By Darren Weeks

The first question that I asked, as I surveyed the wreckage on my television screen was, with all of the intelligence data that the government collects, how could they overlook not one, not two, not three, but four separate airplane hijacking incidents? You talk about being asleep at the switch!

Add to that the fact that they announced a list of Muslim hijackers only hours after the incident took place. If we are to believe that September 11th was a huge intelligence failure — as it would have to be to support the government's official story — then how could they have known so quickly who the perps were, without having adequate time for an investigation? In order for the government to be able to have a list of suspects that soon, it would have had to have been the work of intelligence agencies, that had been tracking these individuals. Yet, we are told that the government was completely blind-sighted by the plans to destroy the twin towers and the Pentagon. How can it be both ways? Either 9/11 was an intelligence failure of behemothic proportions, or there was a conspiracy to lower our defense shields on that fateful day.

Additionally, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a branch of our military that partners with Canada to protect against just such an aerial assault, also dropped its guard. NORAD flies non-stop missions in search of any aircraft that might be utilized in an attack on America of any kind. But on 9/11, not only are we to believe that our intelligence agencies failed, but also, NORAD was asleep at the switch. Another coincidence?

I'll have more information about NORAD later, as there is yet another interesting "coincidence" regarding this entity that is as shocking as a lamp in the bathtub.

There are many other interesting coincidences regarding September 11th.

For example, the publication of Justice Department Terrorism Response Booklet in 1999. The cover of the booklet shows the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center with a bullseye target over one of the towers in about the exact place where the aircraft struck. Of all the landmarks to use on the cover of a booklet, designed to illustrate the threat of terrorism, why use the twin towers? Another coincidence?

Then, there is the issue of the massive selloff of airline stock, by officials in the CIA, just prior to the day of the terrorist attacks. Michael C. Ruppert has written an excellent piece regarding this, which was completely ignored by the media. I quote from his article:

"Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the 'put options' on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency ... It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades — in real time — as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. 'Promis' software is used to monitor such trades ...

Ruppert goes on to detail the specifics of the transactions. You can read more of his article here, including a USA Today article about the market oddities.

The bottom line is that the CIA Executive Director, "Buzzy" Krongard, managed the firm that handled "put" Options on UAL. Having worked in the media for over a decade now, I can tell you my friends that that is news! Why haven't we seen this being reported anywhere in the media?

The point is that if such massive pre-9/11 trades were made, how could they have not been caught by those in the intelligence community, given the fact that they routinely monitor financial trades, looking for signs of just such an attack? Unless the CIA knew about the attacks, or worse, helped execute them.

Where is the investigation of the "put" options?

By Darren Weeks

September 11th — a defining moment in American history. It was the day that sent our country decending into a downward spiral, toward a police state. It was the day that conditioned the American mind to the idea that the world is a dangerous place, and we need our government to protect us against the bogeymen of the world.

My wife awoke me on that day and announced that our nation was under attack.

As I ran into the living room to stare at the news reports from breathless reporters in the fields, the media had already decided who the likely culprit was: Osama bin Laden and his al-Quaida network.

The shots of horrified onlookers flashed across the screen, as billows of thick, black smoke rose toward the otherwise pristine, blue sky. The bodies of desperate victims dropped to the ground from various floors of the the doomed towers.

Even through the filter of television, it was a scene from hell. A scene that we watched together as a nation.

Over and over again, came the endless replays. The smoldering ruins of the first tower, followed by the impact of the second aircraft hitting the second tower. Then, the collapse of both buildings, ending the lives of all of the remaining occupants, and forever leaving their children fatherless, motherless, and joyless.

For a moment, time stood still. The world froze. All of the concerns of the day, that normally would be given the highest priority, melted like wax into nothingness.

Then, the scene cut to a different time. A different place.

It was a time of jubilant celebration. It was a time of excitement, and overwhelming and unrestrained euphoria. It was a scene of an Arab country, which was portrayed by the network as joyous reaction to the darkest day in American history.

In reality, the celebration that was shown on television was entirely unrelated to the twin tower doom, but it accomplished what it was designed to accomplish. The American people would quickly adopt the disposition to demand from their leaders, at any cost, that vengeance be heaped upon the Arab world, whose heads, we were told, were responsible for this diabolical, barbarous act. It was a mood that was only too convenient for those who control our media, our government, and seek to control the world and her resources.

