Watch Out: The Better Than Cash Alliance Has a Plan

By Seth Mason

In the fall of 1910, under the pretense of a duck hunting trip, a group of powerful bankers, political figures, and businessmen met at Jekyll Island, GA to plan the creation of a central bank for the United States. The “game” that this elite group of “hunters” brought back to their ivory towers of Lower Manhattan and Capitol Hill was the blueprint for one of the most destructive financial institutions in modern history, the Federal Reserve.

One-hundred years later, another group of powerful bankers, political figures, and businessmen have converged to promote a cashless society, an economic system that would compel every man, woman, and child to utilize proprietary, government-monitored electronic systems to make purchases of any kind. This group, which calls itself the Better Than Cash Alliance, is as dangerous as the group of “outdoor enthusiasts” that met at Jekyll Island that fateful early-20th Century November.

And, just like the Jekyll Island group sold their grand plans based on a lie (they claimed that the Fed would guarantee liquidity in times of financial panics), the Better Than Cash Alliance is selling the idea of a cashless society based on the farce that eliminating cash would stimulate entrepreneurship among the poor. In reality, the elimination of cash would reduce a great many opportunities for entrepreneurship for people of few means. Gone would be the informal businesses the working poor often operate: roadside produce stands, street performances, handicraft tables, and day labor. Contrary to the assertions of the BTCA, a cash-free society would limit entrepreneurship to those with the means to incorporate a business, afford the proprietary system required to accept payments, and understand the local, state, and federal tax burden the payment system would create.

Although they won’t admit it, the 12 central governments that currently support the BTCA (the U.S. is one of them) do so because a cashless society would enable them to track and tax every purchase made with sovereign currency within their borders. In addition to producing new government revenue streams, the payment systems would increase governments’ social engineering capabilities: They would compel consumers to purchase goods and services from tax-paying, licensed organizations. Freelance service providers such as barbers, music teachers, and tutors would be forced to either jump through the hoops of incorporation or seek work with licensed businesses (which would inevitably take a cut of their earnings and subject the remainder to payroll taxes). The black market would also be squeezed, escalating the War on Drugs, and subjecting every “sin” and self-defense purchase to government scrutiny. Under the guise of “national security”, of course.

A number of financial institutions, including, but not limited to, Citi, Visa, and MasterCard, support the BTCA, for obvious reasons. In a cash-free world, these institutions would not only make profits on the front end by selling electronic payment devices and charging a fee for every transaction, but they would also make money on the back end by compelling everyone to deposit all of their earnings and cash holdings into their coffers. The BTCA claims that a cashless society would enable the poor to “participate in the financial system”. In reality, it would compel everyone to patronize banks. And, while a cashless society would be a windfall for the banking industry, it would place a heavy burden on the elderly, who often hold large amounts of cash and are hesitant (and, in some cases, incapable) of making electronic financial transactions. Among the numerous social problems the BTCA’s plan for cashless society would create, incidences of elder abuse would certainly increase.

Inevitably, some people would find a way to circumvent a government-mandated electronic payment system, at least for some purchases. Some would find ways to barter or use non-government-issued crypto or de facto currencies. (Interestingly, some black market circles use liquid Tide laundry detergent as a currency.) For some, the elimination of cash would have little material effect on their lives. But, for most, the BTCA’s agenda is a tremendous threat to their individual and economic liberties.

Like the Jekyll Island duck hunters, the Better Than Cash Alliance is a cabal of powerful people who are pushing a dangerous agenda that would harm average Americans while increasing the elite group’s power over them. Like Georgia mallards, the BTCA’s plans must be shot down.

Seth Mason is founder and director of solidus.center

Obama's Tax Deal, Internet Tax Deal: Corporate Subterfuge

By Seth Mason

When I was young and naive, I believed that those who use the terms "crony capitalism" and "corporatism" must be anti-capitalists by default. But I didn't understand that Corporate America doesn't play by the rules of free-market capitalism. I didn't realize the degree to which Corporate America uses the federal government to crush competition from small business. 

