The Elizabeth Warren Hype Escalates

This past April I wrote an article suggesting we would begin to see Elizabeth Warren touted in the news as a 2016 Democrat Presidential nominee favorite, and viable alternative to Hillary Clinton.

But why bring up this old issue of the insulting statements made by the President and one random Senator? Because this “random Senator” is shaping up to “pull an Obama” in 2016. Remember how you had never heard of Obama, and then all of the sudden the freshman Senator from Illinois was the President? He had not even been a Senator for 4 years when he was elected President, and the media made a bigger deal about the Republican Vice Presidentialcandidate’s short tenure as Governor of Alaska. The 2008 election was not about women, it was about race. And anyway, conservative women are not victims of the “war on women”.

It was all about race. If you didn’t like Obama, well you were just harboring racist feelings. And its not Fast and Furious, or the refusal to prosecute black panthers, or his career as a Wall Street defense attorney, or his investigations of reporters that made you dislike Attorney General Eric Holder, its just because he is black. But that card has been warn out over the past 6 years, and the “war on women” rhetoric has heated up. This strategy is out of the same playbook:make the establishment seem anti-establishment by playing the victim. A vote for Obama was “a vote against racism”. And this time around the Democratic nominee will garner “votes against sexism”. And naturally the pick would be Hillary Clinton; after all she is crazy far ahead in the polls, a strong independent woman, and everyone knows her name.

But there’s a hushed buzz running through the Democratic party and liberal circles that suggests Elizabeth Warren could “pull an Obama”, come out of nowhere and be the next President before we know what hit us. This is what happened with Obama and the media love fest surrounding him, and drowning out any critics. The old cry from the sheep herd of “four legs good, two legs bad” had turned into “four legs good, two legs better” within just a few nights. His lack of experience was not a concern, even though Palin (again the media focus being on the GOP Vice Presidential candidate) had more executive experience than Obama.

Now, 3 months later, when “Elizabeth Warren” is searched on Google news, 8 of the first 10 articles are about a potential run for President in 2016 by the Senator from Massachusetts. It just seems strange to me that Democrats are so eager to pick first term Senators for their Presidential nominees.

My main problem with Warren is her typical politician dishonesty, as well as her outright hatred for the free market, and indeed businesses in general. Her attitude is that government solves problems, government is the only way to grow the economy, and that since people are bad we need to keep them in check with a government made up of people.

I’m not sure “the people” pick the President anymore. The media pretty much take their orders from above, and turn that into public opinion. People think that Warren would reign in Wall Street, but that is absurd! The only reason Wall Street has power is because they are in a crony capitalist relationship with the government. And Warren’s solution is more government regulation! I don’t understand how people could be so naive.

That’s why the only reason I would support a Presidential candidate is if I actually think they would reduce the size of government, and the power government has over our lives. If there is someone who would deescalate the police state, stop nation building, and make the market free by taking subsidies, grants, bailouts, and loans off the table, I would support them. But I am starting to think that might be too much to hope for in this day and age.

Is Obama Administration Incompetent or Subversive?

Sometimes it is hard to figure out if the Obama administration is full of children or power-whores. It is probably a little of both. When Obama flouts congressional approval and breaks the law in not informing them before Guantanamo detainees are released in a trade for a US prisoner, it seems like Obama is concentrating power in the executive branch. When Susan Rice says they did not negotiate with terrorists because Qatar was the intermediary, it seems like a sixth grade debate club. And actually, I shouldn’t insult sixth graders like that.

But seriously Susan Rice? That’s like saying, “no I didn’t talk to him, I just called him on the phone and we conversed”. But the thing that surprises me most is that the Obama administration still somehow sends Susan Rice to do their explaining. Is that like some inside joke in the White House? Does no one really like poor Susan so they send her on TV and all crowd around with popcorn in the Oval office to laugh at her as she stumbles through a defense of admin policy?

So the US didn’t negotiate with terrorists because they told Qatar what to say to the terrorists, and then the terrorists told Qatar what to say to us. Okay. But it gets even more child-like when Susan Rice is asked why the administration broke the law in not informing congress about the prisoner swap.

And when asked why the administration failed to notify Congress about the Guantanamo Bay prison transfer despite U.S. law requiring the administration to notify Congress 30 days in advance of any transfer of prisoners from the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, she said it was because they were worried it would jeopardize the deal.

