States fight back against Biden war on the West
Stephen Moore 12 hrs ago
Biden's $2T spending plan, billed as infrastructure bill, spends less than half on infrastructure


President Ronald Reagan used to refer to our country as "these United States," not "the United States."


That may seem to be an inconsequential grammatical difference, but a whole different philosophy of our system of government is embedded in that phraseology. Reagan reinforced the traditional notion of American federalism: that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.

The states are to serve as "laboratories of democracy." Our Founding Fathers' ingeniousness was recognizing that healthy competition between the states was the best way to devise policy solutions.

This brings us to President Joe Biden. No president in modern times, and perhaps ever, has shown such contempt for our system of federalism.

So I was thrilled to see this headline from, of all places, Alaska: "Governor Dunleavy Tells Feds Alaska Is Taking Over 800,000 Miles of River."

Alaska is asserting its right as a state to control its lakes and rivers. Gov. Mike Dunleavy is so fed up, and he has asked the Biden administration to "stop bothering Alaskans."

Bravo.

We need governors and state lawmakers to show much more of this peaceful defiance when Washington oversteps. That's happening a lot lately. Biden has declared no more drilling on federal lands in the West, and this federal directive will cost these states potentially trillions of dollars. The authorities are also planning to take millions of acres of land in the West out of development.

The Biden team wants to overturn state right-to-work laws that have been a half-centurylong tradition in most Western states. The Treasury Department has even now asserted authority to intervene and stop states, such as Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, and Montana, from cutting taxes in their states. Simultaneously, wealthy coastal states are looking to eliminate the state and local tax deduction limits included in former President Donald Trump's 2017 tax package. The current limit is $10,000, and eliminating it would likely favor wealthier, liberal taxpayers whom Democrats always say do not pay "their fair share." The Biden administration might want to urge New York and California to ease the tax burdens in those states instead of taking it out on Western states.

Westerners are rightly infuriated that members of Congress from Delaware, New York, and Massachusetts, who have little or no knowledge about how to manage resources, are telling the farmers, miners, and ranchers in places like Colorado, Montana, and Utah what they can do with their own property.

Twenty-one state attorneys general in primarily Mountain and Southern states are suing Washington for blocking their prerogative to run their own fiscal policies.

They say that Biden is violating the 10th Amendment, which ensures that all rights not explicitly granted to the federal government "reside with the states and the people."

For the future of our republic, let's pray that the courts agree.

Tags:

Original Author: Stephen Moore

Original Location: States fight back against Biden war on the West



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/states-fight-back-against-biden-war-on-the-west

Short memories and no common sense. Typical. Alaska taxes helped pay for a useless wall and now they bitch. Alaska, Texas and Florida are all in the the same state.........denial.

So there are no facts or statistics. Just a hit piece. Nobody "stopped drilling on federal land". Only new drilling. We can start there with the first lie and go from there. These are and have been federal lands for a very long time. Until trump came along new drilling was very limited.

This isn't some new "Biden thing". Try posting something that has some substance and facts.

That's all you guys do is claim someone "started a war" with you. The "war on Christmas" that never happened. The "war on Christianity" that never happened. You poor victims.

You have to understand that the Washington Examiner is the right wing conduit to get their message out. A newsprint version Fox News.

Holy hyperbole. And that's coming from someone who agrees with the notion that more powers should be granted to the states. However, I think there needs to be consistency across the board. States' rights are one of those issues where I feel like both sides pound the concept, but only when it's convenient to them.

If Alaska wants to make these assertions, fine. I would ask Alaska to in turn do something about its place as the #2 state that relies on federal aid for its budget. Montana needs to do the same.

Utah, South Dakota, and Nebraska have more of a right to make these assertions in my mind because they practice more what they preach.

Otherwise, it's like that 22 year old who moved back in after college and says "You can't tell me what to do! I'm an adult!"...and then "Hey, can I have money for food, gas, clothes and borrow the car?"

