When Stupid People have Power

All government, of course, is against liberty.
H. L. Mencken

The senate passed a couple of bills today. They deserve comment, The first is about Global Warming. It’s a bill that would radically effect our economy in negative ways. A bill that would put massive restrictions on our freedoms and choices, and all for spurious, unproven claims. And it’s passed to coincide with a UN global warming conference. As if the approval of that association of international poseurs is a worthy enterprise. How stupid can our politicians be? Plenty, it seems.

The bill would set caps on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from electric utility, transportation and manufacturing industries beginning in 2012 with the goal of cutting emissions 60 percent by 2050. It would create an incentive system that would give credits to industries that cut pollution. Industries that failed to reduce emissions would be forced to buy credits from others.

The Democratic-led Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11 to eight, largely along party lines, to send the measure to the full Senate for what supporters hope will be action early next year.

Oh, it has the bogus carbon credits escape clause. If you fail to meet your imposed goals you are forced to buy credits. Do you see what a scam this is?

This unnecessary law would impose major lifestyle changes on people that they aren’t even aware of yet. Don’t think it would end with this law if it made it all the way through the process. They would keep piling on, to look like they were doing something useful because that’s what most politicians are about. They’re like that guy at work who masters the art of looking busy while goofing off.

There’s already talk from some circles of having days with no electricity to “conserve energy use”. This is something that happens in poor countries all the time. In some parts of Russia there’s one day a week where you don’t get any power. Don’t be surprised if idiotic ideas like that raise their heads if more global warming bills pass. All of this is completely unnecessary.

The second bill is about just as bad.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including “obscene” cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.

That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user’s account be retained for subsequent police inspection.

This is all about child porn...on the surface. I mean, who would argue against stopping child porn unless you were for it, right? This is how they get laws passed that start cutting into people’s freedoms. Some politicians have wanted to stomp on free speech and internet privacy for a while now. The restrictions this law would place on businesses that provide internet is excessive. It would force them to have all internet transactions and emails available for police/government inspection on demand. Right now many ISPs have ignored or held off similar demands from groups like the RIAA. But a law like this opens the door wide for different groups to legally obtain any and all information on your internet use. 

All they have to do is pass another law saying music downloading is illegal (which they have) and poof! Now they can come after your computer and ISP records instantly. The list goes on.

Both of these laws sound good on paper. One is about cleaning up the environment. The other is about fighting child porn. Who could argue with that?

Which is precisely how they like to wear down civil liberties. People wouldn’t willingly give up their privacy if the state merely asked them to. So they have to make it sound reasonable. Hey, we’re fighting terrorists! Were saving the planet! Were fighting child predators!

What they’re really fighting is the shreds of our liberty. One piece at a time.

UPDATE: The only presidential candidate who voted against this stupid internet law was Ron Paul. Kuicinich and all the rest voted for it. Ron Paul’s stock just went up in my book. 

When it comes to the GLOW-BALL warming blatherskites, let me be perfectly clear.

I have more respect for prostitutes.
At least they don’t pretend to be something they are not.

Warmest Regards,
jn

Posted by  on  12/06  at  02:08 PM

I believe you will appreciate the tale of Ling.

http://brocktownsend.forum5.com/viewtopic.php?t=1235&mforum=brocktownsend
“Ron Paul, like Ling, is a great truth-teller. His voting record is one of the most consistent this writer has ever seen. No flip-flops are to be found.’

Posted by Brock Townsend  on  12/07  at  08:51 AM

It makes as much sense for Laura Bush to run as POTUS as Hillary Clinton.
It makes as much sense for Alfred E Newman to run as POTUS as Ron Paul.

jn

Posted by  on  12/07  at  09:34 AM

I don’t agree with Paul on everything, but he is the real deal as far as a small government candidate.

And I would rather have Laura Bush than Hillary as president any day of the week. Wouldn’t you?

Posted by  on  12/07  at  09:41 AM

I just find it amusing that so many pro-Hilary vans spin about her qualifications for the job, when Laura Bush has more.
Besides, were we not told that she was a co-president with Bill?
She already served her term if that was the case.
tee hee

As to Ron Paul and his robot supporters.
Something does not pass the smell test.

jn

Posted by  on  12/07  at  10:29 AM

“As to Ron Paul and his robot supporters.
Something does not pass the smell test.”

Please elaborate.

Posted by Brock Townsend  on  12/07  at  10:45 AM

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism.

His Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

And there is much more that does not pass the smell test.

jn

Posted by  on  12/07  at  11:08 AM

Jeffery,

I’ve read the articles making that claim. They are typical hack discredit fiction. I am sure there are people like that who support Paul, but they are a minority. There are people like that who support many other candidates in this race.  It’s a bogus argument.

Paul has a lot of regular people supporting him. He has raised more money than many other candidates. The establishment find his success threatening so they are trying to make him look bad with innuendos and attack articles like the one you may have read.

I disagree with his pull out of Iraq now argument enough not to vote for him in the primary. But if it were between him and any of those Dems next fall he would get my vote. I don’t think that’ll happen, though.

Posted by  on  12/07  at  11:15 AM

He is on record that he knows full well he cannot accomplish this alone, and his position is to start the wheels rolling. He stated that the fact that we were over there, is ONE reason for the attacks.

“Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.”

Which means absolutely nothing. It has also drawn people from every walk of life.

Posted by Brock Townsend  on  12/07  at  11:21 AM

Yes it does mean something.
And I am sure many good folks ALSO support him.
I can’t and won’t.

It would make as much sense as retreading Carter.......

jn

Posted by  on  12/07  at  11:26 AM

That’s why we have primaries.

Posted by  on  12/07  at  12:59 PM

It would be a boring world if we all agreed.

Posted by Brock Townsend  on  12/07  at  03:53 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main