EPIC Cooties

EPIC Cooties
by Becky Akers

He seems like an OK guy.

Sure, he's a lawyer – in fact, he "chairs the ABA Committee on Privacy and Information Protection" (pssst, shysters: failing miserably here). Worse, he consorts with politicians and bureaucrats. But otherwise, Mark Rotenberg is innocuous: "…Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, DC.[, h]e teaches information privacy law at Georgetown University Law Center." He's also "testified before Congress on many issues," as he did earlier this month to the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations.

Formerly known as the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA] updated the group for our brave new Amerika last December when he descended to chairmanship of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee (yeah, riiiiiight). But even with the requisite "Homeland" in its title, the subcommittee seems deaf. Who among us hasn't heard the shrieks and cries of the violated echoing from airports nationwide as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) sexually assaults passengers? And yet the subcommittee held hearings March 16 on this grotesque evil, as if either the Constitution or simple decency allow a response other than immediate abolition of the TSA, with swift and severe punishment for its criminals.

You probably suspect by now that Congress has absolutely no intention of pulling the plug on this agency or even of reining it in. Indeed, it cannot: its power is as weak as its will. After years of incubation at the intelligence agencies, the totalitarian, homeland-security government-within-the-government has metastasized for a decade; it's now as unbeatable as the most virulent cancer; the rest of Leviathan either joins it or is devoured by it. And the TSA knows this. It has openly defied Congress with the same impunity with which it flouts the law.

So why bother with a hearing? Photo ops and whitewash, among other benefits. Congress wants us to think it's still in charge, that it has the TSA under control rather than vice versa. And it doesn't hurt for voters to see their representatives whaling away at the national laughingstock everyone hates. Plus, these cowards now have an excuse when constituents complain about gate-rape: "Yes, we feel your pain, so acutely we've held hearings." How many Americans still own enough savvy and gumption to ask, "So what?"

Ergo, this month's charade. Various experts pontificated as did one of the TSA's victims: Sharon Cissna, the state representative from Alaska who famously travelled via small plane, ferry, and car rather than submit to the TSA's molestation. Her story is horrific, something out of Nazi Germany or the gulags of Soviet Russia – and it's tragically typical, too: " Heading into security [at Seattle's airport,]… I suddenly found myself directed … [to the] full-body imaging scan. … A female agent placed herself blocking my passage.  Scan results would again display … my breast cancer and the resulting scars [the TSA had irradiated and then sexually assaulted her 3 months before]….  I would require [sic for 'the TSA would exploit my illness with the'] invasive, probing hands of a stranger over my body. Memories of violation would consume my thoughts again … I began to remember what my husband and I'd decided after the previous intensive physical search.  That I never had to submit to that horror again! … this twisted policy did not have to be the price of flying to Juneau! … as more and more TSA, airline, airport and police gathered, … I repeatedly said that I would not allow the feeling-up and I would not use the transportation mode that required it. … The freedom to travel should never come at the price of basic human dignity and pride."

"Sharon Cissna TSA" turns up some 40,000 hits on Google; AOL News featured the story as did MSNBC, NPR, the Los Angeles Times, and the Miami Herald, among many others. So while sewers are a congresscritter's natural habitat, it's likely even they reverberated with news of the TSA's assault on this citizen. Why listen to it all over again? Yet Our Rulers did – without rushing to horsewhip the TSA's degenerates. Only in government do wusses call themselves men though thugs assail women and children on their watch.

Riding to the rescue were Mr. Rotenberg and EPIC, which has filed no less than five lawsuits against the TSA. At the hearing, "EPIC urged Congress to suspend the use of airport body scanners for primary screening. EPIC said the devices were not effective and were not minimally intrusive, as courts have required for airport searches" – even if the Constitution demands a warrant. "EPIC cited TSA documents obtained in EPIC's FOIA lawsuit which showed that the machines are designed to store and transfer images, and not designed to detect powdered explosives."

No hearing is complete without a defendant. But at the " last minute" the "TSA declined to testify – despite previously confirming through both verbal and written confirmation that they would appear," Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the subcommittee's chairman, complained.

Who knew such appearance was optional? Yo, Jason: subpoena. Then again, Mr. Chair is no doubt uncomfortably aware that the TSA would have snubbed that, too, and in front of the whole country. He eventually capitulated to the agency's orders for a session by itself.

