The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) -- even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they're carried out. The new law, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA, the massive federal law that prohibits drugs like marijuana and strictly regulates prescription medication.
"Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for reforming the country's drug laws. "The strange thing is that the purchase of and smoking the marijuana while you're there wouldn't be illegal. But this law would make planning the wedding from the U.S. a federal crime."
The comments were especially instructive. This one was my favorite:
More "thought crime" legislation from the party that wants to keep big government out of your personal business by putting itself in your personal business. Extra cup of "Doublethink" anyone?
The Republican Campaign Slogan for 2012: We favor smaller government except for (use your imagination).....
So I'm having the usual discussion with a Socon and he accuses me of not liking Jesus.
M. Simon, your post attacking me makes you sound like a “Christophobe.” Your logic shows your contempt for Christianity and distrust of us Christians.
You got me. It was caused by me being FORCED in public school to attend Christian assemblies. In public schools that were at least half Jewish. We never had a Jewish assembly.
So Christian outreach reached me. The results could have been predicted although they may not have been desired.
I no longer dislike Christians as a group. Just those trying to ram their faith down my throat. I have my own faith. Thank you very much.
====
The cycle goes like this: The Ds get in and wreck the country. The electorate gives the Rs a shot. At first they attend to fixing most of the problems that the Ds caused. When they have that in hand they decide that what the country really needs is God. Their version of God. And the electorate rejects the Rs and we are back in a different kind of misery.
Moral socialism begets economic socialism.
And the Rs are too stupid to see this. Mostly.
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” – Ronald Reagan
===
Here is what you are up against if Republicans make faith central to the coming election campaign:
Warning. The above video is quite disturbing. I couldn't watch it all. Let me add that the link to the video was sent to me by Eric my blog master at Classical Values.
Here is a question for all my "the government must do something about abortion" friends: How do you prevent abortion enforcement from looking like what you saw in that video? And don't forget the above enforcement action was based on a a mistake by the police. And in the end the woman involved was only charged with a misdemeanor.
Do you think the vagina police won't make mistakes about something as serious as abortion? You hate the thought of your wives and daughters being groped by the TSA. How are you going to feel about them being molested by the vagina police?
You want to trust your mate's or daughter's vagina to the government?
Are you insane?
OK. You only want to shut down abortion clinics. What will you do about menstrual extraction parties? The black market in RU-486? The use of birth control pills to induce abortion?
And all this for a crime that most of those who even think of it as a crime put in the category of misdemeanor manslaughter and the woman goes free. Is that worth making the government bigger? And you know if government gets a hold of the project it is guaranteed to fail. Why? Because jobs will depend on failure. And of course there will be corruption. How else can police be paid what they think they are really worth? Not all of them. Not even most of them. But enough. Always enough.
And what happens when failure breeds calls for weekly urine testing of women? After all we have the Drug War Precedent. And that is without probable cause. How much easier will it be to gin up probable cause for pregnancy? A flush of the cheeks. A swelling of the belly. A happy mood. Wide mood swings. Symptoms of nausea. And how about minders? More properly call snitches or confidential informants and better know in totalitarian countries as secret police adjuncts. Is that the kind of country you want?
Better to leave the whole question in private hands. Which is why I support Rockford Pro Life. A group that wants to keep government out of the abortion question. I met them at a TEA Party rally.
And then we have the Jewish position on abortion. Which is rather different from the Catholic position on abortion. Which religion is to prevail? And how about those with no religion? Do they get a say? Can they opt out? Or will this be another one size fits all government policy?
Do you really want to get your religious position enacted into law? Trying to start a religious war my friends?
And how will investigating every "life of the mother" abortion work out? Some one is going to have to look at every therapeutic abortion for evidence of a crime. And what if a doctor is mistaken? Will he be brought up on charges the way doctors who make honest mistakes in prescribing pain medications are today? And guess what. That is a Drug War Exception to the practice of medicine.
What about the Democrat plan to destroy the TEA Party movement over the abortion question? You can find out about that here:
I see no faster way to kill the TEA Parties and give the Democrats an opening to finish their Socialism for the USA project. And you know what? I'd help them.
