Skip to content

Month: February 2014

Is There Any Point Whatsoever in Keeping “National Security” Extremists in Power?

Spencer Ackerman at the U.K. Guardian writes about the criminal scheme of intercepting and recording video images from users’ Yahoo webcam interactions, inflicted by NSA and Britain’s equivalent the GCHQ. Ackerman notes that a large percentage of what the “national security” extremists view and obtain is totally useless, including pornography and family home movies. Even when the GCHQ and NSA center on a “target,” there are still people with similar user names and/or faces, so, as is typical with these criminal schemes, the infiltrators nevertheless scoop up the webcam data of totally innocent people.

The webcam scam being committed by these imbecilic and criminal government bureaucrats is a total waste of time, has no “intelligence” value and doesn’t do anything to protect the people from so-called terrorists.

And now, with the latest revelations from Glenn Greenwald at his new outlet, the Intercept, we learn “how covert agents infiltrate the Internet to manipulate, deceive, and destroy reputations.” Justin Raimondo has further analysis of Greenwald’s article. Raimondo brings up the Obama flunky Cass Sunstein (my prediction of Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee, by the way), who has wanted to infiltrate the Internet for a while now.

Greenwald mainly refers to Britain’s GCHQ doing the infiltrating. Included in what these “national security” extremists do is discrediting a target by “setting up a honey trap, change their photos on social networking sites, write a blog purporting to be one of their victims, email/text their colleagues, neighbours, friends, etc.”

And the GCHQ wants to destroy whole companies as well. To destroy whole companies, this government bureaucracy, which England’s taxpayers are proud to fund, wants to “leak confidential information to companies / the press via blogs, etc., post negative information on appropriate forums, stop deals/ruin business relationships.”

THAT’S the way to stop terrorism, for sure, baby!

So everyone, if you’re in the U.K. your hard-earned money that’s being taken from you by David Camaroon and the other crooks is funding this criminality in government. I’m sure you’re proud of that. And if the NSA is doing these things, the same goes for the hapless schmucks here in America.

Just glancing at the Greenwald article, you will see all the charts and diagrams used to describe the criminality. And no, there’s nothing good about this, no “security” here, just scheming bureaucrats acting like criminal mischief-makers.

And as Justin Raimondo referenced, this is the kind of scheme that would make Cass Sunstein proud. Sunstein had proposed to “cognitively infiltrate” the Internet in order to undermine the credibility of so-called “conspiracy theorists,” people who are informed of the various schemes and crimes being committed by government bureaucrats (see above).

This is all nuts. “National security” bureaucrats are not going to “keep us safe” when they themselves are infiltrating, intruding, eavesdropping, manipulating, committing ID theft, fraud, and scheming and plotting and otherwise compromising our security and safety.

If you are serious in preventing terrorism, then stop provoking foreigners into retaliating against us.

Yes, it’s that simple. Stop starting wars of aggression against and ruining whole countries that were of no threat to us, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stop occupying and trespassing on foreign lands, stop murdering innocents overseas with drones and bombs. Duh.

And we have chickenhawk neocons who are trembling at the thought of cutting the defense budget now, as Kelley Vlahos writes. And John Heinz Kerry whines that those who are opposed to any further U.S. military interventions overseas are “new isolationists.” This coming from the guy who sat before a congressional committee in the early ’70s to tell the American people of the war crimes being committed over in Vietnam. I guess now that he’s in power, he likes foreign interventionism, as long as he himself doesn’t have to go risking his own life to engage in such war crimes himself.

What’s worse than Kerry’s slander of non-interventionists, is his ignorant claim that U.S. interventionism overseas is helping American jobs at home and the U.S. economy in general. (What’s this guy smoking?) The ignoramus Kerry Heinz needs to read Robert Higgs and Anthony Gregory!

Sorry for the Harsh Rant on This Same-Sex Marriage “Civil Rights” Issue

I really don’t want to spend my time writing about this same-sex marriage issue again. It’s amazing just how selfish some people are in their having to force their ways onto others and get the powers of the State to aid and abet their aggressions. Some “liberals” actually think that “civil rights” means having the power to force others to associate with you. Nuh-uh. Sorry, folks.

These issues are really a matter of freedom vs. statism.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill “allowing” business owners to not have to serve same-sex couples, but specifically out of “religious”-based objections. I’m glad she vetoed the bill, but her reasons are certainly not out of principle, either in favor of “civil rights” or in favor of business, or freedom of association. Given that she supports the police to require presumably innocent non-suspects to show IDs without probable cause, then she can’t be very principled. She is a politician, after all.

Same-sex marriage involves the principles of self-ownership, and private property and voluntary contract rights. The same goes for opposite-sex marriage. You own your life, and you have a right to marry whomever you want, as long as it’s mutually consensual, and whatever you decide, it’s no one else’s business. The government doesn’t own you, and your neighbors don’t own you. Therefore, neither government bureaucrats nor your neighbors have any legitimate say in the matter or any moral authority to interfere.