The President — heretofore, a fumbling, bumbling idiot, seemingly unable to utter a single sentence without stutter or blunder — suddenly became quite articulate. It was almost as if the tragedy of the attacks had somehow magically caused him to reach deep inside himself and extract the true genius he really was.

As he stood amidst the rubble of what had been the symbol of American financial capitalism, he promised that those responsible for this, will "hear from you."

And so it was, that the never-ending war on terror began. An entity had been born, which would cause far more deaths and destruction than its motivating element. It would be a war that would deliver to the world, it's long-anticipated world government.

It would place the resources and people of the world into the hands of a rogue nation-state called Israel, which would control it by pulling the strings of the world's greatest superpower, the United States.

One by one, nation after sovereign nation would be invaded, their governments would be overthrown or voluntarily surrendered. The bombs would drop, the innocents would bleed and die, the land and survivors would be acquired as spoil.

September 11, 2001 was a pivotal point in American history. Doesn't it make sense that we take a moment to examine the truth about this infamous day?

As we begin to examine the facts surrounding the events of that day, there seem to be more questions than answers. But in a time when the questions are as important to ask as the answers they demand, someone needs to ask them.

And we will do so in subsequent posts in this space. Stay tuned!

By Darren Weeks

The media is sure having a love-fest with the U.S. Supreme Court, since their pro-homosexual ruling, this week!

In reality, the decision of the court mounts only to a confirmation of the continual decline of decency in America. It is more of a reflection of the times, and the effectiveness of a few vociferous cultural Marxists, who are not happy unless they can reshape the political and moral landscape to their perverse liking.

Now, the cultural Marxists have found legitimacy within the law.

Personally, I really don't care if homosexuals want to do their perverse acts to each other. Like all forms of sexual behavior, they should be done in private, behind closed doors. As long as their acts are practiced in a modest, private manner, I don't think they should be arrested for engaging in that behavior.

It may be a crime against God's law, but then God doesn't need the Supreme Court to fight His battles.

One point of concern for me, however, is that this ruling by the court may serve as a building block for other pro-homosexual civil rights cases. Cases that seek special rights based upon sexual orientation.

Homosexuality is a behavior. It is not a disability. It is what you do — not who you are. Therefore, there is no claim to civil rights and no special protection status that should be granted by any court. And you shouldn't campaign for special rights, based upon a behavior.

The homosexual movement is often compared with the civil rights movement. But the two are nothing alike.

Black slaves were campaigning for their freedom, based upon their skin color — an element of their being that they could not change, no matter what they did.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, campaign for special privileges and rights (they already have their freedom), based upon a behavior in which they choose to engage. This is a behavior that they can change, as evidenced by many thousands of individuals who have left that dark lifestyle.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm really not bothered by the court's decision, other than the slippery slope that it creates. If you want to engage in perverse acts with a person of the same sex, it's none of my business.

All that I ask, is that you don't demand that I accept your lifestyle as viable. Don't try to cram it down my throat, and parade it in front of my impressionable children.

I don't have heterosexual pride rallies at the capitol. Why do you feel the need to promote your sexual behavior in a public forum? The only answer to that question is that you seek to change the public landscape to accept an idea that was heretofore unacceptable. You intend to impose upon the majority of society, the new morality of the few. That is the very definition of a cultural Marxist.

And make no mistake about it. Once homosexuality is widely accepted, bestiality and pedophilia will not be far behind. In fact, bestiality is already being glamourized by the media in some movies and music videos.

You don't believe it will happen? Forty years ago, no one would have believed that mothers would be killing their unborn children for the sake of convenience, either.

And hate-speech legislation will attempt to silence those of us, who refuse to bow to the false god of political correctness. We already have hate-crime legislation, which creates a two-tiered system of kangaroo justice.

Someone once said that evil only prospers, when good men do nothing. I believe that the fruits of this week's court decision renders confirmation to that statement. It is time to take a stand for what is right.

By Darren Weeks

The U.S. Defense Department has officially began another mad witch-hunt for threats of terrorism.

A new system called "Talon" will now collect and document raw, unvalidated reports by "concerned citizens" of "anomalous activities," whatever the heck that means.

Former Pentagon "terrorism" expert, Peter Probst was quoted in a Wired News article as saying, "It would be derelict not to keep track of anomalous incidents. This is just common sense."