The fear factor is insane. The guy has been president for 2.5 months, and already he carries the moniker of the president who "shows the most contempt for our federalism."

If that's not a war cry to the ignorant, I don't know what is.

That's what they have become and even some long time Republicans are saying it. They aren't saying what they can do for America. They're instead running the fear game of look what the left is doing to you. In the 2020 elections, Republicans didn't even write and put forth a party platform. They ran strictly on fear.

Well, when you got nothing else...

Typical comments.

Typical response from you.

Why do you retreat when faced with facts?

Biden poised to halt new fossil fuel leasing on federal land and water Wednesday

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/01/25/biden-drilling-moratorium/

I know you don't "do links" because they may not suit what you want to see, but the fact is the only thing impacted are "new leases" for the time being. It does not have any effect on current drilling.

Why do you post things that have no links, provide no statistics to back them up and then run like your ass is on fire when people show you the truth?

All you can come up with as a rebuttal to those facts is "typical response". It's hilarious.

“War on the west”

So is endorsing white supremacist views against the rules of the pound?

What?

I hardly think posting an article I though interesting about states standing up to federal over reach a drumbeat for white supremacy.

Whatever...

Quite honestly, the article is incoherent.

And by the way, California, Oregon and Washington are in the west and would like the blue state tax repealed.

Which ones? My deduction about the states I’m pretty sure was the only time I have ever posted such a thing.

There has become a phobia of white political interests.

They'll call it hate.

Heck some would probably even fear frosty the snowman for the color and try and cancel it next.

Even so, it's not a part of this article and decision by Alaska and states.

Please elaborate on what are “white political interests”.

Or are you going to run and hide like the other five million times people have asked you to clarify like you did on your ghost handle?

Oh have they? I haven't been reading them for much of the last 60 days ish.

I think it's pretty self explanatory.

Nah, elaborate. I’m in the dark here.

Exactly why they should just be ignored...

Only it's totally inaccurate.

First off, here's the headline.... "Biden's $2T spending plan, billed as infrastructure bill, spends less than half on infrastructure". Then there's zero in the article that covers this.

It goes on to infer that somehow Biden is responsible for taking over state waterways due to his "contempt for federalism." That's a lie. These lands and waterways have been under federal protection and control for decades and in many cases much longer.

Then we have this little gem.... "That's happening a lot lately. Biden has declared no more drilling on federal lands in the West, and this federal directive will cost these states potentially trillions of dollars." Which is another blatant lie. Drilling has not been stopped on any federal land. Notice "federal land". The only thing that has been stopped is "more drilling leases on federal land". The only thing stopped was expanding the drilling.

What you did was post an article that said things "you want to hear". You did zero fact checking and posted something full of blatant lies. It's why intelligent people such as yourself are now following the path Boehner described in another thread. It's no longer about facts with people such as yourself. It's no longer about truth.

It's all about Feelings. The feelings you have about certain things that make you believe anything someone says that promotes those feelings. It doesn't have to be true as long as it feels right.

The New York Times Times is a left-wing conduit with un-named sources to get their message out. A newsprint version CNN.

Exactly why they should be ignored...see Bari Weiss's resignation!

Why go half way with CNN when you could have gone full lib with MSNBC?

I think the point is it depends on which you believe and which you don't.

What? You have facts and then you have beliefs. Those aren't he same thing. I gave you facts.

Nah.... I'd just confront him with my wife's Vidal Sassoon hair dryer and yell, "Say hello to my li'l friend!"


Problem: solved.

We call that: "Truthiness."

Don't you find it funny how the same people who say the left lives in fear can't even manage to go to Kroger without carrying a gun? I sure do.

Yes... as long as you put the word funny in quotes.

I have never said the left lives in fear. A state of confusion possibly, but not fear.

I have news for you, you have been around guns and never knew it. And I know that you know that. Ironically, I do have to admit that you seem fearful things will turn in to the wild west down at the Kroger.

My thinking is if somebody is set to go shoot 'em up at the Kroger, they are going to no matter the laws on the books. I don't think your everyday gun owner is now going to see this as their chance.