But more astounding than this further evidence of the TSA's contempt for Congress was its excuse: because of EPIC's "multiple lawsuits" against the agency, its administrator, John "The Pervert" Pistole sniffed, " I have strong concerns over the Subcommittee's intention to seat [the TSA's assistant administrators] Mr. [Robin] Kane and Mr. [Lee] Kair alongside a non-governmental witness [Mr. Rotenberg]…" What, do non-governmental witnesses who dare to sue The Pervert's fiefdom have cooties?

So far as I can tell, Mr. Rotenberg boasts a clean record aside from his lawyering and hobnobbing with Congress. He's never sexually assaulted anyone. He doesn't electronically strip unwilling victims to leer at their nakedness. Nor does he rob passengers, brutalize old ladies and survivors of cancer, or torment handicapped children.

No gentleman voluntarily rubs elbows with the TSA's savages. If anyone objected to the seating, it shoulda been Mr. Rotenberg.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers148.html

Obama Speaks

Obama Speaks
Posted by Butler Shaffer on March 28, 2011 08:48 PM

The emperor made a  pathetic effort to rationalize his unilateral attack on Libya by saying "I refused to wait for the images of slaughter."  His words were reminiscent of Condoleezza Rice's earlier unfounded fear image of a "mushroom cloud." If this guy is really troubled by the sight of slaughter, he might want to take a look at such publications as Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, and view the images of American soldiers butchering and decapitating Afghan civilians.

Column on The Taxman (Extortionist) is Coming

Column on The Taxman (Extortionist) is Coming
The Taxer (Extortionist) is Coming
Tibor R. Machan

For most people taxation is a burden that's accepted in large part because they know the alternative is worse. As a friend pointed out, it is like dealing with someone who holds you up in a back alley: "Your money or your life!" To put up a fight can be fatal and up to a point almost everyone can tolerate the loss. But as the economist Arthur Laffer observed, everyone has a point at which no further taxation can be lived with. Kind of like pain–we can all put up with some of it and will not succumb until the level is just too high. But it is never a good thing.

Now there are sadly some prominent folks who claim that this is all as it should be. As Justice Felix Frankfurter reported about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "He did not have a curmudgeon's feelings about his own taxes. A secretary who exclaimed, 'Don't you hate to pay taxes!' was rebuked with the hot response, 'No, young feller. I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.'" (Felix Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court [New York: Atheneum, 1965; originally published by Harvard University Press, 1938, 1961, page 71]) But this is not right at all, despite Holmes' gravitas.

Taxation was the charge the ruler levied on his subjects for being privileged to live and work within the realm that belonged to him (or her). Yes, kings and czars and pharaohs were thought of as the owners of the countries they ruled. So they extorted funds from everyone at the point of the gun or bayonet. It wasn't a free exchange, as between, say, a dentist and a patient. Or even a client and a body guard. No, the king ruled–indeed by some accounts owned–the subjects and confiscated what he chose from them in property and labor, leaving them just enough to survive.

This is what Robin Hood was protesting, by the way, not great wealth. His rebellion was to take back what the taxer took and return it to those who were the victims of taxation. The process of taxation is no peaceful interaction whereby citizens are offered services by their government and pay for it voluntarily, the picture Holmes painted of it. No. Rulers extorted the funds and didn't obtain them in peaceful ways.

Taxation, then, was on par with slavery and serfdom, not with free trade. Once the American idea–learned from the English philosopher John Locke and some predecessors–of natural individual rights to one's life caught on, both serfdom and slavery started to crumble. They lost their moral foundation. And once it was demonstrated that everyone has the right to private property as well, the notion that the monarch owns the country also took a major hit. Sadly, however, all this wasn't taken far enough. It was all a bit too revolutionary, to make it clear that no one owns anyone else, only ones own life and property. Probably in part because that's the only way political thinkers could see their way through to funding the legal services governments were providing–the civilization that Homes was talking about. But that is a bad way to have handled the situation.

As it was realized a bit later, one has no right or isn't entitled to another's life even if one needs that life very much, as, for example, in fighting a war in defense of a country or for harvesting one's crop. For a long time folks put up with conscription in the USA even though it violates the right to one's life. So they also put up with taxation, even though it violates the right to one's labor and property. But it need not be like that in either of those cases: one can pay people to fight or give them other benefits, and an army will arise quickly enough, especially provided the purpose is a just one, not imperialistic adventurism. And one can finance essential legal services without confiscating anyone's private property, mainly by charging a fee for all economic transactions that need the protection of the law. Both these methods avoid coercion. One can avoid service in the military by paying others who are willing to take up arms for a just cause. And one can avoid paying the contract fee by simply relying on a handshake. But in the latter case, few would make that choice since they would be left very insecure in their commercial exchanges. It is best to enter into a binding contract and paying the fee to have it well protected in the law. Moreover, there is plain old human generosity which is far better than extortion any day!

