Replies

Between 1890 and 1920 a host of licensing acts shut down employment in a wide range of lucrative work, rationing the right to pracrtise trades, much as kings and queens of England had done. (footnote: The Underground History of American Education, John Taylor Gatto, who probably got the fact from Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, though I haven't found it yet--Gatto didn't use footnotes and he said that Frederick Taylor's "Schmidt" was a fabrication, though Callahan says otherwise.)

Why? Why licensing acts? Fear that jobs may be taken by someone else? I'm required to have a piece of paper from the state government that says I can work for a living. My father never had one--I'm a second generation carpenter.

But by now, government licensing is so much a part of our society that questioning it rarely happens. And I've even run afoul of a federal agency who mucked with my ability to work for a living--Rural Development--a lady called for an estimate on a window--her window had frost covering all but the top 3-4 inches. I provided her with an estimate, we agreed to terms, we signed a contract, I placed an order. Rural Development, through whom she was receiving financing on an existing loan, would not allow her to use my services--her story. Their story is that she chose another. She did? She still does not have a window and doesn't want to get involved.

What is constitutional about an executive branch of government appointing bureaucrats to a board to regulate and legislate and adjudicate on an individual level?

Doesn't matter. We've willingly surrendered our wages to the convenience of a pay stub and have tamely surrendered our liberty to the safety of someone else protecting our interests that it is rather ironic that though the kettle is still on boil, and we've all easily melted away, the costumed immigrants of the past have left Henry's pot wearing coats and ties and have gladly marched off to foreign climes, employing foreign workers--wonder if they have surrendered more than a decade of their paychecks to fund our society?

Or sum'pin.

"...this should be the obvious and universal view on this issue, no matter what party you are affiliated with.

Well-stated.

We've lost all perspective on immigration. Historically, immigrants came here in recognition of the greatness of our country -- our freedom and our opportunity. They wanted to be part of it, and we welcomed them to come in and assimilate.

But somewhere along the line, diversity became not a consequence of the mixing of cultures, but a PC, mandated outcome. Today's influx of immigrants come not to celebrate the our greatness, but to change and dilute our heritage.

The Constitution says that our Creator granted inalienable rights to all, but the judicial system has confused rights with privileges and benefits which should be restricted to citizens of our country, not just anybody who manages to walk across our borders, legally or otherwise.