Just Desserts

I don't have anything to add to that. Thank you Mr. Poe. hehe

Australian Airport Staff Smuggling Drugs and Guns

Australian Airport Staff Smuggled Drugs, Guns for Crime Syndicates

A new federal parliamentary inquiry, into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organized crime, has been told less than 1 percent of air cargo is physically examined and catering trucks are never searched.

But hey, don't you feel safer that you're put through highly personal pat downs, shoe x-rays, and naked scans? After all, YOU can't be trusted.

And a quick question for those who say "I don't care if a TSA Agent sees me naked, I have nothing to hide!" - Do you feel the same way about some sweaty, low-life male TSA Agent seeing naked scans of your teenage daughter?

Citibank to Institute Rule to Prevent Cash Withdrawls - Your Money is no Longer Your Money

Citi Warns of Withdrawal Gate

Seen on a recent Citibank (C) statement: "Effective April 1, 2010, we reserve the right to require (7) days advance notice before permitting a withdrawal from all checking accounts. While we do not currently exercise this right and have not exercised it in the past, we are required by law to notify you of this change."

This applies only to Texas at this time, but may be a concerning development in the Organized Criminals', I mean Banks' behavior with regard to Checking Accounts.

As Karl Denninger wrote yesterday on The Market Ticker:

Huh?

Folks, the formal name for a checking account is a demand account. It is called a demand account for the very reason that you have a right to all your money, on demand.

Now maybe there's some new law that applies only in Texas, or maybe there isn't. Who knows - or cares.

The fact of the matter is that any bank that reserves the right (whether they claim through some external cause or not) to throw up a gate on a demand account is no longer marketing demand accounts.

My checking account is such a demand account and I'll be damned if I'll have my checking money anywhere that doesn't fit that description.

In my opinion, you shouldn't either.

So who's money is it really? You earned it, you have entrusted an institution to hold on to it for you, and give it to you when you need it to purchase food, pay your mortgage, etc. IN RETURN, they are now saying that because they are holding it for you, they get to say WHEN you get to take it out?

Fine, they say that they have not exercised this rule (yet) and just want to put the rule in, but is that a rule you're really ready to live with? Are we really considered to be as children that can not be trusted with what we have earned??? If you're the Federal Government, of course your answer to that is "yes".

As mentioned in the article on StockWidget, it may be a tool they want to implement to prevent a bank run by people concerned about their money. But again, is it YOUR money or THEIRS?

The only proper response to this is to remove your money from Citibank. Period. Whether you're in Texas or not, you have to admit if they're willing to do this in one state, others will soon follow.

There is only one way to protest this action:
Nullify this rule by ensuring they don't have any money they can hold on to for seven days.

General Aviation Security After the Austin Crash

It's asinine reporting and a total lack of common sense like this that drives me nuts:

Texas Plane Crash Exposes Gaps in Air Security

GEORGETOWN, Texas — After 9/11, cockpit doors were sealed, air marshals were added and airport searches became more aggressive, all to make sure an airliner could never again be used as a weapon. Yet little has been done to guard against attacks with smaller planes.

That point was driven home with chilling force on Thursday when a Texas man with a grudge against the IRS crashed his single-engine plane into an office building in a fiery suicide attack. One person inside the building was also killed.

"It's a big gap," said R. William Johnstone, an aviation security consultant and former staff member of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks. "It wouldn't take much, even a minor incident involving two simultaneously attacking planes, to inflict enough damage to set off alarm bells and do some serious harm to the economy and national psyche."

What a moron. Joe Stack owned the airplane, the hanger, and was a licensed pilot. What are you going to do, put a Soviet Style Political Officer in each and every private airplane that flies so that they can hold a gun to the pilot's head and ensure correct behavior? What possible rules, short of the typical knee-jerk BAN IT response can you possibly implement to keep someone from crashing a 2 or 4 seater aircraft into anything?

Frankly, they're lucky he didn't decide to just shoot the place up. He probably would have done far greater damage to the IRS personnel in the building by grabbing a shotgun and going on a rampage. While two people dead and a handful injured isn't a good thing, a nice gun rampage could have resulted in scores dead and scores more wounded.

Ultimately, you can not stop people from killing other people. No law, no rule, no regulation is going to prevent it. What you can do is maybe address the issues that are at the core of these actions - an out of control Government populated with power hungry little egomaniacs that love nothing more than to ruin people's lives. These idiots in Government think that we're milk cows to be squeezed until we run dry, and then they run around waving their hands when one of the cows decides it has had enough and stomps a few heads in to show its displeasure.