Obama's latest "tax deal" is an excellent example of crony capitalist and corporatist subterfuge. Obama proposes lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28% in exchange for raising the top individual rate to 40%. Here's the thing about that: corporations have teams of tax accountants that crush down their federal tax liabilities to nearly zero (or less than zero in the case of GE and dozens of other corporate behemoths . Successful small business owners are often in the highest tax bracket, but corporate bigwigs often aren't because they make the majority of their money from capital gains. In other words, Obama's tax deal is smoke and mirrors: he proposes RAISING taxes on small business in exchange for sliding down a relatively-meaningless corporate tax rate. ("Look at me, I'm pro-capitalism!")

 By raising taxes on small businesses with his grand tax "bargain", Obama would be fighting small business competition for his corporate masters, not making U.S. companies more competitive, as he claims he would be. 

The Orwellian "Marketplace Fairness Act"--or Internet sales tax act--is another great recent example of crony capitalist and corporatist subterfuge. The act is being sold as leveling the playing field for mom-and-pop businesses. And that's what it would do, right? WRONG! Many corporate behemoths with strong online sales support the Internet sales tax. Why? Because corporate behemoths can afford to pay a little more for online sales; small businesses with online sales can't.

The federal government and the sitting U.S. president do their masters' bidding by creating obstacles for small business. Calling them "crony capitalists" and "corporatists" isn't anti-capitalist. But allowing them to continue to dismantle small business and the Main Street economy is.

The above originally appeared at Ecominoes and is reprinted here with permission.

The American Hiring Paradigm Is Broken

By Seth Mason

Central banking has made a mess of the economy, and increasingly onerous jobs-killing federal legislation has impeded hiring and thus has impeded economic recovery. But the Fed and Washington aren't the only culprits in the nation's continued economic malaise. The American hiring paradigm is also to blame.

As a perennial job seeker, I frequently respond to job posts. I've noticed that--with the exception of small numbers of listings posted by entrepreneurs--listings by American companies almost always outline desired amounts of applicant experience as opposed to what's far more important: congruence with company goals. Lou Adler, entrepreneur and best-selling author, best summarized this phenomenon in an article he recently published on LinkedIn:

“Successful candidate will develop a new approach for reducing water usage by 50%,” is a lot better than saying “Must have 5-10 years of environmental engineering background including 3-5 years of wastewater management."

Indeed. Before the economy crashed, I was able to grow a local Spanish-language newspaper into a Spanish-language entertainment magazine published throughout 2 states. My company enjoyed such robust growth primarily because I staffed it with great people who contributed to specific company goals. I found these great employees not by seeking applicants with X years of experience, but rather by seeking applicants who made the best case that they could contribute to the objectives I outlined.

As both an employer and a job-seeker, I can say with certainty that the common American approach to talent acquisition--valuing years of experience over capability--creates tremendous opportunity costs for the company, and therefore retards economic recovery. (This is evidenced by the automatic rejection of the long-term unemployed.) This unfortunate approach to hiring is almost certainly a function of the increasing trend of management delegating the all-important task of staffing to people who are not only far disconnected from the development of company goals, but aren't businesspeople at all. These people--call them recruiters or HR professionals or whatever you wish--use years of experience as a baseline for applicant value because they have little frame of reference as to who could best contribute to company goals. And they can never have this frame of reference because 1) they aren't part of the company goal-setting process and, 2) even if they were included in such discussions, they often lack the unique attributes and personality of a business leader. As Adler puts it, "only a thinker can determine what to look for in a thinker."

The solution to this problem is simple: American company leaders should play a greater part in the hiring process. This begins with creating jobs listings outlining specific company goals and ends with taking the lead in determining which applicant(s) could best contribute to achieving said goals.

Obviously, company leaders can't be tasked with filling low-level positions. But when it comes to filling positions that directly affect the company's bottom line, they should absolutely take charge.