So Rice and the administration were afraid that congressmen exercising their oversight might object to the release of five battle-hardened terrorists and suspected war criminals, or that the deal could leak.

I didn’t ask my parents if I could go to the party, because I was afraid they would say no. Oh, okay, no problem then.

And it is another whole debate on the merits of trading this particular serviceman, who many claim was a deserter (even though Rice referenced him being captured “on the battlefield”) who got other American soldiers killed directly when they were searching for him, and indirectly when combat operations were diverted to assist with locating him. Then it seems a little sketchy that his dad says he has been working to free all the Guantanamo detainees, and thanked Allah in Arabic for the release of his son.

And the saddest part is that no one is even surprised anymore. Whether it is incompetence or willful disregard for America and her safety, this administration is just a scandal factory, pumping out lie after poor decision after cover-up. And these are just the ones we know about.

Media Subtley Shapes Our Views, even when it isn’t obvious

When Democrats criticized Bush for real failures, for instance when then Senator Barack Obama said, “After seven years of an Administration that has stretched our military to the breaking point, ignored deplorable conditions at some VA hospitals, and neglected the planning and preparation necessary to care for our returning heroes, America’s veterans deserve a President who will fight for them not just when it’s easy or convenient, but every hour of every day for the next four years”, those Democrats were just looking out for the best interests of Americans, out of real concern. But Republicans pointing out failures of President Obama want only to selfishly “use the incidents at the hospitals as fodder for a broader political theme about incompetence in his administration”.

In this example it is subtle, but the media relentlessly molds their message to portray Republicans negatively. Otherwise, this would simply be Republicans rightfully criticizing Obama for failures in Veterans Affairs which caused Veterans to die while the buck stops at Obama. But Democrats have real concern for women’s health, and gay rights, and reducing violence–unlike those damn Republicans who just want to score political points! How shameful, using dead Veterans as “fodder” for an election! When Democrats used dead children as fodder for elections, they really cared.

Watch most mainstream news stations and read mainstream articles, and when you look for it, you see it. Democrats” concerns are given real attention, while Republican concerns are always cast as what is best for politics and winning elections. But I am not so much defending Republicans as condemning the media–both Republicans and Democrats shamelessly use terrible government actions as fodder for their re-election, and both Republicans and Democrats from time to time have real concern for the citizens if the US. And I don’t claim to know which one this case represents, and it is probably different for each individual offering criticism of the President.

But one thing I do know is that the media will relentlessly portray Republicans as selfishly acting out of political prudence, and Democrats selflessly acting for the greater good. The real story here is that politics is broken, and the government is incompetent. The Veterans need to be taken care of, because that was the deal when they put themselves in harms way. But to turn around and have the same failure of a government administer healthcare for the entire nation when they cannot even take care of the health of the people who protect this nation, is absurd. Even if Obamacare had the best intentions, which is does not, there is no chance of this government running a program of that size, magnitude, and importance appropriately.

It is time to drastically rethink our idea of the role the federal government should play in our lives. The federal government should not be something constantly on our minds, and on our backs. It was never meant to be a daily player in citizens lives, and a Constitutionally constrained government would return us to that paradigm.

Senator Paul: Obama Ignores Due Process by Assassinating Americans with Drones Abroad

Senator Rand Paul has expressed his opposition to an appointment by Obama of Judge David Barron to the 1st Circuit Court of appeals. Like his filibuster of the nomination of now CIA Director Brennan, Paul protests this nomination on the grounds that the appointee has no respect for the Fifth Amendment, which states (emphasis added):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment enumerates Americans’ right to due process if suspected of having committed a crime, which involves indictment, a grand jury finding enough evidence to pursue criminal proceedings. But an indictment is not a conviction, also an important part of due process before one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Yet President Obama has killed American citizens abroad with drones, without them being convicted of a crime. Judge David “Barron circulated a memo that authorized the extra-judicial killing of two American citizens, radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Islamic extremist Samir Khan. Both would be assassinated by a CIA drone the following year.”

Paul makes it clear that he has “no sympathy” for the suspected terrorists, but believes whole-hearedtly in the rule of law. If a justification can be made to kill an American abroad without due process, then how long before that same justification is made at home? Because these days all they have to say is “terrorism”, and people will throw away their rights, in the name of “security”. Sort of like the clamor to lynch the younger Boston Marathon bombing suspect after he was aprehended—but he is an American citizen, and has the right to a fair trial. (On a side note, the pursuit against the Boston Marathon suspects was also used to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the citizens of Watertown.)

