Multiple Government Agencies Are Keeping Records Of Your Credit Card Transactions

Were you under the impression that your credit card transactions are private?  If so, I am sorry to burst your bubble.  As you will see below, there are actually multiple government agencies that are gathering and storing records of your credit card transactions.  And in turn, those government agencies share that information with other government agencies that want it.  So if you are making a purchase that you don't want anyone to know about, don't use a credit card.  This is one of the reasons why the government hates cash so much.  It is just so hard to track.

Any trades in cash thwart the government's efforts to track private exchanes. Rightly so, as no external party has any right to the details of those exchanges. 

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Intelwar/~3/lkVMCcTd_LE/

The 5 Richest Cabinet Members of All Time

No. 5: W. Averell Harriman, commerce secretary, 1947-48 Estimated wealth in current dollars: $841 million Harriman earned his money the old-fashioned way: He inherited most of it from his father, E.H. Harriman, founder of the Union Pacific Railroad. No. 4: William C. Whitney, Navy secretary, 1885-89 Estimated wealth in current dollars: $1.1 billion Whitney came into his money via political 

Big business meets big government, though separating the two is nearly impossible, and both thrive at the expense of those at the bottom. Want to change things? Stop calling on the government to fix problems the government creates (corporations are government manifestations). State-capitalism is the same as fascism, which is the cousin of socialism. All of these forms of coercive social order fail eventually. We have to learn to let go before we can heal as a culture. 

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/economicpolicyjournal/YZSb/~3/lpvPBiIWWMs/the-5-richest-cabinet-members-of-all.html

Clinton gets a Major Award

Jeb Bush will present Hillary Clinton with the 2013 Liberty Medal this fall in Philadelphia. 

It could be an awkward encounter for the two, both of whom are mentioned as 2016 presidential nominees for their respective parties. 

I think that the nature of Clinton is what leaves most outside of the far Left wondering how she could be deserving of any tribute from anyone other than another politician.

Bush, the former Republican governor of Florida, is chairman of the National Constitution Center, which is giving Clinton the award in honor of her career in public service and her advocacy efforts on behalf of women.

Read more: Jeb Bush to give award to Hillary Clinton - The Hill's Ballot Box

Nice words, though they ring hollow when one considers what Clinton's actions rather than words amount to.

Snowden would be better off in Cuba

Cuba makes sense, as they have a long history of refusing to work with the US on most issues. Snowden likely has little intelligence to share with a foreign agency, so his asylum would probably be likely in a country with a proven record of non-compliance. 

Full interview: 

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/william-blum-snowden-would-be-better-off-in-cuba-chance-of-coup-detat-is-much-less

Arizona Voters Look To Recall Sens.

The site originally started with a singular goal to recall Jeff Flake but due to popular demand they decided to add John McCain to their hit list.

Senator Jeff Flake is not representing Arizona voters, conservatives, or American citizens, even though he is our employee and ran under the Republican ticket.

Getting rid of McCain would be a major positive effort to restore sanity to Congress, given the horrible legislation he has left in his wake. 

More: http://www.dailypaul.com/290480/arizona-voters-look-to-recall-sens

Texas Attorney General Enacts Voter ID Law

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wasted no time after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act today. The Lone Star AG implemented Texas' voter ID law immediately.

"With today's decision, the State's voter ID law will take effect immediately," Abbott announced. "Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government."

The Dallas Morning News, in noting Abbott's decision, called the state's voter ID "controversial." It's anything but, at least outside the far left and the media. It's a law the vast majority of Texans have wanted to put in place for years to secure the state's elections from fraud. Roughly 80% of Texans across all ethnicities support requiring voter ID to vote. 

As little faith as I have for voting, I do find it funny that those in opposition to IDs for voting might be in support of folks who may not be able to acquire an ID due to citizenship status. Just saying...

The Obama administration has consistently militated against states' authority to set their own election laws, and has specifically fought requirements to produce proof of identity at the polls. That should be controversial, not the fact that the state's attorney general is implementing a law that the majority wants and which has already passed muster.