Of course, the details would be very involved. Sadly no one is studying this since public finance is so intimately tied to the system of taxation. But just as the switch from conscription to a volunteer military wasn't impossible, so is the switch from taxation to the contract fee system.

So taxation is by no means the best way to obtain funding for the legal system, quite the contrary, just as any other involuntary service isn't the way to obtain the work of others. It is high time that this is realized and the extortionists sent on their way.


http://bit.ly/h7jP6m

Where Is QE2 Taking Us?

Where Is QE2 Taking Us?
Monday, March 28, 2011
by Robert P. Murphy

Five months into the second round of quantitative easing -- "QE2" -- it is useful to take stock of what it has, and has not, accomplished. In short, the monetary base is way, way up, price inflation is up, long-term interest rates are up, and bank lending is down. QE2 has thus begun to deliver on all the dangers of which the critics warned, but not the alleged benefits.


Defining QE2

On November 3 last year, the Fed satisfied the expectations of many analysts by promising another round of asset purchases:

To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to expand its holdings of securities. The Committee will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings. In addition, the Committee intends to purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month. (emphasis added)

Five months later, we can assess some of the major results so far. Of course, just because something occurred after QE2 doesn't mean it was the result of it, but it will be instructive to test the claims of the Fed's apologists.


The Monetary Base Has Exploded Yet Again

The Fed was true to its word: It promised it would (electronically) print new money with which to buy government bonds, and it did so. The monetary base has once again zoomed upward since the implementation of QE2:



In the chart above, the monetary base (which I define in this article) surges three times: first in late 2008 when the crisis hit, then in March 2009 with the initial round of quantitative easing, and finally in late 2010 with QE2.

The explanation here is quite simple. Since the onset of the crisis, the Federal Reserve has added more than $1.5 trillion in net assets to its balance sheet. Bernanke didn't get the money from his piggy bank. On the contrary, the Fed simply created new electronic money "out of thin air" by writing checks on itself when purchasing the assets.

It is this infusion of new base money that has many people worried about crashing the dollar. In normal times, commercial banks would create new loans of many multiples of the Fed's injections. Defenders of Bernanke say that he can change course on a dime, and that he has several "exit options" available when the time is right, but I have my doubts.


Price Inflation Is on the Rise

The Austrians have a sophisticated critique of central-bank intervention, arguing that it distorts interest rates and the capital structure, fueling the boom-bust cycle plaguing modern market economies. In contrast, when the man on the street learns of Bernanke's unprecedented money-pumping, his immediate fear is "inflation!"

Since the beginning of the Fed's intervention, some prices (such as gold and other commodities) began rising sharply. Over time, the price hikes have filtered out into a broader field. Gasoline prices are currently at a record high for this time of year. The Producer Price Index (PPI) for all commodities grew by 4.8 percent in the four months since QE2 was launched (the latest data are from February), which translates into an annualized increase of about 15 percent. Even the relatively tame Consumer Price Index (CPI) grew by 1.1 percent in the four months after the start of QE2, which works out to an annualized growth rate of 3.6 percent.

Ironically, the people who praise QE2 for "working" simultaneously claim that it raised inflation expectations while not causing inflation (by which they mean "rising prices"). See for yourself in this recent Bloomberg article criticizing Ron Paul:

The next time Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke appears before Congress, here are a few visual aids he can use to show critics that quantitative easing is working:

The Standard & Poor's 500 Index of stocks has climbed 18 percent since he said Aug. 27 that additional asset purchases might be warranted.

The risk premium on high-yield, high-risk bonds has narrowed to 5.16 percentage points from 6.81 percentage points, Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data show.

Inflation expectations have jumped by 44.4 percent. …

So much for 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's assertion that the "dangerous experiment" wouldn't "magically fix economic problems."

Quantitative easing "was a key factor in taking deflation risk off the table," said Peter Hooper, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York. "It certainly helped bolster longer-term inflation expectations. …"

The Fed's Nov. 3 decision to buy $600 billion of Treasury securities through June … sparked the harshest political backlash against the central bank in three decades, with Republican lawmakers warning the additional stimulus risked causing a surge in prices. So far, they were wrong. (emphasis added)

Long-Term Interest Rates Didn't Fall

Although there is some debate among economists over whether a "successful" QE2 would have led to falling or rising interest rates, it's definitely true that the conventional financial-press account runs like this: by buying longer-term bonds, the Fed would push down interest rates even further out on the yield curve, thus providing more stimulus to the economy even as short-term rates were smack against the zero bound.

