Oh Noes! The Scary Claritan-D!

I'm annoyed. I mean, really, really annoyed. Mainly at the idiots that we call state Representatives and Senators. I'll include Governor Barbour in there just for good measure.

Why am I so annoyed? What has gotten my proverbial panties in a bunch you may ask?

Well, it's like this, both the Mississippi Senate and the Mississippi House has passed a bill designed to restrict psuedoephedrine sells to require a prescription. Which means that now to continue with my daily dosage of Clariton D I will need to spend additional money to go to the doctor's office and get a prescription.

This is insane for a number of reasons, among them, and just right off the top of my head:

1. Medicare Costs & Doctor Rationing
   
2. Lessens Quality of Life
3. Unintended Economic Consequencees

None of those things make me happy, and let's look at the reasons why...

Medicare costs & Doctor Rationing. Remember, this bill will require thousands of people to go visit the doctor. Everyone who takes Claritan-D on a daily basis will need to do so. Then anyone who is allergic to phenylephrine will need to visit the doctor whenever they get sick or get a stuffy nose due to the changing season. Medicare costs associated with all these additional doctor visits will skyrocket. The Medicare/Medicaid program here in Mississippi is already taxed to the breaking point. This bill will add thousands of visits to the system per year, and we already don't have the money in our tax coffers to pay for all of the entitlement services that the State provides.

Then there is also the fact that a doctor can only see so many patients in a given day. When a doctor gets innudated with demands to see him just so people can get another year's worth of Claritan-D, that means that that same doctor has less time to see people who are truly sick.

Quality of Life. The thing is that I need this particular drug for my quality of life. If I don't have it, I'm quickly reduced to a phlegm filled monstrosity that is constantly hacking, snuffling and ultimately I have to go to the doctor for a Z-Pack because the crud in my chest and nose has turned into pneumonia. After the Z-Pack does its thing, I'm okay for two weeks, and then we repeat the process. This is how I lived for the first 18 months that I lived in Mississippi. I had more Z-Packs and shots in the posterior to combat pneumonia infections in those 18 months, than in the entire 30 year span prior to moving.

That stopped once I got myself on a daily Claritan-D regiment.

This is what the government is basically saying that they want me to go back to. It's either that or take hours out of my day to wait around at the doctors office to get them to give me a prescription.

Which leads to the third point I made up there about...

Unintended Economic Consequences. This whole thing is an effort to combat a "meth problem," and truthfully, there are areas in this state that has one. In fact in Jackson in 2009, there were more arrests concerning meth, than any other drug.

The thing is that, this is not going to change one thing, and the reason for that is the Law of Scarcity. This law is based upon two propositions:

1. Man has unlimited or insatiable wants, and
2. Resources that are used to produce goods and services are limited.

I'm not going into some huge lecture on Supply and Demand, as frankly, economics is not my specialty. I took enough courses on it in college to be able to deal with it, and know the fundamentals, but I don't particularly like it. But the basics is that the more scarce a product is, the more and higher the cost to sell. Since the production costs will not necessarily change, that means that there will be a higher profit margin for those still willing to create this particular drug.

Anyways, I want you to think about scarcity.

Think about it and especially in relation to Prohibition (or The Noble Experiment). When the government tried to limit the creation and sale of alcohol, what happened? It went underground, and was still made and sold, but the selling involved bullets, a violent black market, racketeering, corrupted law officials, and of course, high profits. The Mafia made huge profits on liquor until Prohibition was ended, and cheap, legal access to it, stripped them of their profits in that particular venue.

During Prohibition, liquor was SCARCE, therefore it could be sold at a high price despite being cheap to make, therefore it was worthwhile for those willing to break laws to produce it, to produce it.

Which sounds amazingly like the illegal drug trade here in the States today.

But I digress, by making the a single ingredient in the production of meth even more scarce, you're creating an environment, where the creation of meth becomes even more economically viable for those willing to break the law to create it.

Also, consider that pseudoephedrine is technically not a REQUIRED ingredient to meth. It's used because it's a cheap alternative, with a chemical similarity to the "actual ingredient." Additionally, the ingredients that can be used, are wide and varied. It's the reason so many people have taken to make it, the formula can use a host of different items, so long as they are chemically similar, and compatible to the end result.

So, are all these other ingredients being tracked and required a doctor's notice to purchase? Why just the one that is most useful to our health? Iodine and salt are also ingredients, why aren't those schedule 1 narcotics? Should we need a note from a licensed painter in order to purchase paint thinner (again, a meth ingredient) or acetone?

We must always remember something, every time the government acts to create new restrictions on us:

Limits on our freedoms, only works on those unwilling to break the law in the first place.

It is the same fundamental reason that "gun control" and airport "security measures" will never work. They are based on the delusion concept that additional laws will keep someone from breaking the law.

And life just does not work that way.

Thought Crime Act of 2009

Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.
-- Nineteen Eighty-Four

It's amazing to see how far we've come since George Orwell published his sadly prescient, dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Sadly, we have yet another example of the United States' government enacting legislation which is designed to control not just the speech and actions of the citizenry, but their very thoughts. Of course, in today's politically correct version of Newspeak, such legislation is called "Hate Crimes."

Sadly, as socialist (both the economic and social varieties) gain more and more power in this country, such concepts gain greater and greater traction and acceptance.

But back on point, The Chosen One has recently signed a new law (the law was signed on 10/28/2009) which does two things: the first is add additional money to the fiasco in Afghanistan and the second is attack the very central concepts of free speech in this country.

It's amazing how Congress can design a law which is able to do two incredibly different things, both of which inherently destroy as many lives as possible.

Anyways, the Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, henceforth known as the CrimeThink Act of 2009, expands the 1969 Federal Hate-Crime Law to:

• include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability
• removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity (such as voting)
• gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in thought crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue
• provides $10,000,000 in funding for 2008 & 2009 to help state/local agencies pay for investigating thought crimes
• requires the FBI to track statistics on thought crimes against transgender people (other "protected" groups are already tracked)

Probably what amuses me the most about this rather un-Constitutional law is who it is named after. Sure, James Byrd, Jr. and Matthew Shephard were killed due to the thought crimes as described in the CrimeThink Act of 2009, additionally, those individuals responsible for killing the two in question were never charged under a thought-crime legislation.

Of course the simple fact that there was no thought crime legislation under which they could be flogged didn't stop their killers from being caught, tried and convicted.

But hey, what does that matter to those evil folks who push thought crime legislation through our governments? They care less about the fact that those responsible for killing someone were arrested, tried and convicted than they do that they weren't arrested, tried and convicted for saying things that they don't agree with.

Above all of this, heck, even above and beyond the concept of free speech, this is something which the United States Federal Government should have never brought to life. It is inherently un-Constitutional for reasons even above and beyond the free speech one.

First, there are serious repercussions regarding double jeopardy. The way this law is worded, Federal Prosecutors could charge, and convict, someone for a thought-crime, for which said person was acquitted of the actual crime.

Think about that: you could be charged and convicted because of THOUGHTS which lead to the beating/death of someone, for which you are legally (and possibly even actually) innocent of. Worse, you would receive a lengthier sentence than if you had been convicted of the actual crime of beating/killing someone.

Now think about this, our Constitution provides clear and concise limits on the power that Congress has. There are things Congress is allowed to do and things that it is not allowed to do. This concept was reaffirmed back in 1994 in United States v. Lopez. Of course, Congress has ignored the concept once again as it scrambles to draw more power to itself.

The thing is that back when the Constitution was actually relevant to our way of life, one knew that police powers were almost exclusively within the domain for the States. Additionally,it has long been understood (at least until Thought Crime legislation started making the rounds) that (and here I'm quoting the dissenting opinion of Justice Frankfurter for the case: W.Va. State Board of Educ. v. Barnette) "Law is concerned with external behavior and not with the inner life of man."

Why have we forgotten that?

Oh wait, we haven't--provided that the law in question is related to sexual deviancy, or what two consenting adults choose to do within the confines of their own home. Of course, simple things such as your thoughts and beliefs, well, you'd have better luck asking for a fire to not burn you than expect the government to not try and control what you think and believe.

And that has become a fundamental aspect of our rulers: they want to control every aspect of our lives. They expect us to bow and kowtow to their whims on everything to how we can improve our personal property to whether or not we have health care insurance.

Such tryanny used to be called such. It used to be understood in this country that totalitarian regimes were not a good thing.

Sadly, such wisdom has been lost in our leaders rush to provide us with such a thing.