More: 

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/25/texas-attorney-general-enacts-voter-id-law-immediately-after-scotus-voting-rights-act-decision/

Trump Suggests Just Killing Edward Snowden

Once again, Trump presents another reason he is irrelavent. He calls for the execution of a nonviolent conscientious objector to the unconstitutional actions of the American regime. Yeah, he's more a hero than a traitor, since a patriot would be outspoken about the violations of law by those representing the people. 

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/economicpolicyjournal/YZSb/~3/fhha8Nx8TT0/donald-trump-thinks-extradition-process.html

I really hope no one ever seriously considers supporting Trump for public office again. His views are no worse than Obama or Bush, but he might be more unstable. 

Government Transparency through Technology

What's this? A national security official lying to Congress? Thanks to the Internet Archive, repurposed closed-captions, and the Knight Foundation, this sort of blatant abuse of authority becomes public knowledge, disseminated through modern technology. 

http://archive.org/details/CSPAN_20130313_050000_Capitol_Hill_Hearings#start/4624/end/4654

Minimum Wage Laws and Full Service Stations

Does anyone remember full service stations? A generation or two ago, you were able to drive your car or truck to the service station and when you pulled in, a kid would come out and pump your gas, wash your windows, and maybe even check the fluids and tire pressure. Usually, these were kids with little to no skills that employers valued, so they earned little more than the experience that comes from working, rather like an internship. Jeffrey Tucker even says that we should work for free to gain skills, and I'm inclined to see the reason in the argument. If they earned any wages, they were minimal, but the skills gained helped them gain value over time to employers. These jobs were stepping-stones that those without the means to gain an expensive education could use to work their way to better paying jobs.

Minimum wage laws drove up costs to station operators, and full service stations faded into history. Politicians sought votes, and they promised that those at the low end of the pay scale, even those without skills valued in the market, would be able to "earn" higher wages through these interventionist price controls. Kids without marketable skills took jobs like these and learned basic skills that they could carry into better jobs in the future. They earned very low wages because they offered little skill, and these wage laws have a disproportionate effect of increasing youth unemployment at an even greater rate (are these laws discriminatory?). Minimum wage laws price basic jobs like this out of the market, effectively prohibiting employment below a subjective wage rate, leading to higher unemployment. Minimum wage laws can set minimum wage rates, but have no ability to guarantee employment at a higher, more competitive level where fewer jobs exist.

Today, states like Oregon and New Jersey force gas stations to hire pump attendants, believing that this will lower the unemployment rate. All this does is to reduce the number of these jobs available, since higher input costs lower the opportunity for this type of work. . The more expensive employees become, the fewer of them that employers demand, instead demanding higher productivity out of a smaller workforce. Minimum wage laws, as Murray Rothbard noted, lead to compulsory unemployment.

Wage Controls and Unemployment

Walter Block on wage controls from The Case for Discrimination:

"Further, any proposal that artificially raises the salaries of a given calling beyond its productivity level threatens it with unemployment. But equal pay enactments are always couched in terms of raising female incomes, never reducing those of males."

What this means is that when wages for a given service are artificially raised, the demand required for that increased input factor are absent, and the resulting decline in demand due to higher market costs will lead to, among other things, increased unemployment.

It is at times depressing, that so many downtrodden, or simply naively optimistic, still believe that such intervention can have sustainable benefits. The reality is that rent seeking efforts tend to have short shelf lives.

Political Ignorance

Politicians think we're idiots. There's not much more to it.

We know how to regulate ourselves for the most part, and we should never discourage that ability as our posterity relies on our ability to persevere through tomorrow. Public officials, government representatives. They say we need them. They say things are better with a ruling class, an oligarchy. Some of the sheeple believe this, thoroughly indoctrinated (cognitively intoxicated on the propaganda).

They think we need them, need to obey them. They make laws, tell us laws keep us from doing bad things. They start telling us everything is bad, that they must help us by regulating everything we do, for our own good, of course. Nevermind that government does not exist. These people have never shared a bed with reason.

If I spend too much relative to what I make, I know eventually it will catch up with me. Never fails. It is self-inflicted. When government does it, how is it any better? Collective ignorance is no less connected to individual ignorance. When government spending outstrips its revenues, coupled with a dollar near the end of it's inflated half-life,  leaves us watching and thinking why it hasn't collapsed already?