Now, as far as “civil rights” goes, such as in the cases mentioned in Arizona, the business owner has a “civil right” to associate with and do business with whomever one wants, and a “civil right” to NOT associate with or do business with whomever one doesn’t want to associate or do business with.

However, the activists and the selfish brats out there believe that they have a “civil right” to use the armed power of the State to force the business owner to associate with them. They believe that using force and aggression against others is a “civil right.” Sorry to be harsh with my terms such as “selfish brats,” but that is just what they are. It’s the era of self-centeredness and selfishness, in which a gay couple finds that a florist or photographer won’t provide services to them, so instead of just finding someone else who will — and surely in just about every community someone will be a willing provider for them in return for some needed financial compensation  — instead of finding someone else, the self-centered brats would rather go to the armed powers of the State to compel the business owner to do business with them involuntarily.

In those cases, we can see who believes in using aggression as a means toward an end, and which party just wants the freedom to control her own business which is her right to have. The selfish brats are either too lazy or just plain covetous to go find a different provider of whatever service they are looking for. And it is they who are acting with aggression, suing and inconveniencing and even causing possible bankruptcy of the one who won’t obey their orders. In the case of a florist who doesn’t want to provide flowers for your gay wedding, you mean she’s the only florist around, and you can’t find another one? So, you want to force the florist or photographer to do some sort of labor to serve you against her will? Yes, it seems that some people are that self-centered. (And I’ll bet that there are also plenty of statist conservatives out there who would do the exact same thing to a gay photographer who wouldn’t want to provide for their wedding as well.)

So here, the aggressors are clearly the selfish brats who run to the government to sue a private business owner who wants to exercise her right (and this is the true “civil rights” here) to serve whichever customers she wants. If she feels uncomfortable doing business with or associating with a gay couple, that is her right. But if it’s a homosexual photographer or florist who doesn’t want to serve a heterosexual couple, that is her right, too. It’s a matter of freedom of association, freedom of contract and private property rights. And the same thing goes for a black business owner who doesn’t want to serve white people or a Jewish owner who doesn’t want to serve Christians or atheists.

But eventually, most of those businesses run by such narrow-minded cranks would go bankrupt, as word would get around about them, and no one would want to do business them. It’s called social shaming or ostracism. It used to work quite well in pre-nanny state eras.

And it doesn’t matter what reasons are that people have, religious or otherwise. Those bills such as what Gov. Brewer vetoed mentioned “religious exemptions,” but it shouldn’t be just religious. What if an atheist is against gay marriage for personal or moral reasons, but isn’t religious? Who is the government to decide what is or is not a valid basis for an individual deciding to associate or not associate with others?

So there are First Amendment-related issues here, as well as freedom of association, private property, and the sanctity of voluntary contracts.

And I’m sure that some people are thinking of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, given some of the things I have stated. That Act should only have applied to “public property” and government-run functions such as parks, drinking fountains, the metro buses, City Hall, government schools, etc. But it should not have applied to any private property whatsoever, regardless how big in size or finances a business might be. I have addressed that here, as have Jacob Hornberger, Walter Block, Ron Paul, and Laurence Vance.

Will Christian Members of the Military Obey Obama Unconstitutional Orders?

Philip Giraldi has this follow-up on his article regarding the prevalence of religiosity –particularly Christian religiosity — in the U.S. military. I had this reaction to his first article.

In this new article, Giraldi clarifies some points from his earlier article. He writes, “I was not implying that the military is overrun with out of control evangelicals … (they) are still a minority and possibly even a small minority of all active duty military personnel … One reader noted that most senior officers are not fundamentalist – they just are louder and more noticeable when they do go off the reservation.”

Phew. that’s a relief.

But what about the Obama Administration seeming to be ousting military officers who are not going along with the Regime? That is, with the Regime’s agenda of unconstitutionally and criminally confiscating firearms from innocent civilians, and the regime’s agenda of otherwise waging war against its own fellow Americans in general.

Some in the Regime have been implying that Americans who are “constitutionalists,” religious Christians, those who believe in individual liberty, preppers and survivalists, and those who are critical of the government’s false war on terrorism, are “terrorists.” In the Obama Regime’s threats against its critics, and against those who just want to live their lives and be left alone, many of whom are amongst those aforementioned groups, any actions taken against peaceful people by Obama will be treasonous actions.

Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” As Thomas DiLorenzo has written many times, the use of the pronoun “them” refers to the states which make up the “United States.” Treason as defined by the early Americans and the writers of the Constitution refers to the U.S. government waging war against the states or the People. It is NOT referring to members of the civilian population being “disloyal” to the federal government, or being critical of the Regime in control.

But, I wonder how those Evangelical Christians in the military view the Obama Administration in its labeling Christians as a “threat.”

Some More Interesting Items

Here are some more interesting items:

Jacob Hornberger on the crumbling Fifth Amendment.

