FCC States The Truth

The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Kevin Martin, indicated on Thursday the 26th, regarding the “Fairness Doctrine” issue:

Indeed, with the continued proliferation of additional sources of information and programming, including satellite broadcasting and the Internet, the need for the Fairness Doctrine has lessened even further since 1987.”

And I suspect everyone reading this blog would concur: Chairman Martin is indeed correct. But the Demorats have a plan:

Liberal efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine are “completely on track,” and Democrats intend to push for the measure by linking talk radio to “hate crimes,” according to a conservative media analyst.

I have written about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” many times; here and here and here and here, for example.

There is an excellent site watching the F.D. — go here for this site.

I suspect that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is now on any number of Demorat hit lists — and I suspect his budget will be, oddly enough, examined very closely through the Demorat microscope.

Huh. Imagine that.
BZ

Tinfoil Hat Squad — Or, Is This Actually Correct?

The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

“I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever,” lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

This isn’t a misprint. An attorney actually won this case — in a federal venue. Please read the complete link and make your own decision.

The two sentences that caught my attention:

1. Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington’s IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, “I can’t comment.”

— and —

2. He said throughout his battle, he’s offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.

My first thought: this can’t possibly be true.

My second thought: if true, this opens a completely new dynamic paradym.

My third thought: if only, if only. . .
BZ

BATF Feels Threatened By A Blog

Now I’m a law abiding kinda guy. . .

But I have to admit, this recent issue about how the BATF “feels threatened” by a guy with a blog is one of the lamest stories I’ve ever read perpetrated by law enforcement in recent times. How stupid is this:

A team of inspectors from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives fled an Idaho gun shop where they were inspecting sales records when they learned their actions were being recorded on a blog.

But wait, there’s more inanity. The big, bad federal agents felt threatened by:

[The federal agency] notifies the court than an inspection of Red’s Trading Post … was initiated on July 17, 2007. The inspection was suspended due to the threat to the inspectors’ safety created by Ryan Horsley, the Manager of Red’s,” the court filing said. The filing documented how some unidentified person had taken pictures of the inspectors at work.

“At about this time, Supervisor Young’s assistant from the Spokane office contacted her and advised that Mr. Horsley had updated his internet blog (http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/) to include the information that ATF, and Supervisor Young personally, was at the store conducting an inspection,” the filing said. So Young contacted others.

“The Director of Industry Operations, Richard Van Loan, agreed with Supervisor Young’s assessment that the photographing of the rental car used by ATF personnel, coupled with the instantaneous posting on the internet of ATF’s presence … posed a credible threat to their safety and was designed to harass and intimidate,” the court filing said.

So. Documenting the facts of a visit by the BATF, with these fact patterns being documented by the store’s owner, on a blog the store owner operates, is interpreted as a threat?

Taking photographs, from a position of which the photographer had a lawful right to be, of the G-rides driven by BATF agents, by a photographer who is “a 70-year-old man in a Hawaiian shirt who is balding (Sorry, Al) and has a broken foot” is interpreted as a threat?

And isn’t it interesting that the fact patterns as portrayed in the blog are not at issue; it is the mere existence of the blog and the photos that are at issue.

First, take a peek at the horribly offensive and threatening Red’s Trading Post blog.

Second, this appears to me to be a concerted effort by the government to quietly attempt to shut down gun shops and/or their owners.

Now, I don’t typify myself as a nutjob because I happen to believe in the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But I must admit, quite frankly, this just doesn’t sit right with me. This doesn’t sit right with me at all.

Because again, quite frankly, it makes BATF look like a bunch of whining, sniveling, crybaby pussies.

Do you think I’m being too harsh?

But — if the shoe fits. . .

BZ

P.S.
By the way, in the photo at top, that just happens to be store owner Ryan Horsley with current FEDERAL Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. Huh. Imagine that.

Ward Churchill To Be Fired

BOULDER, Colo. — The University of Colorado announced Monday that it will dismiss controversial professor Ward Churchill.

“Today, I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of Colorado Boulder,” CU Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano said Monday afternoon.