Letting go...

Brash Obama Rush to Judgement

Despite no inclination to the motivations of the suspected Boston bombers, Obama seems more than willing to make assumptions and display double standards regarding motivations:

One thing we do know is that whatever hateful agenda drove these men to such heinous acts will not — cannot — prevail. Whatever they thought they could ultimately achieve, they've already failed. They failed because the people of Boston refused to be intimidated. They failed because, as Americans, we refused to be terrorized. They failed because we will not waver from the character and the compassion and the values that define us as a country. Nor will we break the bonds that hold us together as Americans.

Fortunately, while the lamestream media remained silent, witnesses were using technology to remind us why traditional media is nearly irrelevant and dead. Reactions by law enforcement and media were to threaten independent reporters and fire up the spin cycle, twisting the facts to support the official story.

That sounds like great advice.  Too bad nobody gave it to the whiny hyper-partisan Barack Obama who had an emotional meltdown in front of the cameras when his push for gun control legislation failed.  He certainly didn't have any trouble "jumping to conclusions" and making a "rush to judgment" about the "motivations of the individuals" who opposed him.

Fortunately, supporters of Obama and the anti-rights gun control lobby are relying on ever-declining emotional support. As the facts about gun control become more apparent, just as legitimacy of state (mainstream) media is in decline, the population begins to see that gun control is about control and guns are a sidebar. The debate has little to do with facts, and even poster children like Giffords are less that convincing, since numerous laws were on place that should have prevented her own tragedy if laws actually prevented crime.

No rational argument for gun control is advanced by the likes of Obama or Giffords.  Their entire case rests on scurrilous presumptions about the motives of those who oppose them.  They deny the very possibility of reasoned disagreement.  

Obama's philosophy treats his political enemies far more harshly than the heavily-armed and murderous enemies of the American people.

"Obama's rush to judgment" http://feedly.com/k/10q5wQ4

Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens

This reminds me of the South Park bit, where hunting was prohibited except for self defense, and hunters would yell out "it's coming right at me" before striking out against an innocent victim:

"[t]he 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration's most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes."

More:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass

Any violation of the nonaggression principle is a moral deficiency, something the Obama regime displays regularly. 

Corn, corn, and more corn

Drinking a Manzanita soda with a Starlite vodka from texas, I can't help but laugh at the fact that, by Michelle Obama's new food standards, my spiked soda is now a vegetable. The Apple-flavored pop is corn-sweetened with high fructose corn syrup and the vodka is yellow corn and wheat distilled seven times. 

Rock out with the government intervention...

Free Market Healthcare and Mutual Insurance

The economic results of government intervention are quite well observed and documented. When the government steps into a market through regulation, it's public "intentions" may be to help increase access to a service, or to drive down costs to make certain goods and services available at costs more affordable to a wider section of the consumers, but those goals often have unintended consequences for which those who study economics can see all too well. The deadweight loss created by intervening in the functions of natural market forces is blatant, difficult to refute or ignore, but when the problems are created by intervention by the state, how can further or expanded intervention reverse that course?

The Cato Institute asked and answered that very question a few years ago, back when the public was thinking that it would be better to plunder our fellow citizens to fund our own health care. Somehow, the idea that theft is bad was shelved for a while, and we were fed that line from the government. Plunder is still immoral, even when we allow someone with guns to do so with our consent. We are still accepting spoils of violence. 

It is increasingly obvious that government solutions to health care are not effective. People often find market outcomes appealing. Proponents of free markets in health care should work to make the most persuasive case for real reform and to achieve incremental reforms where possible. 

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2011/1/cj31n1-2.pdf

What we need is a true free market in health care and mutual fund insurance, which has historically shown a tendency to drive costs down and accessibility up, something that socialized services fail miserably to do on all counts. 

Or we could just stick our heads in the sand and believe that the state will come to our rescue and save us from the big bad capitalists. 