Paul concluded:

The right to due process is not some negotiable aspect of our Constitution, subject to the whim of whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office.

The Bill of Rights existed long before President Obama was elected, and as long as I’m a U.S. Senator, I will fight to protect the basic rights and liberties that belong to all of us as American citizens.

When I talk with our brave young men and women who have sacrificed so much for their country, many of whom have lost limbs, they understand that they were fighting to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It dishonors their service and sacrifice to find that upon their return home, we are not honoring due process and the right to trial by jury.

Such legal protections are quintessential to our most basic freedoms, dating all the way back to the Magna Carta. Our constitutional rights are not negotiable.


Governing by Lies

It just seems like every time I read the news there are just two sides shouting back and forth at each other. “Get over Benghazi” some journalists say, as if Republicans were harping on a lost football game. Never mind that the Obama administration literally lied to the face of every American for 2 weeks about what caused the diplomats’ deaths, when they knew very well the real reasons. We are starting to get at those reasons, but they are still fuzzy because of hidden witnesses, and a more competent effort to cover up the story than to protect American ambassadors. “All politicians lie”. A) That’s a problem. B) That doesn’t give Obama a free pass. C) Obama lies even more than the other politicians and with greater negative consequences to individuals and America as a whole.

Another lie used to “govern”, if you can even call it that, is the recent report that came out from the White House about the impending doomsday brought on by global warming, or global cooling, or climate change, or extreme weather conditions—or whatever, humans caused it, earth is doomed, shut up. This winter when it snowed for a week straight I didn’t sit there and say, “see no global warming”, because I live in New England. I didn’t even use the snowstorm in North Carolina that I drove through in February to argue against global warming! Yet the President claims in an “official” report that extreme weather conditions are getting worse.

No, they’re not, and this science is even easier to prove. It is simply, are there more hurricanes, or fewer? Do they cause more damage, or less? As opposed to, “we have definitely isolated the human variable and know that it is the sole cause of climate change, despite the billions of years of changing climates before humans, and despite the millions of other variables that effect global temperatures, and its a sin to even suggest that maybe the science isn’t settled. Oh and if you disagree with us, then you are actually denying science, not debating the facts and methods used to form the conclusions, and you also believe the earth is 4,000 years old.”

But then the administration also has a well trained offensive line to keep them from being sacked, and we call them the media. Every decade Indiana University does a survey of 1,000 journalists. This time around, 28% are Democrats, and “At 7.1 percent last year, America’s newsrooms housed a lower percentage of Republicans than San Francisco (8.4 percent).”

The rest are supposedly independent or aligned with some other political party. Yet in 1992 89% of Washington correspondents voted for Bill Clinton. So the liberal bias is pretty obvious. But it is more than bias, sometimes it is downright lies, and sometimes worse, leaving out the truth completely.

Examples: NBC edited an audio recording of George Zimmerman to make it seem like he volunteered the information, “looks like he’s black” to the 911 operator, when in reality, she asked Trayvon Martin’s race. Regardless of your opinion on that whole matter, journalists should not be editing recordings to make someone seem more racist to fit their agenda.

Chris Matthews towed the line for weeks that “it was the video” that caused the “riot” outside of the American embassy in Benghazi when the Americans were murdered. Good job doing your job and looking into facts Chris.

Joe the plumber was vetted more than President Obama when Obama responded to his concern with, “When you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody”. Did you know Joe the plumber once got a DUI? Did you know all of Obama’s academic and financial records from college are sealed?

How about the media missing the story about the ATF running guns across the Mexican border in operation “Fast and Furious”. Most Americans think Vin Diesel was somehow involved. Nope it was Eric Holder probably; we don’t know because Obama exerted executive privilege over documents subpoenaed by congress.