No idle threat my friends. Because I have done it before:
Think long and hard my social conservative friends before you go down this road because if it works anything like Drug Prohibition or Alcohol Prohibition it will not turn out well. Not well at all.
Social conservatives are crafty. It is always 'I believe in small government "except for...." ' and then the liberals chime in: "I have a few exceptions in mind too." And we are off to the races.
I'm hanging over at Belmont Club and found a comment I rather liked.
121. sgi
If there is one thing and one thing only that will alienate other American voters from tea party candidates it is their social conservatism. Personal freedom must be extended to all Americans, even if their personal choices are offensive to social conservatives. Small government, freedom and responsibility are birds of a feather.
September 15, 2010 - 2:12 pm
It is the hubris that gets you. The "We Won" mentality. The Tea Party successes are not a call for Republican Socialism. What do I mean by that? The idea that you can eliminate vice by an act of Congress. What you really need is an Act of Congress AND a police state. I do not think the American people will stand for such a thing. One good example is the coming vote in California on the legalization of marijuana. Even five years ago such a vote was unthinkable. Win or lose in California - the tide is turning against pot prohibition. Eventually we will take the Swiss example to heart and legalize all drugs, for the simple reason that taking distribution out of the hands of criminals will make our streets safer and better protect our children.
So my socon friends, if you are really interested in smaller government and wish to stem the drift into an American police state you must consider the will of the people. Keep in mind:
DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT
Funny thing is that a contender for the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2012 agrees with me.
Gary Johnson, former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, supports legalization of marijuana and argues that it will lead to a more effective fight against drugs. He blames the stalemate on the federal government and on both Republicans and Democrats.
"For the most part, politics is about following the herd as opposed to providing leadership," Johnson, who is speculated to be considering a run for the White House in 2012, told ABC News. "For me, it was a cost-benefit analysis, period. It's the fact that half of what we spend in law enforcement and the courts and the prisons is drug related, to what end?"
Johnson disagrees with the idea that dabbling in the politics of drugs would be harmful -- he cites his own approval rating as governor, saying it was steady even after he made his position known.
"It's a really good political issue because it's the truth. It's the emperor wears no clothes," he said.
One thing to keep in mind about the Swiss exaple so far is that they were against the legalization of pot. Why? Well you know - it is a REALLY dangerous drug. Still. The prohibition regime is breaking down. Socons can either get with the program or get drowned when the next tide of change rolls in. That would be unfortunate because we really do need smaller government.
But I do have another arrow in my quiver. Mexico. And Mexico is a disaster area and is getting worse.
It is wrecking the government of Mexico. It is financing the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is throwing 11,000 Britons into jail. It is corrupting democracy throughout Latin America. It is devastating the ghettoes of America and propagating Aids in urban Europe. Its turnover is some £200bn a year, on which it pays not a penny of tax. Thousands round the world die of it and millions are impoverished. It is the biggest man-made blight on the face of the earth.
No, it is not drugs. They are as old as humanity. Drugs will always be a challenge to individual and communal discipline, alongside alcohol and nicotine. The curse is different: the declaration by states that some drugs are illegal and that those who supply and use them are criminals. This is the root of the evil.
By outlawing products – poppy and coca – that are in massive global demand, governments merely hand huge untaxed profits to those outside the law and propagate anarchy. Repressive regimes, such as some Muslim ones, have managed to curb domestic alcohol consumption, but no one has been able to stop the global market in heroin and cocaine. It is too big and too lucrative, rivalling arms and oil on the international monetary exchanges. Forty years of "the war on drugs" have defeated all-comers, except political hypocrites.
Ah. Yes the hypocrites. That would be my socon friends who are all for smaller government except when it comes to their pet social engineering projects. Making people more moral at the point of a government gun.
Most western governments have turned a blind eye and decided to ride with the menace, since the chief price of their failure is paid by the poor. In Britain Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Gordon Brown felt tackling the drugs economy was not worth antagonising rightwing newspapers. Like most rich westerners they relied on regarding drugs as a menace among the poor but a youthful indiscretion among their own offspring.