Can I Have The Health Care Bill Please?

I work a lot with documents. It's a really big part of that whole software engineering process. Things like specifications, data dictionaries, white papers, requirements, process improvement plans and the random other plan.

Some of these documents can be huge. I've seen a Systems Engineering Management Plan which took nearly 1,500 pages in MS Word before.

The thing is, that these documents, they're the key to what I'm building at any given moment. They describe functionality, interfaces, and other requirements for the software system. Without those documents....well I'm just floundering in the wind, building my "best guess" as to what the customer/client/boss wants.

In the past, I've discovered that my best guess in such situations are not always ideal. Actually, in such situations I've often built the wrong software; sure it does a task, but it's not the task that the customer wanted taken care of.

I could not imagine even attempting to do my job if the only thing I was given was the table of contents (ToC) and the Executive Summary.

No let me correct that and say that my job would be easier--and the client would get a better, more accurate for their needs, piece of software--without me getting any of these needed and necessary documents, as opposed to me getting just the ToC and the Executive Summary of these documents.

Why then... or maybe that should be HOW CAN... does our Congress think it can pass a bill when the only thing they are debating is effectively the ToC and the Executive Summary?

But that is effectively what is currently happening. The Chairman's Mark of the "America's Healthy Futures Act of 2009," henceforth called ObamaCare, is currently all that exists of the ObamaCare bill.

Basically, it's around 250 pages of descriptions on what our esteemed felons Congressmen believe should go in this law. Additionally, a Chairman's Mark, even if voted upon as good and valid, is not binding during the actual construction of the legislative language.

Think about that... Health Care is currently about 1/6^th of our GDP, and Congress wants us to think that they're looking out for us, when they're arguing about the content of a bill that has not been written, and is currently not scheduled to be written until the arguments are over.

This promises to be a massive disaster on the scale of (if not larger than) the TARP and any other big-government/nanny state legislation that's passed in the past 100 years.

What's worse is that they're playing dating games in order for the GAO to give it a better rating fiscally. The primary aspects of the bill won't start until JULY, 2013 (despite the fact that they're planning on raising taxes/funds beginning April, 2011) and the GAO ranks things based on a ten year plan. This evil thing doesn't even begin (except for stealing money from the citizenry) until a third of the way through the GAO's current reporting period.

No, this Chairman's Mark needs to go away, and if our esteemed leaders want to create a massive new socialist program, then they need to do so in the sunlight, and allow the populace to read the bill so we can tell them exactly where they can shove it.

And I'd like that chance before they pass a bill which would damage my ability to care for the health and welfare of my family.

What do you mean "Read The Bill?"

I'm utterly, and truly amazed.

Flabbergasted.

Astounded even.

I'm utterly and hopeless amused and ashamed by something I just read. What you may ask? Why the simple fact that the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer (D-MD) recently told a reporter:

If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes

Worse, he viewed the entire concept as one big joke.

While LAUGHING about the whole thing, this was his response:

I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill

He's up there, the MAJORITY LEADER for the House of Representatives, and basically telling the nation, "well, hell, I don't read the bill, just that brief overview from when they started the legislative process. I don't really care about what's in it, so long as the right keywords are in the summary."

And this is one of the guys who's a supposed leader of the House.

I can see me, telling my boss, "well, you know, I didn't bother reading the actual requirements, or what the user wanted when I was building that software. I just kind of went with what I thought the document should say."

That'd be a quick trip to the unemployment line for yours truly.

Why on earth wouldn't a Representative or Senator WANT to read the Bill? Isn't it supposed to be their entire purpose in Washington in order to represent the PEOPLE in our Federal Government.

Our government is out of control. Our Representatives and Senators are passing who knows what (not even they know all of the laws which they pass) and We The People are suffering for it.

There's no one alive who knew the what the entirety of the over 1,500 page bill behind the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was. It had not been released in its final form to the populace via THOMAS before it was voted on and passed through the House. What we did know was that it equaled to trillions in new taxes within the next 5 years all to supposedly make a less than .02 percent decrease in ambient temperatures possible over the next 50 years.

Think on that, trillions in new taxes that everyone gets to pay, all over some junk science that may or may not have an effectively undetectable difference on the global temperature. Yeah, that's good government there....

The same applies to the over 1,000 page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--worse, because of the stupidity found within that law, additional laws had to be created to make changes to it. Which wouldn't have been needed if they had provided the populace time to review the document, and if they, our elected representatives, had taken the time to review the document.

But of course that's working under the impression that our Representatives and Senators actually care about our nation.

Because frankly, from where I'm sitting, all they are concerned about is keeping their power in Washington.


The Read The Bill pledge is a good START for our nation to get itself back on track. But we need more changes.

I believe that we need the following changes to how Congress/our Federal Government operates:

1. Make Senators appointed from State Legislatures again. The entire Constitutional purpose of the Senate was to give the STATES a voice in the Federal government; it was not supposed to be another representative branch of the populace.
2. Make each bill be required to show which portion of the Constitution allows Congress to enact it
3. Have each law read into the public record prior to a vote, with the following conditions:
1. Each Representative/Senator must be there for the entire reading
2. The entire reading must be performed at one time
3. Any Representative/Senator who leaves during the reading is not allowed to vote on the law
4. All laws twilight based upon the majority that voted for said law
   
1. With a simple majority (50%+1 vote or greater) the law would twilight in 2 years
2. With a moderate majority (65% or greater) the law would twilight in 3 years
3. With a super majority(75% or greater) the law would twilight in 5 years
4. Laws could be written to twilight earlier, but not later
   

I Lied Last Night

In the post yesterday evening I told something of a fib. Mainly that I didn’t know what the Liberals were thinking when they claimed that the Cap-And-Trade bill was a good idea.

The sad thing is that I know exactly what they’re thinking, and exactly how they’re duping large numbers of people into believing in it, and more or less all of their messages and programs and attacks against the economy.

They’re trying to make things “easy” for everybody. They’re trying to make the government into this massive big-brother which watches all, knows all, and decides what is best for all.

Freedom be damned, because it’s not about freedom. Sure, on things they like, they’re willing to turn a blind eye. They’ll find all sorts of new “rights” in the Constitution, and in the process will “get out government out of the bedroom.”

But the important things? Our livelihoods. Our ability to keep the money which we work hard to earn? No, they want control of that.

They want you to look at all these good ideas they have. All these plans and programs which look great on paper, but have faltered and screwed up, and turned out like the old Soviet Union time and again.

How long will it be before we have our own Tiananmen Square massacre because some college students got uppity enough to demand freedom?

The Liberal/Progressive out there wants you to judge him or her based upon the goodness of their idea. Not the potential end result, or the end result of other programs like it in the world.

They offer free health care, and don’t mention that it will end up just like Medicare.

They wave this magical wand to lower the world’s temperature by less than a tenth of a degree over the next fifty years, but tell you to not pay attention to the massive costs in raised energy prices and loss of jobs.

They talk about wealth redistribution, and evening the playing field, forgetting the fact that most Congressmen make more money than most of their constituents.

They talk about the horrors of the common citizen owning guns, but fail to report that time and again it has been proven that the more access the general populace has to weapons, the less violent a city is (compare crime statistics of Chicago with its draconian gun control laws and basically all of Florida with its rather open definition of the Castle Doctrine).

Conservatives/Libertarians/Constitutionalists just cannot go up against that. Are offer of smaller government, less intrusive government falters when we don’t offer the pretty shiny penny to go along with it.

Forget that our concept means that you get to keep dollars that you earn.

You see, the Progressives have realized a simple truth. They can keep power by offering people money. What do they care where that money comes from, from their point of view, it’s the governments.

Whereas a Conservative sees it as the populace’s money which the government has sucked from the economy and those able to build true wealth.

There’s a fundamental disconnect with a Conservative’s message in this day and age. Conservatives believe that a person must make it on their own. They have to stand up and try and succeed. They have to have the knowledge to make informed and good decisions, and that they have the right and responsibility to do so.

And that’s not easy to take.

Especially if you’ve lived off the government for years upon years of your life.

But there it is, and fundamentally that’s the choice the between progressives and conservatives. Do you want government controlled (tyranny) and easy, or freedom and hard.

For me, that choice will always be an easy one; for no matter the hardships, I choose my freedom.

Why so hard to contact a Representative?

You know, in this day and age of instant communication, I find it odd that our elected Representatives in Washington still see the need to enforce filters on their email between us and them.

Oh sure, you can go to the House website, and enter in all sorts of information and then click the SEND button. But that's just a hassle.

What's worse, is that when you do do so, and you finally get a response (weeks later mind you) then you're are out of luck if you try to RESPOND.

Your representative begins an email dialogue with you, but as in most things where Washington is concerned, it's all one way. You try to respond to the email you just got, and you get the following error message:

550 550 5.7.1 Unable to deliver to (state 14)

I find it odd. Now, what brought this on you might ask? Well, I recently contacted my Representative (Gregg Harper) through that hard-to-use form on the House website, and provided him my view on H.R. 1256--which I see as a fairly straightforward power grab by our Congress.

He responded, told me that he voted in the AFFIRMATIVE for a list of "feel-good" reasons, mostly involving minors and "research."

Then he ended his email with this line:

Again, I appreciate you sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

So you can see why I'd be annoyed that I could NOT immediately contact him with my response and thoughts. It's annoying. It actually makes me think that they make that form hard to use just so that they will be bothered as little as possible by their constituents. They certainly don't want a dialog on their decisions.

But, since I'm fed up with the online form at House.Gov, I've decided to place my response here on my website. This is the email that I attempted to send by way of further dialog on Mr. Harper's decision to support H.R. 1256:

Mr. Harper,

Sadly, I don't remember (nor can I find) the part of the Constitution which grants the government--or Congress specifically--the powers as outlined by this bill. Could you please provide me an annotated copy of the proposed legislation detailing the relevant articles (or amendments) of the Constitution which allows Congress to infringe upon these rights of the states and citizenry?

Another concern is the fact that this is nothing but a sin tax to be levied against those individuals who chose to partake of cigarette. After all, any fee which is imposed upon a business (and this bill imposes a fee upon businesses) are inherently passed onto consumers in the way of higher prices.

Then I have to wonder on the wisdom of raising the minimum legal age at which an individual can purchase tobacco products (which routine--and expensive--studies to determine the feasibility of such are a part of this bill). It is currently 18 in most states, the age at which an individual reaches their majority--and can thus enter into contracts, join the military and vote. Why then is this not also an appropriate age at which they can make the decision to smoke or not?

Additionally, State Laws already prohibit the sale and marketing of tobacco product to minors. Why exactly do we need another level of bureaucracy and legislation--at a Federal Level-- to reiterate this point? If the minors in question decide to break the state laws in regards to the purchase of tobacco products, how is having another way to fine the business people who are duped by these teens to purchase tobacco products a good and relevant thing? How is the cost of enforcement of this law going to help anything, especially in the current climate of financial insecurity in which we find ourselves.

Maybe later I'll find the time and energy to actually wade through the House website and send this through their arcane "Contact Us" form.

And maybe one day, they'll actually be concerned enough about what their constituents think that our elected Representatives would welcome a dialog from their constituents.

But I'm not holding my breath for that....

Here, There Be Slavery

Ah, the sweet joys of Freedom. America is a bountiful land, where laws which force our children into mandatory "service" programs, removing their ability to speak out against potential legislation and their ability to practice their religion would never pass.

...

Oh wait, that was BEFORE the Obama Administration. Apparently, I've been dreaming about the standards which our Founding Fathers placed into our Constitution. After all, H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act managed to get passed.

Now, despite the wonderful wording, this act has NOTHING to do with volunteers. Volunteers still have their rights, and volunteers are not forced to perform a service in order to gather the needed high-school credits to graduate or to get financial aid for college.

This is what Rahm Emanuel describes as the Obama Administration's "vision" for this plan:

We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.

"Universal civilian service" is not volunteerism, it's a draft. Yet because this is not for the military, and worse, it's enforced across the board, the Liberal Left is not up in arms over it. Because it's for organizations approved by the Left they're quiet and inattentive.

But if the scope and vile of the act itself is not enough to turn one's stomach, then one can just look forward to the amendments. Here's my personal favorite:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
…

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Yes, you read that correctly. An individual who "volunteers" for this mandatory, universal service (i.e. this enforced slavery at the hands of the State) must give up their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

And people wonder why I get so irked when they claim that the Bill of Rights "gives" us our rights instead of the more accurate description that the Bill of Rights enumerates certain of our God-given rights as a reminder to the State.

This is a firm step that the government believes that it can legislate itself out of the Bill of Rights.

Sadly, both of the Senators for Mississippi (Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker) voted YES for this act. Even worse, 3 out of 4 Mississippi Representatives voted Yes for this bill (Travis Childers, Bennie Thompson, and Gene Taylor). That means out of all of Mississippi representation to Congress, only Gregg Harper stood up for personal rights, and against this monstrosity of a draft into indentured servitude of our children.

The purpose of this bill is to create a body of individuals who place their full faith in the Government and do not question their orders. Additionally, it is to be structured as a paramilitary system, for "civil defense" that is as "well-funded as the real military."

Compare this concept with how the Encyclipedia Britanica describes the values of a Fascist dictatorship:

Fascists favoured military values such as courage, unquestioning obedience to authority, discipline, and physical strength. They also adapted the outward trappings of military organizations, such as paramilitary uniforms and Roman salutes.

This is what our nation is becoming. This is the horror that our Congressmen have voted to force onto us. This is the change that Obama promised.

And people wonder why I voted for Ron Paul.



To see how your state fared, look here for the House, and here for the Senate.

Taking Your Business, By Duress

I'm aghast. Utterly, and truly, mind-numbed beyond belief. I have now read something which utterly scares me.

Odd how that seems to happen with more and more frequency these days, eh?

So, what has gotten my proverbial panties in a bunch (does "this time" need to be added?)?

Well, it's Treasury Secretary Geithner, who happens to be Obama's lapdog employee in matters relating to finances and the economy. What's happened is that on Tuesday he went before Congress and "requested" the ability to seize non-bank financial firms (as an aside, the non-political FDIC can seize banks). This power he would then exercise via consultation with the Fed and the President.

So basically, what this guy wants is the ability to nationalize any organization that strikes his fancy.

And how exactly is this not socialism?

Amusingly, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has apparently jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon and started questioning him on just what part of the Constitution allowed for this, and other actions that have been taken since March of 2008, to occur.

Of course, he was only able to point at Congress since no one in the White House is quite certain just what the Constitution says. After all, they had quite a bit of fun rewriting/interpreting the second and fourth amendments (as an aside, as of today (3/25) that bad wording is still up at WhiteHouse.gov site).

This is why our nation is failing. This is why we need major reforms of our laws. This is why we need to go back to our roots and shrink this over-bloated monstrosity which we call a Federal Government.

When the government begins to take the stance that it is all right for it to randomly, and unilateraly take private possessions then you know something is amiss. You know that our freedoms and our liberty are once again curtailed and will suffer.

Additionally, wasn't one of Obama's "promises" to do away with the whole lobby construct? How exactly would this help that? What this does is forces non-bank financial corporations to PUSH money at those they beleive will be in power in order to buy good will so that their business won't be seized by government fiat.

Don't believe me? Then how about this, we know that Chris Dodd is the Senator responsible for ensuring that those $160 Million in bonuses (out of the $107,000 Million in federal "bailout" funds) at AIG were allowed legally. Guess who got the most campaign contributions from AIG?

Here's a hint, it wasn't Ron Paul. Heck, it wasn't even Barney Frank this time.

This is the environment which the Obama administration is creating. Strong-arm tactics designed to force companies to do the will of the administration -- or risk your entire company being TAKEN from you.

Finally, once the government has this power in the hands of the Treasury Secretary what is stopping them from putting it into the hands of the Energy Secretary or the Commerce Secretary? It's a very small step from the government grabbing "non-bank financial companies" to the government grabbing "companies."

We've seen it in Public Domain seizures. Traditionally, properties were only grabbed in Public Domain for roads or schools or other government needs. Today, thanks to the Courts, Public Domain is utilized to seize property so that it can be given to private investors.

Now, imagine this scenario. Say, someone owns and runs a small non-bank financial firm. Now, imagine that AIG has been trying to purchase this firm, but offering a pittance as opposed to a true valuation of the company's worth. Since we know that AIG can buy Senator Dodd in the matter of bonuses, it's not a small step to seem them buying a Secrertary and having this small firm seized, and then given over to AIG, much the same way that Public Domain works today.

Now imagine that being the case for any business anywhere.

With this power, the government will utterly own every aspect of our lives. Everything we have or do, will be at the whims of the government. We will be slaves to this massive monstrosity which is Federal Socialism. Consider the following:

• We rent our land from the government (since we're forced under duress to pay property taxes or be evicted from said land) despite any type of ownership claims
• The government can claim said land, and give it to any organization as they see fit via Public Domain
• The government can seize your finances or non-land property on the suspicision of drug activity thanks to the "War on Drugs" (unless you happen to be a current or former Congressman)
  
• The government seizes your income (and the more you make, the more they take) to redistribute it as the government sees fit
  
• If this new power is given to the Administration, the government can seize any business, and all businesses will run at the whim of the government rather than market forces
  

This is the "Land of the Free" which our forefathers shed their blood and tears for. This is the land which our forefathers threw tea into Boston harbor for.

If only it still was.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

The New Legal

What is the definition of a criminal? When does someone become a part of a criminal conspiracy? These are important questions, and we need the answers today--because some of our lawmakers are flouting the edges.

For the record, a criminal is someone who commits a crime, or has been legally convicted of committing a crime.

The second part of the question, is even easier to understand. According to law, a criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to engage in a course of conduct which is itself a criminal offense.

Now, let's play a role-playing game. Say, you own two houses, and being the good steward of your property, you put up one of those houses as a rental unit. After all, you can't live in two houses, and by making the second a rental unit, you gain income, provide housing for someone, and ensure that the house does not become run down and/or decrepit.

Now, imagine said renter decides that they don't want to pay. They just want to live in your house, free of charge, while you pay the mortgage. What does one do?

Well, you evict the renter of course. Toss them out, and get a new renter. It's a standard procedure, and one should not feel bad about it. I mean, you had a contract that clearly stated that you allowed them to stay within your property for a certain sum of cash on a monthly basis. And that contract clearly had provisions for what happens when one does not pay.

Now, what would you do, if a City Commissioner told every person who decides to not pay their rent, that they should, "stay in their homes. That if anyone is being evicted, then don't leave."

And what if a "community service" organization then made plans to ignore eviction notices, and to forcefully keep an individual within the property.

At what point, do you worry that maybe, just maybe, this dead-beat renter who refuses to pay his agreed upon rental amount, intends to just keep your second house.

Would you care at all? Or would you use the Sheriff's office to enforce the law, and remain in control of the property you own?

I know what I would do.

Now, I used houses there, but in truth, the concept can be applied to any property. You have a car that you rent out, or maybe a TV or a computer. The thing is that one person is in blatant violation of the agreement, and intends to take your property for their own.

It is theft. Pure and simple, and without any other possible interpretation.

If you agree, keep reading. If you don't, I feel sorry for you that you believe it is okay that someone can take what does not belong to them by force.

Now, what would you say, if I told you that that little role-playing, was 100% real?

What would you say, if I told you that a Congressman is encouraging the American population to break the law, and in effect attempt to steal homes?

Because, guess what, it's real.

Representative Marcy Kaptur, on the floor of the House, said this:

What I am telling people right now is, stay in your homes. If the American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed, don't leave, because I will tell you what. If you had a smart lawyer like those banks up there on Wall Street can get, they would take you into court and they couldn't find the mortgage. They couldn't find the mortgage.
So why should any American citizen be kicked out of their homes in this cold weather? In Ohio it is going to be 10 or 20 below zero. Don't leave your home.

Because you know what? When those companies say they have your mortgage, unless you have a lawyer that can put his or her finger on that mortgage, you don't have that mortgage, and you are going to find they can't find the paper up there on Wall Street.

So I say to the American people, you be squatters in your own homes. Don't you leave. In Ohio and Michigan and Indiana and Illinois and all these other places our people are being treated like chattel, and this Congress is stymied. We have the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and our committees are muzzled. Power is given to one chairman or one person.

...

So I say to the American people, stay in your homes. You have earned them. And don't you get out until you get a really good lawyer who can find your mortgage up there on Wall Street. Because, you know what? They won't be able to find it, and therefore they can't prove you should be evicted.

Think about it. Sure, it's a sad thing that all these folks are facing foreclosure, but whose fault is it? Who signed the loan--which is a legally binding contract? And it's not like they couldn't declare bankruptcy.

But instead, we have this Congressman who is encouraging the populace to break the law, and ignore the legal rights of the mortgage holder. Because let's not forget the simple fact that a person does NOT own their house until all the liens are satisfied--the lien holders do.

No amount of claiming that American's have a "right" to home ownership, or a "right" to not face foreclosure, does not mean that those rights actually exist.

That said, Home Ownership is a right, and along side that right is a responsibility to actually pay for the home.

Otherwise, you're just stealing.

Expanding Thought Crimes Since '09

It has been 6 days since The One was elected and already politics is an utter, and rather unsurprising mess. Three, interrelated things, jump out at me to begin with though.

The first is the highly racist inauguration prayer by Rev. Joseph Lowery, in which it was claimed that my views just are not "right" merely because I am white. Of course, our esteemed proponent for tolerance, virtue, change and hope (i.e. the President) responded to this, at least what I viewed as a, direct attack against my race with merely a smile.

This from the man who no longer wishes to divide us!

Still hopeful?

But, as in most things government, it just gets BETTER!

The second thing that has been brought to light is that one Robert Reich, the 22^nd Secretary of Labor and an Obama adviser, has gone before Congress stating that "professionals and white, male construction workers" are not the focus of the upcoming "stimulus" package which Obama is putting together.

Additionally, he states that those companies that do use funds from the stimulus package must hire those people either unwilling or unable to effectively work, therefore they are considered long-term unemployed, minorities or women.

Forget the concept of hiring the best person for a job, no, it's more important that someone of the "right" skin tone has the position; and as evidenced by the Reverend Lowery's prayer we all know that "white" isn't right.

It seems to never fail, the more the government gives, the happier people are to take. Why Liberals believe this is good for people, the government or the economy is beyond me. Our nation was founded on the back of those willing to work, and to work hard; that drive, that sense of doing has gone--and government funded stimulus packages are not going to recover it. It has to come from outside the public realm. It has to come from the private, as people generate new ways to devise and move income. It cannot come from the government stealing my money to give to others; additionally, I should not be forced to subsidize others for the same reasons.


Finally, while viewing the new, and "improved" WhiteHouse.gov (I still so want to go to WhiteHouse.com), I find this lovely tidbit of tantalizing stupidity:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.

What this means is that your INTENT in doing, pretty much anything, will garner you much, much worse punishments than what you actually do or did.

This criminalizing of intent scares me to no ends. We've already established that the government doesn't want any type of speech out there that could make one scared of government precepts (read this rant).

Thoughtcrimes, facecrimes, hatecrimes. These are all just tools used by our Government in an effort to force us to do its will, as opposed to the government doing the will of the people as it is supposed to.

Here is the quote of the day:

racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric

I have to admit something, this statement left me flabbergasted. I mean utterly, and totally unable to come up with a reasonable, coherent thought for at least three minutes. This comes from a recent OP/ED piece in the New York Times by Paul Krugman, a Nobel-prize winning economist.

Yes, you read that right, a Nobel winner is up there associating small government with racism.

Why? Because he hates the GOP, and by extension Conservatives; and everybody knows that the GOP is all sorts of evvvilll, and those pesky conservatives, what with their self-reliance and people should work for what they get attitudes are always trying to hold the Black Man Down!

I teach my boys that regardless of how many times he tells a lie, or a falsehood, or just claims that his name is Rex Racer that it just doesn't change the truth of things.

Let us be clear for a moment, the failures of the Bush Administration, the failures of the GOP, and racism have absolutely nothing to do with the concepts of Small Government.

Nothing.

Well, actually, let me rephrase that, the failure of the Bush Administration and the GOP have everything to do with Small Government--because they both the Bush Administration and the GOP ran screaming from the concept.

No Child Left Behind, The Patriot Act, and a host of other things which expanded the powers and abilities of the government are all to be laid at the doorstep of the Bush Administration and the GOP. Those are not the acts of a group of individuals who believe in small government.

Now, Krugman's article is an attack on Bush and the GOP (surprise!), as such, he goes about pointing out everything that has gone wrong in the past 20 years, and figuring out a way to lay blame on the Conservatives. For example, there's this quote:

after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”

And he makes horrible pronouncements on how "contempt for expertise" was a contempt for government in general. Still not sure on how the two connect, but that's irrelevant; especially in light of this: Obama's intel picks short on direct experience.

Now, does Obama have a contempt for expertise or a contempt for government? While I can't say for the former (as he lacks expertise as well) the latter he definitely loves as all of his erstwhile plans include provisions for more, and more government.

And this is where Krugman's major concept in his article falters. Everything he states, hinges on this whole concept that small government is BAD! Also, he tries to build the case in such a way that it makes it seem like the concept of small government is a Reagon construct.

As he is talking about this contempt of experience, he binds it to contempt of government and Reagan by utilizing this quote:

“Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.”

The message that Krugman is trying to state here is clear:

• Big Goverment = Good & Experience; Small Government = Bad & Inexperienced
• Big Government = No Racism; Small Government = Racism
• Democrats/Liberals = Big Government; GOP/Conservatives = Small Government
• Big Government Looks out for you; Small Goverment, you look out for yourself
  

While that last line is true, sadly, he spins the entire concept so that while reading the article, the first is also logically true. Which no matter how you cut it, I see as a logical fallacy, if not outright lie.

I touched earlier on his tying of the GOP and the Small Government concepts, and I touched on his fallacy of Big Government = Experienced people, as his own wonderboy Obama did the exact same thing in regards to picking people without experience.

Now, for the last binding arguement in his article, and that relates that Small Government is a new thing, created by Reagon as a part of Reagonomics.

And to counter-act that, I have a single name, just off the top of my head: Thomas Paine. That name, even without resorting to Google or Wikipedia to find the other philosphits, and economists who believed in Small Government, kills that whole small government as a Reagon construct thing.

What is sad, is that Krugman, as a Nobel-winning economist, should, and does, KNOW this.

But, let's talk about Paine. This is the man that said:

That government is best which governs least.

Now, let's be clear here, Paine espoused a number of beliefs which I cannot agree with. He was a Diest, and argued against Christianity, yet he was also the main proponent of the American Revolution, and it was his pamphlet Common Sense, which in effect led to the Revolution.

Small Government is a concept that was embedded into our very national identities by our Founding Fathers.

And it is one which Liberals have consistently and happily thrown away at every chance they have gotten.

And yes, I consider Bush and Company Liberals because they do NOT act like Conservatives: fiscally, socially or philosophically.

Surprise! The Government Wants to Destroy More Businesses

Last year (late 2007-early 2008) there were a number of product recalls on toys made in China due to the presence of lead. Now, I'm not going to go into the health issues regarding items with lead and pthalates because let's face it, those are well documented.

No, what has me flipping out is the government's response which is of course via a consumer protection act.

What this thing does, is demand that every item (clothes, toys, etc) that is marketed to children 12 years old and younger must be tested for lead and pthalates. Additionally, this is such a widely inclusive law that it applies to thrift stores, donations to thrift stores, new sales, consignment shops and even yard sales.

So consider just what is going to happen here, because truthfully, this things are already happening:

• Thrift Stores will no longer sell children's items, or at least won't for many months--a long enough time that they can, and will, go bankrupt
• eBay, and other auction sites, will stop accepting auctions on children's items as the cost of verifying the legality of an item's sale status would be prohibitive
• Individuals could be fined and/or arrested for holding a yard sale
• Hand-made, and other small, mostly family-owned, children article manufacturers will go out of business
• Charitable organizations will be forced to only accept new toys, as the law covers donations and giveaways

And that's just the things that pop into my head right away. Of those, I'm impacted greatly by at least two, as my church is the Salvation Army and they utilize a thrift store and do a lot of donation work, and there are a number of family friends of my parents who are in the business of creating hand-made objects, some of them aimed at children.

And all this because Clinton-era rules which relaxed trade restrictions with Communist China. Because, one thing we learned is that all the lead-tainted items came from China.

So, how do I think this law needs to be fixed? It's actually simple, and needs to involve these following parts:

• Remove testing requirements on items that cannot actually be tainted with lead
• Make it be based on manufacturing date after 2/10 rather than a sales date of 2/10
• Make items wholly made in America exempt from the testing requirements
• Make the testing rules more stringent on items coming from known sources of contaminants. I.e. stricter testing for Chinese manufactured items as opposed to say Mexican manufactured items, until the Mexican ones start showing up with lead in their more random tests

Of course this implies that the Congress would be interested in not running a number of small businesses out of business, or that they see value in thrift stores and consignment shops. Of course, we all know that Congress, especially a Democratically controlled Congress, has no true concern over small business or anyone that is not on welfare.

But hey, I'd love to be proved wrong.

Knife Ban--but at police discretion

One and a half inch. That's not a lot of length. In fact it's somewhat pathetically small.

I can admit, the pocket knife that I carry on a daily basis has a 1.5 inch blade. But that's a personal choice, and it wasn't that long ago that I carried a 4 inch blade on a belt holster every day.

Why am I bringing this up? It's because Worcester, Pennsylvania wants to infringe upon its citizens rights and attempt to strip them of the wonderful tool which is a knife. In fact the city council will be having a hearing on it tonight (11/6/08).

BUT it gets better!

It gets better because the imbeciles who want to be Big Brother to the citizens of Worcester actually told us their thoughts on the matter. Let's take a gander at what Council District 3 Councilor Paul P Clancy, Jr. had to say on this:

We have a zero tolerance for these weapons in our schools and now we need to extend it out into the community. This is an ordinance the council needs to pass. It will make it a safer community for all.

Yes, the same lunacy which is Zero Tolerance is shifting out of our schools and into the general populace.

Here's a not so secret, secret: I don't believe in Zero Tolerance policies. If I had my way, I would remove funding from every school district that imposed them until such time as they were rescinded.

But that's me, I believe that we should raise our kids to be mature, capable adults, so what do I know.

Digression aside, I hate Zero Tolerance policies, but let's take a look at this from a fundamental point of view. They want to make it illegal for anyone to have a blade over 1.5 inches in their possession. There's no clauses, no riders, it's just that simple.

My first concern would be for fishermen. My tackle box has a knife with a seven inch blade used for cleaning fish, and another with a smaller blade used for cutting line and other misc. tasks. If this law passed, I could no longer carry my tackle box.

Oh, but the morons writing this law thought of that. After all, District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr. has assured the city councilors that said law would be targeted primarily at the after-hours bars and nightclubs where all these knifings have been occurring.

So, why wouldn't they write that into the law?

Why not put a simple rider, stating that you can't have a knife over x inches on your possession while at a nightclub or bar? Oh, that's right, because these things are all happening AFTER the bars and nightclubs close at folk's personal properties.

So, not only can you not have a knife while fishing, but you can't have it at your house, because someone might stab one of your guests with it. So much for cooking.

Unfortunately, that's not the stupidest part of D.A. Early's statement. Early claims that the police would be able to "target" the law. Which is insane, as that means that someone could easily prove that the law wasn't being fairly enforced and either a) have it thrown out or b) sue the city government for racial discrimination and/or profiling (it'd be simple to prove that a cop didn't charge a white man for the law, but did a black man)--and the city would be lucky if it didn't end up being both.

All in all, kind of scary if you ask me, and if I were a citizen of Worcester, I would be up in arms over this latest example of zero tolerance nonsense and Orwellian government.

Newsgroups and N.Y. Attorney General

Before I begin this let me state unequivocally that I have no interest in child pornography, I don't search for it, I don't peruse it and I do not advocate it.

So, with that disclaimer out of the way, I have to say that what New York's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo , is doing is evil. Fox News has an article on Cuomo and his decision against Comcast news in that:

New York's attorney general notified Comcast Corp. on Monday that the state will take legal action if the company — the nation's second-largest Internet service provider — doesn't agree to eliminate access to child pornography.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo wants major Internet access providers to agree on steps to remove certain newsgroups that contain child pornography and purge their servers of Web sites that contain child porn.

I'm a bit flabbergasted at the sheer idiocy of the New York Attorney General's office. How exactly does he plan on Comcast (or any other ISP) on eliminating access to child pornography.

After all, the only sure-fired way is to eliminate internet access except to very specific websites. Which as we all know, Comcast wants, and encourages, but as a Net Neutrality advocate I can't agree with.

What this does is merely creates a precedent where Comcast and others are able to filter access to the internet based on the possibility that child pornography exists on that particular service.

Don't like BitTorrent? Hey, there's Child Porn, so we've gotta block it.

Don't like AIM? Hey! There's Child Porn, so we've gotta block it.

Don't like GOPHER? Guess what's out there? Child Porn! Gotta block it.

Don't like all those pesky Blogs on LiveJournal or WordPress? Hey look! Child Porn! Time to block it.

Amazon.com is hurting your business? Hey look! It sells Lolita! That's Child Porn masquerading as classic literature! And *gasp* even worse, they sell Pretty Baby! That's a movie! It lacks even that pesky classic literature tag! Ban them from the 'NET!

If this type of activity continues, and the ISPs become controllers of what their end users see or don't see, then the concepts which the internet were built upon are in fundamental danger. The thought that all traffic is the same, that every packet that passes through an ISP's hands should be as anonymous and as important as any other packet is in danger.

The Internet was hailed as a great tool of democracy and free speech.

These types of rules endanger that concept. They in effect struggle to turn this tool of free speech into something twisted and dangerous. These rules try to actively stifle free speech.

These rules try to actively control what you see and do.

Frankly, that's not a power that I want in Comcast's or any other ISPs hands.

And it's definitely not a power that I want in the government's hands.

The Power of our Government

The Federal Government of the United States is an odd beast. On one hand it actively protects consumers via programs such as the FDA which enforces standards on food and drugs, and then there are things such as the recent rulings against COMCAST for their deceptive practices in regards to internet traffic by the FCC.

Being the strict Constitutionalist that I am, I understand the Federal Government's mandate to regulate interstate commerce. Though I do believe that on occasion that particular mandate is stretched to nearly the breaking point in an effort to further socialist programs.

Then, there's the FTC. This particular alphabet department has the unenviable position of dealing with trade issues. Well, one would think that it's unenviable, except as in most government dealings, the FTC has found a way to extort moneys from the very constituents it is designed to protect (other examples of this are taxes and the spectacular failure called the "War on Drugs").

Anyways, S. M. Oliva has posted an article on the Mises Institute website detailing the latest in a long line of abuses by this particular alphabet. This article begins with this paragraph:

On April Fool's Day of this year, New Mexico resident Mark Hershiser received a letter from Erika Wodinsky, a San Francisco attorney, demanding Hershiser turn over all revenue from Native Essence Herb Company, a small business co-owned by Hershiser and his wife Marianne. The letter was not a joke or a mistake. It was a premeditated act of extortion by Ms. Wodinsky. She had never met or spoken with Hershiser; her staff discovered Native Essence through its modest website.

Which is as good a description of what the FTC does to small-businesses as anything else I've read.

I grew up in a small business, my parents owned one, and it would have devasted our entire existence. I can only imagine what it would do to the Hershiser's. Of course, they are doing something which most small business don't do when they receive these demands by the FTC to nationalize their business: they are fighting in the courts.

I am ecstatic to see a business standing up for itself like this. Despite my tendency to not do the whole herbal thing, I am tempted to purchase something from them just because the FTC thinks I shouldn't.

Like Collars?

I gave my older brother a dog collar and leash as a gag-gift on his wedding day. More accurately, I gave it to his new bride, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, it was an amusing gift, solely for the context.

I know a girl or two who wears collars or chokers on a common basis. There's even that girl that got denied access to the bus in England a year or so ago, because she was being lead around by a leash attached to her collar.

Sure, it's odd, but hey, some people just are.

Now, think of those two scenarios: a gag-gift giving to a pair of newlyweds and girls just doing it for shock value/fashion statements. I can see people wearing them.

Now imagine the government demanding that you wear a collar, which contains your personal information, and has the ability to give you a strong enough electrical zap to incapacitate your for several minutes.

Would that make you happy to be wearing a collar?

Well, that's exactly what the Department of Homeland Security wants to do to you if you decide to ride on an airplane. The Washington Times has an article up, describing a letter to a company which produces wristbands which can be used for tracking, data storage, and immobilization requesting a proposal so that the DHS can use the devices for security and interrogations. Said letter was written by one Paul S. Ruwaldt of the Science and Technology Directorate, office of Research and Development, of the Department of Homeland Security.

Frankly, I'm flabbergasted that an American citizen would willingly wish to impose such a device upon another one. Especially under the weight of law and without due process.

This is a gross violation of the intentions of our Bill of Rights. I never signed up for this, and I sure did not vote this Mr. Ruwaldt into an office. So not only is he trying to shackle us all with what amounts to electric dog collars, but he's not even an elected official whom we can recall for such vile behavior.

He's a beuarucrat.

So, basically, we, those law-abiding citizens he wishes to electrify into submission, are paying his salary through our taxes.

Great work Mr. Ruwaldt.

Frankly, I'm left reminded of the Pain Bands from that old Star Trek episode "Spock's Brain." You know the one where the pretty women stole Spock's brain, and were raiding the cavemen who lived on the surface for slaves. Then they controlled the slaves via these belts which both sent electric shocks through the slaves, incapacitating them for several minutes as well as containing information about which slave it was.

You know, I understand that we owe a whole lot of our technologies to Star Trek, but I don't think that Gene Rodennberry ever expected that particular one to actually make the jump from fantasy to reality.

So, again, I must say, "Great Work, Mr. Ruwaldt."

I'm left wondering when I'll get my pain band. After all, it's a very small step from forcing every person who gets onto a plan to have one to just forcing everyone to have one. And of course the Department of Homeland Security and Congress and other members of the ruling Police Elite won't need them.

They are Big Brother after all, and they care for your safety.

Fear in a book

It's not often that a book can scare me. It's not. Consider, I was reading Stephen King in the fourth grade.

I found his books mildly amusing.

Horror movies were a staple growing up. It's just not in me to be scared of the things most folks are. Oh, sure, I can be shocked or startled by sudden onslaught of sound and light, but scared? That's hard for me. I don't get that rush of adrenaline, that understated fear that I've felt in the past when I have been scared.

For the record, the last time I had felt that was when my first son was being born and the doctors discovered that he had had his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck three times.

Tonight, I finished a SF novel that scared me. It left me feeling paranoid and suffering under that intense fight-or-flight syndrome one gets when confronted by things that scare you.

Which book might that be?

Cory Doctorow's Little Brother.

This is a novel that combines technology with common, daily events, and then shove them out until you reach their ultimate conclusion. The fact that Big Brother is watching you. Using everything from wifi sniffing to Bayesian statistics, Mr. Doctorow spins a story about the DHS and its crackdown on the civil rights, all in the name of security, in the setting of San Fransisco.

What is sad, is that I can so see this happening.

Maybe it's because that I knew all the technology he discussed, and the small bits he created I could see how they are logical extensions of existing tech. Maybe it's because a large part of my job is sorting through datasets, and creating algorithms to help people do tasks. In fact one project I worked in the past on required that I track where every login came from, passing authentication information back and forth transparently to the user.

I must be afraid because I can see it happening today.

The closest I've ever come to this feeling before was after reading the novel Dark Rivers of the Heart (0-553-58289-5). That particular novel teaches much the same story, with a focus on how our Congress has taken a liking to writing laws which they are exempt from. For example the drug search and seizure laws, and of course the various perks they give themselves such as free tax filings (for more, see this fun Time article).

Regardless, read the book. Become scared with me.

And remember these two quotes:

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

That was from the Declaration of Independence. This one is from Ben Franklin:

He who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will lose both and deserve neither.

America Needs a Farm Bill

America needs a farm bill, our constituents need a farm bill.

--Norm Coleman Senator Minnesota (R)

... That's odd. I didn't realize that our country needed the government to subsidize various and sundry industries.

What's odder, is that I still can't find the place in the U.S. Constitution which allows Congress to use my tax dollars to subsidize industries.

What this is, is just another attempt for pork. For Congress to vote their pet ideologies, people and other odds an ends money. One of the many reasons we have such high taxes (unless you're one of the 'poor' making less than $30K annually) and a massive national debt.

It is just another symptom of the 'vote us money' form of government, where the unwashed masses who live at the government's whims (i.e. those on welfare and government employees) are used and abused by the powered elite, tossed tidbits of the state treasury in an effort to keep them ground and voting for the powerful.

How much longer can this idiocy last?

Sometimes, I wonder if even a President such as Ron Paul could stem the tidal flow of destruction which has been building in our Federal government since it forced the States to give up their rights back in 1866.

There is something to always remember:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

-- Alexander Tyler

Selfishness. Complacency. Apathy. Dependency. I see all those things in our society today. So when comes the bondage?

According to the House, I'm a terrorist now.

H.R. 1955 - PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS

With the passage of this particular bill from the House (by a 404 to 6 vote) that has now been referred to the Senate (Senate Bill 1959), I have been ever closer brought into line with being an evvvilll terrorist. Why do I say that? It's quite simple, the above bill has these definitions in it:

(2) Violent radicalization.— The term ‘violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(3) Homegrown terrorism.— The term ‘homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(4) Ideologically based violence.—The term ‘ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

Pay close attention, and how they separate the use of force and violence. In other words, they are NOT the same thing according to this particular law. So, what does force mean if it isn't talking about something physical? Well, that's why we have dictionary.com, which provides us with a whole bunch of definitions. Yet it was these which attracted my attention first:

6. persuasive power; power to convince: They felt the force of his arguments.
7. mental or moral strength: force of character.
13. any influence or agency analogous to physical force: social forces.
16. value; significance; meaning.
22. to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person: to force one's opinions on others.

Scary eh?

Still don't understand? Consider, the use of force is using something to convince someone of something. It is persuading someone of something, by its very definition. So, every time you win an argument, and persuade someone to your point of view, you've imposed your values upon said person by force.

Now, go re-read this law's definition for Ideologically based violence. I'll wait.

You with me again? Good.

Notice that part about the use, planned use or threatened use of force or violence? That just defined that any time someone writes for or against laws, politics, politicians, religions, or society in general, they are now, by House definition, a "homegrown terrorist."

Mike Adams has an article up on Newstarget that goes on to describe other ways which this law destroys things such as grassroots movements, and tells how you should get in touch with your Senator to express your disdain for this particular law.

Of particular interest in his article is this quote:

In terms of the upcoming election for U.S. President, there is only one candidate that actually believes in freedom: Ron Paul. He needs your support to win: www.RonPaul2008.com

All the other candidates are nothing more than tyrants of different political affiliations. Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly understands the fundamentals of freedom. That's why he's the only real choice for our next President. Can you imagine what Hillary Clinton would do with the police state powers that Bush has now created? That's the danger of all laws that centralize power in Washington: It's not necessarily what today's President will do with them, but what some future President will do with them.

All I have to say to that is "Hear! Hear!"

Clinton's Las Vegas Trip

The main-stream media is abuzz. The holy grail has been found! Yes, I'm talking about Mrs. Clinton hiding out there in the dessert. It's almost been obscene, as ever since last Thursday story after story of her supposed triumphant debate has flickered across myRSS Reader.

It would be sickening, if not so scary.

Yet, not even the reports that the MSM planted questions for her at the debate could work me up enough to write a rant. At least until I stumbled across MSNBC's latest rave review of her campaign.

HRC: TCB in Vegas. A Conversion Story

A less than surprising (in light of MSNBC's admitted shift Left) endorsement of the Clinton campaign, which starts off with these sentences:

She came, she saw--and she conquered.

After a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," the 2008 presidential election can start to seem like, well, sound and fury, signifying nothing (to coin a phrase). Which is exactly what I expected to find Saturday morning when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association (SMWIA) in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Now, this is a MSNBC "blog" so it's perfectly reasonable that its author has a pronounced bias, but since it is on a MSM website, one still expects... well journalistic integrity? That post just reeks of "Hey, look at me! I'm an HRC fanboi!" Now I can admit to be a Ron Paulite, and I know that my Constitionalistic leanings influence my writings, and that I'll have a tendency to support anyone who pushes a platform which I like. But, I never claimed to be a news site. This here is a place for me to rant and rave about things without driving my beloved wife batty.

Slightly different venue.

All that aside, that's not what caused me to frown and think up a rant. Rather it was this quote (as Mrs. Clinton discussed the Thursday night debate):

I loved the debate because we finally got into some real issues. For example, my health care plan covers every American. Sen. Obama's doesn't.

In effect, she's bragging about socialism; big government.

It still boggles the mind that anyone would willingly take a handout from the government through the welfare and other social programs, which FDR (the guy that put the initial systems into place) said would destroy this country if they weren't revoked.

I can admit, I hate social welfare programs. They are evil things, and in effect are enforced charity. It is the government, taking money from me to give to someone it deems worthy by some arcane stricture. A modern-day Robin Hood if you will. While Robin Hood is often classified as a folk hero, let us not forget that he was fighting against the high taxes and social ills which big government impose upon us. If eitherObama or Clinton manage to make it into office, this is the future we have to look forward to. Yet another attack against the capitalistic, small-government dream which our Founding Fathers held dear.

Presidential candidates should not be bragging about expanding the Federal government's powers. Frankly, I'm of the mind that attempts to expand Federal powers beyond that which are specifically enumerated in the Constitution should be considered treason. Especially, if that Presidential candidate was already an office holder in the Federal government which forced them to take an oath of office to protect said Constitution (such as bothObama and Clinton did when they became Senators). Let's look at that shall we?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Makes sense. It means that they promised to SUPPORT and DEFEND the Constitution. So, tell me again, how does a Federal Welfare System (or Education System for that matter) support the Constitution? There is no article, section or clause which grants the Federal government that particular right or ability, and as we all should know by now, any right not specifically given the Federal government is reserved for the States and the citizenry.

Just one of the many, many reasons why I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Need Help? Ask Big Brother!

Anyone that has talked to me about government welfare programs know my opinion about them. They're evil, and should be banned. Immediately. They have no place in our society, nor should they be allowed under the Constitution of our increasingly socialist country.

Or to put it into internet lingo: welfare = teh 3vil!!1!

Now, that that's firmly out of the way, imagine my surprise when I was coming back from lunch, and heard an advertisement on the radio. It talked about how when you need money, you know what the sound of help is - followed by the sounds of someone swiping a credit card through one of those scanners. They then go on about how welfare now has these handy-dandy debit-cards as opposed to the old fashioned stamps, and that you should call their 1-800 number because, hey, you to might qualify to live off of my taxes.

So, we have this evilness of welfare, and not only are they stealing my tax dollars to give to other people, but they're also using those tax dollars to advertise the program, so that they can justify giving more money away to people who did not earn it.

When did our government become this huge entity that felt it was okay to play Robin Hood? And then to waste money by advertising the programs?

What's your name? 4Real!

Okay. First off, the article of the day: NZ parents may lose battle to keep baby '4real'

So, the basics are, there's this couple in New Zealand who wants to name their munchkin 4Real when it gets here. Why? Because they had some odd epiphany that they were pregnant, and it was, according to them, some type of "for real" moment.

Stupidity of that statement aside, the problem comes in that the New Zealand has some type of government agency which polices what parents name their children.

Let me start off with saying that I think it's incredibly stupid that someone would want to name their kid 4real. I also wouldn't name my child Apple, Pilot Inspektor or any of the other insane things parents tend to think up these days.

If the kid in question wishes to take an internet handle of 4real when he's older, that's fine. That's the internet. To stick this innocent child with what is effectively an internet handle as his name, for his entire life, well, that's just sick.

Of course, the concept of a government agency telling you what to name your child is even sicker, in my opinion at least.

What right does the government have to tell these parents that they must name their children something specific.

To me, it is just more socialist, big-government evil, which seems to infect the entire world these days. If these parents want to call their children anything, it should be allowed them. They're (supposedly) adults. It's not like they're hurting anyone (future name-calling from the kid's peers aside). Why on earth, would the government have any interest in stepping in and saying something here.

Which is why I love the fact that we have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to protect us here in the States from such abuses of power in the hands of the Federal government.

That said, Federal Judges, don't necessarily see it that way.

Searching for SWAT

It's three in the morning. You are soundly asleep in your bed, lost to the world and happily dreaming. Tucked in beside you is your significant other, and just down the hall are your 2.5 kids.

Then a flash grenade comes sailing through your window as at the same time your door breaks down, while several armored men, toting assault rifles come pouring through the now broken entry way.

If you're lucky, they don't shoot you.

If you're lucky, the flash grenade doesn't land on a bed, or other flammable object, burning down your house.

If you're lucky, you're not kicked or beaten enough to send you to the hospital.

Sound like a bad dream or maybe the plot to a movie? Could it be a scene from the latest episode of Law & Order? What it is is a short description of what happens during a SWAT raid.

Where once, the SWAT team was used for special circumstances, such things as hostage situations or serving warrants against known felons with a history of extreme violence, more and more they are being used to serve every warrant. The police are breaking into homes to serve search warrants at the early morning, and too often not finding anything, or worse –killing those they do find.

Over the past few weeks, I've come across more and more stories dealing with SWAT teams being used against non-violent criminals, or worse going into the wrong houses to serve the search warrants.

Occasionally these things don't meet with problems.

But what we're seeing more and more of are innocent people - you know those folks that the police are supposed to be serving and protecting – being hit, shot and having their homes destroyed. In fact, just a few days ago, the SWAT team raided the home of Salvador Celaya, a 73 year old suffering from Alzheimer's. He is one of the lucky ones in that he, his 69 year old wife, nor his daughter or her child were shot or injured in some other way during the course of the raid. But he does suffer as the flash grenade they tossed into his bedroom window burned down his house, causing $150,000 in damages (Source).