And then there are the classic media pieces where absolutely no journalism is practiced as in, “Well the bill says Affordable Care Act, so I guess it makes care affordable. Criticize every opponent of it as hating that Americans have access to healthcare”. Or who could forget the classic, “Well guns are scary, and these politicians say gun control will help, so forget the Harvard Study, the CDC report, and countless years and pages of examples and facts regarding the ineffectiveness of gun control, and detriment to personal security “gun free zones” and gun bans have caused, lets just pretend everyone against gun control loves to watch children die”. How can we even call these people journalists? They are essentially human microphones for politicians.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I’ve missed thousands upon thousand of examples of the media outright lying, and covering up the truth. And I’ve missed thousands examples of the Obama administration lying and refusing to acknowledge the truth. But the point is, a government should not be run on lies. Lies should not be the main tool used to “get things done”. We need to hold the media and politicians to a higher standard, instead of letting apathy take over and giving in to, “Eh, all politicians are terrible”. Well that is a problem! They are literally deciding the fate of the world, and yet we can’t be bothered to participate in the government by and for the people, as much as we participate in forming brackets for college basketball?

What an opportunity Americans were given at the birth of this nation, and what squandering of that blessing today occurs!

Obama Distributes Tens of Billions in Corporate Welfare

0solyndralogoIt is ironic that the left will seize on the Koch brothers as examples of political corruption due to big money influence. Doubtless plenty of money has entered politics at the hands of the Koch brothers, but what have they gotten for their money? Every business owner has benefitted from the types of politicians which collect Koch donations, because the Koch donations do not aim at extracting a direct financial benefit from their contributions. On the other hand, George Kaiser is a billionaire who injected $500,000 into Obama’s first presidential campaign, and was given half a billion dollars for his solar company in the form of a Department of Energy loan.

Why is this type of flagrant upward redistribution of wealth, this blatant crony capitalism, this distribution of corporate welfare not seized upon by the left who decry corporations for their greed? Solyndra, the solar company in which Kaiser was a main investor, went out of business, taking with it the $535 million footed by the taxpayers. That working single mom, that small business owner, that teacher, that doctor all got robbed so that a guy who was already a billionaire could make a break with half a billion more dollars, which were hard earned by the “little people” that just scrape by trying to make ends meet.

And somehow people think of Obama as working for the poor? Somehow the Obama administration escapes criticism for their cronyism, and playing favorites with our money. Obama can give lofty speeches about how the rich don’t pay “their fair share”, and he can appeal to emotion to try to make you feel guilty if your knee jerk reaction to a sob story isn’t to immediately raise taxes; but the hard fact is that Obama robbed every working American to give that money to a billionaire. When Robin Hood stole from the rich, it was these rich he was stealing from, not the ones who earned their money; he was stealing back what was stolen from the peasants.

Now, the DOE loan program is back and better than ever… better for friends of Obama that is.

Obama’s controversial DOE green energy loan program sparked a firestorm whenGovernment Accountability Institute (GAI) President Peter Schweizer revealed that 80% of all $20.5 billion in DOE loans were given to Obama’s top campaign donors. In his New York Times bestseller Throw Them All Out, Schweizer called the Obama green energy loan slush fund “the greatest–and most expensive–example of crony capitalism in American history.”

This is simply laundering tax dollars to hand them out to friends and donors of Obama and his administration. And this is just one example of the corporatism that Obama has carried out. He arguably traded the top law enforcement position in the country for campaign funds. Attorney General Eric Holder was a bundler (fundraiser) for Obama. It also just so happens that Eric Holder worked for firms defending Wall Street criminals, before taking a post meant to supposedly prosecute Wall Street criminals.

It is good to learn the facts so that you can tell them to clueless Obama supporters who still somehow criticize legitimate businesses while thinking this president will reign in the “greedy corporations” . Obama is the #1 crony capitalist in America right now, making the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer through the power of government intervention.

Puppet Media and the Pulling of Their Strings for 2016

Since Barack Obama came onto the political scene about 9 years ago, there seems to have been a resurgence of the old progressive liberal agenda that hadn’t enjoyed such vigor since the days of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Other left wing figures in between were more coy about their goals, or in fact were not so hostile to the free market and individual rights. John F. Kennedy spoke out against raising taxes in a recession, touting lower tax rates as good for the economy. JFK was also a member of the NRA. Oh how things have changed.

We now have a President, and I unfortunately have a Senator, who openly ridicule job creators, insisting that their success was not due to their own hard work, but instead to the government, or luck, or some mixture. I’m talking of course about President Obama’s and Senator Warren’s similar remarks about how business owners “didn’t build that” and how “the rest of us” paid for the roads on which their goods were moved. Roads are important to businesses, but the idea that businesses couldn’t survive without government providing them roads is ridiculous. The first railroads in Great Britain were all built and run by competing private companies, and the first highway in Alaska was a private toll road. Businesses will find a way to move their goods, but what this Senator and President believe is that businesses should thank government for confiscating their money, and spending some of it on a road.

