Get ready to jump, frogs. Even if this doesn't come to pass in the next few years, the very fact that politicians on the national level (Republican Mike Huckabee REALLY supports this ban) even spend a moment considering a FEDERAL ban on smoking, is an astoundingly troubling development.

Here is the story, from the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08282007/news/nationalnews/hill_eyes_nationa...

And as you read it, just make sure you listen to some Mission of Burma, ok?

On today's show, Gard will investigate the issue of "illegal" immigration, Elvira Arelleno (the self-titled Rosa Parks of Immigration) and the murders in NJ which were allegedly perpetrated by an illegal immigrant (part of a group of assailants). Gard will also talk to Sheldon Richman, of The Freeman magazine, and www.fee.org. They will discuss the impact of Fed Reserve policy on variable interest loans and the economy in general.

Fred Bramante will also join Gard, to talk about his "bi-partisan" effort to get the federal and state governments MORE involved in education. OUCH!

Boy, sometimes losing one's liberty can almost be amusing. Take a look at this story from Sunday's New York Times:

______

Concern Over Wider Spying Under New Law
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.

Administration officials acknowledged that they had heard such concerns from Democrats in Congress recently, and that there was a continuing debate over the meaning of the legislative language. But they said the Democrats were simply raising theoretical questions based on a harsh interpretation of the legislation.

As has been noted by conspirators, the exposure of Americans to federal wiretaps has increased many thousand fold under the Bush administration. When this was noted by news organizations last year, the Attorney General (you know, a real expert in constitutional law) said that the FISA law passed in 1978 allowed the NSA to spy on Americans. It was then noted that the law did NOT give permission to eavesdrop on Americans, even if a foreigner was on the other end of the phone. Gonzales tried to call this "foreign" surveillance, when, of course, it was, by definition, domestic, since an American citizen's line was being tapped. Gonzales then tried to explain it away by saying that "Congress gave the President 'broad discretion' when it granted him permission to use military force in 2002."

The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law

Wild in the Streets

Supernature

Oh, yeah, lest we forget, the Bush Administration calls it "Foreign Surveillance". So if an American is talking to a foreigner on the phone, he can have his phone tapped, and is no longer considered an American with Fourth Amendment rights. Remember that, now.

Here is the article, from the Washington Post:
_____

Senate Votes To Expand Warrantless Surveillance
White House Applauds; Changes Are Temporary

By Joby Warrick and Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 4, 2007; Page A01

The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.

The Bush Betrayal

The Alberto V05 has run into more trouble: Pop media outlets are beginning to compare his statements over time, and to compare them with the law. Strangely, he's not looking so good nowadays.

Here is some interesting material from the Washington Post:

First, a "Post" comparison of statements, indicating his dishonesty: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/07/30/GR200707...

Next, an article from the "Post" about this:
_____

Gonzales's Truthfulness Long Disputed
Claims of Misstatements to Shield Bush Stretch Back a Decade

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein

The principled, constitutional and economically wise thing to do is to eliminate the program, but for some straaaaaange reason, no politicians are talking about that, or even about changing the structure of the boondoggle.

Could it be that the aging baby boomers strike fear into the hearts of the candidates? Could it be that we don't actually live in the "land of the free and home of the brave", but in a semi-socialized, semi-fascistic system of governance that would set the Founders alight with anger?

Check out these stats from Robert Samuelson, writing for "Newsweek":

"Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that serve older people—already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.

Hate to say we told ye so, but Alberto VO5 Gonzales will be leaving the Bush Admin, we do think, and ought to be prosecuted for his false dealings, regardless of whether you think this is a "Democrat Witch Hunt".

Here is the story from the AP and MSNBC:

_____

FBI director contradicts Gonzales’ testimony
Mueller's statement is the latest blow to embattled attorney general, Bush

WASHINGTON - The head of the FBI contradicted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ sworn testimony and Senate Democrats requested a perjury investigation Thursday in a fresh barrage against President Bush’s embattled longtime friend and aide.

Okay. So let's say you are oriented towards the superficial side of these issues. You look at the Constitution as a piece of toilet paper, a mere speedbump in the road towards uniting America behind one health "care" standard, run, of course, by the efficient and honest politicians in Washington. Let's further stipulate that you are pro-abortion, and believe the Supreme Court's invention of a "penumbra" of unenumerated rights as spelled out in the Roe v. Wade and Griswold decisions is valid. It would make sense, then, that you would consider abortion a "medical procedure" which ought to be covered just like removal of tonsils or care for broken bones.

Who would have thought that a federal agency might cover up mistakes, and that it would take years to uncover them?

Oh, no, we certainly shouldn't have the market involved in air security! Noooooo! We need bureaucrats who are insulated from market competition to handle our lives.

Here is the piece from the Washington Post:

_______

FAA Accused Of Hiding Controllers' Mistakes

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 14, 2007; D01

Two Federal Aviation Administration employees have accused the agency of "covering up" serious incidents in which planes got too close to each other in the Dallas area, according to a government investigator who suggested that such practices might extend to other parts of the country.

Reuters is reporting that "researchers" at Oxford University want the UK to impose a "fat tax" on foods rich in lipids. Of course, their rationale for the proposal is that such a tax would "save" many lives and save lots of money for their socialized medical system.