Well, Mr. Probst, forgive me when I say that there is no common sense in government. Government is what you do, instead of common sense.

And now we are going to have another program that we are going to be forced to fund, in order that we may have our own government collect data on all of us.

And just who are these "concerned citizens" who will be reporting to the government? Of course, they will be your neighbors who were irritated, when you installed a dusk-to-dawn light in your yard, that happened to cast a little undesired light in their direction. It may be the colleague at the office who was slighted when you received the promotion that they coveted. Or it may just be some other busy-body who has nothing else better to do than stick their sizable nose into your business and decide that whatever you do might look suspicious to them.

To be sure, a program such as this, if it could be effective at all, would most certainly give platform to vengeance seekers of all kinds.

And that is another real question: How effective could a program be, which relies exclusively upon the tips of the average Jerry Springer watcher, who may or may not be telling the truth. And whose motives may or may not be pure?

How effective at eliminating real threats could a program be, when it amasses such huge databases of information, that no single human being could ever possibly digest a substantial portion of the information?

This Talon program is just like the infamous Operation TIPS (Terrorist Information and Prevention System) program. That program was finally killed by Congress, due to outcry from people concerned about their privacy.

Operation TIPS, sought to enlist millions of Americans to report any suspicious signs that might link some of the rest of us to terrorism. The program would have utilized a phone number that Americans could call if they witnessed any "suspicious" activity.

Unlike the TIPS program, which was more generalized in scope, the Talon system is proposed to guard against terrorist threats against the military.

Of course, the reality is that anything can appear suspicious. Personally, whenever a car stops in front of my house, I look at it as being suspicious. Does that mean I should get the license number, make and model, and report it to the federal TIP line? They may just have a flat tire. But their being there is causing me to worry that they'll plant a bomb in my mailbox, so I might ought to call — just to be safe.

The inevitable reality of such nefarious programs, is that there will be many innocent individuals who are falsely indexed for no other reason that they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

And how long will it be before these such databases are added to the already overbloated federal databases that are routinely used in an attempt to deny you your Second-Amendment right to own a firearm, for instance? After all, if anyone shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, a "terrorist" shouldn't be, right?

What is a terrorist? Have you ever noticed how the government never really defines what a suspicious activity is, or what terrorism really is?

Let me tell you what it is: It is anyone who really values your liberty and the rights that are acknowledged and promoted by the Constitution of the United States of America.

And since the traitors who occupy the Oval Office, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, no longer support and uphold the U.S. Constitution, they wish to dispel from the arena anyone who might create opposition to their plan to merge our country into a socialist one-world government. Hence, you will be deemed a terrorist, and dealt with, accordingly.

If we Americans are ever going to reclaim the freedoms of our past, and preserve that of the present, we must begin to cut funding for these federal citizen-spy programs. And the only way to do that, is by pressuring our state legislators to quit sending our tax dollars to Washington D.C. — the District of Criminals.

There was no shortage of government intelligence prior to September 11th, and no amount of additional spying would have stopped it.

This is because September 11th was a plan that was orchestrated and executed by traitorous murderers who occupy our government in their undying support for the rogue, imperialist nation-state of Israel.

There. I said it.

And if you have a problem with that, my friend, then you have a problem with the truth.

By Darren Weeks

audblog audio post about New Jersey Governor James McGreevey's plan to implement the United Nations' sustainable development program. A map has been released painting 2/3 of the state in red — the color that marks the land that they intend to put off limits to you Americans — who still erroneously presume that you live in a free country.

Nevermind the fact that some New Jersey citizens already live in the red areas. They'll eventually kick them off of their private property as well. That is, if someone doesn't lift a finger to stop these traitorous heathens.

The United Nations program for "sustainable development" is being implemented on a state level! This means that it can be stopped at a state level!

Call your local elected officials in the legislature, as well as the Governor of your state. Even if you don't live in New Jersey, this is important for you to do, because this is coming from the U.N., and it is a battle that will be fought in every state.

That is, unless you choose to allow it to be implemented unchallenged. I hope you care more about your freedoms than that. If you don't, then at least think about the next generation. Do you have children? Grandchildren? Do you care about them?

At the very root of individual liberty, is your basic right to own private property. As it has been for many years, it continues to be under attack. And the U.N. plan for "sustainable development" — which really means no development at all — is being advanced under the guise of curtailing "sprawl," a problem that really isn't even a problem.

