Unknown's avatar

About theartfuldilettante

The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.

Biden Administration Working to Undermine America

The great thing about our freedom-based economic system is that the government doesn’t have to do much at all in order for the people to prosper and the economy to grow. Just sit back and watch the people create businesses, put each other to work, and provide for every imaginable human need.

But we now have a government in the hands of people who hate America and hate its freedom-based system. The current administration is actively working to undermine the American economy and advance the interests of our geopolitical adversaries. In no area is this more true than the field of energy. In this field, the Biden Administration came in with the explicit goal of undermining American energy production. Indeed if an administration wanted to undermine American energy prosperity as much as possible and comparably benefit our adversaries, it is difficult to think of anything it would do different from what the Biden Administration is doing.

During most of my adult life, “energy independence” has been a bipartisan goal throughout the federal government. That goal was actually achieved under President Trump. Within just a few months, Biden has undone that achievement. The administration has made no secret of its goals to reduce U.S. energy production of the things that work (i.e., fossil fuels) and to drive up their price. Let’s just make a small list of key actions in furtherance of those goals:

-On his first day in office, Biden revoked the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, intended to bring some 800,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Canada into the U.S.

-The next day, Biden suspended all permitting of oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters.

-Biden’s EPA then set in motion the reversal of Trump Administration loosening of rules on methane emissions in the process of producing oil and gas. These tightened Biden restrictions have the effect of increasing the cost of production.

-Currently in the works are rules from the SEC to require extensive new disclosures by energy producers (and others) of supposed “climate”-related risks.

These are just examples of an overall hostility to fossil fuel energy development, specifically intended to have the effect of making energy projects more difficult and more expensive to develop. And so far, the government’s actions are rapidly accomplishing their intended goals:

-The price of a barrel of WTI crude oil has jumped from $53.30 on January 20 (Inauguration Day) to $74.56 yesterday. Crude oil prices are currently at a six year high.

-The average price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump has risen from $2.42 in January 2021 to $3.17 in June, according to EIA data.

OPEC members and Russia are the obvious candidates to step in to take advantage of the price increases, but it seems that those parties are currently having some kind of stand-off as to who gets how much of a quota when production goes up. From the Wall Street Journal, July 6:

[A] squabble between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates over quotas is blocking an agreement [to lift production].

Do you think that a competent American administration might want to see American production go up at such a time? Wrong:

A White House spokesperson on Monday said it is urging OPEC and its allies [including Russia] to quickly come up with a compromise “that will allow proposed production increases to move forward.” The Administration is worried that higher gas prices could undermine Mr. Biden’s climate agenda and spending plans.

In lieu of energy independence, we are now seeing imports from Russia reach highs not seen for ten years. From S&P Global, April 16:

Imports of Russian oil, which consists mainly of fuel oil feedstocks and some crude, recently reached a 10-year high as US refineries continue to ramp up runs as the economy starts to recover from COVID-19. Russian oil imports as a share of US total oil imports hit a record high of 8% in January 2021, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration, up from 4% during 2018.

It’s hard to imagine a more counter-productive set of policies than what the Biden Administration is implementing under the rubric of supposedly “fighting climate change.” What they are actually doing is empowering the very worst actors on the world stage, while having no effect whatsoever on the “climate.”


Francis Menton

How Big Business Uses Big Government To Kill Competition

Politicians say they pass laws to “protect Americans from big business.”

People like hearing that. Many don’t like big business.

Unfortunately, most people don’t realize that those laws often help big business while hurting consumers.

“Big business and big government are not enemies like a lot of people think they are,” says American Enterprise Institute fellow Tim Carney in my new video. “When government gets bigger, whether it’s through spending or taxes or regulation, the big guys, big business benefits.”

Consider the $15 minimum wage. People think of that law as pro-worker. But big companies like Walmart, Costco, and Amazon lobby in favor of it. Why?

Because big business can afford robots. Their competitors often cannot.