So would the abolition of the automobile.

But, the proponents might say, the car is "necessary", while lipid-rich foods are not.

While this point is historically unfounded (people once used horses and buggies; cars are simply more efficient, not necessary for survival), we understand the silly argument. So let's look at serving size per body weight and expenditure of calories per day. If the UK government is interested in surveying what people have the capability of eating, then deciding what is or is not "good for them", they must also look at the quantity of that food, right? Certainly one cannot argue that one french fry a day is hazardous to one's health. At what level does it become hazardous, and if one is four-foot, ten inches, and 100 pounds, can one only eat a few greasy foods per week, versus someone who is 6'-5", and 250?

As many Conspirators know, the Bush Administration originally denied that it was conducting warrentless wiretaps on US citizens. Then it was revealed that the administration was doing just that, and Alberto Gonzales claimed that such actions were proper because "Congress gave the President wide discretion when it granted him the power to use the military in 2002."

Well, since the Congress never declared War, one ought to question that. And people did.

Gonzales then claimed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of the 1970's gave them permission to conduct such wiretaps, as long as there was a foreigner on one end of the line.

Excellent piece, please read when you have the opportunity.

http://news.com.com/Work+bill+would+create+new+ID+database/2100-1028_3-6...

In a blow to the primacy of private property, NH Governor John "Gosh, We're Bi-partisan!" Lynch yesterday signed into law a ban on smoking in all private restaurants and bars.

"I'm a fascist," he said... Just kidding. But technically speaking, what he has done IS fascistic, in the strict political definition. It also buys into the Marxist idea that the owners of the means of production EXPLOIT workers, which is baseless and false. Business people do not force anyone to work for them, and to have government step in to "protect workers" from the conditions which they VOLUNTARILY accept as part of their jobs is something Marx would have loved.

In a speech delivered to a large crowd at Dartmouth College, in Hanover, NH, the subject of the Sonics' song "The Witch" once more offered here striking take on the ethics of taxation and redistribution. This time telling people to shut up if they might have a few qualms about the majority taking their money to pay for fetal stem cell research.

She actually had the gall to say she wanted "religion out of the stem cell debate," as if that could EVER happen, not only for the stem cell debate, but for many other unconstitutional and unethical federal programs. Regardless of whether fetal stem cell research currently kills and will continue to kill unborn human beings (scientifically speaking, this is the case, you decide how you feel about that reality, but it is a fact), morality and religion also play a part in thoughts on things like, oh... THEFT.

The Witches

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton

It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back

High as Hell

Witch

As Conspirators know, we have a slightly different take on the immigration debate (we actually consider things like the US Constitution and economics) than most "conservatives", but we were of the evidently misguided opinion that those "conservatives" like Trent Lott supported free speech for talk radio hosts.

As you will see in this New York Times article, Senator Lott is far from an ally, even on that issue. Read on, MacDuff! ---
_____

Senate Leaders Agree to Revive Immigration Bill

By ROBERT PEAR and JEFF ZELENY
Published: June 15, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 14 — Senate Democratic and Republican leaders announced on Thursday that they had agreed on a way to revive a comprehensive immigration bill that was pulled off the Senate floor seven days ago.

The Washington Post (so make sure you consider their slant when reading the story) reports that the FBI may have broken the law thousands of times when investigating American citizens.

Here is the piece:
_____

FBI Finds It Frequently Overstepped in Collecting Data

By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 14, 2007; Page A01

An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism.

Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil

Attention Deficit Democracy

ABC's Brian Ross reports that the FBI's watch list of US citizens grew to over 500,000 people in the last few years, far exceeding what many in the FBI consider reasonable aquisition of personal data. Here is the report, by Justin Rood, of Ross's Team:

____

A terrorist watch list compiled by the FBI has apparently swelled to include more than half a million names.

Privacy and civil liberties advocates say the list is growing uncontrollably, threatening its usefulness in the war on terror.

The bureau says the number of names on its terrorist watch list is classified.

A portion of the FBI's unclassified 2008 budget request posted to the Department of Justice Web site, however, refers to "the entire watch list of 509,000 names," which is utilized by its Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force.

Check this out. Anyone remember the PMRC hearings of the late '80's?
_______
Jun 11, 11:29 AM (ET)

By ERIK SCHELZIG

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - If you saw the Red Hot Chili Peppers whispering to Al Gore when they accepted their Grammy Award for best rock album in February, that's the moment they committed to playing Live Earth.

Gore said he met with band members for more than an hour before this year's televised awards show, trying to persuade them to perform at one of the concerts.

While receptive to the idea, they weren't sure they could fit the July 7 concert into their schedule, Gore said Friday.

Lest we forget the broad proscription in the Second Amendment stating that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the fact that if politicians and special interest groups would LIKE to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, they can try to AMEND the Constitution, there is news that the NRA has struck a deal with Democrats in Washington on... background checks.

See what you think, and then consider that if someone does not want his background checked, even these seemingly innocuous and protective "background checks" are, strictly speaking, an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. On balance, did the NRA do good or ill here? And why can't people be honest and actually try to amend the Constitution if they want to impose these supposedly salutory measures?