The above originally appeared at Ecominoes and is reprinted here with permission.


NOTE: Mason has a very important point here. However, it goes even deeper. Government regulations are  making it more and more difficult for new firms to start-up and difficult for them to take on new employees (especially with Obamacare coming) if they can get off the ground in the first place. It's the new firms that are most willing to hire someone who might  not have the perfect resume, but appears like a good risk. These kinds of firms are fewer and fewer. Thus,  job opportunities are becoming limited to large bureaucratic organizations. They have so many applicants that they can put these applicants through an incredible job hiring processes that has little to do with the job they are being hired to do and a lot with testing to see if they will be good little employees in their cubicles. If high paying jobs were plentiful, no one would put up with this nonsense.

The way the economy is getting so rigid in the United States, you are either going to have to be a real hustler, connected or have a special skill that the elitists need. Otherwise, it is going to be very tough to get a decent job within the system. Your best bet may be to find a one-man service business that you can provide and people want.-RW

The Supremes: Don't Let the Dogs Out

By Seth Mason

While everyone was opining about gay marriage today, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that has far-wider reaching consequences. Today, SCOTUS ruled that law enforcement can't search real property (dwellings and their surroundings) with drug-sniffing dogs without a warrant. This is a huge development. The ruling applied to real property only, but it will inevitably bring about lawsuits from people who have been charged with narcotics possession after warrantless K-9 searches in the field. After all, one's vehicle and one's person are also private property, and the question will eventually arise as to why real property is more constitutionally-protected than other private property. At any rate, Huffpost has the story:

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect's property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search, a decision which may limit how investigators use dogs' sensitive noses to search out drugs, explosives and other items hidden from human sight, sound and smell.

The high court split 5-4 on the decision to uphold the Florida Supreme Court's ruling throwing out evidence seized in the search of Joelis Jardines' Miami-area house. That search was based on an alert by Franky the drug dog from outside the closed front door.

Justice Antonin Scalia said a person has the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the government's gaze inside their home and in the area surrounding it, which is called the curtilage.

"The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority. "And the officers here had all four of their feet and all four of their companion's, planted firmly on that curtilage – the front porch is the classic example of an area intimately associated with the life of the home."

He was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The four justices who dissented were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito.

It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said. "According to the court, however, the police officer in this case, Detective Bartelt, committed a trespass because he was accompanied during his otherwise lawful visit to the front door of the respondent's house by his dog, Franky. Where is the authority evidencing such a rule?"

Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far. "A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

It was not the dog that was the problem, Scalia said, "but the behavior that here involved use of the dog."

 Notice that the justices liberals loathe most, Scalia and Thomas, voted in favor of the ruling. In fact, the former issued it. There's something to be said about that in the context of civil liberties.

The above originally appeared at Ecominoes and is reprinted here with permission.

UPDATE:

Ryan Hodinka, attorney, EPJ reader and former pitcher in the St Louis Cardinals farm system, emails:

Just read your post on EPJ about the Supreme Court's most recent dog sniff case. The blog post's author writes, "After all, one's vehicle and one's person are also private property, and the question will eventually arise as to why real property is more constitutionally-protected than other private property."  

The Supreme Court has already answered this question, holding that your home and the "curtilage" (the area immediately surrounding your home, like your porch) do in fact receive greater constitutional protection from warrantless searches than does your car. The rationale for the "automobile exception" is that a car, unlike a home, is movable, which makes it impractical for the cops to get a warrant before searching it if they have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to pull you over in the first instance. 

The Court has even gone so far to hold that a dog sniff of your car doesn't amount to a "search" that triggers the Fourth Amendment. Worse yet, a drug dog's alerting on your car amounts to probable cause, which gives the police the ability to conduct a warrantless search. Therefore, the police can pull you over for not stopping long enough at a stop sign (probable cause for the stop), use a dog to alert on your car (the sniffing isn't a "search"), and then search the car for contraband (the dog alert gave the cop probable cause and there's no warrant requirement to search an automobile).
The bottom line is this: you have very little in the way of constitutional protection when you're in your car. The Supreme Court's Jardine opinion doesn't change that, nor does it suggest that the Court will change that in the future.