If that is indeed the rationale for QE2, it's hard to reconcile with the actual course of the yield on 10-year Treasuries, which seemed to do just about the opposite:



As the chart indicates, the yield on 10-year Treasuries was steadily declining until QE2 was launched, at which point it marched steadily upward for several months before dipping again.

It's true that in economics there are always a million things changing simultaneously. For example, the surge in interest rates could reflect investor optimism about economic growth after the election returns (perhaps because they expect a divided government after the Republican shellacking). Or, the budget deal between Republicans and Obama -- with its huge increase in the federal debt ­ may have been the chief culprit in the surge in interest rates.

But even so, it is important to realize that long-term interest rates did not fall after the formal announcement of QE2.


Bank Loans Are Still Falling

We come now to the last (popular) justification for QE2: that it would loosen the credit markets and get banks lending again. Here too the data tell a different story:



As the chart shows, total lending actually peaked in late 2008 (right when TARP and the Fed's "rescue" programs kicked in), and has fallen ever since.

The apparently sharp upswing in early 2010 is an illusion, due to a Fed change in accounting for consumer loans.

Admittedly, if we just focus on business loans, they bottomed out and slowly began rising after QE2 was launched, but the continued decline in consumer loans more than offset this rise.


Conclusion

With job creation remaining scandalously sluggish, and housing sales still on the skids, about the only thing we can say with confidence is that QE2 has stuffed hundreds of billions into the pockets of the friends of Bernanke.



Robert Murphy is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, where he teaches at the Mises Academy. He runs the blog Free Advice and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the Study Guide to Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, the Human Action Study Guide, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, and his newest book, Lessons for the Young Economist.


http://mises.org/daily/5155/Where-Is-QE2-Taking-Us

Consent of the Governed?

By Robert Higgs
Tuesday June 1, 2010

What gives some people the right to rule others? At least since John Locke’s time, the most common and seemingly compelling answer has been “the consent of the governed.” When the North American revolutionaries set out to justify their secession from the British Empire, they declared, among other things:  “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This sounds good, especially if one doesn’t think about it very hard or very long, but the harder and longer one thinks about it, the more problematic it becomes.

One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take ― verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization.

I raise this question because in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends.

Moreover, when we flesh out the idea of “consent of the governed” in realistic detail, the whole notion quickly becomes utterly preposterous. Just consider how it would work. A would-be ruler approaches you and offers a contract for your approval. Here, says he, is the deal.

I, the party of the first part (“the ruler”), promise:

(1) To stipulate how much of your money you will hand over to me, as well as how, when, and where the transfer will be made. You will have no effective say in the matter, aside from pleading for my mercy, and if you should fail to comply, my agents will punish you with fines, imprisonment, and (in the event of your persistent resistance) death.

(2) To make thousands upon thousands of rules for you to obey without question, again on pain of punishment by my agents. You will have no effective say in determining the content of these rules, which will be so numerous, complex, and in many cases beyond comprehension that no human being could conceivably know about more than a handful of them, much less their specific character, yet if you should fail to comply with any of them, I will feel free to punish you to the extent of a law made my me and my confederates.

(3) To provide for your use, on terms stipulated by me and my agents, so-called public goods and services. Although you may actually place some value on a few of these goods and services, most will have little or no value to you, and some you will find utterly abhorrent, and in no event will you as an individual have any effective say over the goods and services I provide, notwithstanding any economist’s cock-and-bull story to the effect that you “demand” all this stuff and value it at whatever amount of money I choose to expend for its provision.

(4) In the event of a dispute between us, judges beholden to me for their appointment and salaries will decide how to settle the dispute. You can expect to lose in these settlements, if your case is heard at all.

 In exchange for the foregoing government “benefits,” you, the party of the second part (“the subject”), promise:

(5) To shut up, make no waves, obey all orders issued by the ruler and his agents, kowtow to them as if they were important, honorable people, and when they say “jump,” ask only “how high?”

Such a deal! Can we really imagine that any sane person would consent to it?