Cause and effect. Squeeze tighter, take ever more power out of the hands of citizens, and you'll get more citizens that will decide that they have nothing else left to lose and take actions that will be highly detrimental to the nearest sets of Government thugs and, unfortunately, any innocent people that are unlucky enough to be nearby at the wrong time.

[Sarcasm]
To the total idiots at the FAA and DHS - you want to "really" stop this from EVER happening again? Ban all forms of aviation except for large Commercial Airlines.

It's for the children.
[/Sarcasm]

Man Bulldozes Home to Spite Bank - Moscow, ID

It just warms the cockles to see folks finally waking up and fighting back doesn't it?

From the article at WLWT:

Hoskins said he's been in a struggle with RiverHills Bank over his Clermont County home for nearly a decade, a struggle that was coming to an end as the bank began foreclosure proceedings on his $350,000 home.

"When I see I owe $160,000 on a home valued at $350,000, and someone decides they want to take it – no, I wasn't going to stand for that, so I took it down," Hoskins said.

...

"The average homeowner that can't afford an attorney or can fight as long as we have, they don't stand a chance," he said.

Hoskins said he'd gotten a $170,000 offer from someone to pay off the house, but the bank refused, saying they could get more from selling it in foreclosure.

So, he went and got a bulldozer, and took care of the problem. He bloody well bulldozed his home, and he says he's considering doing the same to the business the bank is going after as well.


Even better, check out the Poll on the left side of the page....


Oops, 77% of almost 10,000 people say "Good for Him". That's not a good sign for the jackasses in power now is it? Even more interesting, 22% is approximately the number of people that currently believe that the Government is acting with Consent of the Governed. Uh oh.

From the link above:

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

That helps explain why 75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are defeated this November. Just 27% believe their own representative in Congress is the best person for the job.

LISTEN UP FRAUDSTERS (formerly known as Congress, Banks and Wall Street), WE'RE MAD AS HELL AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!

People know when they're getting screwed. They know more and more each day how it feels to be powerless as the "protected class" takes what they want from the people's hard earned savings.

And the people's response?



CAN YOU HEAR US NOW???

h/t to Keep it Simple Blog

A Bridge Too Far...Plane Crash Today in Austin

Texas Small Plane Crash Might Be Intentional Act, Officials Say

A pilot furious with the Internal Revenue Service crashed his small plane into an office building in Austin, Texas, that houses federal tax employees, setting off a raging fire.

Officials are investigating whether the pilot, identified by authorities as Joseph Andrew Stack, a 53-year-old software engineer who lived in Texas, crashed the plane intentionally. Stack was confirmed dead.

An Internal Revenue Service office is located inside the building.

Just how furious? Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker took a very short time to come up with the following, copied off of Joe Stack's web site, EmbeddedArt.com (now taken offline by the Host at the request of the FBI):

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

Karl has some very salient remarks on his blog post. I hope you'll take a moment to read over there as well. You can read Karl's post here: This Is How It Begins (Wanton Violence)

For now, this is an isolated event. I do not believe, however, that it is a feeling that is unique to Mr. Stack. Many of us are watching 30 or more percent of our hard won earnings being handed off to Wall Street Crooks, Politicians, foreign nations, and those lazy bastards down the street that do nothing but smoke pot and play Playstation on their big screen TV whilest collecting their welfare checks.

The anger is rising, but our leaders care nothing for us. After all, they don't need those of us that work hard and produce to keep them in office, they just need more of our money with which to pay off their constituencies.

How far will it go before something really breaks loose?? Will this be an isolated event or will more people decide enough is enough?

Update: The Statesman has what appears to be the more complete text of the letter at this link.

In Honor of the Vote to Increase Socialism Today - Greed

This was forwarded to me in email, and I think Mr. Friedman's remarks are particularly pithy in light of today's vote on so-called healthcare reform, but really is designed to enslave millions of people to the Government.



Andrew Wilkow covered this very well today, and the idea is thus:
The difference between Government attempting to do something, such as provide lower cost healthcare, and private enterprise is simply self-interest, or "greed".

A businessman who sets out to perform a task for the public does so out of the want to earn money or prestige for themselves. Their want for better living conditions for themselves and their family drive them to take the risk of putting up their own money (and quite often that of other investors, who are also "greedy" to receive a return for their offering) to provide a good or service to people that need that good or service.

If the product is something that is actually needed by the public at large, and the businessperson can provide it at a cost that is below that which others are willing to pay, they receive income from that product. A successful product, with proper and careful management of the costs of manufacturing that product, results in success for that "greedy person". The greed actually provides a great incentive to improve the product, streamline the process it takes to manufacture that product, and even impetus to branch out and provide additional related products. The act of expanding that product's offering creates jobs and benefits many other people.