And as for the whole thing about “the rest of us” paying for the roads: corporations pay a 35% tax rate; the President, CEO, CFO, and all the employees of the company pay taxes out of their salary from the company; when moving the goods on the roads, the company is paying gas taxes; when buying the materials they need the company pays taxes, and that money being spent at other businesses will be taxed again. If the business increases in value, the stockholders and investors are taxed  on the capital gain. So who exactly is “the rest of us”? More likely, “the rest of us” have some of the company’s tax dollars spent on the goodies the politicians hand out for votes. Why else would our government be so concerned about assets and businesses based offshore? We wouldn’t want them here if it was just going to cost us more money to pave more roads for their benefit. Obviously the government wants their tax dollars, and thus understands that businesses pay for their own roads in effect. So let me be clear, crony capitalists and politicians are sitting back on the yacht that the rest of us paid for.

But why bring up this old issue of the insulting statements made by the President and one random Senator? Because this “random Senator” is shaping up to “pull an Obama” in 2016. Remember how you had never heard of Obama, and then all of the sudden the freshman Senator from Illinois was the President? He had not even been a Senator for 4 years when he was elected President, and the media made a bigger deal about the Republican Vice Presidential candidate’s short tenure as Governor of Alaska. The 2008 election was not about women, it was about race. And anyway, conservative women are not victims of the “war on women”.

It was all about race. If you didn’t like Obama, well you were just harboring racist feelings. And its not Fast and Furious, or the refusal to prosecute black panthers, or his career as a Wall Street defense attorney, or his investigations of reporters that made you dislike Attorney General Eric Holder, its just because he is black. But that card has been warn out over the past 6 years, and the “war on women” rhetoric has heated up. This strategy is out of the same playbook: make the establishment seem anti-establishment by playing the victim. A vote for Obama was “a vote against racism”. And this time around the Democratic nominee will garner “votes against sexism”. And naturally the pick would be Hillary Clinton; after all she is crazy far ahead in the polls, a strong independent woman, and everyone knows her name.

But there’s a hushed buzz running through the Democratic party and liberal circles that suggests Elizabeth Warren could “pull an Obama”, come out of nowhere and be the next President before we know what hit us. This is what happened with Obama and the media love fest surrounding him, and drowning out any critics. The old cry from the sheep herd of “four legs good, two legs bad” had turned into “four legs good, two legs better” within just a few nights. His lack of experience was not a concern, even though Palin (again the media focus being on the GOP Vice Presidential candidate) had more executive experience than Obama.

Fittingly, my favorite scene from the musical Chicago is when the lawyer plays the press like marionette puppets to seed the idea that his (very guilty) client is innocent of murder. At one point he says that the crime is “understandable, understandable”—a line repeated minutes later by a popular reporter. By the end of the number, all of the marionette reporters are repeating falsely that “they both reached for the gun”.

So who is pulling the puppet strings, we can’t be sure, but the video of the Chicago musical number is a good visual to think of anytime you hear a strangely harmonized chorus coming from the press. We are hearing whispers that some on the left wish Obama could sound more like Warren. Hillary Clinton had double the poll numbers of Barack Obama at this time before the 2008 presidential race. And as for the “war on women”, she can’t play the victim. The “war on women” meme doesn’t work so well when someone as extremely successful and powerful as Hillary Clinton is supposedly exploited. Everyone already thinks of her as controlling Bill Clinton when he was in the White House, so for the left’s intents and purposes, she cannot be the first woman president. She already broke the glass ceiling. But someone who is newer to the scene could still provide the wave of support to finally prove America has overcome its sexism, and install a “main street” American woman in the White House.

Anything that brings emotion into an argument is good for a liberal trying to win an election. The emotion surrounding racial issues in America helped people both ignore Obama’s lack of experience, and later ignore his failures and scandals as president, prompted by the media reaction (or lack of reaction) to each of those things. Likewise the emotion surrounding women’s issues will be exploited this next election, in order to take the debate away from the dishonesty of the candidate, questions about scandals that went unanswered, or logical shortcomings of the political platform. The left has been trying out their “war on women” meme for a couple elections now, finely tuning it to shift the focus of voters away from Obamacare and the economy. As this unfolds, it will be interesting to see what the puppet media does, and perhaps by tracing the strings back to the controlling hands, we can have a shot at exposing the puppeteer and his same old political song and dance.