Not to mention three American Presidents. So far. How is it that the elite are never subject (effectively) to their own laws? It is a mystery. None the less when there is one law for the common man and another for the aristocrats support for the rule of law breaks down.
But things get funnier. Much funnier. And not in a good way.
In countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, drugs are so endemic that criminalising them merely fuels a colossal corruption. It is rendering futile Nato's Afghan war effort, which requires the retraining of an army and police too addicted either to cure or to sack. Poppies are the chief source of cash for farmers whose hearts and minds Nato needs to win, yet whose poppy crop (ultimately for Nato nations) finances the Taliban. It is crazy.
The worst impact of criminalisation is on Latin America. Here the slow emergence of democratic governments – from Bolivia through Peru and Columbia to Mexico – is being jeopardised by America's "counter-narcotics" diplomacy through the US Drug Enforcement Agency. Rather than try to stem its own voracious appetite for drugs, rich America shifts guilt on to poor supplier countries. Never was the law of economics – demand always evokes supply – so traduced as in Washington's drugs policy. America spends $40bn a year on narcotics policy, imprisoning a staggering 1.5m of its citizens under it.
Cocaine supplies routed through Mexico have made that country the drugs equivalent of a Gulf oil state. An estimated 500,000 people are employed in the trade, all at risk of their lives, with 45,000 soldiers deployed against them. Border provinces are largely in the hands of drug barons and their private armies. In the past four years 28,000 Mexicans have died in drug wars, a slaughter that would outrage the world if caused by any other industry (such as oil). Mexico's experience puts in the shade the gangsterism of America's last failed experiment in prohibition, the prewar alcohol ban.
I think we ought to put an end to this foolishness before America winds up like Mexico and socons get a semi-permanent black eye (nothing is permanent in American politics - after all socons have come back despite the failure of one of their pet projects - alcohol prohibition).
Michael Tanner has a few things to say about big government "Conservatives". Let me start off with a headline:
Memo to Republicans: It’s Big Government, Stupid!
Then how about some meat:
Despite their repeated threats to stay home if Republicans deviated from a commitment to conservative social issues, it wasn’t the Religious Right that deserted Republicans in 2008 (or 2006, for that matter). Turnout among self-described members of the Religious Right remained steady from 2004 to 2008, and these voters remained loyally Republican. Roughly 70 percent of white evangelicals and born-again Christians voted Republican in 2006, and 74 percent in 2008, essentially in line with how they have been voting for the past two or three decades.
It was suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up with the Republican drift toward big government who stayed home — or, worse, voted Democratic in 2008. Republicans carried the suburbs in both 2000 (49 to 47) and 2004 (52 to 47), but in 2008, suburban voters — notably wealthy, college-educated professionals, many of whom consider themselves moderate on social issues but economically conservative — voted for Barack Obama by a margin of 50 to 48. The switch among voters in the suburbs of Columbus, Charlotte, and Indianapolis, for instance, was largely responsible for moving Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana into the Democratic column. Democrats also continued their gains in the more independent, libertarian West.
Here is my take on that. Let me start with one of my favorites:
DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT
And guess what? The libertarian West is anti-prohibition (just look at California). Doesn't give a rats ass about gay marriage. And they think that government has no place in their or their mate's vaginas.
Now are they a majority? Hell no. Are they the people who swing elections? Hell yes.
If the Rs go back to their culture war ways they will deserve to lose. I promise you this: I will vote Republican in the next election, probably the one after. But if the Rs get all Culture War on me I'm going to speak against them every chance I get. Just to ruin their days. Kind of like a bad haircut only worse. Because a bad haircut lasts only a few weeks. I promise to last as long as it takes to destroy them politically.
I'm a proud member of The Leave Us The F* Alone Coalition. I am not interested in government improvement or uplift. If any one is going to improve or uplift me it is going to be me.
I found the reviews (mostly written in 2007) interesting from a historical perspective. Here is a good one:
Odysseus "A Traveller" (Virginia, USA)
Mike Tanner's book provides a valuable service for those believers in limited government who have been left wondering what happened to their values during a period of Republican control of both the legislative and executive branches of government.