Find out to what stage this plan has advanced in your state, then get together with as many folks as you can and begin talking about it. Contact your legislators, and other local officials. Write letters. Make phone calls. Many of these people receive so few letters and calls, that if they receive just a few about the same issue, they consider themselves having been deluged.

Your freedom is more important than anything else in this world. Patrick Henry put it above life itself when he uttered those famous words,

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

No one is asking you to put your life on the line, at this point. Just to take a moment and write some letters, and make some calls. Also to talk to friends and neighbors about the cause of liberty. Do a little research.

If Patrick Henry were alive today, he might ask you how important is your liberty to you?

He isn't alive, but I am. So, in his stead, I will ask the question. Now, what is your answer?

By the way, if you want to read the article that I referenced, you can do so here.

By Darren Weeks

They're again chipping away at the Second Amendment.

Two traitors in Washington D.C. have introduced a bill to further place restrictions on firearms ownership. And can you believe that their arguments are that guns might not be safe?

All I have to say is, DUH! Isn't that the whole idea of owning a firearm? Gee, I thought people owned guns because they were dangerous — not because they were safe. Are we going to keep making the guns so "safe" that we are unable to fire them at a moment of needed use?

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) — Federal legislation introduced Tuesday would subject firearms to heightened scrutiny, similar to consumer safety standards for products like teddy bears, nightlights and pancake makers. ... The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act, introduced by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), would give the Department of Justice authority to regulate the design, manufacture and distribution of guns. ... Supporters of the bill, including the Violence Policy Center and Consumer Federation of America, complained that teddy bears and toy guns have to meet safety standards, while firearms do not.

Let me see here... A "safe" gun. That's an interesting concept.

Consider how some states are requiring the use of trigger locks on guns. That makes them safer, because they are not able to be fired until the trigger lock is removed. But what if an intruder breaks into your house and shoots you while you are fumbling with your safe, trigger-locked gun? I suppose getting shot by an intruder is safer than getting shot with your own gun.

But Corzine said despite the divisiveness of gun control, tougher safety standards make sense for gun owners. He said the bill would ensure that safety features like magazine disconnects and load indicators were standard on every gun.

"Owning a shotgun that explodes in your hand when you're using a weapon is a real issue of consumer safety," he said. "We need to have someone overseeing this so that real guns are treated the same way toy guns are. I think we will be able to appeal to the common sense of those who believe very strongly in the Second Amendment."

I wouldn't count on that, Mr. Corzine. And, by the way, there is no common sense in government. Government is what you do instead of common sense.

Let me ask you readers a question: How often does it happen that a shotgun explodes in someone's hand? I know that I've never heard of it happening. Perhaps a homemade rifle or something of that nature might explode. But not a professionally-manufactured firearm.

And even if it had happened, does it happen often enough to warrant the attention of government regulators? Do we need more government oversight?

There is no question that this is just another way to further create more red tape for the firearms manufacturing industry, and those of us who wish to own firearms. This is another attempt at slicing away more of your freedom.

Kennedy, whose Rhode Island district includes toymaker Hasbro, said the company's fake guns are scrutinized by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, while a firearms manufacturer faces no safety checks.

There is a huge difference between Hasbro's guns, and your Smith & Wesson. Hasbro has to make certain that they're end-users don't choke on parts. The gun industry's products — and patrons too, for that matter — are already very heavily regulated.

The only way that a professionally-manufactured gun is going to be unsafe, is if an idiot points it at you, while it is loaded. And the more government regulations and red tape that are passed, making it difficult for you to own one, the greater the likelihood that guns will be unsafe. Because when the criminals have them, and you don't, then guns are unsafe.

"If you're going to have guns, at least make sure they're manufactured properly," Kennedy said. "Part of the legislation we're introducing ensures that we're able to track and thereby determine which guns have the greatest accident rate, just like you would with any other product."

They already do track your firearms, through ATF, FBI, and Justice Department databases. But that is not good enough. They're not going to quit.

The gun industry needs no regulation as far as safety is concerned. The safety of firearms is regulated very effectively by the free market. What do I mean?

Most lawful firearms owners, take their safety very seriously. In fact, that is the exact reason that they own a firearm in the first place. Because it is safer owning one, then not owning one.