Comcast buys-off Government to Kill Competition


Have you ever wondered why Comcast is such a terrible company? Why they have high prices, bad customer service, and you really don’t have any other options? This is because Comcast is a prime example of crony capitalism playing out. The company Comcast has bought off the right politicians in order to gain control over the cable industry, spending $19 million last year alone on lobbying, with 100 lobbyists on the payroll. A majority of Comcast’s $33 million worth of political contributions since 1989 have gone to Democrats, with President Obama number one on the receiving end. Comcast Foundation has disbursed $3 Billion to mostly left leaning political organizations since 2001. Other crony ties between government and Comcast include:

  • Comcast CEO Brian L. Roberts gives thousands in political contributions to Democrats, specifically Obama who he plays golf with
  • Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen has visited the White House 14 times since 2010, raised $2 million for Obama, is a former aide to Democrat Governor Ed Rendell, major player in Comcast Foundation (and $3 billion distributed)
  • Comcast owns NBC, MSNBC which are well known for left bias, and blatant support for Democratic politics, President Obama, and Hillary Clinton

Comcast is buying Time Warner Cable for $45 billion, which requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). But far from making sure the media stays absent of corruption, the FCC essentially ensures that the media and TV industry are in bed with the government. Just think of all the benefits and money politicians have gotten from Comcast, so it would only make sense that they will be rewarded. And if it costs that much for the FCC to approve one company buying another, how could any smaller companies compete with Comcast? FCC approval acts as a way for Comcast to crush their smaller competitors. In addition to Comcast having plenty of money to comply with the regulations of the FCC, the costs of which smaller companies cannot as easily absorb, the FCC could downright deny mergers of Comcast competitors, keeping companies that are not cronies of government smaller and less powerful. But why would the FCC play their game?

  • FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is a former lobbyist for the Telecom industry, and was appointed to his position in 2013 by President Obama, raised somewhere between $700,000 and $1 million for Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, personally maxed out personal donations to DNC
  • Time Warner Cable has given $29 million to politicians since 1989, over half being Democrats
  • CEO of Time Warner Robert Marcus has given $8,500 to Dems since 2010
  • Time Warner PAC supports Democrats through “DNC Services Corporation, the DCCC, and the DSCC”
  • “Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who has received donations from both companies, had to recuse himself from Senate business with the merger when it was revealed that his brother, Robert, was representing Time Warner.”

Knowing all this, it starts to become clear why Comcast pays so little attention to their customers: they don’t have to run a good business. Through positioning the company as friends of the government, they can get special treatment, while their competitors are disadvantaged by this relationship with government. Since 1972 cable providers have had to get a license from the FCC to provide this service. In 1992 Congress decided that prices were rising too quickly for cable, even though the number of channels was also increasing. They said that the high start-up costs of providing cable made it necessary for Congress to “solve” this problem with regulation. But more than 2 decades later, after the merger with Time Warner, Comcast will serve 33 million customers, one third of all cable and satellite TV subscribers in America.

One reason for this is that Congress does not know how to, or did not intend to actually increase competition in the cable industry. With price controls, it very well could have put Comcast competitors out of business. Those smaller companies may have charged slightly more for their service due to the higher start up costs, but provided better customer service, for instance. Since the FCC got to decide how much each company could charge, this favored large companies like Comcast whose competitors’ profits would be restricted. Another issue is that the FCC gets to force regulations on cable providers that could land small companies large fines that could bring down a business if they break one of the rules.

If violations of the rules are subsequently discovered, appropriate regulatory sanctions, including imposition of a monetary forfeiture and/or the issuance of a cease and/or desist order, may be employed.

Under a 1996 Act, small cable providers are exempt from price controls, but “A “small cable operator” is defined to include any operator that serves fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and that is not affiliated with entities that have gross annual revenues exceeding $250 million.” But even a company that brings in $250 million in revenue each year is still only 1/250 the size of Comcast as measured by revenue. This means that a company right on the edge of earning that revenue may need to restrict expansion in order to avoid coming under price controls, which effectively limits competition from growing in opposition to Comcast.

