i COMPLETELY support the alleged prez on this move, and applaud it. Because at some point people will get sick of paying these extortions and actually take action in their own lives to halt it. Glenn is not there yet, for he seems to argue that gov’t has some right to the forst 50% of his pay but not so the rest. IMHO — no, according to tax law — USG has no right to the first 50%, either. Maybe he, and others, are today a step closer to taking real action.
 January 17, 2015 at 9:55am
Maybe this is why a 50,000 acre fire that destroys two towns in Northern California receives 30 seconds’ coverage while a 500 acre brush fire happening at the same time on Long Island is treated like it is the end of the world.
November 22, 2014 at 9:45am
Rob, your answer is even more astonishing than the original article. The total capitulation to the artifices of the administrative state is really disturbing. Their incentives to build that central authority is completely opposite of your interest in raising your kids properly. Unless a lobotomized conformity to the state is the objective.
 November 22, 2014 at 9:41am
You make the exact point, SillyGoose. If someone is actually paying for an item, gets the tripe that is served, and still chooses to pay for that product instead of seeking pretty achievable alternatives, well, whose fault is THAT?
 November 21, 2014 at 8:00pm
Why, SillyGoose, do kids ‘deserve a decent hot lunch’? Says who? Who makes up these things? I don’t think we had a hot lunch a single day growing up, or a govt meal of any kind. Nor was one ‘deserved’, nor was it a ‘right’ violated, nor was an iota of harm done by not adhering to govt nutrition standards long since debunked.
November 21, 2014 at 5:52pm
I am completely astonished by the comments. The government’s duty is to feed you or your kid, to standards of your liking, because…..
Pack a lunch with your food, your choices. If you can’t take control of your lives in this smallest of ways, it is sad to see what the rest of your bow-to-the-govt lives look like.
"The government’s duty is to feed you or your kid, to standards of your liking, because….."
....kids deserve a decent hot lunch, especially if it's being paid for.
Sure, you can pack your own, but do you really think that slop should be getting served to kids? It's not about catering to "your liking" - it could at least just be decent.
You assume all places are the same.
Also, as a few have already mentioned. They are not allowed to bring food. And you also forgot. That some schools have go to the point. They inspect what students bring from home. And if it doesn't meet ...there standards or opinion. They take their lunches, and/or make them eat what the school provides. Remember the schools are setup so. If people don't eat. They lose money, or other funding, etc. So, there is an incentive to push for something. That isn't always in the best interest of the students. -- Just like any government agency. They can't truly get to efficient. And actually do what is right. Because doing so, might, or would mean losing their jobs.
What would have really been good. If the pictures or examples had what the cost was. Or the cost for each meal, etc. But we need total cost. Not subsidized cost. In order to get a true picture or value.
 November 7, 2014 at 8:42pm
What a world it would be if the professional spec ops fighters paid as much attention to their first obligation — protecting and defending the Constitution of the United from all enemies, foreign and domestic — as they do to technical expertise.
October 24, 2014 at 4:26pm
Just think what your community would look like if SWAT teams responded every time there was an action that equally threatened the Constitution. You know, the first protection to which law enforcement is sworn. Think about what rascals in your community would be walking out with hands on their head and six laser points on their forehead.
Just think of what your community would look like if law enforcement ignored a shooting at the local high school with the same impunity that they ignore their first sworn duty.
 October 15, 2014 at 8:10pm
Fifteen years teaching US History and Con Law in 3rd, 5th and Sixth Fleets.
Your understanding of the Constitution is right to the extent that you reason it out. FedGov does not consider the Constitution the way that you do — because they know the document better than 99.9% of Americans. Regarding the subject matter at hand Commander, USG uses one of two Art I Sec 8 cl. 3 commerce doctrines to weasel their way in. This is within bounds…but ONLY because the American people have let USG color the lines widely.
Hence, back to my original point. I am only too happy to “throw that card.” All of the combat missions you may have flown mean nothing — NOTHING — if the Constitution was not protected with EQUAL and GREATER commitment against enemies domestic.
October 15, 2014 at 5:22pm
Can’t help but to think Commander, if your belief and faith in the commitment to the Constitution were as strong as is your faith, we’d not be in these sorts of binds in the first place.
BTW, where exactly in the Constitution is this homosexuality bar anyway?
October 15, 2014 at 5:17pm
Gee Commander, if it so violates the Constitution then you’ve got work to do. You draw a handsome retainer for having made one and only one first commitment: to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
LOL -- you have no idea what retainer pay is like for a retired LCDR. Most of us need to find another job to pay off our mortgages.
[-3] October 15, 2014 at 3:45pm
@variance — Generally, true enough, as far as your observations go. Personhood is indeed available to natural and artifice alike — and, each is free to forfeit those protections as well. No being, natural or artificial, retains rights after they voluntarily relinquish them for privileges — if those are the terms of their acceptance. 100% of IRS bennies could be offered while retaining rights. But 100% do not. If you — ‘you’ being natural or artificial — take almost any government privilege, the agreement calls for giving up rights that otherwise would have been retained. But you are correct — rights are available to all should they choose to avail them and forgo privilege.
[-6] October 15, 2014 at 2:11pm
1. Religion and speech are Bill of Rights protections of natural existence.
2. Subservient artificial existence gets govt bennies (tax exempt &c).
3. Take their gold, be the slave and follow their rules.
4. Refuse their gold, keep B of R protections.
What NEVER works is churches who want to accept subservience to get goodies, then revert to God-given rights status when that is more convenient. It isn’t a hard equation to understand.
 June 26, 2014 at 8:28am
A senior IRS official who does not even know what constitutes taxable income.
 June 10, 2014 at 1:39pm
Can’t ait to see the day when this kind of police firepower, military tactics, and attention to facts and detail are called out when a cop shoots an unarmed WW II vet, an unarmed motorist traveling ten miles over the speed limit, a homeless man in Albuquerque, &c &c &c &c.
May 16, 2014 at 12:57pm
true enough, 40! But it changes nothing, for 16A never changed the nature of the tax. After 16A, as before, the subject of the tax is privileged activity and liability is exactly the same as before. Find me the the activity taxed and your liability for it in the Code and I’ll attend whatever extensive training you have taken in the matter.
May 16, 2014 at 12:54pm
WCF, you make a great point. Congress should not tax the rightful object of the tax into oblivion. Unfortunately, Marshall’s SCOTUS said they have ever right to do so.
Still, that doesn’t impact Americans directly. Since Constitutional matters like taxation are not taught any longer (only 8% of Americans filed a return before WW II, using the same tax laws but with better education) most of the nation pays what they do not owe. Fortunately this is not a matter of public policy, out of our control. Take charge your own situation today and get a much larger paycheck tomorrow.
May 16, 2014 at 12:48pm
Your facts here are right to the extent that they go. Read some more!
May 16, 2014 at 12:46pm
No 40; the income tax goes back to 1862, during the Civil war.
My research of the system covering decades can never come to a result near what your non-researched observations do not. I fully understand why you believe what you believe. I’m only saying that if you were to do the research that you suggest of others, you’d come to far different conclusions than you have. And that the result of that would vastly increase your bank account. Don’t be afraid to pursue knowledge, 40.
May 16, 2014 at 8:15am
Black, your sentiment is correct. Smaller govt, better. But the truest fact here is that IRS and the income tax ARE a perfect implementation of small, limited, restricted govt. It is a large number of Americans no longer schooled in those limits that have permitted a well-considered restriction to slide out of control. The great news is that any American can re-apply those boundaries, today. And as bizarre as it sounds, govt will obey.