Guest Post from Andrew Phillips - Ontario Libertarian Party
Collusion
USA Today Article
As Jonah Goldberg points out in a book you should all read Liberal Fascism , ".. perhaps the best modern example of fascism at work is the collusion of government and the tobacco companies". In the 90's the tobacco companies were demonized for selling "the only product which, if used properly, will kill you". Bill Clinton and Al Gore staked vast amounts of political capital in their war against "Big Tobacco".
Out of this environment sprang forth the - unconstitutional - tobacco settlement whereby "Big Tobacco" agreed to pay $246 billion to state governments. They were also forced to take out ads disparaging their own products and pay for educational efforts to dissuade children from ever becoming their customers. The reason, quite simply, is that it was in their interests. They not only had their lawsuits settled; they bought approval of a new illegal cartel. "Big Tobacco" raised prices above the costs imposed by the settlement; guaranteeing a tidy profit.
Smaller companies who did not agree to the settlement are still forced to make large escrow payments. When these firms started to thrive; cutting into the market share of the big tobacco companies ; state governments jumped in and ordered them to make even larger payments . The government in effect enforces a system by which small businesses are crushed in order to maintain the high profits of "Big Tobacco".
Now you might think this is all fine. But how - exactly - is this a free market approach? How - exactly - is this unlike the corporatism of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Hugh Johnson's NRA? They have done this before folks and it worked once before so they're doing it again. So ignore the cries of rage from Big Tobacco they're in on the game. And for the sake of your children and their future read the book.
Andrew Phillips
As Jonah Goldberg points out in a book you should all read Liberal Fascism , ".. perhaps the best modern example of fascism at work is the collusion of government and the tobacco companies". In the 90's the tobacco companies were demonized for selling "the only product which, if used properly, will kill you". Bill Clinton and Al Gore staked vast amounts of political capital in their war against "Big Tobacco".
Out of this environment sprang forth the - unconstitutional - tobacco settlement whereby "Big Tobacco" agreed to pay $246 billion to state governments. They were also forced to take out ads disparaging their own products and pay for educational efforts to dissuade children from ever becoming their customers. The reason, quite simply, is that it was in their interests. They not only had their lawsuits settled; they bought approval of a new illegal cartel. "Big Tobacco" raised prices above the costs imposed by the settlement; guaranteeing a tidy profit.
Smaller companies who did not agree to the settlement are still forced to make large escrow payments. When these firms started to thrive; cutting into the market share of the big tobacco companies ; state governments jumped in and ordered them to make even larger payments . The government in effect enforces a system by which small businesses are crushed in order to maintain the high profits of "Big Tobacco".
Now you might think this is all fine. But how - exactly - is this a free market approach? How - exactly - is this unlike the corporatism of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Hugh Johnson's NRA? They have done this before folks and it worked once before so they're doing it again. So ignore the cries of rage from Big Tobacco they're in on the game. And for the sake of your children and their future read the book.
Andrew Phillips
Posts
1 comment:
From a comment I posted on Ezra Levant's blog, that defines the criminality of this Tobacco "control" promotion.
For the "in case anyone asks" file.
Interesting find;
If you go to the Amazon link for the book Liberal Fascism , right beside it you will find a link to the book, Shakedown by Ezra Levant. Reading through the preview on page xii of the forward, you will find an historical use of the word denormalization. Describing what the author hoped to do to the Human rights commission, for their attempts to stifle free speech. I noticed some time back in Wiki, Ezra actually has his own page, revealing that according to the human rights commission, denormalization has been legally defined;
"Justice Robert Smith ruled that Levant "spoke in reckless disregard of the truth and for an ulterior purpose of denormalizing the Human Rights Commission across Canada which makes his statements malicious in that sense" and ordered Levant to remove the libellous materials from his blog."
Which means according to the Canadian human rights commission, smokers are being illegally defamed and the term used to epitomize the act of denormalization was malicious.
Links;
Shakedown;
http://www.amazon.ca/Shakedown-Government-Undermining-Democracy-Rights/dp/0771046197/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c#reader_0771046197
Wiki, Ezra Levant;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant
In case anyone ever needs viable proof, to back up the reality, should you ever be challenged, that the entire anti-smoking cabal and Health Canada participants, are criminals, participating in criminal acts, targeted against an identifiable minority. A minority group that should have legal standing as a recognized class, It is a group that they specifically defined as "smokers". A word universally understood, describing only that portion of the population who smoke cigarettes.
Post a Comment