this proves that we want to limit the mission of the IRS  to simple tax collection. Having the IRS woven into Obamacare combined with this story spells the eventual death of Obamacare. Thank you God.

 It was impossible to tax the internet with no jurisdiction to do it across state lines. Now it is possible to tax the internet because we are busily tolerating being sold out by our own leaders. Are we going to tolerate it? It depends whether you think it is about the money you have to pay in tax when you buy a thing on the internet - or is it about the loss of virtue and excellence that was to be found  on the internet. (It was amazing while it lasted, the way excellence by a small business was able to shine through) It's the most successful piece of Alinsky-destruction so far, and the Republican party was more helpful than with any other thing! The real question is: why aren't we going after the Republican party leadership? Are we really focused on what we are paying at a particular store?

I went to his site. I read his bullet points. He's not very good at pointing out what's being done wrong in government today because he hasn't thought about it very deeply yet. I hope he does apply his mind to the problem and start giving specific examples as he outlines the problem. This would indicate political courage and potential leadership. Of course this is a very new candidacy, so maybe he will start upsetting the Republican party once they commit to supporting him. That would make me like him a lot. I don't like people suggesting simplistic solutions like term limits for politicians. If I get a good politician in there, and he wants to give me his whole life, by golly I'm going to take him up on it. Term limits would be nice for some judges though. And I don't like the blind trust idea either. They seem pretty good at catching insider traders. We don't need all that. Less time with legislation in session should come way before all those ideas.

I was confronting a similar problem and I decided that my reaction could skew far out of proportion to the financial effect of the perceived insult. I think our reaction should be in proportion to the intent behind the regulation. I would say that in LaHood's case, it was to give Americans a slap to the face. Everybody in this administration is sending this message. I think that after we fire them we should start estimating the economic damage they tried to do and charge their source of tenure institution a percentage of that damage in grant-rebates to the people. GRAB- grant rebating after busybody takes a sabbatical act. 

If it were me, hanging around downtown Houston, I'd go eat at Mai's restaurant and get an iced coffee. It is a Vietnamese restaurant. The iced coffee comes with a small pitcher of carnation evaporated milk. I like the visuals of seeing the milk disperse in the coffee and the strength of the coffee brew. I like the atmosphere for its' practicality- it can handle a lot of people at once and all of them are there to get at the food. I had a vegetable broth to start with that made a great impression on me because of its' flavor. Mei's food has what I like: simplicity with delineation.

I suspect that you are getting a little annoyed at a crop of new cognitive beings. There may be quite a few people out there who have chosen some of Dr. Sowell's street-level writings to teach themselves how to follow reasoned arguments. I consciously did that for about two years, starting around the middle of 2006. I remember a stage when I first wanted to convert from just reading, to reading and writing when my impulse  was just to drop Dr.Sowell's name. I think it wears off pretty quickly with each person, when they decide to face the fact that if they're going to write anything, they might have to pour a lot of hours into each word.

Interesting! But I meant a more immediate gift as he steps in front of a blowtorch for me-either just before, or during, or just after. And I'm hoping it will be multiplied by a million. I actually think that I can save myself in all that is being conducted against me in politics. This belief originated when I intentionally decided to make it true-to force myself to believe it. I think that is the difference between me and a lot of people. I made up a fantasy and told it to myself with the intent of adopting it as a belief. I have a name for this process: I call it "telling yourself the big lie". It starts out as a lie, because it's not a belief, and then after a few minutes, your soul and body adopt it like air and it becomes true. 

If the guns are removed from civilian hands, then the dynamic of a government not enforcing the laws changes profoundly-because as the criminals run rampant, there is no termination of the criminal anymore, which was the statistical probability when wreaking havoc on a potentially armed populace. In other words, if the government lets criminals run rampant in an armed society, the criminals get all shot up. The liberals in the government do not like seeing their criminals shot full of holes, so they are more likely to enforce the law to protect the criminals. The opposite is just as true. The safer the criminals are preying on society, the more the progressive anti-individual crowd will back off. The collective will re-elect them, and the individual is kept under attack. Any government is not very far from murdering its own citizens once it is allowed to turn into a life-form. If government is a machine run by humans (rule of law) it can be non-lethal. But if it becomes alive (with the rule of man, for payoffs for example) it by definition becomes a killing machine.  I wouldn't trivialize this matter It's very grave.

He was going to sign it but he figured out how to switch to a pen and ink that will cost 9x more than the current one. That's why he put it off. It's the same message he sends us when he puts his shoes up on our desk, or when he doesn't like the background he's sitting in front of and middle-fingers the camera off of his face.

I encounter Kerry from time to time. It is very similar to finding a single traffic cone that isn't doing anything.

thanks for making this point. I will now go over the heads of the press regarding this battle. It won't be the first time I bypass the press. 

You travail against malevolently destructive law. I'm off to read your column. I heard initial news of this bad law via a Phyllis Shafly column last year - when it was being written. It was such depressing news back then, that I put it out of my mind-like deciding not to go to a horror movie. Now that it's "alive", thank you for the column addressing it.

I don't see the energy-based futuristic inventions as not having happened; I just see them as being deformed by the ideas of intellectuals. Abstract ideas have adopted the purpose of opposing, redirecting, or forcing the purpose of concrete ideas.  They operate inside of an artificial reality not associated, in any positive sense, with futurism. We have flying cars, but it is distorted into just being private airplanes being popular in remote areas. We have transformed energy, but it isn't in the form of the energy but only when it is converted. I don't think robot butlers have been a bust; there's a non-humanoid robot washing my clothes at this moment and I am not worrying about the cost, the clothes, feeding the robot. I know you meant android robots, but just because a blog makes that the definition; that is intellectual spin from the concept that someone will oversee futurism and give it a definition.) . Robots have not come into being for many reasons, but the assumption that we have needed them up till now is flawed. We'll get them when we realize that one needs constant massages for space travel while asleep?

I think we can show some things to make a case that requiring education in America started with good intentions, but that it was a fatal mistake that turns out to be lethal to a democratic republic. Then logically, trace education back to before the product became corrupt. The question of what to do about a corrupted institution becomes a question of how to kill it. So give life to the reality of what education is capable of when it has no connection to public funding in order to show that it doesn't die and that it cannot die. Also go to cases where the poor have bypassed government education and are self-funding private education (only possible where education is not mandated) to again show the power of education to provide real benefits outside of any centralized influence. It is an amazing story in its' own right, and the case needs to be made to kill the notion that it is basically good to force education to occur or to collectively be responsible for any of it. When they introduced force, it worked for a few generations, but now it's deadly. Show that.

this was very engaging to read. I wish you could write more about this same place with additional perspectives, to enable my further intrusion into a place which is distressing to visit. I want to know if there was a time when this rural economy was more positive.Then I want to know who caused it to change and what set of ideas they employed to do the destruction...but that's just a newly vindictive me.

 I get Rand Paul's point and get  Ted Cruz's point. I think the criticisms from conservative sources show where their hearts lie, and they only pretend not to understand the point. Also, discussions that treat the idea of drones carrying out murders on U.S. soil as a fantasy are displaying the use of verbal tactics unsuitable in this case- trivialization, and ridicule.