And a further issue with legislation regulating cable providers, is that it established minimum requirements that the cable operators must provide for their customers, in order to form “a standard for improving the quality of customer service rendered by cable operators”. Again, this means that smaller companies are forced to provide a certain level of services to their customers, even if the customers were happy paying less for fewer, or different, services. Large companies like Comcast could easily comply with these standards, while the regulatory costs on small competitors are restrictive.

Right now, because of the FCC and other government actions, consumers do not have the proper choices for cable providers, that would have naturally arisen, absent regulation which has favored large, government connected companies like Comcast, due mostly to contributions to politicians made by Comcast and those affiliated with the company. The merger with Time Warner will further exacerbate this dominance, which the government has contributed to by implementing regulation which favored the two companies, to the detriment of smaller companies which would otherwise be able to compete.

This is why we have essentially no options when it comes to cable providers: cronyism. So the next time you are sitting on hold with Comcast for an hour, only to be told that they can’t help you, just remember why you have no options. The government, the FCC, Obama, and many other politicians have worked hard to restrict your access to choices when it comes to cable providers. Yet another reason to restrict government size and control.

The “Soft Gestapo”: Political Oppression Without the Guns

I wouldn’t yet rule it out, but the future of political oppression in the U.S. doesn’t necessarily need military tactics (though it may still be a piece). We already have a “soft Gestapo” so to speak, made up of agencies like the EPA, IRS, FDA, and USDA. These agencies can be used to target and financially ruin individuals that are be deemed enemies of the state. The federal government works through its non-police agencies to get to the people it can’t “legally” send the police after, in order to suppress certain behaviors, or deter certain actions which are not illegal. These agencies are granted powers to make rules without those rules actually being laws; laws must be passed in the Constitutionally prescribed method involving Congress and the President.

The EPA will go after anyone who dares live off the grid, or build a state permitted pond on their 80 acres, or keep chickens, and any number of other activities that might make someone independent of the Federal government. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state. It is better for the Federal government to have a person on welfare than to have a person who does not fit nicely into controllable society. The EPA goes after people who are self sufficient, who can make their own food, who can keep themselves warm, and who have enough property that they could otherwise avoid interaction with government agencies. Since he couldn’t send in the Gestapo in his war on coal, President Obama instead sent the EPA, who revoked a coal mining permit in order to “save the mayflies”. Who cares about the jobs lost, the people’s lives interrupted, it is more important to make everyone obey!

The IRS was used in place of the Gestapo when conservatives started to organize themselves politically. The Feds must have been pretty disappointed that they couldn’t just round up Tea Party folks and put them into camps; they had to think of another way to break up political opposition to government overreach, violation of rights, and debt that threatens the security of our country. So the IRS intimidated the conservative groups by auditing them, auditing their businesses, auditing their personal returns, demanding donor lists, demanding to know who planned to run for office, and then auditing them again the next year. The lesson: don’t speak up, stay in line, don’t participate in government or politics unless you are going to go down to the polls and vote yourself into slavery.

The FDA actually prevents dying people from trying experimental medications, because, then they wouldn’t be in control of every facet of life and death. They so desire control and power that a person with 6 months to live does not have the right to try a drug that might work–because the drug might be unsafe! And only the FDA is so wise and all knowing as to discern which drugs might hurt or help you. Never mind that drugs approved by the FDA have killed people, caused side effects worse than the disease, or been ineffective. Never mind that there may very well be a cure for cancer, but since the FDA gets half its operating money from pharmaceutical fees, they would rather keep the cash flow, keep the power, and continue working their crony capitalist scheme for control.

The FDA also puts extra costs through regulation on fruit farmers, in order to suppress self sufficiency and family businesses that are harder to control. And just in case any of this might get out, the FDA acts as Gestapo to their own employees whose communications are monitored and spied upon. If they have a problem with the corrupt way the FDA operates, then they will be fired and sued. Whistle blowing in the Federal government is a sure way to the poor house or a jail cell. Isn’t it strange that they tell us if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to worry about?

The USDA wages it war on food production, favoring the centralization of food supplies in order to have control over the survival of the population. The USDA regulated thousands of slaughterhouses out of business to create just a handful of giant butchers; they say it was for safety, but now E. Coli in one animal effects countless others. The USDA serves as a blocker for companies like Monsanto who sue small farms into poverty when their genetically modified seed escapes with the wind, and pollutes others’ crops. The USDA harasses small farms with regulations that favor corporate farms. The USDA shuts down debate about raw milk, and acts like raw milk farmers are poisoning children, when the opposite is closer to the truth. Operating outside of the law, the USDA shuts down family businesses because of “safety” inspections, so only unaccountable government connected large farms are left. The Gestapo must have control of the food, in order to control the people.