“Capitalism is a cutthroat thing,” says Carney. “But this isn’t capitalism. When you turn to government to regulate your competitors out of business, that’s where we need to say this is wrong.”

“Maybe you’re too cynical,” I suggest. “Maybe [Amazon founder Jeff] Bezos really just does want people to be paid more.”

“If Jeff Bezos wants people to be paid more,” Carney responds, “he can pay people more! But what Bezos is trying to do is outlaw competing business practices.”

He’s not alone.

When the big toymaker Mattel was caught selling toys that contained lead, its lobbyists got Congress to force all toymakers to do expensive lead testing.

That sounds like they just want to protect children, I tell Carney.

“If you’re trying to test 1,000 Barbie dolls,” he replies, “that might be fairly efficient. But if you are a grandpa making little wooden handmade toys, you’d have to hire some third-party tester. That could cost you $1,000, and you’re not going to sell your wooden toy for $1,000. It effectively outlawed handmade toys.”

After small toymakers screamed about that, Congress exempted toymakers that make fewer than 7,500 toys per year. So small toymakers must stay small.

“Maybe what [Mattel] did,” says Carney, “is say, ‘This is our opportunity through regulation to kill some of our competitors!'”

Facebook tries to do that, too.

At an international conference, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said, “We don’t want private companies making so many decisions about how to balance social equities without a more democratic process.”

In other words: “Government, please regulate all of us.”

That sounds noble.

Carney points out the catch.

“He’s calling for a mandate that platforms impose some sort of artificial intelligence to weed out misinformation or hate speech. Facebook can afford that, but Zuckerberg’s smaller competitors [like Odysee, Rumble, Parler]…would struggle to pay the thousands of content moderators and the expensive artificial intelligence that Congress may require. New social media sites may never even start.”

That last sentence is a key point that we often miss.

“Regulation doesn’t just kill existing businesses,” says Carney. “It keeps new businesses from ever entering.”

Big business has always pushed for regulation.

More than 100 years ago, Henry Heinz, founder of Heinz Ketchup, started using refrigerated rail cars because, says Carney, “he could get fresher tomatoes, and therefore he could make a ketchup that didn’t rely on sodium benzoate as an artificial preservative.”

“Everybody loved Heinz ketchup, and it rose up to be about half of the market,” Carney continues. “But sometimes people who are half of the market want to be all the market. So Heinz himself started lobbying to outlaw sodium benzoate.”

Sodium benzoate is a preservative that Heinz’s competitors used. Heinz claimed it wasn’t safe, but it is safe. It’s still used in Sprite, Jell-O Kool-Aid Gels, and other foods.

Henry Heinz almost got those products banned, says Carney. “He almost got Teddy Roosevelt on board, which would have outlawed all of his competition. Sometimes businessmen hate nothing more than competition.”

Not “sometimes.” Usually. Almost all businesses hate competition.

But competition is what helps us consumers most.

When big government colludes with big business to kill competition, we all pay the price.

John Stossel

The Lesson of Trump

Richard Ruggiero writes: “I think the lesson of Trump is we’re wrong to expect in a leader what we’re unwilling to ourselves become. An ordinary guy with good principles is all we need. As long as he’s not a Marxist, as long as he doesn’t hate America, as long as he’s willing to follow The Constitution and The Declaration and enforce the rule of law and speak honestly and have good sense and care about reason, freedom and individual rights and understand that the only good commie is a dead commie.

We’re looking for a god, but there are no gods and we don’t need a god to be president.”

I totally agree. If I had a dollar for every person who told me, “I love Trump, but I can’t let anybody find out”, I’d be richer than Trump.

One thing that makes Trump so special is that he totally gets the weakness of his opponents. The vast majority of leftists are either (1) emotionally unstable bullies, or (2) gullible people who believe anything they’re told, so long as it comes from “the mainstream”. Accurate, strong, unyielding, productive, rational individualists could easily defeat such people — if they weren’t afraid to speak out, come out of the closet, and simply be who they are.