If a gun proves to be defective in any way, you can guarantee the anti-gunners in the media will be all over it. And sales of that particular company's products will dissipate rapidly. No one is going to buy guns from a company that doesn't know how to produce safe guns.

Hence, when a gun manufacturer's sales drop, due to the exposure of their defective products, they'll either be forced to make them safer, or forced out of business. In this way, the gun industry is already regulated for safety.

Besides giving the Justice Department authority to collect data on gun-related deaths and injuries...

The Justice Department needs no authority to collect data on gun safety. Anyone can do that. But the traitors in our government would like to take away your firearms. We'll call it a "product recall."

...the bill also would allow the government to issue product recalls and warnings and limit the sale of firearms when no other remedy was available.

There you go! That is the goal in a nutshell. That is the whole reason for the legislation.

In other words, we'll track your gun, so that we know who owns them, and where the weapons can be found. Then, when we're ready, we'll declare them "unsafe," and "recall" them. And we'll limit the sale of them, so that no more "unsafe" weapons are in the hands of people who might take the law into their own hands. Because we at government-house don't want any vigilante justice out there.

Gary Mehalik, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation said, "The only foolproof way to make sure a firearm does not accidentally shoot is to keep it unloaded and your finger off the trigger."

Or to make sure we freedom-minded "fools" don't own them. And that's really the idea, here. Let's not kid ourselves.

Don't believe me? Then read:

State Department Publication 7277: US Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

The Globalist Plan to Disarm America - Public Law 87-297


Now are you conviced?

As U.S. District Senior Judge Norman Roettger said, while arguing for his right to be able to carry a firearm: "...In the long run you are the first line of your own defense."

Well said, Mr. Roettger. Now, make certain your rulings from the bench reflect that philosophy.

By Darren Weeks

Who are these idiots at furniture factories who keep ordering too much inventory? And why aren't they dealt with?

Every time I watch an Art Van commercial on TV, or some other furniture store, they again have a crisis situation at their factories. Some nit-wit has again overstocked the factory, and they are forced to pass the savings on to me. But I have to act now, while supplies last.

And it always seems to me that the sale ends Sunday, regardless of the volume of inventory.

What I want to know is, why don't they fire the clowns at their factories who keep over-ordering? I mean, making one or two mistakes in the ordering of inventory is excusable. But to do it nearly every week, there is absolutely no excuse for that kind of incompetence! Heads should roll!

Another thing that baffles me about companies like Art Van is how they know in advance how popular their sales will be.

Since my career path in television affords me the opportunity to view their commercials in advance, I cannot help but notice that often they will set a deadline in the first commercial that I see. Then, on the same tape, the next cut says that the sale has been extended because they received such a positive response. If they've extended the sale due to popular demand, how do they know the demand would be so popular, since the sale hasn't even begun yet?

By Darren Weeks

Sultaana Freeman, a 35 year old "Muslim" woman sued to have her drivers license reinstated. Freeman's license was apparently yanked following her refusal to have her face photographed without a veil.

"It's a command from Allah. I veil to obey my Lord ... I want there to be no confusion as to why I veil. It's an act of modesty," the woman was quoted by the Orlando Sentinel.

Other Muslims say that the case is frivolous on its face, and that Freeman's suit will only serve to further create animosity against Muslims.

Here is what I think...

I think this Sultaana Freeman isn't really a Muslim at all. Perhaps, she is just a hired litigator to further create animosity against the Muslim population. And perhaps they seek to use this case, and others like it, to portray Muslims as unreasonable and dangerous — all the more reason to justify their complete eradification from the face of the planet.

And if my assumption is correct, there will be more of these types of media campaigns.

Whether or not I'm right in my presumption about this woman, the fact is no one is forcing her to show her face in public. She has the right to refuse to pose for a photograph with her face exposed. She doesn't have to operate a motor vehicle.

Of course, if Ms. Freeman wishes to fight this battle, there is actually a reasonable reason to resist having one's likeness on their drivers license — or any other form of government paper. It is because these documents are being used against us as a means of government identification and database profiling. And the feds have plans to use the state drivers licenses as a federal identification card, which will eventually give way to an implantable identification chip.

If Ms. Freeman wants to remain free, she might ought to change the purpose of her lawsuit. But for her reasons, it just sounds ridiculous.