I agree with that mostly, but it's always the not normal guy or the guy that has just been through some things that tends to snap and shoot the place up. Making sure guys like you are able to carry a gun under their jacket is ok with a license and a mental health assessment IMHO, but not just as okey doke blanket policy... If every Tom, Dick, and Harry can conceal a weapon eventually something is going to happen and it won't be good. I know I wouldn't want a bar full of drunks with guns even though I know some guns are in the bars now. And I don't want the place I'm taking my grandkids to for a night out to have guns all over either.

If I had my way, you would have to keep and maintain an annual hunting license to have a long gun and a home defense permit/concealed carry permit for pistols. They could make those free to get with a mental health check and I think that would suffice. That way everybody does a safety course, understands the law and the punishment if you screw up. But that would make entirely too much sense and somebody would then worry that the government knows who has guns.

But imagine somebody getting caught with a gun and no permit... you could slam them good under this scenario and take some bad guns off the street. License/permit OR surrender the gun, that easy.

Here's what I'm smart enough to realize. When you make it legal for person who has never owned, fired or handled a gun before to buy a firearm and instantly tuck it into a holster and carry it, you just set a new precedent in motion that makes our society more dangerous than it was before.

Since getting a CCW permit is such an easy process there's really no reason not to. That means the vast majority of those who conceal carry have a basic understanding of handling and firing a weapon.

You think changing all of that is just fine. I think common sense dictates otherwise.

Just don't be surprised by the backlash and remember when gun laws become even more strict, it's the promotion of such reckless behavior that helped bring it about. That's why sometimes I think many current gun owners who keep yelling "mah rights!", are their own worst enemy.

Wrong thinking in the very first line.

You can't "make it legal"

Guns are a constitutional right.

Like it or not.
it's not, "Why Johnny can't read"

it's, "Why Johnny's gun ain't none of your dang business."

It appears to have been okay in Maine. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201..._for_crime.html

Just watch and learn. If you would like to see How gun laws work or don't work on a global basis I would be glad to provide that for you.

I'm not a proponent of strict gun laws. I am a proponent of common sense.

Common sense tells me it doesn't matter. How many gun laws are criminals already breaking?

You will be good until they legislate you a law breaker, but then it's too late my friend.

Please, do. I showed you 1 state that did exactly what you are scared of, and it appears to be just fine.

Of course it is. Regular people aren't the ones shooting people in schools and stores.

If I was a student in a school, locked in a room because of a active shooter, I'd be pretty happy if my teacher pulled out his or her .38.

Pit would too...assuming he was in a classroom and not down in the office for some infraction.

Which is the very definition of anecdotal evidence.

Permitless Carry

Carrying a Concealed Gun in Public with No Permit and No Training

https://everytownresearch.org/report/per...nd-no-training/

This shows you that those without permits which require training do far poorer with guns than those who have training. Your argument goes against everything that even 80% of gun owners believe. Against law enforcement. From a former certified gun instructor.

It's like saying nobody needs drivers training to get a drivers license.

Regular people who carry a firearm must know how to handle a firearm if the situation calls for it. You and arch advocate they do not. I know you don't "do links" but you may actually wish to see how a lack of training impacts someones ability to react instead of just continuing with this. But probably not.

We are just going to disagree, so I don't see any point to carry on the conversation any further. This isn't a college debate team where we get "points" for our points, or law school moot court.

It is what it is...carry on.

Somebody enlighten me, define "regular people" and please be specific.

The biggest point in all of this is that laws such as these only give the anti gun people more reasons to call people who uphold such things as "gun nuts" and further garner support for even stricter gun laws that neither of us want.

LOL....go away, ask Pit. He knows what I mean.

Not surprising that you won't define it but you'll say it. I can only guess that you mean people like you, because all the other definitions sound like masked bigotry. You can blow off the question but you can't deny what it sounds like.