Churchill was found guilty of research misconduct and a University of Colorado panel recommended that he be fired because of “repeated and deliberate” infractions of scholarship rules. Last month, an investigative subcommittee concluded that Churchill repeatedly fabricated his research, plagiarized others’ work and strayed from the “bedrock principles of scholarship.”

So: has the University of Colorado governing board of regents actually gotten a clue?
BZ

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Recently, it was theorized that today’s $76 per-barrel oil price will reach $100 in a few months:

July 23 (Bloomberg) — The $100-a-barrel oil that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said would prevail by 2009 may be only a few months away.

Jeffrey Currie, a London-based commodity analyst at the world’s biggest securities firm, says $95 crude is likely this year unless OPEC unexpectedly increases production, and declining inventories are raising the chances for $100 oil. Jeff Rubin at CIBC World Markets predicts $100 a barrel as soon as next year.

“We’re only a headline of significance away from $100 oil,” said John Kilduff, an analyst in the New York office of futures broker Man Financial Inc. “The unrelenting pressure of increased demand has left the market a coiled spring.” New disruptions of Nigerian or Iraqi supplies, or any military strike against Iran, might trigger the rise, Kilduff said in a July 20 interview.

And it is clear that many on the Left want nothing more than higher petroleum and oil prices. They have made no hesitation in making these thoughts clear.

“Watch out, you might get what you’re after.”
Burning Down The House, The Talking Heads

Three of the last four global recessions were instigated by a drastic rise in the price of a barrel of oil.

Or:

There appears to be only one solution to this catastrophe: a nasty, pernicious and painful gas tax that will drive gasoline prices to heretofore unseen levels. Take the tax revenue squeezed from every red-blooded American’s fuel consumption and roll it into alternative energy research and technology. Fast-track the whole damn project. Forget pathetic attempts at lowering emissions by 20 or 25% by 2020. The game will be over. Do it now. It will hurt, but in the long run we will all breathe easier.

Why stop there with fiscal taxes? Why not a Carbon Tax?

But wait; let’s more closely examine fiscal taxes on an average gallon of gas, shall we?

As I wrote in my May 13th post:
Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald believes that nasty gas prices may serve to motivate our movement towards other energy sources. This is the Standard Democrat Line: higher gas prices make them happy. Higher gas prices + no more petroleum infrastructure building + overbearing environmental regulations against construction of more refineries + no drilling in ANWR + no nuclear production + no offshore drilling = Happy Democrats.

But remember: “All animals are equal; some are more equal than others.”

In my state of Fornicalia, we pay (as of 2002) per gallon of gas:

– 18-cents in a state excise tax
– 14-cents, other state taxes
– total of 32-cents Fornicalia taxes per gallon
– PLUS
– total state & federal taxes = 50.4 cents per gallon tax

So, if gas is $2.99 (today), the TRUE cost of this gallon, absent GOVERNMENTAL TAXATION is ACTUALLY:

$2.48 a gallon

A little “easier” on the pocketbook, eh?

So let’s say oil does hit $100 per 42-gallon barrel.

This would yield, roughly, $5 per-gallon gas.

I have a 15.9 gallon tank in my 2007 Toyota RAV-4. It would cost me $80 to fill my tank.

How would this sift out?

  • Trucking would be hit;
  • Railroads would be hit;
  • Aircraft would be hit;
  • General transportation would be hit;
  • Commuters would be hit;
  • Plastics industries would be hit;
  • Electric power generation would be hit;
  • Every aspect of American life would be hit;
  • Prices on everything would climb.

Persons affected in a negative fashion would include those on the Left.

The media types would have a more difficult time getting their limousines;

Same for movie film stars and upper crust moguls of all Left Stripes;

And, of course, you can’t ride a bicycle from Sacramento to the San Francisco Bay Area if you commute. Jobs would be impacted; infrastructure would be impacted.

Get your collective butts clenched, Ladies and Gentlemen, on both sides of the aisle. $100 per barrel oil is just around the corner.
The Left wants to stagger this nation? Guess what? They just may get their wish.

BZ