In preparation for our extensive conversation with Glenn Jacobs on the Congressional "Cap N' Trade" nonsense, we want to draw you to take a listen to this piece Gard produced in response to a conversation he had with a supposed "free market guy" who was trying to argue that Cap N' Trade is a "free market" solution to a supposed problem.

Neither the problem, nor the claim that this Cap N' Trade is a market idea are justified by looking at facts.

Here is the linknola to the free market economic analysis of "The Tragedy of the Commons".

Be Seeing You!

http://libertyconspiracy.podomatic.com/entry/2009-01-09T13_13_05-08_00

Yep, the regulations regarding 'energy eficiency" for light bulbs are back, this time coming to you from the Democrats in the White House and EPA, rather than the Republicans, as they did before. Funny, the people on the left so often talk of "freedom" and "privacy", but they don't want you to be free to have the dang privacy to get the kinds of light bulbs you want.

The Lakota Sioux should open an incandescant light blulb manufacturing plant and serve the market demands for them. They would see great wealth come their way!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR200906...

Here are some of the points that Glenn Jacobs, of www.adventuresofcitizenx.com offered to Gard, upon Glenn loking deeper into the already economicall, constitutionally and scientifically backwards bill that passed Congress Friday night.

_____

72 544x376 -- Congress unconstitutionally delegates it legislative authority to the EPA. (And in this case, as in so many others, it doesn't even have the authority in the first place!)

Nothing like a politician who smiles at your neighbor while he picks the man's pocket.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090625/ts_ynews/ynews_ts408

What Constitution? What parental choice? This is Swine Flu we're talkin' about heah!

http://prismwebcastnews.com/2009/06/11/readying-americans-for-dangerous-...

Be Seeing You!

Interesting material from the PLF:

http://plf.typepad.com/esa/2009/06/the-danger-of-climate-change-regulati...

A big, "what took the pop media so long?" on this:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5irXTG7NRNtTSzbfvj2TzpsbNTFmA

Be Seeing You!

Check it out, and hey, it comes with a really funny picture of Max Baucus!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31106408

Be Seeing You!

So, even if you'd like to know what enumerated power is granted to the federal government to have ANY contact with health care, it doesn't matter. Can Obama and Congress break the Constitution? "Yes they can!" After all, the rules don't matter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31143790

Be Seeing You!

Not like any of us have been saying this for years.

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA%20Study%20Acknowledges%20Solar%20Cycle%20N...

Be Seeing You!

Kudos to Conspirator Wayne, of Free Talk Live, for finding this piece:

http://nomayo.mu.nu/the_sky_isnt_falling

Be Seeing You!

The eco-scammers continue, unabated. This time, the bogus "Carbon Trust", a "Firm" started and funded through government (ie legalized theft), and UK politicians want companies to "publish their carbon footprints". Should they consider that C02 has not been linked as causal for so-called "anthrpogenic global warming"? Seems they missed that part. How about methane and sheep burps? How about the idea that global warming fascists can't even tell people how much methane is in the air naturally and how much is put in the atmosphere by man?

Take a look at this press release from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, www.cei.org, then visit their site. Excellent work on the unintended consequencs of federal madates for fuel efficiency and (now) emissions...

_____ CEI:

Not only does the science NOT support the fascist thesis that man's activity is causing the earth to warm, the earth has been COOLING since 1998.

These anti-market mandates will cost people more, remove their ability to make their own choices, and cause unintended consequences, like cars that are not as safe as they could be. Bad idea, forcing people to do as you tell them. Why not start a ompeting car company that conforms to your wishes, IN THE PRIVATE MARKET, and not use people's tax money to push other people around and then give the people who were taxed to create the gangland force a bunch of cars they would not have chosen in the first place? Why not just compete in the market, and see what people choose, FREELY?

Read on, MacDuff!

Any libertarian could have told them that about two-hundred years ago. Anyone heard of "what is seen and not seen", the concept expressed by the 19th Century French economist Frederic Bastiat?

The world under politicians is insane.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46453

Be Seeing You!

Unless one steps back from the first interesting facet of the story -- that a man was successful in helping his wife deliver their child thanks to watching videos on Youtube -- one might miss the underlying story. That is this: the UK medical system was unprepared to handle these people.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23684595-details/YouTube+...

Remember, you can re-vote for Gard to appear on Andrew Napolitano's "Freedom Watch" Fox Online program! Here's the link if you're so inclined!!

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages/freedom_watch_guest_suggestions?...

Be Seeing You!

As has been discussed in the Liberty Conspiracy Audio, there is no ethical justification for government involvement in so-called "protection" against viral pathogens, or any naturally occurring threat. In fact, there is no ethical justification for government at all.

Here is a good example of how reliance on government to "protect" against sickness makes the decisions anti-economic, and not as responsive as the private market responses would be.

KILL THE PIGS could be the motto for this kind of nonsense!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_he_me/eu_swine_flu_drastic_mea...

Be Seeing You!

This is a most forbidding harbinger of things to come...

Rememeber, this is not only unconstitutional, eploying an open-ended interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of Article One, it represents a divergence from British Common Law for torts. The regulations are predicated on the idea that the government needs to step in to stop "Americans" from being hurt by CO2, but this over reaches. According to Common Law and Tort Law, damage claims are supposed to be heard in COURT, and only PEOPLE can bring suits for damages, NOT abstract titles called governments in pre-emptory fashion.

The questions here seem to stem from the fact that the parents involved are going through a divorce. If they had not acquiesced to the push to get government permission/sanction to get married, then this would not have gone to the government court, but would have been decided in a private arbitration situation. Government marriage licensing is a bad idea, and leads to this kind of unsatisfactory outcome. If one looks at the case on the superficial side, ie, the side that doesn't question the underlying problem of having a government judge decide what will happen for all parties in volved, then one must ask, "who is getting custody of the kids?" If it is the woman, then should she not have the bulk of the say as to how the kids are going to be educated?

Take a look:

Note in this how he doesn't get what "cloning" is. He states that he will not allow "cloning for reproduction". But, as noted in "Live Free or Die", CLONING IS REPRODUCTION! That's simply WHAT IT IS! Uh, duh?

What he means is that no humans will be reproduced through the cloning process unless the intent is to kill them and use them for parts.

Welcome to a Brave New World. Of course, Bill Clinton had the same position. Same as it ever was,

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090309/D96QPFS80.html