Look man...Pit used the term "regular people" just as I. He knows what I mean by that and it isn't anything close to the meaning you make up in your mind.

Please, show me anywhere I said what is underlined. Or even advocate it.

I simply showed you that what you are afraid of happening in TN did NOT happen in Maine.

That in NO way means I endorse it or advocate it. I stated a fact, and you are twisting it to suit you AND adding something I never said, endorsed, or advocated. Happy Easter.

It gets twisted to the point that if you don't see a big problem that you are a advocate.

As are you, I am not an advocate. I wouldn't be calling for such measures if it didn't happen, I just see it as a non starter. As I previously said, I don't see regular folks seeing this as their chance to go out and shoot people.

Nuts are going to do what nuts do, no matter the law.

AND I ASKED:

Somebody enlighten me, define "regular people" and please be specific.

When you say things like "regular" as a qualifier for "people", that suggests that there are irregular or not regular people. I would like to know where those lines are and who gets to decide?

Since it seems to be such a stickler for you I will do it.

Every day people who follow the laws, are not convicted of felony criminal behavior and conduct themselves in a manner where they do not make other citizens victims of their crimes.

I do not wish to consider people who conduct themselves otherwise as "regular people". I would hope that most in our society to consider those who conduct themselves by preying on the rest of society as "irregular people".

If I misspoke I'm sorry about that. Since you posted a source that indicated this isn't a problem I took that to mean you were advocating it. You certainly took no measures to indicate that you didn't. Normally someone shares things that represent their views.

BTW arch. I'm not afraid of it. I'm more than prepared for whatever comes my way. I just know for a fact that allowing anyone and everyone who isn't a convicted criminal to carry a weapon with no idea if they have any sort of experience handling a firearm adds an unnecessary level of danger that is uncalled for.

FWIW, when I hear/read "normal people" in this context, I translate that to 'responsible gunowner' or 'responsible future gunowner'.

-knows what they're doing (through previous experience or safety courses
-keeps them in good working order, and secure
-not at felon or would use them in an aggressive/violent manner

I think responsible people might be a very good term for it. The thing is, the discussion involves people having the legal ability to simply buy a gun, ammunition and a holster, walk outside the gun store, load it and carry it concealed with zero training.

A law that sets up a legal process to conduct yourself in a manner that's totally irresponsible. What I think is causing me not to understand such a law is we have threads showing how people in our society often times exercise almost no responsibility. So now a state decides to pass a law promoting that no responsibility is needed.

So would you consider the 2A gun toters that stormed the capitol buildings "regular people"? Would people like that get guns in your world? I think these people are as big or bigger threat than the mass shooters. And I think mass shootings are horrible, but they don't try to take political power by force to impose their will on me. Fascism is the bigger threat.

I'm not sure you will ever be able to put the mass shooting genie back in the bottle but we can damn sure put the wouldbe insurrectionist in their place.

After they stormed the capital or before? You see, before something happens you can't predict who will or won't be committing an act. Do you stop people from buying guns based on what they believe or according to what they do?

As far as I know there weren't any firearms found on these people nor will most of them be charged with a felony. I don't make the laws but the laws as they exist should be enforced equally on everyone.

I suppose I could pose the same question in the other direction. Should everyone involved in criminal activity that was not a felony during the summer riots not be allowed to own a firearm as well?

If you have a different standard for both groups I would tend to believe that your concern lies much more with the motivation for their actions than the actions themselves.

The 2 A people stormed different State level capitol buildings to intimidate lawmakers with their guns. They claimed it was legal because of open carry laws. These are dangerous people IMHO.

Since you have conveniently adopted a GOPer talking point to justify whatever you think you are justifying, no I don't think BLM protesters should be on the no gun list, but the guys like Kyle Rittenhouse should definitely be on a no guns list. And the rioter who used guns, them too. But they should be prosecuted for their crimes if crimes were commited not for just having a gun.