Today, we are constantly being told, the United States faces a health care crisis. Medical costs are too high, and health insurance is out of reach of the poor. The cause of this crisis is never made very clear, but the cure is obvious to nearly everybody: government must step in to solve the problem.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society. Fraternal societies (called "friendly societies" in Britain and Australia) were voluntary mutual-aid associations. Their descendants survive among us today in the form of the Shriners, Elks, Masons, and similar organizations, but these no longer play the central role in American life they formerly did. As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.) Fraternal societies were particularly popular among blacks and immigrants. (Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt's famous attack on "hyphenated Americans" was motivated in part by hostility to the immigrants' fraternal societies; he and other Progressives sought to "Americanize" immigrants by making them dependent for support on the democratic state, rather than on their own independent ethnic communities.)

http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

Or maybe government didn't help after all...

House Republicans Celebrate New Year By Allowing Violence Against Women Act To Die

It's all about hownthe media spin the story, not whether it has any merit:

Even after taking heavy losses in the 2012 Election, including a clear rejection by women voters, Republicans still refused to protect women and children.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/03/house-republicans-celebrate-new-year-by-allowing-violence-against-women-act-to-die/

Isn't it rather redundant that while we already have morality to cover issues of violence and coercion, and that violence general is prohibited (yet not prevented) by the state, further convolution through the law to prohibit specific types of violence already prohibited on the general level is ineffective, but does gain political capital with those intended to benefit from the Law. If the law benefits some disproportionately or at the expense of others (legal plunder), then the law must be abolished, in the words of Bastiat: 

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

In the political theater, opposition tonal which protects or benefits some perceived minority or subset of society is seen through the lens of media as an affront to that subset. This perception of discrimination no less unsubstantiated it than belief in a deity makes it exist. And since "discrimination" is merely the act of making informed choices, we should choose to abandon bad laws in favor of morality and reason. A system of law lacking reason is none on which to base social justice.

As usual, the market will find a natural balance, and those who discriminate against women will find themselves losing the long run. If the law intends to protect women and children, rest assured that it will have the adverse effect of penalizing and oppressing that segment of society.

More Fiscal Cliff BS

Krauthammer proves he does not fully understand the debt crisis, and says that the "fiscal cliff" is a "complete surrender on everything," but compromise on such an important economic issue isn't what we need to correct an economic downturn caused by intervention by the state. The disproportionate lack of spending cuts when compared to tax increases only shows the inherent lack of commitment by those in public office. As usual, career politicians have little concern to be accountable for their actions, especially when the tax eaters are living at the expense of the tax producers. 

How can anyone seriously thinking about overwhelming debt and spending believe that simply increasing the burden on taxpayers will address the underlying issue; increases in public spending. It's like taking Tylenol for cancer; it doesn't address anything other than a minor symptom. Want to get serious about the national debt and deficit spending? Cut spending by a third, and cut taxes as well. 

Texans Against Senator John Cornyn

Anyone else think it's time to see senator Cornyn removed as Texas representative? His recent support for the "fiscal cliff" compromise shows me that he enjoys spending other people's money and would rather see taxes increase so that he can continues to do without regard to that unsustainable path. Cornyn would rather ignore the realistic idea that cutting spending creases deficits, while raising taxes only increases the national debt. How can anyone so ignorant of economic principles be allowed to make fiscal choices on behalf of anyone else? There is nothing bipartisan about what politicians are doing today in regards to responsibility in government, and voting them out is one effective way to make a change in the state.

More:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Texans-Against-John-Cornyn

At least, with Cornyn and Pelosi holding hands-on this "compromise," we don't have to pass the billet see what's in it...

Texans Against Senator John Cornyn

Anyone else think it's time to see senator Cornyn removed as Texas representative? His recent support for the "fiscal cliff" compromise shows me that he enjoys spending other people's money and would rather see taxes increase so that he can continues to do without regard to that unsustainable path. Cornyn would rather ignore the realistic idea that cutting spending creases deficits, while raising taxes only increases the national debt. How can anyone so ignorant of economic principles be allowed to make fiscal choices on behalf of anyone else? There is nothing bipartisan about what politicians are doing today in regards to responsibility in government, and voting them out is one effective way to make a change in the state.

More:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Texans-Against-John-Cornyn

At least, with Cornyn and Pelosi holding hands-on this "compromise," we don't have to pass the billet see what's in it...