“I can’t offend my leftist family/friends/neighbors/clients” etc. Why not? Why not let them be offended? They’re offended at the drop of a hat already. Why? Because they are scared to death. It’s GOOD to scare people like this.

Trump became a substitute for standing up for yourself. That’s how the bullies and the ignorant win, no matter what the battle or what the context is. That’s how we got to a point where grotesquely, self-evidently WRONG and utterly STUPID people are now in charge of literally everything. The next time you find yourself thinking, “How is this all happening?” take a look in the mirror and ask yourself: “Have I done anything to stand up for what I believe, and who I am?”

We — the reasonable, the decent, the productive, the sane — have to “come out”, to stand up for what we believe and know to be true. There can be great strength in numbers. We don’t have to do what THEY do: plunder people’s savings, confiscate their wealth, devalue their currency, threaten to lock them up if they don’t go with the Party line, lock them down, force them to wear masks, force experimental vaccines on them … All we have to do is BE WHO WE ARE.

We would win in five minutes, without ever firing a shot. Look at these people, not just in the government, but in the culture: THEY ARE TRULY PITIFUL. If we cannot beat them, then we are nothing. But we are way more than something. Trump understood this. It fuels his fearlessness. His supporters voted for him, but most of those same voters– tragically — won’t do anything beyond that. Witness the results.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

NSA’s spying on Tucker Carlson is an attack on all Americans

March 2017, I received a tip from a friend in the intelligence community that the British Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ — the United Kingdom’s domestic and foreign spies — had been asked by the CIA to spy on candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S presidential election campaign. He elaborated that Trump’s claim that “someone tapped my wires” was essentially true. The tip was potentially explosive, so I ran it past two other friends in the intelligence community, and they confirmed it.

When I went public with this, all hell broke loose in my professional life. The British spies denied spying on Trump, who by then was the president of the United States. Former Obama administration folks denied asking the Brits to do this and denied that it was done.

I was accused of fabricating this so as to make Mr. Trump look good. The prime minister of the U.K. had one of her deputies call my bosses at Fox News and demand that I recant what I had said or be fired. Fox asked me to lay low for 10 days, which I did, but Fox backed me when I explained the verifications conducted by my sources.


TOP STORIES
Christian musician Andy Williams, 49, former Casting Crowns drummer, dies from crash injuries
White House: Deal to sell Hunter Biden’s artwork to anonymous buyers is standard for ‘transparency’
Biden administration loses again on loan relief for non-White farmers only


My source spoke to British agents who confirmed that their colleagues had spied on Mr. Trump.

When I went back on the air, my colleague Bill Hemmer asked if I stood by my revelations. I told Bill that getting beaten up in the press is the price one occasionally pays for challenging those in power. Two months later, four GCHQ agents told The Guardian newspaper of London that my revelations were true, and my professional life returned to normal.



During one of my meetings with my sources, they told me that the National Security Administration, America’s 60,000-person strong domestic spy apparatus, was listening to our conversations and monitoring our texts and emails.

It is utterly terrifying to realize that your daily communications are being scrutinized by the government without probable cause and without a search warrant, both of which are required by the Fourth Amendment. It gives you pause before communicating; pause that churns the stomach; pause that is profoundly un-American.

Last week, my Fox colleague Tucker Carlson had a similar experience when an NSA whistleblower revealed to him that the NSA was monitoring his communications. He reported this on his Fox television show, and it is safe to say that the NSA became furious.null

Tucker, like me, believes that the Constitution means what it says. The rights it protects are both man-made, like the right to vote; and natural, like religion, speech, the press, self-defense, travel and privacy. The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called privacy the right most valued by civilized persons.

The point here is that the CIA folks who triggered the spying on Mr. Trump and the NSA folks who spied on Mr. Carlson and me have all taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Thus, when they spy without warrants or have foreign colleagues do it for them, they are not only subverting natural and constitutionally protected rights, they are also committing the crimes of computer hacking and misconduct in office.

The whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to be an obstacle to the government’s appetite for information about us. The amendment was written while memories of the British use of general warrants — which permitted agents to search wherever they pleased and seize whatever they found — were still fresh in the minds of those who fought the Revolution and wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

On Dec. 4, 1981, 20 years before 9/11, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333. This directed the military — the NSA is in the military — to begin spying on Americans whose communications presented a danger to national security, and to do so without search warrants. The NSA relies on this unconstitutional executive order for authority to engage in mass warrantless surveillance or targeted, individual warrantless surveillance.null

Subsequent presidential executive orders have been written with the mindset that the president as commander in chief can operate outside the Constitution.

This perverse rationale has brought us where we are today — a place that Reagan himself could never have recognized and of which he would never have approved. Today, the NSA captures all data communicated into, going out of and within the U.S. That includes the content of all text messages, emails and phone calls, as well as financial, legal and medical records — the list is endless. This data consumes 27 times the contents of the Library of Congress every year.

All this is far too much for the NSA to read and digest, which is how the hijackers and killers who perpetrated 9/11, and how domestic mass murderers and their confederates, have slipped past them.

But when the NSA targets a specific person, as it did to me in 2017 and does to Tucker Carlson today, it is sure to examine in near real time whatever it has gathered.null

This should provoke outrage across the political spectrum. The NSA was after Mr. Carlson and me because, as libertarians defending privacy and believing that the Fourth Amendment means what it says, we have been harshly critical of it. But the NSA is part of the government. Can the government use its powers to chill the free speech rights of its critics? Of course not.

The Supreme Court has ruled many times that chilling — government behavior that gives one pause or fear before speaking freely about the government — is a direct violation of the natural and constitutionally protected right to the freedom of speech.

Tucker Carlson and you and I can say whatever we want about the government and it cannot legally or constitutionally chill or prevent that. If it could, then our rights are just empty claims.

Why have we reposed the Constitution for safekeeping into the hands of those who subvert it?

What Makes Them Sociopaths

The root of psychopathology is the irrational, false belief that a utopian, “perfect” world is desirable or possible. The root of sociopathy is the irrational, false belief that YOU possess the infallibility and right to impose your delusion of utopia on everyone.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Supreme Court Grants Rare Win For Economic FreedomBY ETHAN YANG | JUL 2, 2021 | REGULATION

Economic and civil liberties should not be seen as two ideals to be weighed separately but as one set of inalienable rights that are inherent to our humanity. What is economic prosperity worth if you can’t speak your mind? What value is there to having civil protections if everything else in your life is regulated into despair? Oftentimes civil and economic freedom are intertwined in such intimate ways that there really is no difference. Sadly, today economic rights have taken a second class status under the current judicial status quo, which is why policies that infringe on things like free speech receive plenty of scrutiny yet arbitrary regulations on business pass with almost no oversight.

This is why a recent Supreme Court decision, Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, is such an important win for those concerned with economic freedom, specifically property rights. The case was decided on June 23, 2021, and was split 6-3 on “expected ideological lines.” Although there was likely much nuance in the thinking of the various justices, the win is a much-welcomed departure from the Progressive status quo of deference to the will of the state. The case itself concerned an “access regulation” in California that allowed labor unions to enter a private property in this case, Cedar Point Nursery, provided that they dispense notice to the Agricultural Relations Board. After doing so, the owner of the property is mandated to allow access without contestation. Such a policy seems to have been clearly put in place at the behest of politically influential labor unions and to the expense of private citizens.

A Rare But Important Victory

Ilya Shapiro and Sam Spiegleman from the Cato Institute weigh in on the matter by explaining:

Cedar Point will go down as a big and clean win for property rights. California’s law is no mere labor regulation: it grants a right to be on the owners’ land three hours per day for 120 days per year. Ending it respects the constitutional rights of both the property owners and union officials, who lose only the ability to trespass for a third of the year.

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause provides, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Here, even though the state didn’t seize any property outright, the Supreme Court has long recognized that if a regulation “goes too far,” it’s functionally equivalent to the use of eminent domain.