The point I'm trying to make is that the 2A guys could arguably BE regular people, yet they showed up at the capitols armed to the teeth to take control of or to influence by intimidation the state legislature's business. So who decides who these "regular people" are? I don't think they are regular people but a guy like Peen or Throw might think they are way more regular than me... Who decides?

Because possessing a gun in DC is against the law, by definition, no... those people are not 'regular/responsible' people. I get the feeling that you were asking more of a rhetorical question, but I don't fully understand the point you're trying to make (other than to rant).

I think a better example would be the protestors that demonstrated in the KY capitol building openly carrying and causing a panic. And if your question was applied to that group, my answer would be that according to the evidence at hand (the article), no those folks probably would not meet my definition of responsible gunowners.

Maybe my message was confusing. There's a difference between "what I think and feel" and what the reality of the situation is.

I "think, feel and believe" there should be laws against carrying a gun into a statehouse or any government building. I "feel" that should be a felony offense.

I "think, feel and believe" than everyone who participated in storming the capital was trying to overthrow democracy and committed the crime of insurrection. That would be a felony which would involve a long prison sentence and the inability to ever possess a firearm.

I however am not basing my actual opinion of what should happen on my "thoughts, feelings or beliefs".

That's who I've been talking about, the 2A guys that stormed different state capitol buildings, not the DC insurrectionists. They did it in a few states, and threatened to do it in many others.

Problem being the laws allow for those actions to be legal. Sad but true.

The question was who decides who regular people are? Just answer that.

That's probably a term which may have a slightly different meaning to different people. You quoted something I stated as fact and have asked me a question that's totally unrelated.

I don't find being able to openly carry a weapon in a statehouse as being "normal". That's just the law in certain states.

You asked a hypothetical question that has no answer of certainty. I have no idea what your fixation with it is. I know what seems normal to me and I'm fairly certain you have a concept of what normal means to you.

Insurrection was the event. Sedition is the crime.

just sayin'

Thanks.

I think, if we let only the regular people have guns we'll be ok.

I believe the majority of gun owners are regular law abiding people. That does not mean that a small number of them won't have issues or experience life changing events that push them to do really dumb things.

The problem as I see it is how do you determine if someone will go off 5, 10 , 15 years from now? We can't. Even the Ned Flanders of the world can have a bad day and lose it. I don't see how we can determine and govern on "maybe's".

Which then brings to question. What can we do "better" to ensure people acquiring deadly weapons are being properly trained to use them, store them, and handle them (as much as I hate the car/gun analogies, gun purchase should require some training like driving lessons).

The 2A may be law, but it does say "regulated" which would insinuate even our fore fathers didn't intend an unbridled gun toting citizenry. It should be possible to purchase guns, but requiring some basic training is not something I see as infringing on that right.

The above is just my opinion on the matter, as a gun owner and CCL permit carrier.

Gotcha... then I misread your post(s). My mistake.

Weren't you arguing that Biden hasn't done anything wrong because the federal government has controlled federal lands for decades so it's not really a change?

For nearly 200 years it was perfectly legal to do exactly what you said above.. so there is no "new precedent" being put in motion. You are basically just re-establishing the precedent that existed from 1776 up until about the 1960s.

As for the overall premise of the discussion.. Joe Biden not withstanding, the fact that the political left is opposed to the rights of states (and individuals) should be of no surprise to anybody. They have been hard at work erasing states abilities to govern themselves as much as they could since the great depression and replacing that ability with national mandates...

The left realized long ago that they have solid control of almost every major city of any size in this country and that has only increased recently. They also realize that in between those cities are vast swaths of people who don't want to be controlled by a federal government and the contempt they hold for those people used to be below the radar but as of late the hatred just spews forth about those hard working, independent people. Mocking them just roles off their tongues and goes pretty much unnoticed.. whereas if similar things were said about any of their "protected groups" it would be met with disdain and disgust.. but hey, it's just prejudice and bigotry toward rural white people so say whatever in the hell comes to mind, nobody will care.

Oh dear Lord. what a reach of epic proportions. It's not even worth discussion.