All these actions are taken against innocent people and innocent businesses who have done nothing wrong or illegal. These people are simply trying to make a living, run a business, or live a happy life. And it is because of the targets, who all go against the grain in one way or another, that these agencies can be compared to the Gestapo, who regulated behavior and targeted innocent individuals who did not fit into the Nazi idea of what a citizen should be, and threatened the power of the government.

And of course the FBI, NSA, CIA, ATF, DHS, and TSA all fit into the typical operations of the Gestapo in a police state. The quickest way to solve the problem of a centralized, controlling government that oppresses the citizens, and wastes the wealth of a nation is to repeal the 16th amendment authorizing the income tax, so that the federal government would be largely unfunded. Then power must be returned to the states by repealing the 17th amendment which took away states’ suffrage in Senate by allowing Senators to be elected by popular vote, instead of by state legislators. At that point we could repeal every federal agency which is not directly related to protecting the border/ repelling invasions, enforcing the Bill of Rights and open borders without tariffs at the state level, and foreign policy. I would even forget about regulating state commerce; in this advanced day and age there is no reason why states and individuals need to be compelled to use a federal currency, and more often this clause is used to regulate ever facet of human life.

And that is how we start moving towards true equality, with individuals actually having power over government. Never can we hope for perpetual peace and prosperity when some people in society are allowed to operate above the law. Never can the people be truly freed from the bondage of the state until there is no political class, and no one who can operate above the law, or use the power of the state for their own ends.

Obama Donor “Investigating” IRS Scandal

I have been assured by liberals that the IRS targeting of Tea Party and other groups was well deserved, because you see, “they are against taxes”. And obviously someone who is part of a group the name for which is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already is a tax dodger. It’s just like how I am against EPA regulations because I love polluting, and against the police state because I’m a criminal. In fact anyone who is against Obamacare should promptly be investigated for biological warfare, as obviously this person is likely to be causing diseases in the general population.

This is the attitude I have heard from liberals, and seen in comments on this blog, that the Tea Party deserved to be targeted and harassed by the IRS. That’s why it should come as no surprise–I shutter to think what revelation would actually surprise me coming from this administration–that the independent investigator who is looking into the IRS scandal in a non-biased, ethical fashion is actually an Obama and DNC donor since 2004 and in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Hmm… I wonder if he will find any fault with this administration?

The same people who are thrilled to see the IRS target the Tea Party generally pick and choose which amendments in the Bill of Rights they like depending on the situation they find themselves in. Sometimes the First amendment is an inalienable right that evil corporations try to suppress in their employees, but in this case, who needs the right to free speech? “MSNBC and CNN told me to hate the Tea Party”, so like obedient little lap dogs, when the media rings the bell, they start salivating over the punishment inflicted on those who dared to step out of line in the coral leading to liberal utopia.

This just fits into the us against them paradigm that helps the “power elite” divide and conquer the masses. It doesn’t matter what the political views are, the government should never be used as a tool of suppression to quell freedom of association, and discourage political activism among particular segments of the population. There was absolutely no evidence of tax evasion as some tyranny sympathizers have suggested. But they don’t really care, do they? This is all about finding someone to hate and release their aggression on, and it might as well be those people who threaten the world view that government is religion, that government can provide for all, that government is the mommy of the people.

And as a final slap in the face to anyone who believes rights still exist, the Obama administration assigns an insider to conduct an “investigation” with a glaring conflict of interest. Maybe this explains why none of the victims have been contacted in the investigation. How short sighted do you have to be to rejoice that the government has been used to pummel those you perceive as your opponents? I was against the Constitutional violations in the Patriot Act even when Bush was President–even as a high schooler I understood that the government had overstepped its bounds. Yet liberals seem to have blind dedication to their dear leaders and cheer-lead even as their fellow citizens are berated and beaten by an government with $4 trillion a year worth of power at its disposal.

I see us all as tributes thrust into the “Hunger Games” by the Capital. If we fight each-other, it plays into the power game played by our politicians. Maybe we should remember what Haymitch tells Catniss in Catching Fire, “When you’re in the arena… You just remember who the enemy is”. The real enemy was not the other tributes.