The bureaucracy ballooned; public-works projects increasingly dotted the land; and the heavy hand of government was all over industry and agriculture. The United States was taken off the gold standard, with the American people compelled to turn in their gold com and built lion to the government for paper money under the threat of confiscation and imprisonment.


    In June 1933 Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), after which FDR created the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Modeled on Mussolini’s fascist economic system, it forced virtually all American industry, manufacturing, and retail business into cartels possessing the power to set prices and wages, and to dictate the levels of production. Within a few months over 200 separate pricing and production codes were imposed on the various branches of American business. The symbol of the NRA was a Blue Eagle that had lightning bolts in one claw and an industrial gear in the other. Every business in the country was asked to have a Blue Eagle sign in its window that declared, “We Do Our Part,” meaning it followed the pricing and production codes. Citizen committees were formed to spy on local merchants and report if they dared to sell at lower prices.


    Propaganda rallies in support of the NRA were held across the country. During halftime at football games cheerleaders would form the shape of the Blue Eagle. Government-sponsored parades featured Hollywood stars supporting the NRA. At one of these parades the famous singer Al Jolson was filmed being asked what he thought of the NRA; he replied, “NRA? NRA? Why it’s better than my wedding night!” Film shorts produced by Hollywood in support of the NRA were shown in theaters around the country; in one of them child star Shirley Temple danced and sang the praises of big-government regulation of the American economy.


    The NRA codes were soon joined by similar controls over farming with the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). Farmers were given subsidies and government-guaranteed price supports, with Washington determining what crops could be grown and what livestock could be raised. Government ordered some crops to be plowed under and some livestock slaughtered, all in the name of centrally planned farm production and pricing.


    Much of the urban youth of America were rounded up and sent off to national forests for regimentation and mock military-style drilling as part of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The Works Progress Administration (WPA) created make-work projects for thousands of able-bodied men, all at taxpayers’ expense. Since unemployed artists were “workers” too, they were set to work in government buildings across the land. Even today, in some o f the post offices dating from the 1930s, one can see murals depicting happy factory workers and farm hands in a style similar to those produced in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany.


    This headlong march into economic fascism was brought to a halt by the Supreme Court. The catalyst was a legal case known as the Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Schechter, a slaughterhouse that sold chickens to kosher markets in New York City, was accused of violating the “fair competition” codes under the NRA. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court, with the nine justices laying down their unanimous decision on May 27, 1935.


    Three hundred people packed the court that day to hear the decision, with prominent members of Congress and the executive branch in the audience. The justices declared that the federal government had exceeded its authority under the interstate-commerce clause of the Constitution, since the defendant purchased and sold all the chickens it marketed within the boundaries of the State of New York. Therefore, the federal government lacked the power to regulate the company’s production and prices. In addition, the justices stated that the NRA’s power to impose codes constituted arbitrary and discretionary control inconsistent with the limited and enumerated powers delegated by the Constitution.


    AAA Rejected


    This was soon followed by the Supreme Court’s rejection of the AAA in January 1936, when the justices insisted that the federal government lacked the authority to tax food processors to pay for the farmers’ subsidies and price supports. Furthermore, since farming was generally a local and state activity, the federal government did not have the power to regulate it under the interstate-commerce clause.


    Franklin Roosevelt was furious that what he called those “nine old men” should attempt to keep America in the “horse and buggy era” when this great nation needed a more powerful central government to manage economic affairs in the “modern age.” FDR’s response was his famous “court packing” scheme, in which he asked Congress to give him the power to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to tilt the balance in favor of the “enlightened” and “progressive” policies o f the New Deal. But this blatant power grab by the executive branch ended up being too much even for many of the Democrats in Congress, and Roosevelt failed in this attempt to assert naked presidential authority over another branch o f the federal government.


    Shortly after the Supreme Court declared both the NRA and AAA unconstitutional, David Lawrence, founder and long-time editor of U.S. News and World Report, published a book titled Nine Honest Men (1936). He praised the justices for their devotion to the bedrock principles of the Constitution, and their defense of the traditional American ideals of individual liberty, private property, and the rule of law — even in the face of the emotional appeal of government to “do something” during an economic crisis.


    Since that landmark decision 70 years ago against the imposition of economic fascism in America, the U.S. government has continued to grow in power over the American citizenry. But it should be remembered that men of courage, integrity, and principle can stand up to Big Brother and resist the headlong march into economic tyranny.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    61

    Default


  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commiechew View Post
    When the Supreme Court Stopped Economic Fascism in America We Can Resist the Headlong March into Economic Tyranny
    Richard M. Ebeling
    by Richard M. Ebeling


    Seventy years ago, on May 27, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court said no to economic fascism in America. The trend toward bigger and ever-more intrusive government, unfortunately, was not stopped, but the case nonetheless was a significant event that at that time prevented the institutionalizing of a Mussolini-type corporativist system in America.


    In a unanimous decision the nine members of the Supreme Court said there were constitutional limits beyond which the federal government could not go in claiming the right to regulate the economic affairs of the citizenry. It was a glorious day in American judicial history, and is worth remembering.