Just another report in the growing list of problems that widespread use of SWAT teams has caused. Take this small sampling from Florida for the years 2004, 2005 & 2006:

SWAT Team Raids Student Film Crew.
March 20, 2006—FL

A SWAT team in Fernandina Beach, Florida storms a post office building after a bar patron reports a hostage situation. The SWAT team draws its guns and points them at the door of the building. Inside, a high school class is filming a movie. They had sought and gained permission from the local postmaster to shoot the film. The students are ordered to the ground at gunpoint by the raiding officers before they realize their mistake.

Source:
"SWAT Team Called to High School Film Shoot," North Country Gazette, March 26, 2006.

Anthony Diotaiuto.
August 5, 2005—FL

23-year-old Anthony Diotaiuto is shot ten times by police in Sunrise, Florida on a paramilitary drug raid of his home. Diotaiuto was suspected of dealing small amounts of marijuana. Police found about two ounces in his home.

Police say Diotaiuto confronted them with a gun, though his body was found in a closet in his bedroom. Police said the fact that Diotaiuto had a licensed firearm gave them cause to believe he might be dangerous, and necessitated the use of a SWAT team. Diotaiuto had one prior conviction for marijuana possession as a minor, but otherwise had no criminal record, and no history of violent behavior.

Police also say they knocked and announced themselves before entering, though neighbors say they never heard an announcement.

Diotaiuto's family is now suing for the release of police records relating to the raid.

Sources:
Janette Neuwahl, "Relatives, friends criticize death of man in Sunrise police raid," Miami Herald, August 10, 2005.
Brian Haas, "Relatives of Slain Man Hire Lawyer," Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, August 11, 2005, p. B1.
Michael Mayo, "An Ounce of Pot, 10 Bullets, and One Failed Drug War," Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, August 16, 2005, p. B1.

Michael Meluzzi.

July 8, 2005—FL

In July 2005, a Sarasota, Florida SWAT team conducts a drug raid on a home where several children are playing in the front yard.

The SWAT team descends from a van, deploys flashbang grenades, then swarms the home. 44-year-old Michael Meluzzi, who had a criminal record, begins to flee as he sees the armed agents exit the van. Police chase Meluzzi down and fire a Taser gun at him, partially hitting him.

According to Officer Alan Devaney, Meluzzi then reached into his waistband, leading Devaney to believe he was armed. Devaney opened fire, killing Meluzzi.

Police would find no weapon on or near Meluzzi's body.

Sources:
"Suspect is stunned, then fatally shot, " Associated Press, July 11, 2005.
Latisha R. Gray, "Fatal drug raid raises questions; Residents ask why a SWAT team came in with children present," Sarasota Herald-Tribune, July 31, 2005, p. BS1.

Jarrell Walker.
April 12, 2005—FL

After deploying a flashbang grenade and entering the home of 19-year-old Jarrell Walker, police shoot Walker twice in the back, killing him. Walker is lying prone on the ground when he is shot.

The officer who shot Walker was wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a ballistics shield. The officer has been involved in four shootings in his seven-year career, says he thought Walker was reaching for a gun. Walker was unarmed, though police did find a gun on the other side of the room. They also found a substantial amount of drugs in Walker's home.

Walker was shot dead in front of his three-year-old son, also home at the time of the raid.

The shooting was only the latest of several questionable use-of-force incidents involving area police. On the same day the FBI announced it would investigate the Walker shooting, Pinellas County Sheriff Jim Coats said he would review his department's deadly force policy. Remarkably, Coats' changes to that policy, announced in October 2005, broadened the number of situations in which his deputies could use deadly force.

Source:
Steven Thompson, "Pinellas Sheriff Revises Deadly Force Policy," Tampa Tribune, October 19, 2005.
Graham Brink, "Deputy Mayor Responds to Critic," St. Petersburg Times, May 26, 2005.
Alex Leary, "'Exciteable' Tag Haunts Deputy,'" St. Petersburg Times, May 6, 2005.

When are we going to wake up and realize that there's a problem with the wide spread use of SWAT teams and tactics. As our police become more militarized and we, the normal citizen, becomes more prone to the abuses which the use of paramilitary tactics lead to, some of the essential and fundamental concepts that our country was founded upon are falling under the iron jack boot of our own government.

If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.

Especially when it's a search warrant being executed based upon information from a confidential informant concerning drug purchases.

I think it is high time that the citizens stand up and demand a return to sanity on the part of SWAT tactics. Remember, when the SWAT team goes in, they firmly believe that it is a life-or-death situation. Humans hopped up on that much adrenaline and then armed to the teeth begs for abuses and escalation of situations which lead to the death of those without the kelvar armor.

Tax Cuts

Should the average tax payer be given tax cuts?

The answer to this question, as in most things related to government depends on your party affiliation.

Democrats tend to say no. The average tax payer does not need a tax cut, that extra money should be given to those that don't pay taxes. While Republicans say give everyone the same tax cut as a percentage reduction (an example is a 3% reduction in all taxes).

The Republican plan leads to economic growth, spending, and job creation, while the Democrats plan leads to.... more power for the Democrats.

Really, that's the only 'benefit' I can see from the Democrat's tax plans. The realize that if they can give enough money to those that don't pay taxes, those that don't pay taxes will continue to elect them. What's sad is that such programs are by their very nature damaging. A majority of government entitlement programs are damaging to the very people they seek to help. They are basically telling these people that they should not attempt to get ahead, but should rather sit at home and collect a check. It's the basic idea of whether it's better to give someone a fish, or to teach them how to fish.

I know which I'd rather do, but then again, I'm not a Democrat.

The Great American TV Turn Off

he state of Florida wants you to turn off your TV. Well actually, it's a program, running this week, sponsored and endorsed by the Department of Health called "TV-Turnoff Week." In it, we are supposed to not watch TV this week, rather we're to go exercise or read a book, or stare at the wall, whatever, as long as we're not watching TV.

Why is this worthy of a rant you ask? Simple. Government, especially ours, has no reason to be doing this. What this amounts to, is a simple attack on a private enterprise. It's our government trying to destabilize a business. That's not very capitalistic if you ask me. But wait! There's more. not only is this action socialistic in an economic sense, it's the government once again saying "We know what's good for you." This is evil, plain and simple. The government does NOT know what's best for me, only I can make that decision. Just like the government does not know what's best for my son, for my wife, or my family in general. That is a decision that I make, and likewise I have to deal with the consequences.

You ask, what can it hurt? It's simple, we start with a week without TV, then it's a week without carbohydrates, next it's a week without a book. Before you know it, the government has everyone doing exactly the same thing. What they want you to do. As long as what I do, does no harm to anyone else, the government has no business dictating to me, what I should or should not do. If I want to eat myself into a stupor, and being grossly overweight, then who cares? Does it hurt anyone but me? Nope (though it could be argued it hurts my wife and child, but that is an extension of hurting me). The point is, we need less government in our society, and programs such as this do not acheive this goal. Always be wary of when the government says to do something. Ask yourself is this worthwhile? Is this something the government should be asking/telling me to do? WHY is the government telling me to do this. I think I watched more tv this week (just upgraded cable so I get Cartoon Network ), than I have in the past year, and I'm proud I spoiled this department's evil plan.

No Smoking. It's the Law

Which is stronger in you? Your desire to not have people smoke, or your desire for personal freedom? There's a law on this November's ballot about baning smoking from all businesses. This scares me. This scares me very badly.

I don't like smoking. I think it's a nasty habit. That said, I think if someone wants to partake of this habit, it's their right as an American citizen. If they want their business to cater to smokers. It's their right as an American citizen.

Yet this law denies that right. It is saying that the Government knows what is better for you, and your business than you do.

Not only that, but how many steps is it from No Smoking in businesses to No Smoking in Apartment Complexes? Then how many steps is it from Apartments, to everyone's homes. What I wonder is, after they banish cigarettes from everyone and everywhere, what are they going to hit next? Sodas? Candy? Milk? Video Games? Once we ban 1 item from our life. The next one to go is just that much easier. Ben Franklin said "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom nor security." The freedom that we are deciding on is the freedom of being able to choose to do as we want with our business, homes, and self, as opposed to a little security from the potential threat of cigarettes.

So, do we deserve freedom? Or do we throw away our security.