Yet the foregoing description of the true social contract into which individuals are said to have entered is much too abstract to capture the raw realities of being governed. In enumerating the actual details, no one has ever surpassed Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who wrote:

To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.  (P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, trans. John Beverley Robinson. London: Freedom Press, 1923, p. 294)

Nowadays, of course, we would have to supplement Proudhon’s admirably precise account by noting that our being governed also entails our being electronically monitored, tracked by orbiting satellites, tased more or less at random, and invaded in our premises by SWAT teams of police, often under the pretext of their overriding our natural right to decide what substances we will ingest, inject, or inhale into what used to be known as “our own bodies.”

So, to return to the question of political legitimacy as determined by the consent of the governed, it appears upon sober reflection that the whole idea is as fanciful as the unicorn. No one in his right mind, save perhaps an incurable masochist, would voluntarily consent to be treated as governments actually treat their subjects.

Nevertheless, very few of us in this country at present are actively engaged in armed rebellion against our rulers. And it is precisely this absence of outright violent revolt that, strange to say, some commentators take as evidence of our consent to the outrageous manner in which the government treats us. Grudging, prudential acquiescence, however, is not the same thing as consent, especially when the people acquiesce, as I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation.

For the record, I can state in complete candor that I do not approve of the manner in which I am being treated by the liars, thieves, and murderers who style themselves the Government of the United States of America or by those who constitute the tyrannical pyramid of state, local, and hybrid governments with which this country is massively infested. My sincere wish is that all of these individuals would, for once in their despicable lives, do the honorable thing. In this regard, I suggest that they give serious consideration to Seppuku. Whether they employ a sharp sword or a dull one, I care not, so long as they carry the act to a successful completion.

Addendum on “love it or leave it”:  Whenever I write along the foregoing lines, I always receive messages from Neanderthals who, imagining that I “hate America,” demand that I get the hell out of this country and go back to wherever I came from. Such reactions evince not only bad manners, but a fundamental misunderstanding of my grievance.

I most emphatically do not hate America. I was not born in some foreign despotism, but in a domestic one known as Oklahoma, which I understand to be the very heart and soul of this country so far as culture and refinement are concerned. Moreover, for what it is worth, some of my ancestors had been living in North America for centuries before a handful of ragged, starving white men washed ashore on this continent, planted their flag, and claimed all the land they could see and a great deal they could not see on behalf of some sorry-ass European monarch. What chutzpah! I yield to no one in my affection for the Statue of Liberty, the Rocky Mountains, and the amber waves of grain, not to mention the celebrated jumping frog of Calaveras County. So when I am invited to get out of the country, I feel like someone living in a town taken over by the James Gang who has been told that if he doesn’t like being robbed and bullied by uninvited thugs, he should move to another town. To me, it seems much more fitting that the criminals get out.

--

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Search Millions of MLS Listings, Find Local Agents & Expert Advice
http://click.lavabit.com/ax51uxbwufscyh8k7xo49fy3rcbm5ke7bddpceakrdowdriq3iib/

--

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Fwd: another 'who me?' at the bla...er..white house

    This one definitely needs to be investigated.  Of course the admin denies any culpability but if you read the two statements from the Asst AG, the only way they make sense is if the DOJ and its agents are currently lying their a@@es off here.  Just does not make sense any other way to me.  Heads should roll for this program and what it wrought. 

Does this admin take any responsibility for what it has done?  Sure does not seem as if it does.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	another 'who me?' at the bla...er..white house
Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:46:39 -0400 (EDT)
From:	claguerra245@aol.com
To:	Rhomp2002@earthlink.net

Obama Administration Under Mounting Pressure for Botched Gun Trafficking Investigation

By William La Jeunesse

Published March 28, 2011 | FoxNews.com

advertisement

Congress and the Department of Justice appear to be headed for a showdown this week over documents detailing Operation Fast and Furious, the botched gunrunning sting set up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that funneled more than 1,700 smuggled weapons from Arizona to Mexico.

The Justice Department has until Wednesday to deliver to congressional investigators a stack of records and emails naming the individuals responsible for the gun trafficking operation that may have killed dozens, if not hundreds of Mexicans, and is becoming a growing embarrassment for the Obama administration.

Under Project Gunrunner and the Phoenix off-shoot, dubbed Fast and Furious, the ATF encouraged gun store owners to sell to straw buyers -- consumers who they suspected of working on behalf of Mexican drug cartels. 

Project Gunrunner purposely allowed the straw buyers to illegally buy and export guns only to see where they surfaced in Mexico. Using this investigative technique, the ATF hoped to take down the entire gun trafficking organization. Instead, records show it allowed more than 1,700 guns, including hundreds of AK-47s and high-powered, armor-piercing .50-caliber rifles to be trafficked to Mexico

Buying guns for non-personal use is illegal. Yet gun store owners were assured by ATF agents the buyers were under investigation and the guns were being intercepted before crossing into Mexico. 