Warren Buffet's Keystone Connection In One Chart

By Seth Mason

Warren Buffet, Obama's lead "tax advisor", is quite the crony capitalist. He made billions from the insurance company bailouts. The bank in which he holds a $5 billion stake, Bank of America, made a sweetheart $15 million loan to the 2012 Obama campaign at 2.5% (far below the rate of inflation). But Buffet's recent government/railroad deal would make Andrew Carnegie blush.

Buffett's railroad interests have been doing quite well since the government's suspension of Keystone Pipeline extension. His key railroad interest, Burlington Northern, is the preferred alternative petroleum shipping method to the Keystone Pipeline. This is interesting because Buffett bought his stake in Burlington Northern just before the government halted the Keystone project, and he allegedly influenced the government's decision to suspend. And how much reward has Buffett reaped from the Burlington Northern/State Department deal? While staring at awe at this chart, keep in mind that demand for gasoline has been tanking while rail car loadings of petroleum have been going parabolic:
\

The above originally appeared at Ecominoes and is reprinted here with permission.

REPORT: Some Troops Asked If They Would Shoot U.S. Citizens If Ordered

Seth Mason confirms that the question is being asked:

I want to preface this article with an analogy. Owning a fire extinguisher doesn't mean that you plan on your house burning. It simply means that you are prepared in case you have a house fire. In the same way, the question "would you shoot American citizens?" that some troops are supposedly being asked doesn't mean that the Department of Defense is planning to attack American citizens. Furthermore, the question likely has nothing to do with the American people as a whole. It's most likely in reference to U.S. citizens who allegedly have ties to Islamic terrorism. Still, it's a hell of a question, and it goes to show how badly our constitutional rights have been eroded in the name of the War on Terror.

On to the question itself: I have a good friend in-the-know with the military who told me that some troops are being asked if they would shoot American citizens if ordered. If the troops reply that they would not, they are immediately honorably discharged on other grounds, says my friend. This supports Internet rumors about the existence of such of question. I trust my friend, and now I, too, believe that the question is being posed within our military.

Homeland Security Creates "Constitution-Free" Zones

By Seth Mason

The erosion of civil liberties in this country is scary, and it's a travesty that the MSM and even the conservative media (Rush, etc.) won't talk about it.

The latest development in 4th Amendment violations is the scariest I've heard yet. The Department of the Fatherland has approved a policy which states in no uncertain terms that electronic devices can be seized without a warrant within 100 miles of the border. The kicker? The "border", according to this policy, is any national barrier, political or physical. THIS INCLUDES BODIES OF WATER. So, that means that the United States has, in effect, "Constitution-free zones" stretching 100 miles inland from every coast and 100 miles from our northern and southern borders. Unbelievable! Wired has the story:

The Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers along the nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security.

The DHS, which secures the nation’s border, in 2009 announced that it would conduct a “Civil Liberties Impact Assessment” of its suspicionless search-and-seizure policy pertaining to electronic devices “within 120 days.” More than three years later, the DHS office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties published a two-page executive summary of its findings.

“We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” the executive summary said.

The memo highlights the friction between today’s reality that electronic devices have become virtual extensions of ourselves housing everything from e-mail to instant-message chats to photos and our papers and effects — juxtaposed against the government’s stated quest for national security.

The President George W. Bush administration first announced the suspicionless, electronics search rules in 2008. The President Barack Obama administration followed up with virtually the same rules a year later. Between 2008 and 2010, 6,500 persons had their electronic devices searched along the U.S. border, according to DHS data.

According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation’s actual border.

Civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union suggest that “reasonable suspicion” should be the rule, at a minimum, despite that being a lower standard than required by the Fourth Amendment.