Tanner explores and explains the roots of "big-government conservatism," influential thinkers within the Republican tent that were never really believers in limited government to begin with. Instead, these groups, which included religious conservatives, so-called "neoconservatives," "national greatness conservatives," and followers of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, among others, did not seek to arrest the growth of government so much as to direct it towards ends of which they approved. "Conservatism" thus came to mean many things unrelated to limiting the reach of government, encompassing the likes of Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer, who spoke of conservative social values, but who often opposed addressing the factors (such as the increasing cost of federal entitlement programs) that cause government to grow. The goal of many of these thinkers (Gingrich being a prime example) was not to restrict the size of government, but to bolt new programs whose design they favored, on top of the old ones.
I intend to do my best to drive a stake through the heart of Republican Socialism and do my best to destroy Progressive Conservatives. If they stick with their claim that they are for limited government and fiscal responsibility and act on it, I'm with them. If not I'm going to be agin them. They could start with the Federal Drug War at $25 billion a year and go from there.
I'll bet you didn't know that wasting trillions was a conservative strategy. It is. In one of the biggest pork barrel projects in America. The Drug War.
After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.
Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.
"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told the Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."
Another conservative social engineering failure. Well actually it was started by Progressives, but many Conservatives have fully embraced it. So what do you call a Conservative who embraces Progressive policy?
Riehl World View is discussing why the GOP online efforts will fail. One commenter is looking for:
a leader that embraces conservatism instead of power.
That will never happen until the majority of the "conservative" base gives up on social engineering. i.e. really embraces small government instead of paying it lip service.In the meantime we will see the pendulum swing back and forth between the social engineers of the right and those of the left.
In my opinion the absolute BIGGEST MISTAKE RR made was getting involved in the Culture War. i.e. amping up the Drug War.
Culture is the responsibility of the people NOT the government.
It would be nice if we had two parties competing on the basis of more Liberty rather than more Control. What are the odds? It goes against nature for one thing. Some people crave power and control. Heck. I'm one of them (don't elect me - ever), but I channel that desire into something useful. Electrical power systems. Electrons go where they are told - mostly.
This is especially troubling for Mexican law enforcement because marijuana use, through medical marijuana outlets and general social acceptance, has become de facto legal in the U.S., and demand is robust. The upshot is that consumption is cool while production, trafficking and distribution are organized-crime activities. This is what I called in a previous column, "a stimulus plan for Mexican gangsters."
I have been calling the drug war unadulterated socialism since 2000. Price supports for criminals and terrorists. I have also been calling it Cultural Socialism and Republican Socialism.
Good to see the main stream finally catching on. I did feature the WSJ video accompanying the article in this 25 March post.
We’re going to reclaim the power of the people from those who disregarded the will of the people. We’re going to fire them and send them back to the private sector, which has been shrinking thanks to their destructive government-growing policies. Maybe when they join the millions of unemployed, they’ll understand why Americans wanted them to focus on job creation and an invigorated private sector. Come November, we’re going to print pink slips for members of Congress as fast as they’ve been printing money.
We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election. Three of these House members are retiring – from Arkansas’s 2nd district, Indiana’s 8th district, and Tennessee’s 6th district – but we’ll be working to make sure that those who replace them are Commonsense Conservatives.
I sure hope so. Because I'm so tired of Culture War Conservatives and the Cultural Socialism they bring with them.
I think it is past time to retire the "Tax and Spend but I'm against Abortion" Republicans. A party that favors fiscal sanity and other wise leaves the people alone to make their own (good and bad) choices is the American way. Unless you believe government can make people moral. And how is that Drug War working out for you?
So let us start with the numbers. Also let me add that this is going to be somewhat simplistic since I did not look at exit polls to determine who did what and why. It should give some idea of what went on though. Not counting vote fraud.
Obama 3,597,456
Keyes 1,390,690
Total 4,988,146
===
Kerry 2,891,550
GBush 2,345,946
Total 5,237,946
Let me start with the undervote. 249,800 more people (probably Republicans just to make things simple) voted in the Kerry/Bush (K/B) race than in the Obama/Keyes (O/K) race. Probably Republicans who couldn't stand either candidate.