Instead, whistleblowers say the guns were allowed "to walk." 

President Obama, speaking for the first time about the growing scandal, conceded last week Fast and Furious may have been "a serious mistake," but he claimed, "I did not authorize it; Eric Holder, the attorney general, did not authorize it. He's been very clear that our policy is to catch gunrunners and put them into jail." 

But an investigation by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, could show otherwise. 

The ATF operates under Justice Department, and two assistant U.S. attorneys in Phoenix authorized virtually every wiretap, affidavit and investigation conducted in Operation Fast and Furious. 

Some, like Issa, wonder how Holder could not have known about an investigation that size. 

"One of the questions we always ask is who is lying," Issa told Fox News. "We lose our credibility if we don't come clean and make the changes necessary to save lives on both sides of the border." 

If the Justice Department and ATF refuse to deliver the records Issa requested, as it already has done with similar requests by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Issa can subpoena the records. 

"We will subpoena if we have to, we'll hold hearings if we have to, we'll call in officials if we have to. But at the end of the day, the two Americans likely to have died as a result of this action pale in comparison to the countless numbers of Mexicans who have been killed," said Issa. 

He is referring to Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jamie Zapata. The guns used to kill both men were bought in the U.S. and investigators will now see if they are linked to Project Gunrunner. 

Humberto Trevino, a senior Mexican lawmaker, says at least 150 people have been shot with ATF-monitored guns. 

Two of the gun stores involved were Carter's Country in Houston and J&G Gun Sales in Prescott, Ariz. 

"Let me tell you something about Carter's Country. They have been co-operating with ATF from the get-go," says Carter's County attorney Dick Deguerin. 

"They were told to go through with what they considered to be questionable sales. They were told to go through with sales of three or more assault rifles at the same time or five or more 9-mm guns at the same time or a young Hispanic male paying in cash. It's all profiling, but they went through with it." 

Both gun stores felt burned by the ATF -- first by leaked records to The Washington Post that showed the two stores responsible for dozens of guns found at Mexican crime scenes, and now by Operation Fast and Furious. 

"You assumed they had your back," added J&G President Brad Desaye. "Absolutely, we felt like partners with ATF in a lot of ways." 

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said in a Feb. 4 letter the operation's purpose was "to dismantle the entire trafficking organization, not merely to arrest straw purchasers." 

"The allegation -- that ATF 'sanctioned' or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico -- is false," he wrote.

Holder also says his department policy is not to "let guns walk."

Print    Close

URL

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/28/obama-administration-mounting-pressure-botched-gun-trafficking-investigation/

• Home
• U.S.
• World
• Politics
• Health
• Business
• SciTech
• Entertainment
• Video
• Opinion
• Sports
• Leisure

• Careers
• Internships - FNCU
• Fox Around the World
• RSS Feeds

• Advertise With Us
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Contact Us
• Email Newsroom
• Topics

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. © 2011 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/28/obama-administration-mounting-pressure-botched-gun-trafficking-investigation/#ixzz1HwOroYvP

FTC Expands Censorship Campaign to Radio, Facebook

FTC Expands Censorship Campaign to Radio, Facebook
March 28, 2011 by S.M. Oliva

The Federal Trade Commission stepped up its censorship campaign today against religious and healthcare-related speech it disagrees with. The FTC, backed by the Justice Department, asked a federal court to punish James Feijo and his Christian organization, Daniel Chapter One, for ignoring a previous FTC order restricting their right to engage in free speech. The FTC claimed the right to censor Fejio and Daniel Chapter One because they publicly discuss the use of non-Food and Drug Administration controlled products ­ and religious teachings ­ to treat diseases including cancer. The FTC believes all such speech is exempt from First Amendment protections.

After forcing Fejio and Daniel Chapter One to stand trial before a rigged FTC tribunal, where the outcome was predetermined, a federal appeals court in Washington looked the other way in the face of the Commission's blatant violation of the First Amendment's protections of free speech, association, and religious exercise. The FTC said all of Daniel Chapter One and Fejio's speech would be restricted in the future to those statements the FTC deemed "scientifically" valid ­ in other words, whatever speech the FTC's non-scientist lawyers declared permissible.