An additional pressure that requires better performance in the creation and provision of the product is competition. Attempting to charge a price above what the market will bear (e.g. what people will pay for that product) will either result in the public not buying the product, or a competitor seizing upon the opportunity to provide a similar product at a lower price. In both cases, subject to the limitations of technology and innovation, there is no way to provide a product (for an extended time) at a price below the total price of creating that product. Any attempt to do so requires additional investment by the person or other investors who, again, are motivated by a greedy want to receive a return on the money that they invest in that product.

Except in certain rare cases, it is very nearly impossible for a private entity to force the public at large to buy their product. Competition and public indifference are excellent motivators to stay as lean and mean as possible.

The Government, on the other hand, works thusly:

Like the private entity, the impetus for politicians to act is also greed. This greed is still defined as the urge to generate additional wealth and prestige for oneself, however, there are a number of key differences in the how a good or service is produced and provided to the public at large.

Unlike a private enterprise, a politician simply puts a gun in the face of a private citizen and demands the money it will take to provide that good or service. The politician (or bureaucrat) risks nothing themselves (except, perhaps, the risk of being voted out of office). This lack of risk also assumes that the pol is acting in a legal manner.

"Now hold on!" you might think, "nobody is robbing me at gunpoint for my tax dollars!" Think again, what happens if you do not pay whatever taxes the Government decides to levy on you this year? You get audited, and then fined. Don't pay the fine, guys with guns come to take you away. Resist being taken, and you can be shot.

So now, the Government is offering a product. Costs of creating that product are immaterial. If there's not enough money to create it, the pol just gets more to cover the overage. If the product isn't making any profit, that's ok, there's always more money available to ensure its longevity. In fact, because nobody in charge of creating that product has any real personal stake in its success/failure, there is absolutely no incentive to ensure that costs of provision and manufacture are kept streamlined and tight. What's better, since the cost of providing this product is "free" so far as the pol is concerned, the Government can even price competing products right out of the market. When you think your cost is effectively $0, and your competitors all have to pay for workers, facilities, equipment, etc. out of their own pockets (and consequently watch their own fortunes and bank accounts increase and decrease with success/failure), it's incredibly easy for a Government product to simply run everyone else out of business.

How about supply and demand? Recall that the private entity has to ensure that there is a need for their product. People must want to consume their product, and have enough money to purchase it at a price that exceeds the cost of creating it. What do you do as a Government in this situation? Simple, you require that people purchase it. After all, you're the Government, if they refuse you, you can simply fine them. If they don't pay the fine, well, then you get to arrest them. And if they don't want to be arrested, you simply shoot them and move on with life.

So what does this have to do with so-called Healthcare Reform?

Simply this:
A group of people who are totally unaccountable for their success/failure, grows ever closer to passing a law that says you must purchase a product - healthcare. This product's composition will be controlled by those politicians (it must be an "approved" plan), and you will at all times be enrolled in that approved plan or the IRS will fine you. If you persist in being uncovered, and do not pay your fine, you will go to prison for 5 years. If you refuse to go to prison, you will be shot. If this were China, they'd do all of the above just the same, except they'd send the bill for the bullet to your family afterwards.

Meanwhile, this group of unaccountable people will be effectively in charge of the insurance companies. Without any personal stake in the success/failure of of these companies, they will mandate how much profits those companies can make, how much they can pay their executives, how much profit goes to stock holders, and what plans they can offer. In effect, those politicians will be able to control whether an insurance company survives or not, on an unaccountable whim. Their irresponsible behavior, driven by bribes and lobbyists, will cause companies with "connections" to prosper, while companies that are looked upon less favorably (or whose superior product offering presents a threat to established, inferior companies) will rot on the vine and be driven out of business.

Ultimately, the consumers of Healthcare, "common" Americans, will be bankrupted and killed in droves whilest waiting to see a Doctor for serious ailments such as Cancer. There will be no market forces ensuring innovation, controlling the costs of provision, and ensuring wasteful actions are punished. Costs will rise sharply, premiums will rise sharply, and service will fall off as more and more money is dumped into increasingly bureaucratic management structures and unchecked spending.

So what is greed? When tempered by personal risk, greed is literally the engine of human innovation, the suppressor of costs, and the creator of jobs and opportunities. When a method of greed is found where a greedy person has no risk of failure, however, exploitation and ruination of everyone involved will surely follow.

As Friedman stated, in summary, greed is good, and the Government can, in and of itself, create nothing. Only Private Parties have the proper motivation to invent, create, and provide goods and services.