As Conspirators know, the federal "ownership" of the broadcast spectrum is not only economically unwise, it is patently unconstitutional. Yet the political manipulation of the system continues. Case in point: the upcoming January 2008 auction of wireless spectrum spaces for telecom carriers to utilize. Google wants a piece of the action, and may spend billions in the auction, where it will be up against AT&T and Verizon Wireless. If Google loses, it is arranging what it sees as a backup plan -- to get Congress to force the winner to carry competitors' services... Huh?

Yes. You got it. The Googlers want the winner to BE FORCED to carry the Google service.

The principled, constitutional and economically wise thing to do is to eliminate the program, but for some straaaaaange reason, no politicians are talking about that, or even about changing the structure of the boondoggle.

Could it be that the aging baby boomers strike fear into the hearts of the candidates? Could it be that we don't actually live in the "land of the free and home of the brave", but in a semi-socialized, semi-fascistic system of governance that would set the Founders alight with anger?

Check out these stats from Robert Samuelson, writing for "Newsweek":

"Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that serve older people—already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.

Hate to say we told ye so, but Alberto VO5 Gonzales will be leaving the Bush Admin, we do think, and ought to be prosecuted for his false dealings, regardless of whether you think this is a "Democrat Witch Hunt".

Here is the story from the AP and MSNBC:

_____

FBI director contradicts Gonzales’ testimony
Mueller's statement is the latest blow to embattled attorney general, Bush

WASHINGTON - The head of the FBI contradicted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ sworn testimony and Senate Democrats requested a perjury investigation Thursday in a fresh barrage against President Bush’s embattled longtime friend and aide.

"Thats... One small sip for man, one giant gulp for mankind."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19979164/?GT1=10150

Major Tom to Ground Control...

As reported by the AP, Congress failed to reduce the mad subsidy it shells out to Amtrak. So, Amtrak has never operated in the black (which is the same as ALL other government rail programs), and yet they continue to get your cash, even if you don't choose to ride. You are subsidizing the rides of others, who would have to pay more if the full economic weight of Amtrak were given to Amtrak to support. If this were a market system, Amtrak would be out of business, or operating in a much different way. If it were a market system, there would also be no Constitutional questions about its existence. What's that? You haven't heard any Constitutional questions? Take that as a sign of the times for journalists and politicians. Here is the piece, from the AP:

As noted by Gard, Ian and Mark on Free Talk Live, a recent Executive Order issued by President Bush not only runs counter to the US Constitution due to its status as de-facto "law" (executive orders were originally supposed to be house-keeping orders for the proper functioning of the executive branch -- moving guards, hiring new accountants, etc, -- but Congress has broken the Constitution and allowed the orders to act as de-facto law since the days of Teddy Roosevelt), it is so ambiguous it will allow the President to seize the property of anyone opposing federal spending for "Iraqi" reconstruction.

Anarchy v small govt… fascinating conversation, plus the Bush Executive Order that could take your private property…

Anarchy v small govt… fascinating conversation, plus the Bush Executive Order that could take your private property…

Anarchy v small govt… fascinating conversation, plus the Bush Executive Order that could take your private property…

Enjoy this treat – Elizabeth Edwards on the role of the federal government in supplying contraceptives, abortions (which she considers one and the same), wider health care, and “environments which will not be threatening to women”. Enjoy Senator Obama and his anti-federalist ideas, and savor the sound of Hillary Clinton on the role of the feds in what are supposed to be state abortion issues.

Enjoy this treat – Elizabeth Edwards on the role of the federal government in supplying contraceptives, abortions (which she considers one and the same), wider health care, and “environments which will not be threatening to women”. Enjoy Senator Obama and his anti-federalist ideas, and savor the sound of Hillary Clinton on the role of the feds in what are supposed to be state abortion issues.

Enjoy this treat – Elizabeth Edwards on the role of the federal government in supplying contraceptives, abortions (which she considers one and the same), wider health care, and “environments which will not be threatening to women”. Enjoy Senator Obama and his anti-federalist ideas, and savor the sound of Hillary Clinton on the role of the feds in what are supposed to be state abortion issues.

Okay. So let's say you are oriented towards the superficial side of these issues. You look at the Constitution as a piece of toilet paper, a mere speedbump in the road towards uniting America behind one health "care" standard, run, of course, by the efficient and honest politicians in Washington. Let's further stipulate that you are pro-abortion, and believe the Supreme Court's invention of a "penumbra" of unenumerated rights as spelled out in the Roe v. Wade and Griswold decisions is valid. It would make sense, then, that you would consider abortion a "medical procedure" which ought to be covered just like removal of tonsils or care for broken bones.

A few months ago, Gard wrote a piece for the Foundation for Economic Education which centered on the coercion of Richard Branson by the federal government. Only if Branson decreased the percentage of his OWN ownership in his company could he begin operations of Virgin America Air. Why? Because there are FEDERAL REGULATIONS that prevent foreigners from operating domestic airlines.

Nice.

So Richard is going to have to stay away from his own unveiling for Virgin America.

It is stunning that in these United States, the federal government tells us whether we can frequent a business run by a foreigner. What's next, Chinese retaurants must have a certain percentage of native Americans?

Screw It, Let's Do It: Lessons In Life (Quick Reads)

Losing My Virginity: How I've Survived, Had Fun, and Made a Fortune Doing Business My Way

Many thanks to the hosts, Ian and Mark. Go to www.freetalklive.com for more!

Many thanks to the hosts, Ian and Mark. Go to www.freetalklive.com for more!

Many thanks to the hosts, Ian and Mark. Go to www.freetalklive.com for more!

Though his proposal was really unnecessary under a strict reading of the US Constitution, Norm Coleman's legislative amendment to stop the executive branch from imposing the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on broadcasters was killed Friday evening, July 13.

Yes, the implications of the date are noted.

The implications for broadcasters are clear. This means that freedom of speech over the broadcst airwaves will remain at the mercy of Presidential and FCC whim. The only reason the "Fairness Doctrine" is not longer enforced is because of action taken by President Reagan in 1987. Before that date, from 1949 on (actually, there was something called the Mayflower Doctrine that preceded it), television viewers and radio listeners had to suffer through so-called "news" stories which were nothing more than leftist propaganda vehicles, and to hear the holier-than-thou "reporters" claim they were "objective". After Reagan, Talk Radio arose, presenting ideas that were openly offered as opinions, not "objective news". Of course, the medium exploded in popularity (wonder why, huh, major networks?), and began to present a threat to Democrats (on the whole). Since 1995, with Bill Clinton's description of Talk Radio as Hate Radio "they... spread hate," he told an audience in Minneapolis, the target has been on Talk Radio's back.

Who would have thought that a federal agency might cover up mistakes, and that it would take years to uncover them?

Oh, no, we certainly shouldn't have the market involved in air security! Noooooo! We need bureaucrats who are insulated from market competition to handle our lives.

Here is the piece from the Washington Post:

_______

FAA Accused Of Hiding Controllers' Mistakes

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 14, 2007; D01

Two Federal Aviation Administration employees have accused the agency of "covering up" serious incidents in which planes got too close to each other in the Dallas area, according to a government investigator who suggested that such practices might extend to other parts of the country.

Sorry Robespierre was a Roussouian rather than a fan of Locke and private property, it might have worked out differently, eh?