So let us see how that looks for O/K. If we subtract Kerry from Obama we get 705,906. That means (roughly) that 705,906 Republican voters voted for the Communist over the Socon. I was one of them. It was a protest vote by me against the R party for putting a socon on the ballot who was running on a Theocon platform.
So am I against socons? NO. I support Sarah Palin nationally and Doug Hoffman in NY23. Why? Hoffman is running on a strictly fiscal responsibility platform with NO Culture War issues. And Sarah Palin Governed Alaska on a fiscal responsibility/anti-corruption platform.
So what about the Theocons? The American Taliban is rather apt. Not in terms of the culture they want to enforce but in the fact that they want to enforce culture.
My attitude? On social issues the socons should lead by example not government force. The persuasion of Jesus is better than the sword of Rome. If you are trying to get votes.
I always thought that the thing to do was to bless people in the hope that they would see the light. These "Values Voters" from 2007 don't seem to see things that way.
The New York Times reports on the 2009 Values Voters Summit. The Times does have some good news for us libertarian types.
At a time when the Republican Party is in search of new leaders, the procession of familiar faces on stage Friday and in the audience was striking. Two of the party’s biggest names — Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Sarah Palin, the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2008 — did not show up at all, citing scheduling conflicts.
Many Republicans have been arguing that the party’s focus on social issues is a mistake at a time when voters are concerned about the economic downturn and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the emphasis at the summit, sponsored by the Family Research Council, was still decidedly on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.
These Republicans don't seem to have any understanding of the "leave us alone" voters.
And just in case you want to know the words to the song in the video I have a link. It is some ugly shit. Really ugly shit. Ungodly ugly shit. Some one should tell these folks to put a sock in it if they are interested in winning elections.
Because come the next election I may have to make a choice between a communist and a theocon. If that is the choice I'm given I'm going to do the same thing I did the last time I was given that choice. I'm going to vote for the communist.
The Cash For Clunkers Program that I wrote about here is a rousing success. So much so that the $1 billion that was supposed to last three months is gone in a week.
The Obama administration is telling lawmakers that its much-touted "cash-for-clunkers" program is already running out of money, according to three Senate aides familiar with the discussions.
The program — aimed at giving at boost to the U.S. auto industry — was supposed to expire at the end of October. But in the one week since it took effect, it appears to have run dry of the $1 billion allocated to it, aides said Thursday.
The Obama administration had told senators that the program would be suspended at midnight Thursday, aides said, but a White House official told POLITICO that the administration is "working tonight to assess the situation facing what is obviously an incredibly popular program.
Well why wouldn't it be popular. It is a direct subsidy on the order of $3,000 to $4,000 for the purchase of a new car. All you need is a drivable junker that you have owned for a year to trade in to get the Government Cash. Can't afford a new car? Credit bad? Tough luck. This is not for the peasants. It is to help boost Government Motors, Crisis Motors, and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) Motors.
Now here is where the Republicans come in on the "deal".
One Michigan Republican, Congresswoman Candice Miller, has already come out in favor of extending the program, saying in a statement: “There can be no doubt that the Cash for Clunkers program is a complete success given the fact that the entire $1 billion allocated to the program was expended in less than a week."
She called the program "simply the most stimulative $1 billion the federal government has spent during the entire economic downturn."
Stimulative for the folks getting the money. A stone rip off for the taxpayers who will wind up paying the bill. And we have a Republican dancing in the street over this? Doesn't the Republican Party have any principles any more? Well I guess I already knew the answer to that question. Still.
Libertarianism (without the surrender component) can bring us all together again. You know that Goldwater thingy. He really hated cultural socialists as much as he hated economic socialists. He was always firing away at socons. The Reagan revolution was a culmination of all that. It is how he brought “Reagan Democrats” into the fold. Stick with a core we can all agree on.
Social conservatism at the point of a gun is just as much socialism as is economic liberalism at the point of a gun.
The deal is: let us save government guns for thieves and robbers and external enemies and let society take care of itself. The government should not be making black markets. It only empowers criminals.
Socons get vitriol from me because I hate cultural socialism as much as I hate economic socialism. I try to be consistent. I’m a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. Not too popular (except for lip service) in some circles. Every one liked the results. Hardly any one wants to stick to the philosophy.
You know why we can’t find another Reagan?
Because Republicans no longer understand Goldwater.
The only strategy capable of defeating the communists is the widest possible unity of all the class and social forces whose interests run counter to those of the most socialist section of the transnationals.
You know we might like to start with economics.
If the party was focused on
1. Economics 2. Defense 3. Individual liberty
and left the social issues to ministers, priests, and rabbis, we might broaden the base.
As I understand it Reagan gave minor lip service to social Conservatives and focused on the above issues. That is the Republican core. Huckabee was a huge distraction and more socialist than McCain.
Given that I can see why social conservatives have no problem sitting this one out. They like Socialism. Just a different brand than the Democrats. It is funny that Social Conservatives do not see themselves as Socialists.
The Federal Governments job is to protect our liberty, defend our country, and protect our property. Any thing else exceeds its mandate.
The less we want government to do the broader our coalition will be.
I have recently posted on how the drug war fuels the the war on guns.
Evidently by keeping prices for some drugs high it also fuels prostitution.
Anneli Alderton, 24, had been an "excellent student", spending part of her childhood in Cyprus and becoming bilingual, her mother Maire Alderton said.
But when she moved back to Ipswich at the age of 14 her life went off the rails when her father died and she turned to prostitution to fund her drug habit. She had been in prison four times.
Now I can't think of a major politician who isn't against drugs and prostitution (unless you count Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich as major and they only cover drugs). And yet their fight against these social problems only makes them worse. Of course the government is only here to help. And when - like Sharia - there is a law for everything we will certainly have a perfect world. Unless Le Chatelier's Principle intervenes. Short version - you push on a balloon in one place, it tends to expand in others to compensate.
In any case these wars on vice are typical Republican Socialism. Price Supports for vice and crime.
I live in Illinois, a RINO state. Our local State Senator Dave Seyverson has his fingers all over the Keyes/carpetbagger deal.
Keyes has gone negative on Obama from the get go. The Latest was the "Jesus" vote deal. You know. The bit where Keyes says Jesus won't vote for Obama. And Republicans derride those who say they are the party of the American Taliban. I know - they are no where near as bad as the Taliban. But why even make the slightest move in that direction?
To tell the truth as a RINO I do not want to see the Rs with a big margin in the Senate. I want the Dems to obstruct. I want the Republicans to compromise.
Why? Because I hate Republican Socialism.
Republican Socialism
Nationalize the flag Nationalize permissible eating, drinking, and smoking habts etc. Nationalize people's sex lives Nationalize women's bodies.
Just as ugly in my opinion as Democratic Socialism.
==
The Rs are just as bad as the Ds:
"Men with guns (government) are the solution to my favorite social problem."
Well that is not my America.
So my question is:
What have Republicans learned from alcohol prohibition?
According to FTC regulations I am required to disclose any material benefit I receive from any blog post.
OK.
I get paid from Amazon if you order from any of the links provided. I will give you an honest opinion of any products I have ordered if I blog about them.
If you don't trust me read the Amazon reviews. If there is no review you are on your own.
If you pay me enough and promise to cover my lawyers fees I may say something nice about you. Or I may not. Enough is generally more than you can afford. Unless you have a a really really big bank account or more that a few large gold bars under the mattress.
If you do pay I expect to be transported to a country with no extradition treaty with the US.
If I review a book it may be because the author or publisher sent me a review copy. Other wise I will quote a review of some one else. If I say a product looks interesting it is because it interests me. Sometimes I will link to books so you can educate yourself on a subject and so I can make some off the sale.
If some one employs me I will probably say good things about them as long as the money keeps coming. Or I may say nothing. To keep out of trouble with their lawyers.
That covers most of what I can think of. I'm getting old and sometimes I don't think of everything.
And if you have read this far please Buy Something From Amazon. I can use the money - well actually I will use the proceeds to buy something from Amazon. I get a better deal that way.
Posts