    When Franklin Roosevelt ran for president in the autumn of 1932 he did so on a Democratic Party platform that many a classical liberal might have gladly supported and even voted for. The platform said that the federal government was far too big, taxed and spent far too much, and intruded in the affairs of the states to too great an extent. It said government spending had to be cut, taxes reduced, and the federal budget balanced. It called for free trade and a solid gold-backed currency.


    But as soon as Roosevelt took office in March 1933 he instituted a series of programs and policies that turned all those promises upside down. In the first four years of FDR’s New Deal, taxes were increased, government spending reached heights never seen before in U.S. history, and the federal budget bled red with deficits.The bureaucracy ballooned; public-works projects increasingly dotted the land; and the heavy hand of government was all over industry and agriculture. The United States was taken off the gold standard, with the American people compelled to turn in their gold com and built lion to the government for paper money under the threat of confiscation and imprisonment.


    In June 1933 Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), after which FDR created the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Modeled on Mussolini’s fascist economic system, it forced virtually all American industry, manufacturing, and retail business into cartels possessing the power to set prices and wages, and to dictate the levels of production. Within a few months over 200 separate pricing and production codes were imposed on the various branches of American business. The symbol of the NRA was a Blue Eagle that had lightning bolts in one claw and an industrial gear in the other. Every business in the country was asked to have a Blue Eagle sign in its window that declared, “We Do Our Part,” meaning it followed the pricing and production codes. Citizen committees were formed to spy on local merchants and report if they dared to sell at lower prices.


    Propaganda rallies in support of the NRA were held across the country. During halftime at football games cheerleaders would form the shape of the Blue Eagle. Government-sponsored parades featured Hollywood stars supporting the NRA. At one of these parades the famous singer Al Jolson was filmed being asked what he thought of the NRA; he replied, “NRA? NRA? Why it’s better than my wedding night!” Film shorts produced by Hollywood in support of the NRA were shown in theaters around the country; in one of them child star Shirley Temple danced and sang the praises of big-government regulation of the American economy.


    The NRA codes were soon joined by similar controls over farming with the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). Farmers were given subsidies and government-guaranteed price supports, with Washington determining what crops could be grown and what livestock could be raised. Government ordered some crops to be plowed under and some livestock slaughtered, all in the name of centrally planned farm production and pricing.


    Much of the urban youth of America were rounded up and sent off to national forests for regimentation and mock military-style drilling as part of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The Works Progress Administration (WPA) created make-work projects for thousands of able-bodied men, all at taxpayers’ expense. Since unemployed artists were “workers” too, they were set to work in government buildings across the land. Even today, in some o f the post offices dating from the 1930s, one can see murals depicting happy factory workers and farm hands in a style similar to those produced in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany.


    This headlong march into economic fascism was brought to a halt by the Supreme Court. The catalyst was a legal case known as the Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Schechter, a slaughterhouse that sold chickens to kosher markets in New York City, was accused of violating the “fair competition” codes under the NRA. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court, with the nine justices laying down their unanimous decision on May 27, 1935.


    Three hundred people packed the court that day to hear the decision, with prominent members of Congress and the executive branch in the audience. The justices declared that the federal government had exceeded its authority under the interstate-commerce clause of the Constitution, since the defendant purchased and sold all the chickens it marketed within the boundaries of the State of New York. Therefore, the federal government lacked the power to regulate the company’s production and prices. In addition, the justices stated that the NRA’s power to impose codes constituted arbitrary and discretionary control inconsistent with the limited and enumerated powers delegated by the Constitution.


    AAA Rejected


    This was soon followed by the Supreme Court’s rejection of the AAA in January 1936, when the justices insisted that the federal government lacked the authority to tax food processors to pay for the farmers’ subsidies and price supports. Furthermore, since farming was generally a local and state activity, the federal government did not have the power to regulate it under the interstate-commerce clause.


    Franklin Roosevelt was furious that what he called those “nine old men” should attempt to keep America in the “horse and buggy era” when this great nation needed a more powerful central government to manage economic affairs in the “modern age.” FDR’s response was his famous “court packing” scheme, in which he asked Congress to give him the power to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to tilt the balance in favor of the “enlightened” and “progressive” policies o f the New Deal. But this blatant power grab by the executive branch ended up being too much even for many of the Democrats in Congress, and Roosevelt failed in this attempt to assert naked presidential authority over another branch o f the federal government.


    Shortly after the Supreme Court declared both the NRA and AAA unconstitutional, David Lawrence, founder and long-time editor of U.S. News and World Report, published a book titled Nine Honest Men (1936). He praised the justices for their devotion to the bedrock principles of the Constitution, and their defense of the traditional American ideals of individual liberty, private property, and the rule of law — even in the face of the emotional appeal of government to “do something” during an economic crisis.


    Since that landmark decision 70 years ago against the imposition of economic fascism in America, the U.S. government has continued to grow in power over the American citizenry. But it should be remembered that men of courage, integrity, and principle can stand up to Big Brother and resist the headlong march into economic tyranny.
    Very nice.
    Now continue what happened after that into and after WW2 and beyond please.
    You can't take a small slice of history/time and apply it to everything. The world is much much different now.
    Besides. Wouldn't selling out our government and country to the highest bidder/corporation for profit be economic and social tyranny?

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •