her salary.
Another green energy sinkhole. This one eating money since Jimmy Carter, too.
Over in Britain, the question now is will anything be done about the people who knew what this bastard was doing, and did nothing?
And DHS makes another stab into our lives:
Transit authorities in cities across the country are quietly
installing microphone-enabled surveillance systems on public buses that
would give them the ability to record and store private conversations,
according to documents obtained by a news outlet.
The systems are being installed in San Francisco, Baltimore, and
other cities with funding from the Department of Homeland Security in
some cases, according to the Daily, which obtained copies of contracts, procurement requests, specs and other documents.
The use of the equipment raises serious questions about eavesdropping
without a warrant, particularly since recordings of passengers could be
obtained and used by law enforcement agencies.
"Warrant? We don't need no stinkin' warrant, we're FEDS!"
Speaking of feds, some people want to know what the EPA has been saying in their violation-of-regs secret e-mail accounts set up to get past the law.
I've only flown a couple of times, and since I don't like the idea of being either irradiated or groped by TSA I won't again unless I have to; I'll have to make sure, in that case that it's not on Delta Airlines. That this crap happened at all is horrible; that they're trying to just make it go away instead of doing something is disgusting.
Bitched about the 'theft under color of law' that is the death tax yesterday; this time it's the all too often nothing-but-theft-under-color-of-law known as asset forfeiture:
In a decision filed last month, Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini called the state’s civil asset forfeiture law “state-sanctioned theft” and ordered a lower court to re-examine a recent forfeiture case in Centre County. Though the state is expected to appeal the ruling, Pellegrini’s decision may set a new precedent for these types of cases, making it more difficult for the state to seize private property believed to have been used in a crime and guaranteeing defendants the chance to be heard in court before property is taken.
"That woman doesn't like my album cover! She's a RACIST!" Etc. ad nauseum, lather, rinse, repeat. With fans throwing in actual racist comments, the usual.
Yeah, put this in a tax bill and send it to Obama:
If the country is going to turn redistributionist, then we might as well
do so whole-hog — given that eight of the wealthiest ten counties in
America voted for Obama. Why not limit mortgage-interest deductions to
just one loan under $100,000 — while ending tax breaks altogether for
second and third vacation houses?
...
Clinton administration apparatchiks such as Jamie Gorelick, James
Johnson, and Franklin Raines — without much banking experience — reaped
millions of dollars working at Fannie Mae as it went nearly bankrupt. If
you leave government and immediately make more than $1 million, why not
pay a 50 percent tax on your income for five years — given that
“somebody else made that happen”? Why does Google have tax havens in the
Caribbean, and why do six-figure-income college presidents have their
taxes paid by their universities?
And now the library calls, so I'm off.
Shut up, Og.
7 comments:
Yes, I'd vote for that tax bill, even though I live in one of the $%^&*@# counties that voted for Teh Won, and I have a mortgage with an amount over $100,000.
It would be like calling the artillery down on my own coordinates, because clearly, Charlie's inside the wire, and the situation is going to hell with distressing acceleration.
The BBC Kiddy fiddler raises interesting questions.
Predatory kiddy fiddlers position themselves with easy access to children and in a position of influence over them.
The first bunch to be found and cleared out were sports and swimming coaches - they had easy access authority over kids, but no authority in the wider community.
Next prominent bunch were priests, excellent access to kids, and authority over them, but as they lost their authority over the wider community, so they were cleared out.
Saville's sordid tale has only been brought into the open since the critter died.
While he was bringing in viewers for BBC (state) propaganda and memetics, he was protected, same for his fund raising for hospitals (also state sector).
There are tales of some journalists who were onto him, but were scared off - were they going to jeopardise all the "good work" Saville was doing for the (likely false)story of one disturbed kid from a known problem family?
If the BBC is looked into, we can bet that it will be a stalinist purge of those whose faces and views don't fit, and a whole bunch of them will likely be totally innocent.
The cadre members will be safe and sound, regardless of the number of children they rape.
Think also of the other areas which give access to children but which have excellent political cover:
State sector social services
Politicians
Police
Police especially - to resist a pig's advances could easily become "assaulting an officer" or "resisting arrest"
Grigg did a piece a couple of weeks back on exactly that point with cops.
Hell will freeze over before any of those state sector dens of paedophiles sees the disinfectant of daylight
As a sort of follow up
I watched the American make of "The Girl with the dragon tattoo" a few days back.
The Author, Stieg Larsson was a committed revolutionary communist, having trained terrorists in Eritrea, his will (successfully contested by his family) left all to the revolutionary communist party.
Despite his advocacy for a total state to be violently imposed on all, and his personal work in investigating the racist national socialists...
His character portrayals of those within the state does show the corrupting power available to them:
The girl's new state guardian, using his position to coerce blow jobs and then raping her
In later books, her father, protected as he abused her -because of his value to the state
State intelligence officers using their position corruptly.
If only Larsson had read Murray Rothbard; he'd probably have made a very effective libertarian.
I'd better qualify my comment about Larsson's investigative work with national socialists,
How the hell did he not realize that they are just another variety of socialist?
Their violence being directed at race rather than economic productivity,
after that, their ideal state is just as murderously coercive, just as intrusive into every facet of life.
State is an institution of violence, and the smaller and less active it is, the better, and best of all if it disappears completely.
Luton: Because he believed what socialists said they intended to do rather than looking at the actual results. I guess it's time for my little essay on the fascist/socialist family feud again:
Leftists like to pretend that Mussolini and his disciples were at the opposite extreme from their own positions, but in practice there were only two significant differences between Mussolini's system and Communism:
1. Economically, fascists were less extreme and less impractical. Communists murdered the owners, and then were amazed that no one knew how to run the factories and shipping firms. Fascists left the owners in nominal control, but heavily taxed (as well as strongly encouraged to give a piece of their business to someone influential in the Party), heavily regulated, and kept scared of what might happen if it was concluded that they weren't serving the Party and their country. Such regimes still hold back economic growth, but (unlike Russia under the Bolsheviks) not badly enough to *immediately* have people starving.
2. Fascism avoided much of the cognitive dissonance required of leftists by inverting much of the value system. Leftists, progressives, and new "liberals" exalt freedom and equality while promoting a system that produces a privileged elite and enslaved masses; fascists say that it's right for the strong to oppress the weak. (There's still a lie buried there - fascist elites rise not from superiority, but from being sociopathic thugs in a society of people too good to fight back in kind - but it's smaller and easier to keep buried than the contradictions of leftism.) Leftists abhor war, but somehow it always becomes necessary. Fascists exalt war. Leftists abhor violence within their society, but somehow it becomes necessary to drive tanks over those protestors. Fascists know they keep power by violence. Leftists pretend to promote individual freedom, but actually classify people into groups and deal with the alleged leaders of these groups rather than individuals; fascism is all about group membership, and fascists openly denigrate individualists. Leftists, liberals, and progressives think they are for the little guy, but promote regulations that hurt small businesses far more than large corporations. "Corporatism" was Mussolini's alternate name for his system.
To be continued...
But wait you say, what about 6 million Jews? Murderous antisemitism was something Hitler and other German antisemites grafted onto fascism, not an inherent part of fascism. Just a few years after Hitler's military placed Franco into power, the ungrateful fascist bastard not only refused to join in Hitler's war, but (unlike the UK and USA) he sheltered every Jew who managed to escape across the border. And this in a country which had been Judenfrei since 1492. Mussolini still needed Hitler, so he had to give up a few Jews, but rounding them up was never a priority for his government. Finally, a consul for Hitler's other ally Japan (not exactly fascist, but not much different) rescued some thousands of Jews. As Hitler's armies (followed by extermination squads neared Moscow, this consul handed out visas as fast as he could sign them, giving the recipients a chance to buy a ticket on the trans-Siberian railroad and then catch a boat to Japan.
Also, there was plenty of antisemitism among the Soviets. Jews weren't officially targeted merely for being Jews, but being a Jew could amplify the slightest suspicion into a trip to the concentration camps. Several million Jews must have died in the gulags - why do the Communists get a pass because they murdered tens of millions of non-Jews also? Or to put it another way, how important is it that the Nazi camps killed most of their prisoners by design, while the Soviet camps killed most of their prisoners "accidentally" by neglect and abuse?
But the really bad news is, we've had a government of "liberal fascists" at least since Hoover (who, contrary to liberal/progressive/leftist lies, intervened far more deeply in the economy than any previous American government - so a depression that should have run it's cycle and recovered in 1930-31 instead lasted several more years, giving FDR time to find ways to extend it to over a decade long). Sometime between 1928 and 1944, the questions dominating politics became not whether or not the government should run your life and pick your pocket to pay off favored interests, but rather of the balance between sticking their noses into your bedroom and their hands into your pocket. Every President since 1929 had a corporatist philosophy and acted like the people were to serve them instead of vice-versa. ("Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.")
Mark M,
Do you visit the Mises.org site?
we could do with people like you who actually understand what fascism and national socialism are, to help prevent the trolls getting a free run in the daily comments.
we could also do with some intelligent trolls to practice on, but that certainly wasn't directed at you.
One thing to be careful of, their policy was "corporativism" where industries were cartelized and came under full control of the state central planner, who dictated what was to be made, how much was to be paid for the inputs, how much was to be made, by whom, paid what, and sold for what.
The owners and managers were in name alone, full control and disposal of the industry was in the hands of the state central planner
Post a Comment