In its complaint filed with the US District Court in Washington, the FTC claims Fejio and Daniel Chapter One ignored the censorship order and continued to engage in speech deemed off-limits by Commission lawyers. Fejio apparently hosts a syndicated daily radio program where he discusses his healthcare beliefs and herbal supplements sold by Daniel Chapter One. The program includes call-in segments where he interacts directly with listeners. The FTC claims this is illegal; even discussions between consenting adults are forbidden by the FTC when they touch upon a subject where the Commission has declared itself the sole arbiter of "truth."

The FTC's complaint also charges Daniel Chapter One and Fejio with failing to send a notice mandated by the Commission's prior order ­ coerced speech, in further violation of the First Amendment ­ to customers who purchased supplements from the organization. This notice would contain FTC-mandated speech that contradicted the views and beliefs of Daniel Chapter One and Fejio.

Today's action demonstrates the Commission's increased aggression against free speech. Any website or individual that makes any statements related to healthcare is especially vulnerable, including libertarian websites like Mises.org and LewRockwell.com. The FTC claims an unqualified right to censor any statement that questions FDA-sanctioned "science," irrespective of whether any consumer has been harmed or judged to be the victim of actual fraud. Because the courts do not require the FTC to demonstrate an injury to punish individuals ­ a violation of the Constitution's due process clause, among others ­ virtually every website, radio program, or other form of communication must now be on alert for FTC activity.

In addition to assessing punitive fines against Daniel Chapter One and Fejio for exercising their right to free speech, the FTC also asked the district court for an injunction to censor the defendants' radio program, Facebook page, Yahoo group, online bulletin board, and to prevent them from even linking to materials deemed illegal by Commission attorneys.

Tom Woods Smacks Down Mark Levin on War Powers

Tom Woods Smacks Down Mark Levin on War Powers
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem  
Monday, 28 March 2011 17:14

Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. has taken syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin (picture inset) to task for claiming the President can constitutionally bring the nation to war without the permission of Congress.
Woods argued that Congress has the exclusive power under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to declare war and to make rules for the military. Levin contended that Woods' argument was "utter nonsense." "He refutes nothing I said," Woods concluded in a March 28 column on LewRockwell.com, "and then declares himself the winner."

The Internet exchange began after Levin, a lawyer and former Justice Department official, assailed Representative Ron Paul for his antiwar stance on the U.S. attack on Libya on his radio show March 25:

I want to repeat this for those out there who write stupid stuff and are a little dense because they're advancing a dogma rather than an honest assessment of what our history is. You can see some of these morons on television too. The language was originally "Congress shall make war." The framers rejected that. And instead replaced "make" with "declare." The president of the United States, well, they made him the commander-in-chief. Now why do you think they did those two things? Out of basic logic. They knew it was a dangerous world -- hell they've been in a revolution. And by the way, after the revolution and establishment of our government it wasn't clear still that it would survive given all the threats that we faced.

Levin went on to claim that the President can bring the United States government to war without the permission of Congress, adding that Congress' power over the purse was a sufficient check to presidential war-making. Levin argued: "And as Hamilton pointed out, it's the ultimate power -- the power of the purse." Woods replied:

Here Levin is trying to claim that the power of Congress over warmaking is confined to the power to de-fund presidential wars.  But as long as Levin wants to quote Hamilton, let's quote Hamilton, from Federalist #69:

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies ­ all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."

Hamilton elsewhere says that the president's war powers consist of "the direction of war when authorized or begun."

Well, that's pretty much the opposite of Levin's view.

In response, Levin published several tweets and Facebook status remarks quoting Alexander Hamilton vaguely referring to the President as the body in charge of actually waging war once Congress declares the war, such as this quote from Federalist #74:

Alexander Hamilton: "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government.... It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks."

Levin also published a longer Facebook note claiming that Professor Woods was "cutting and pasting history for a dogma." He wrote:

I'm embarrassed for Woods. He knows I know he's a propagandist on this issue. His misuse of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, and other quotes here and there is politically expedient. There's nothing scholarly about it....

History, facts, experience, and events prove the Left [right] and Paulists wrong, like Woods, but they are true believers so it doesn't matter. Woods would fundamentally alter our constitutional construct respecting war, the executive, and legislative functions, fabricating additional power in Congress -- even authorizing one House of Congress under the War Powers Act to ensure defeat on the battlefield if the battle is not completed in 90 days through a silent veto -- while denuding the commander-in-chief power. Is that what they said at the Constitutional Convention? Is that supported anywhere in our history? Is that how Congress is to legislate under the Constitution? Utter nonsense.

