Just, wow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.html?hp

Be Seeing You.

So, we'll all pay even MORE, since much of the tax will be passed on to consumers.

The politicians say it's necessary, in order to shift money over to cleanup and to compensate parties who have been damaged by oil spills.

Wouldn't a much better paradigm be to have a set of well-established and defined property rights in the region, and allow interested parties to sue for damages in private arbitration, rather than pull EVERYONE into this mess?

Of COURSE she would think that. To her, rights can be attenuated if there's a "compelling state interest"...

Translated: The individual is always less important than government. You shut up now...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65720

This clearly indicates that this person has no clue what the First Amendment actually states, and why.

Be Seeing You...

In reading this article, how long do you think it will be before federal officials begin REQUIRING doctors to do urine/blood tests on patients as part of the gubment's ALREADY unconstitutional anti-drug agenda?

As we've said before, goodbye Fourth Amendment.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/05/11/general-us-obama-drug-policy_7...

Be Seeing You!

Here we go...

http://www.wcvarones.com/2010/05/obama-lied-your-current-health-care.html

Be Seeing You!

Why are we not surprised? Why is it we in the free market sphere predicted this would happen? Why is it we know it's going to GET WORSE?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/business/06freddie.html?ref=todayspape...

Be Seeing You!

But don't forget, the "Know Your Customer" Law applied to banks starting under GW Bush already requires bankers to report "unusual" transactions, more than three online transfers between savings and checking accounts,  and those deposits or withdrawls over $5,000... Sooo, this is all juuuust fine, right?

All of it. Right?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/05/bank-bill-could-help-fed...

Be Seeing You!

But remember, this is a free nation; it's a "capitalist" country... Not fascist in any way... Nope.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/05/965-of-mortgages-backed-by-gov...

Be Seeing You!

And as you read the article, notice how the blissfully ignorant AP author mentions how this kind of thing could have helped save Michael Jackson.

It's all good! See?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100503/ap_on_hi_te/us_drug_databases

See?

Hmm. Maybe not.

Be Seeing You!

But, of course, once the Bushies are out, no pop media group can be bothered to look at favoritism in government any more. Consistency... Ahh...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/more-global-warming-profiteering-by-obama-energy-official/?singlepage=true

Be Seeing You!

You gotta see this, from an Obama rally (uh, sorry, they called it a "Town Hall")...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/27/obama_town_hall_stacke...

Be Seeing You!

This is an interesting case for those who concentrate on the wording of the US Constitution.

California's legislature passes a law banning the sale of "violent" (how does one define that?) video games to minors. But many speak out, saying there are First Amendment issues at stake here.

There are, and there are also issues pertaining to the Contract Clause.

Here's the lowdown. The plaintiffs pushing against the ban (which was never executed by the state, the suit was brought early on after the bill was passed0, anyway, the plaintiffs cite the First Amendment. But, as we have noted often, the First Amendment only pertains to CONGRESS making no law abridging the freedom of speech. States could have and did have speech codes.

In a nation -- and perhaps a world -- where it is viewed as the place of government to intercede in private matters where there may be disputes about what some parties consider "fair", this kind of thing is a given. In a world where private affairs are just that, affairs between consenting individuals, the argument that "discrimination" needs to be fixed by government bills or court proceedings is unfounded. Why... Unless there is breach of contract or fraud, the parties are free to work with or not work with each other. How a business treats employees -- of both sexes -- will reflect on that company, thus having an effect on the kinds of people who work there. More skilled people will not work there, thus harming the company.

At what point do people start wondering if they're living in a fascist nation?

There is no private transaction that is not open to scrutiny by the feds, despite the fact that the feds aren't given the power to do it, and have no power over immigration except in the first thirteen states (a close reading of the Constitution spells out this fact.)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/25/feds-push-to-seize-restau...

Be Seeing You!

This is the first sign... Along with it we will see a supposed "recovery' for a few quarters... Watch out.

If anyone wondered why foreigners won't buy US Treasury Bills, they will, in a year or so, really, REALLY understand why...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wholesale-prices-rise-in-apf-299827519.html?x=0&.v=4

Be Seeing You!

It would seem that the Sixtenth Amendment doesn't really allow taxation on the value of the goods, so that would be out. It also seems that the taxing power granted in Article one would have to be uniform, so it's a stretch to think that they could come up with some VAT that would operate in such a manner...

We'll see... One thing is certain, it will be less recognized by the public than the income tax, and will grow and grow...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_tax

Be Seeing You!

This ties in to the whole "social justice" nonsense, and also reveals how the EPA is going to work with the "Boys and Girls Clubs of America" to propagandize kids all over the US. The EPA Head says, "we've seen this kind of thing done before..." Yeah, in Nazi Germany. It was called Hitler Youth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rb37Vr3uCI&feature=player_embedded

Be Seeing You!

... While the article is good, it misses two major points:

1. The US Constitution does not allow the federal gubment to regulate businesses in this way.

2. Beyond the way the Constitution stipulates the politicians operate or do not operate, there is the moral question of "the state" in the first place. Who can claim moral authority over the peaceful monetary exchanges of others?

Take a look, but be ready to avert your eyes!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870444830457519630370779086...

Be Seeing You!

The final quote is interesting. The statist and anti-individualist believes that when the "founders" wrote the Constitution, they thought they put an end to "political violence". Whey, then, were they so adamant that no government in any state or the federal government be able to stop people from keeping and bearing arms?

Strange, huh? Oh, and then there are all those pesky quotes from people like Mr. Jefferson, who explained that people would be wise to watch out for the tendency of politicians to aggrandize power to themselves, at the expense of individual liberty. Hmmmmmmm......

Dot. Dot. Dot. (As they'd say at Homestarrunner.com!)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36635695/ns/politics-washington_post

Be Seeing You!

But... But... The politicians passed that massive health fascism bill, and what about all that stimulus $? You mean employers are even more uncertain about the future? You mean they might actually worry that the government is going to regulate them more, cost them more and make it a potential financial DANGER to hire any new employees?

NO way!

Anyone read Robert Higgs in the past TWENTY years? It's called "Regime Uncertainty", and it happens every time gubment starts imposing new regulations on business..........

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=adEmhO3rPqa8

Be Seeing You!