“There should be a reasonable, articulate reason why the search of our electronic devices could lead to evidence of a crime,” Catherine Crump, an ACLU staff attorney, said in a telephone interview. “That’s a low threshold.”

The DHS watchdog’s conclusion isn’t surprising, as the DHS is taking that position in litigation in which the ACLU is challenging the suspicionless, electronic-device searches and seizures along the nation’s borders. But that conclusion nevertheless is alarming considering it came from the DHS civil rights watchdog, which maintains its mission is “promoting respect for civil rights and civil liberties.”

“This is a civil liberties watchdog office. If it is doing its job property, it is supposed to objectively evaluate. It has the power to recommend safeguards to safeguard Americans’ rights,” Crump said. “The office has not done that and the public has the right to know why.”
Toward that goal, the ACLU on Friday filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding to see the full report that the executive summary discusses.

Meantime, a lawsuit the ACLU brought on the issue concerns a New York man whose laptop was seized along the Canadian border in 2010 and returned 11 days later after his attorney complained.

At an Amtrak inspection point, Pascal Abidor showed his U.S. passport to a federal agent. He was ordered to move to the cafe car, where they removed his laptop from his luggage and “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” according to the lawsuit.

Agents asked him about pictures they found on his laptop, which included Hamas and Hezbollah rallies. He explained that he was earning a doctoral degree at a Canadian university on the topic of the modern history of Shiites in Lebanon.

He was handcuffed and then jailed for three hours while the authorities looked through his computer while numerous agents questioned him, according to the suit, which is pending in New York federal court.

Here's a map of the nation's "Constitution-free zones", according to the ACLU:

Where in the hell is the outrage in the media? Why the hell are nationally-syndicated talk radio hosts yapping about "Obamaphones" instead of this? Syndicate me! I actually talk about issues that matter!

The above originally appeared at Ecominoes and is reprinted here with permission.

ECOMINOES Radio With Robert Wenzel @ 3 ET

Today at 3 ET, I will be interviewed live on the Ecominoes Radio Show with hosts Seth Mason and Eric Pinto.

Listen live here,

Gun Rights Helped Blacks During Civil Rights Movement

By Seth Mason

That was one of my friend's Facebook update from this morning. It succinctly summarizes why American blacks should be on our side of the gun control debate. Unfortunately, the African-American community has forgotten how important gun rights were during the Civil Rights Movement.

Here's a personal account of how important they were for the late Robert Hicks, a former civil rights leader and activist in the Louisiana chapter of the Deacons for Defense and Justice:

The Klan would drive through our neighborhood shooting at us, shooting into our homes, and the police wouldn't help. The black men in the community wouldn’t stand for it. You shoot at us, we shoot back at you. I’m convinced that without our guns, my family and many other black people would not be alive today.

Exactly! Law enforcement wouldn't protect blacks during the movement, so blacks protected themselves with firearms. Law enforcement might come to the defense of African-Americans in 2013, but help is always precious minutes away in threatening situations. And let's be honest: blacks, many of whom live in high-density low-income environments, face threatening situations with greater frequency than other ethnic groups.

There are many examples of gun rights helping blacks during the Civil Rights Movement. Reason outlined some in an article published in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:

In the wake of last week’s horrific mass murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the debate over the proper scope of gun rights and gun control has focused largely on the evil deeds some individuals have done with the help of firearms. That focus is understandable in the aftermath of this terrible event. But it’s important to also remember that privately-owned guns have often been a tremendous force for good in American history. For evidence of this, look no further than the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, where the right of armed self-defense played an indispensable role in the battle against Jim Crow.

“I’m alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,”declared John R. Salter Jr., one of the organizers of the famous non-violent sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi. Writing in 1994, Salter noted that he always “traveled armed” while working as a civil rights organizer in the Deep South. “Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine,” Salter wrote. “The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay.”

