Here we go...

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

Be Seeing You!

Ahh, that tragedy of the commons meets environmental idiocy. Recylcing uses mroe energy than it takes to make new stuff, but no one reports it except Penn and Teller and a few libertarians. Now, politicians in Alexandria (home to many DC bureaucrats) want to make everyone give up more of their privacy and to pay for a system to track their trash.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/New-recycling-bins-with-tracking-chips-coming-to-Alexandria-92880219.html

Smells of tyranny, doesn't it?

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!

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!

Anyone want to be a Prydonian, like the Doctor, and see around that next corner?

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14992766

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!

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!

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!

Ewwwww, what a shock!!!!! How can this be?

At least Google and Yahoo are fighting it.

But what happened to the plaintive wails of Rachel Maddow and so-called "civil libertarians"?

(Sound of tumbleweed... Crickets chirp a melody...)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002423-38.html

Be Seeing You!

So, all those people in favor of "privacy"... How does one address the gubment snooping into what people earn, and then taking huge portions of it to give to others long after they've used up the "unemployment insurance (ie taxes) they've had stolen from THEM while THEY worked?

To quote Dennis Moore:

"This redistribution of wealth thing is trickier than I thought!"

Indeed. But the politicians don't feel the impact.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-15-unemployment-benefits...

Be Seeing You!

Just as in the US, the so-called "ethicists" have it wrong. This is not cloning, and it doesn't present a situation where there are "three parents". It simply replaces mitochondria. Um, duh?

Meanwhile, the deaths and pain caused by such birth defects will continue until the law is changed. In the US, the FDA causes similar problems by delaying medical devices and drugs that could save peoples' lives. It has been far more destructive than protective.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63D3OB20100414

Be Seeing You!

Funny, the Boston.com (ie the Boston Globe) writer includes the description of the two opthamologists as the "aggressors" in this situation. This is how anyone who is trying to stop the aggression of government is depicted. All one need ask the reporter and politician is this: "Who is initiating action against the other? And in what form"

The answer, of course, is that Barney Frank is the aggressor, through his push to coerce and manipulate the doctors and insurance companies and tax payers. The doctors on the plane are REACTING to action he has taken.

But, of course, they're the aggressors.

How strange... The state orders the insurance companies to accept anyone with preexisting conditions, regardless of the extra financial burden and risk they pose to the company.. Then they set up small fines for people who don't buy insurance... THEN the insurance companies tell the gov that they NEED TO INCREASE RATES BECAUSE THEIR COSTS ARE RISING, buuuut he won't LET them... Sound like a harbinger of things to come nationally?

Check it out, Homestar!

http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2010/04/mass_rejects_re.html

Be Seeing You!

Not that the interstate commerce clause has been misconstrued to allow the very existence of the FDA, oh no... Don't bother with that...

Here's the first story, about our pal Ed (Big Dig) Markey (D - Mass) and his anxiety that the Feds haven't stopped soap.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63759M20100408

Then there's this one, which, though the complaints are very few and don't even hit on some of the manufacturers being hunted, seems to be getting a lot of attention from the pop media. Could that possibly be due to the new TAX in the medical fascism bill that will shoot the prices of medical devices through the roof? Is it possible that the feds are engaged in more propaganda to demonize the medical device industry?

Now, shame on you for asking if we could possibly be free to have private air security, managed through the market. How DARE YOU?!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/us/07watch.html?hp

De Seeing You!

Again, that pesky thing the Fourth Amendment seems to be forgotten...

Oh, then there's the sad re-working of the interstate commerce clause...

But hey, we're living in Utopia now, so why question things?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0517093120100405

Be Seeing You!

This is good news, despite what some might think about "freedom of speech". At question here is whether Comcast can control its own product/service, and place stipulations on how customers will use what they buy. It's a two-way street, and it's complicated, due to prior FCC regulations, but the idea that the government should step in to tell Comcast that it cannot make rules regarding file sizes, and content is absurd. If customers don't like what Comcast offers, there are other providers who are ready to gain market share.