Levin's response was remarkable in one respect:
He failed to cite any language in the Constitution to support his case that the President can make war, and failed to cite any federalist supporter of the U.S. Constitution or any Founding Father who argued the President had the ability to initiate war without the permission of Congress. Woods replied on March 28:

I am accused of misusing the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist, etc., but Levin does not condescend to share any specific examples of this alleged misuse. We are to be satisfied with his ex cathedra pronouncements alone.... And no wonder: there is no evidence for his position at all.

Woods concluded with a challenge to Levin:

Here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article ­ whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.

It's likely that Levin will reply, though he'll be unable to quote any Founding Father who supported presidential war powers. There is none. Based upon the tenor of Levin's radio talk show, the response to Woods' challenge will be abuse rather than genuine argument.

Woods has reportedly said he's willing to debate Levin. But one has to wonder why Levin would ever accept a debate he can't win.

http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6871-tom-woods-smacks-down-mark-levin-on-war-powers

Fwd: NYT PAYWALL

    Gotta love this one.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	NYT PAYWALL
Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:39:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:	claguerra245@aol.com
To:	Rhomp2002@earthlink.net

NYSlimes Pays 40M+ For a Cheesecloth Paywall

Home - by BigFurHat - March 28, 2011 - 14:15 America/New_York - 8 Comments

The NY Times recently went to a paywall structure that doesn't allow its online readers to see full articles without paying a subscription.

They paid upwards of 40 million bucks for this structure. It's been revealed that the "sophisticated"  coding is nothing more than a 4 line masking code that can be removed by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Javascripts.  FORTY MILLION!!!  I LOVE the company that did this to them.

Story via Sweetness and Light From Harvard's Nieman Journalism Lab:

The New York Times paywall is costing the newspaper $40-$50 million to design and construct, Bloomberg has reported.

And it can be defeated through four lines of Javascript…

The full text of [any Times] article is still visible in the page source… [T]he overlay is nothing more than a little CSS and Javascript.

Unfortunately for the Times, there are plenty of popular (or popular-among-nerds) tools that tactically remove little bits of CSS and Javascript. There's Greasemonkey, there's Stylish — not to mention the ease with which a browser extension in Firefox, Chrome, or Safari can be built to strip out code…

(the fisking below was performed by Mr. Gilbert at Sweetness and Light)

Hilariously, this article goes on to suggest that even though the New York Times spent $40 to $50 million dollars erecting this 'paywall,' they intended it to be easily defeated:

And yet this workaround is so blindingly obvious to anyone who's ever worked with code that it's difficult to imagine it didn't come up in the paywall planning process. The other major news paywalls — WSJ, FT, The Economist — don't actually send the entire forbidden article to your browser, then try cover it up with a couple lines of easily reversible code. They just hit you with a message saying, in effect, "Sorry, pay up here" whenever you stray past the free zone…

[The Times] can afford to let nerds game your system. [The Times] probably want them to game your system, because they (a) are unlikely to pay, (b) generate ad revenue, and (c) are more likely to share your content than most…

Only the Solons at Harvard school for journalism could concoct such a laughable theory when the truth is so painfully obvious.

The Times screwed up. Big time.

Coming Soon To A Town Near You : New Taser Can Strike Suspect 100 Feet Away

Coming Soon To A Town Near You

---

New Taser Can Strike Suspect 100 Feet Away
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/27/new-taser-can-strike-suspect-100-feet-away.html?sid=101

"The Taser X12 shoots wireless cartridges that travel about 1,000 feet per second, officials said. The projectiles are similar in size and shape to traditional shotgun shells."
--

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Strip-Searched Twice Over Warrant For Already Paid Traffic Fine

Court Doesn't Say If It Will Hear NJ Man's Appeal
http://www.fox12idaho.com/Global/story.asp?S=14331610

"Albert Florence was strip-searched twice in seven days in two New Jersey jails after he was arrested on a warrant for a traffic fine he had already paid."

--

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Strip-Searched Twice Over Warrant For Already Paid Traffic Fine

Court Doesn't Say If It Will Hear NJ Man's Appeal
http://www.fox12idaho.com/Global/story.asp?S=14331610

"Albert Florence was strip-searched twice in seven days in two New Jersey jails after he was arrested on a warrant for a traffic fine he had already paid."

--

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Pics and toons 3/28/11 (5)

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 3/28/11 (4)

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 3/28/11 (3)

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 3/28/11 (2)

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 3/28/11 (1)

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.