Another prominent civil rights activist who championed the right to keep and bear arms was T.R.M. Howard of Mound Bayou, Mississippi, a surgeon and entrepreneur who was at the center of the trial and investigation into the shocking 1955 murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till. Here’s how I described Howard’s role in the Till case in a 2009 review of David and Linda Beito’s masterful biography Black Maverick: T.R.M. Howard’s Fight for Civil Rights and Economic Power:

In the aftermath of Till’s murder, Howard put his considerable talents and resources to work. Recognizing that local officials had little incentive to identify or punish every member of the conspiracy that took Till’s life, he spearheaded a private investigation, personally helping to locate, interview, and protect several important witnesses. He also made his large, lavishly provisioned home available to the various out-of-state observers gathering in town for the trial, including Cloyte Murdock of Ebony magazine and Rep. Charles Diggs (D-Mich.)....

In addition to bankrolling and assisting the investigation, Howard served as a sort of chief of security, escorting [Till’s mother Mamie] Bradley, Diggs, and other witnesses and supporters to and from court each day in a heavily armed caravan. In fact, the Beitos write, security at Howard’s residence “was so impregnable that journalists and politicians from a later era might have used the word ‘compound’ rather than ‘home’ to describe it.” To put it another way, guns were stashed everywhere, including a Thompson submachine gun at the foot of Howard’s bed and a pistol at his waist. Howard understood all too well the deep ties between white supremacy and gun control. The first gun control laws in American history arrived during Reconstruction, when the former Confederate states attempted to deny emancipated blacks the right to acquire property, make contracts, vote, freely assemble, and keep and bear arms.

For more on the links between gun rights and the civil rights struggle, see here, here, and here.

It's unfortunate that 68% of American blacks support stronger gun control regulation. Gun rights were extremely beneficial to the African-American community throughout the Civil Rights Movement, which we celebrate today. In fact, if it weren’t for gun rights, more civil rights leaders would likely have been killed.

The above originally appeared at Ecominoes and is reprinted here with permission.

The Devil's In The (Lack Of) Details Of Obama's Gun Control Orders

By Seth Mason

Apart from the fact that executive orders are intended to direct the staff of the Executive Branch, not impose laws on the citizenry, the real malfeasance in the 23 orders regarding gun control Obama is expected to sign is, ironically, their generality. That is to say, they are subject to wide interpretation and have to the potential of being used to greatly expand the government's power over the American people without congressional authorization. The following are the orders that have the most potential for abuse:

Order #1: Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. 

"Relevant data" is a highly subjective term. I wouldn't put it past enterprising bureaucrats to include web search history and Facebook activity in the "relevant" list. Order #1 is a Pandora's Box.

Order #2: Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Again, the key word in this order is another highly subjective term. What is an "unnecessary legal barrier"? Privacy laws? Is HIPAA an "unnecessary legal barrier"? Another Pandora's Box.

Order #4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

This is some scary shit here. This is basically an order to profile innocent people to acertain the probability that they will use a firearm illegally. And again, subjectivity: the profile of a killer is in the eye of the beholder. If someone massacres a school "dressing metal", does everyone who dresses that way get placed on a list?

Order #14: Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This order directs the CDC to discard scientific principles and start making *guesses* (which, of course, would be influenced by ideology). Correlations can be drawn regarding gun violence, but there are far too many variables in this world to determine a *cause* of any complex cultural phenomenon. (And, make no mistake, gun violence is an American cultural phenomenon.)

Order #16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. 

Excuse me? Why would my doctor have any business knowing whether or not I own a gun? This order makes medical providers government snoops, whose information could be accessed by more easily as per order #2.

Order #21: Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

It would seem that medical benefits have nothing to do with the price of tea in China, but I could imagine that this order, in the context of gun control, opens the door to blacklisting. Those placed on "The List" authorized by orders #1 and #4 could potentially be denied coverage based on this order.

I'm sure some of the other orders could be abused as well. The Land of the Free gets freer every day!

The above originally appeared at Ecominoes and is reprinted here with permission.