The Court’s recognition here that state-sanctioned trespasses, even if not permanent and continuous, are compensable takings is a major victory for property‐​rights advocates who have toiled for decades to expand the universe of per se takings beyond the narrow scope of permanent physical invasions or total‐​value‐​loss regulations.

In particular, Cato’s Amicus Brief on the matter explains three basic points on why California’s labor regulation was unconstitutional and curtailed property rights, thus requiring at minimum, just compensation.

The first being that allowing labor unions to simply enter private property with a permission slip from the government violated the right to exclude. If you cannot exclude people from your property, it has ceased to be private property. The fact that the government has given itself the power to grant that decision makes the use of such powers a per se taking of private property.

The second argument is that the state of California has clearly not implemented the access regulation to make businesses safer, nor does the regulation confer reciprocal advantages, which would also make it a per se taking. Allowing labor unions to forcefully enter a private business and stir up commotion is by no means a necessity for safety nor is that benefiting the community as a whole.

The third point is that the state does not have the justification to use its police power because not allowing union trespassing on private land does not in any sense of the imagination pose a safety risk.

For decades, the state and a deferential court system have allowed the gradual unraveling of property rights to the will of the regulatory state. This has justified the aforementioned relegation of economic freedoms and autonomy to second-class status, with the government being able to intervene in economic life provided that it can merely find a rational basis. In the case of Cedar Point Nursery, California’s law essentially allowed property rights to be confiscated by the state for union access, three hours a day, 120 days a year, without just compensation. This was justified as being a “labor regulation” and “necessary for public safety”.

The Supreme Court finally handed a rare, but hopefully, consequential victory to those who respect the institution of property rights. In this case, the Court ended what was an incoherent charade to skirt around the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause. A charade that attempted to call a blatant appropriation of private property to bolster the power of unions at the expense of property owners an exercise in public safety.

The Importance of Strong Property Rights

Our entire civilization is built on the foundation of private property. Such an institution not only creates strong economic incentive structures that lead to good practical outcomes but also has an important moral foundation. National Affairs recounts the rhetoric surrounding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by writing:

Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, the leading champion of the legislation in the Senate, explained that the “first section of the bill defines what I understand to be civil rights: the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue and be sued, and to give evidence, to inherit, purchase, sell, lease, hold, and convey real and personal property.”… As a member of the House from Ohio argued, “It is idle to say that a citizen shall have the right to life, yet to deny him the right to labor, whereby alone he can live. It is a mockery to say that a citizen may have a right to live, and yet deny him the right to make a contract to secure the privilege and reward of labor.

The right to private property is the right to the products of your own labor. The right to your own labor and its products is the right to your body. Professor Emeritus at Vanderbilt University, James W. Ely, writes:

(T)here are few examples of free societies that do not respect the rights of property owners. One could persuasively maintain that without guarantee of property rights the enjoyment of other individual liberties, such as freedom of speech, would be meaningless. Put simply, the absence of a system of private property renders self-government unlikely. As Justice Joseph Story explained in 1829: “That government can scarcely be called free, where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body.

For much of American history, this admiration and recognition of property rights remained a cornerstone of political as well as legal thought. However, much with everything concerning the size and scale of American government, this drastically changed during the 20th century, most notably during the Progressive Era. Ely writes:

Like the Progressives, the New Dealers were impatient with constitutional restraints on governmental power. They quite openly set out to revise constitutional law and reduce private economic rights. Despite some initial judicial resistance, the New Dealers were remarkably successful in achieving their goals and fundamentally altering the legal landscape. Modern constitutional law bears only a faint resemblance to the original constitutional design.

Ely concludes by noting that although many of the judicial precedents have been unwound, the Progressive Era’s legacy on property rights is still salient. The new battle over the soul of constitutional interpretation has only begun and the end result is yet to be seen.