By Darren Weeks

It seems that, once again, that the solution to our problems is not government intervention.

From the Washington Post, Airports Favor Private Sector Screeners:

Just months after the federal government took over screening at security checkpoints, airports across the country are starting to show interest in returning to an airport security system handled by the private sector.

With Memorial Day kicking off what the airline industry hopes will be a small but noticeable uptick in passenger travel, airports are worried that the Transportation Security Administration's planned workforce reduction this summer will result in long security lines. Adding to the concern over potentially slow checkpoints is that the agency recently told airports it could not meet its goal of getting passengers through security in 10 minutes.

I knew this would happen, when the government took over airport screening. Security would be lapse where it needed to be tight, and it would be so unnecessarily strict in places it didn't need to be, that it would create crisis situations for travelers.

Anytime you put the performance of the private sector against the performance of a government agency, there will be no contest who will be more effective.

A private sector business with a government contract to perform a service, stands to lose huge profits if their services don't prove to be effective and fruitful. The government will audit what they are spending, review the effectiveness of the company's provisions, and cancel the contract, if needed. The company will be replaced by the next winning bidder. Performance will improve, and the standards will not only be met, but often exceeded. Therefore, if the private sector fails to perform, it will be punished. Hence, there is incentive for the private sector business to do a good job.

A government agency, however, when it fails to perform the needed task(s), will blame it on a lack of funding and demand more money. When more money is approved for the necessary responsibility, the agency charged with the task will then hire more unionized government workers who will be paid higher, and be even less effective than the first batch.

Eventually, the performance of the agency is again reviewed. This time, mismanagement and a lack of effective leadership will be fingered as the problem. A manager will be fired, but the real decision makers at the top will be retained.

Due to the addition of the excess personnel within the bureau, an appeal for more taxpayer funding will be made. After much debate and additional expenses, the appeal will be met with approval.

Also, since there are more people within the bureau, this has afforded them plenty of time to dream up new excuses for non-performance, and new reasons for expanding the budget of the agency. And, as sure as a goose walks barefoot in the barnyard, they will be ready for the next review.

Hence, with the private sector, the reward is for effective performance. With the public sector (a government bureau or agency), non-performance is routinely rewarded, and even encouraged.

Which brings me to an article from The Seattle Times:

About 850,000 government jobs will be opened to private companies under new rules yesterday that encourage competition to replace federal workers who perform tasks such as giving weather reports to private pilots, fixing computers and taking money and tickets at national parks ... The regulations issued yesterday "will open much wider the doors to those businesses and their workers who can seek to provide to the American taxpayer a better value at a better price," said Mitch Daniels, outgoing director of the Office of Management and Budget. ... Officials have identified examples of work being performed by government employees that they said probably could be done better and more cheaply by private businesses.

Do you think maybe someone is finally catching on?

Of course, it is George W. Bush that is making the change, so I wouldn't be surprised to find many of the companies that are awarded contracts to be his donors, or companies in which he holds substantial investment interests.

As I've said before, with regard to Bush's Insider Trading scams, it is only illegal if we do it.

But the fact remains that when you reward a certain behavior, you will get more of it. When you discourage a certain behavior, you will get less of it.

As Ronald Reagan said in 1964:

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or, as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But...the full power of centralized government — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Less government means less waste. And much more common sense.

By Darren Weeks

Tomorrow, the Federal Communications Commission will ruin television in the same way they ruined radio back in 1996.

Less choices; less voices. More high-dollar companies; more media syndication. Less local control; less access to the media for individuals such as you and I.

If the airwaves belong to the people, the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. must believe that the people consist of a handful of rich executives from Clear Channel, Viacom, and Disney.

If the commission does as they are expected, media consolidation will increase, as will syndication. Local programming will further be squeezed out.

I really think it is time for the FCC to be disbanded. They are doing a really lousy job, anyway. It is time for state governments to take over the regulation of the airwaves. In situations where signals cross state lines, state governments would have to work together on the details of how those patterns would be governed. It could be done. Where there is a will, there is a way. But, for heaven's sake, it's time to get the fed out of it!

For background on what the unelected bureaucrats plan to do to further restrict your access to the media in this country, read this article from the Oakland Press.

And to further understand the problem from the perspectives of some of my colleagues, read the Southeast and Mid-Michigan buzzboards.

Diversity is good when it comes to media ownership.