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.

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

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.

As many Conspirators know, the Bush Administration originally denied that it was conducting warrentless wiretaps on US citizens. Then it was revealed that the administration was doing just that, and Alberto Gonzales claimed that such actions were proper because "Congress gave the President wide discretion when it granted him the power to use the military in 2002."

Well, since the Congress never declared War, one ought to question that. And people did.

Gonzales then claimed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of the 1970's gave them permission to conduct such wiretaps, as long as there was a foreigner on one end of the line.

The Washington Post reports that the FDA is delaying the release of a new treatment for prostate cancer, in order to protect us from our own choices.

For those who are unaware, the FDA has killed -- through inaction -- more people than it has saved. It is unconstitutional AND deadly. What a way to live!

Here is the piece:

_____

FDA Delay In Cancer Therapy Is Attacked

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 6, 2007; Page A01

Oncologists do not usually need bodyguards when they present scientific data at a medical symposium.

But when Howard I. Scher of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Maha Hussain of the University of Michigan spoke at a recent meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, they were in fear for their safety.

Late Friday, June 29, the members of the US Supreme Court decided that they would hear new claims for habeas corpus hearings from so-called 'detainees' being held in the (also so-called) "War" on Terror.

As conspirators know, the US Congress never declared War after 9-11, despite what Sean Hannity might say to El G on the radio, and as a result, the Bush Administration thought it could dodge treating prisoners as prisoners of war. But since there was no formal declaration of War, those captured are supposed to be tried under US criminal code, which would mean affording them habeas hearings (presentation of the evidence in a court). The Bush Administration argued last year, in the Hamdan case, that to allow habeas for 'enemy combatants' could jeopardize revealing covert operations, which is a possibility, but not a strong one. Bush wanted 'detainees' tried in 'military tribunals' of his branch's making, which, again, was patently unconstitutional, since only the Congress can set up the court system between the state courts nd the US Supreme Court (see Articles One, Two and Three of the US Constitution). In their Hamdan ruling the Court disagreed with Bush on the creation of the Military Tribunals and on not affording habeas. But then, the US Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which would allow for Bush's military tribunals and would stop future calls for habeas from going to the Supreme Court.

Excellent piece, please read when you have the opportunity.

http://news.com.com/Work+bill+would+create+new+ID+database/2100-1028_3-6...

At 11 am on June 25, the US Supreme Court handed John "Mr. Free Speech" McCain a nice drubbing on his patently unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

The issue dealt with whether a Wisconsin organization could criticize politicians sixty days prior to an election. The court ruled in its favor. McCain said the ruling was "regrettable". Cute.

The Founding Fathers would have put him on trial.

Here is the text of the report, from the AP;
______

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

Anderson Cooper and his staff recently took on Congress, which, in a recent poll, stands at only 14% approval among likely voters.
Cooper and the "360" team decided to check on Nancy Pelosi's claim that the Democrat Congress would be the most transparent and open ever when it came to revealing "earmarks", i.e. padding in the budget for special "projects" that bring tax money to favored districts and help Congressmen and Congresswomen get reelected.

For three days, Cooper and his staff called all 435 members of Congress to ask them if they would be willing to tell their audience exactly what "earmarks" they had added to the budget. Of those 435, only 31 agreed to offer the information!

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington yesterday released what we might have expected, nearly 100 members of Congress splatter federal funds on family members and/or their businesses. While this is not necessarily an indictable offense in every instance, it is a nice entry point into the ethics of US politicians.

Here is the link to the overview:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29095

In a speech delivered to a large crowd at Dartmouth College, in Hanover, NH, the subject of the Sonics' song "The Witch" once more offered here striking take on the ethics of taxation and redistribution. This time telling people to shut up if they might have a few qualms about the majority taking their money to pay for fetal stem cell research.

She actually had the gall to say she wanted "religion out of the stem cell debate," as if that could EVER happen, not only for the stem cell debate, but for many other unconstitutional and unethical federal programs. Regardless of whether fetal stem cell research currently kills and will continue to kill unborn human beings (scientifically speaking, this is the case, you decide how you feel about that reality, but it is a fact), morality and religion also play a part in thoughts on things like, oh... THEFT.

The Witches

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton

It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back

High as Hell

Witch

As Conspirators know, we have a slightly different take on the immigration debate (we actually consider things like the US Constitution and economics) than most "conservatives", but we were of the evidently misguided opinion that those "conservatives" like Trent Lott supported free speech for talk radio hosts.

As you will see in this New York Times article, Senator Lott is far from an ally, even on that issue. Read on, MacDuff! ---
_____

Senate Leaders Agree to Revive Immigration Bill

By ROBERT PEAR and JEFF ZELENY
Published: June 15, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 14 — Senate Democratic and Republican leaders announced on Thursday that they had agreed on a way to revive a comprehensive immigration bill that was pulled off the Senate floor seven days ago.

The Washington Post (so make sure you consider their slant when reading the story) reports that the FBI may have broken the law thousands of times when investigating American citizens.

Here is the piece:
_____

FBI Finds It Frequently Overstepped in Collecting Data

By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 14, 2007; Page A01

An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism.

Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil

Attention Deficit Democracy

ABC's Brian Ross reports that the FBI's watch list of US citizens grew to over 500,000 people in the last few years, far exceeding what many in the FBI consider reasonable aquisition of personal data. Here is the report, by Justin Rood, of Ross's Team:

____

A terrorist watch list compiled by the FBI has apparently swelled to include more than half a million names.

Privacy and civil liberties advocates say the list is growing uncontrollably, threatening its usefulness in the war on terror.

The bureau says the number of names on its terrorist watch list is classified.

A portion of the FBI's unclassified 2008 budget request posted to the Department of Justice Web site, however, refers to "the entire watch list of 509,000 names," which is utilized by its Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force.