Key Takeaways

Cedar Point was a rare, well deserved, and sorely needed victory for private property rights, a once sacred institution that has all been desecrated over the years. In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of individuals and dealt a blow to cronyist labor unions and their enablers in the government. The Court’s decision marks a step in the right direction towards a judicial regime that enforces the Constitution and does not view it as simply a welcome mat for the ambitions of state actors. Although it is only one decision, it should send a clear signal that in this country, under this constitution, the inalienable rights of individuals shall be protected from the mob as well as the Leviathan.

Made available by the American Institute for Economic Research.

How America Ends — Unless We Rewrite the End

In America, the system of capitalism once enabled men to become billionaires. After a time, the billionaires turned around and created a hybrid system of Communism and fascism, with the worst elements of each: censorship, wealth redistribution, gun confiscation, rewarding of laziness, elimination of the middle class and protection of an elite class based on pull, connection and political allegiance–anything but merit. These millionaires and billionaires, who prospered because of capitalism, made it so nobody could become billionaires, or even happy middle class people ever again. Not after hyperinflation, stagnation and rampant crime became the new normal. They did so, incredibly, in the name of “virtue” and anti-racism. Their primary weapon against the once great people they vanquished? Unearned guilt. They said if you didn’t go along you were racist, cruel, heartless and “selfish”.

These will be the words of honest historians of the future–unless we massively and TOTALLY reverse course. Immediately. 180 degrees. A total U-turn and reversal of ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING we are doing.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Western Civilization is Being Destroyed by Diversity

For decades liberal gentiles and jews have been lying to us that diversity within a single country is wonderful. Hiding behind this lie is an agenda to undermine every Western country by destroying its unity. The tool used was massive non-white immigration, supplemented in the United States with teaching blacks racial hatred of whites.

If you think blacks have not been taught to hate whites, watch the 13 minute video included in Fred Reed’s article and listen to blacks tell you how much they hate you ( https://www.unz.com/freed/blackness-fatigue-enough-is-too-much/ ). Not all blacks, of course, but the blacks who don’t hate us are “Uncle Toms.” The blacks who do hate white people tell us about it in the Black Arena Report: https://www.blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-terrible-origins-july-4th

Blacks learn to hate us from liberal gentiles and jews who brought America Cultural Marxism from Germany in the 1930s. Hatred of whites is institutionalized in American education—-critical race theory—-but also in entertainment such as movies, songs, and books. A new entertainment medium has emerged-—woke horror movies concerned with the rise of Trump supporters portrayed as white supremacists. In these movies white supremacists draped in the American flag wipe out black communities. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/528241-forever-purge-trump-capitol-riot/

What most Americans know they have learned from movies and TV. Hardly any Americans read books, much less serious ones. Back in those days when I was a university professor, I recall a lecture I gave on the Russian revolution. A student interrupted me and said, “that’s not the way in happened in the movie.”

At first I thought he was making a joke, but he was serious. He was challenging my explanation based on years of study with a Hollywood movie.

As I have stressed for decades in my annual Christmas column, There is plenty of room for cultural diversity in the world, but not within a single country. A Tower of Babel has no culture. Without a culture there is no nation.

Western countries are no longer nations. There is no longer an American nation, a British nation, a French nation, a German nation. There are only multicultural hell-holes in which dwindling white majorities are so overwhelmed by guilt and self-doubt that they are unable to resist their disintegration and that of their country.

Fred Reed believes that white people, lacking leadership and a media, are slow to awareness, but that awareness is arriving with the consequence being a social explosion ( https://www.unz.com/freed/blackness-fatigue-enough-is-too-much/ ).

Perhaps or perhaps not. The decades of propaganda and indoctrination have done their damage. Entire generations of white ethnicities have been brainwashed against themselves. In the United States critical race theory is institutionalized in the educational system. It has become the norm, and part of the enculturation of American youth. We can be assured that a similar process has long been underway in Europe. Jean Raspail identified it in 1973 in his novel, The Camp of the Saints. Except for Marine Le Pen in France and Nigel Farage in Britain, no European ethnicity has a champion. All European leaders are on the side of the immigrant-invaders.

It is ironic that during the decades that Western civilization was destroyed Western leaders were focused on “nation building” in former colonies.