Jim Davies on the last days of government

Butler Shaffer on the war against the truth

Electronic Frontier Foundation: open letter to tech companies to protect users from NSA intrusions

Richard Ebeling on the best government plan for healthcare

John Whitehead on vigilantes with badges

Michael Snyder on Pope Francis and an emerging one world religion

Metropolitan Opera to Perform a Political ‘Hot Potato’

While I am not a big opera fan (as Dr. Donald Miller obviously is), I nevertheless do enjoy classical symphony and concerto music. But I found it interesting that the Metropolitan Opera has scheduled for next season performances of the opera The Death of Klinghoffer by composer John Adams and librettist Alice Goodman. The Met’s premiere production in New York will be on October 20th, and is a co-production with the English National Opera whose performances began in February, 2012. David Robertson, currently music director of the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra, will conduct these Klinghoffer performances. According to the L.A. Times, the production “will be broadcast to cinemas in November as part of the Met’s Live in HD series … scheduled for Nov. 15 at 9:55 AM PST.” (The L.A. Times also notes that the Long Beach Opera will perform the controversial opera next month, March 16th and 22nd.)

Once again, we can expect the obsessively vexed and concerned to come out in the rain to protest these performances in New York this Fall. I assume the Met’s long time music director, James Levine, gave final approval to the programming, and is well aware of this opera’s controversial nature. Maybe Levine likes controversy. (I know I do.)

The opera is based on real events — the hijacking by Palestinian extremists of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murder of a handicapped passenger, 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer. Klinghoffer’s two daughters Lisa and Ilsa attended the New York premiere in 1991 and were both angered by the opera. They believed that it exploited their father, and that it was inappropriate to mix the plight of the Palestinian people with the murder of an innocent Jewish man in an artistic work of this sort.

While the opera does convey the “plight of the Palestinians” it also attempts to treat the Israeli perspective equally. Mainly, perceptions of the opera are subjective.

However, according to the Guardian‘s review of the 2012 London performances, Klinghoffer is more of a “reflection” than a dramatization of the actual event. (For an actual dramatization of this international incident, you can see the film Voyage of Terror – The Achille Lauro Affair starring Burt Lancaster and Eva Marie Saint.) The Guardian‘s Andrew Clements notes that “the absence of that narrative element in the text … robs the work of a real dramatic spine.”

So unlike that film which really was a dramatization, this opera really consists of scenes that don’t actually include the main events. It is really just a musical work which refers to historical events. In some ways, some people have suggested, it really seems more like an oratorio than an opera.

The opera was premiered in Belgium in March of 1991, and the U.S. premiere that year was by the Brooklyn Academy of Music in New York. According to Wikipedia, planned performances in 1991 and 1992 did not take place because of protests. The opera was accused of being “anti-Semitic” and “sympathetic to terrorists.” And that despite the work’s lack of narrative. Nevertheless, because of the hypersensitivity and political correctness of our time, it ruined the career of librettist Alice Goodman.

However, in November of 2001 choral excerpts of that opera were scheduled to be performed by the Boston Symphony Orchestra but were cancelled due to the opera’s sensitive nature, given that was just two months after the September 11th attacks. Although at the time the opera’s composer John Adams stated, “I do think that symphonies and opera companies are very skittish in this country, and I’m sorry that they are, because it confirms the distressing image of symphony-goers as fragile and easily frightened. That’s really a shame, because I want to think of symphonic concerts as every bit as challenging as going to MOCA or to see ‘Angels in America.'”

The cancellation probably was just part of the modern-day hypersensitivity that afflicts many Americans now, certainly not out of political motivations. (But then, in 1982 the Boston Symphony Orchestra did cancel guest appearances by Vanessa Redgrave out of concern that such appearances could have provoked violence in reaction to her support for the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Redgrave sued the BSO and won on a count of breach of contract. During the trial, a witness stated that there was concern that such an appearance could affect the symphony’s funding from Jewish donors. But I digress.)

Given that these Metropolitan Opera performances of The Death of Klinghoffer this Fall will be 20+ years after the premiere — a time just following the Persian Gulf war and with sanctions and further U.S. government provocations of the Middle East — during current times of post-9/11 ultra-paranoia and political correctness and intolerance, I will not be surprised if there will be even more protests than before (and maybe even cancellations). In such circumstances, I hope that the Met’s music director of 40+ years, James Levine, will not cave and will let the show go on.

But FYI here is a review from the Chicago Tribune of a 2011 performance of Klinghoffer by the Opera Theatre of St. Louis.

And here is a video documentary produced by St. Louis PBS station KETC-9 about the opera and the St. Louis production and various associated controversies:

(Cross-posted on the LewRockwell.com Blog.)

Clapper: My Feelings Are Hurt

Marcy Wheeler writes of how poor James Claptrapper of the criminal NSA feels that his being called a “liar” (which he is) is “tough on his family,” including his teacher son. Awww. And Wheeler compares poor Mr. Claptrapper and his teacher son to another teacher whose school is being targeted for surveillance by NYPD because of the DC imbeciles’ obsession with Muslims.

Sadly, because the imbeciles of the DC bureaucracy refuse to acknowledge that it is wrong for them to have been starting wars of aggression against countries which were of no threat to us, occupying and trespassing lands which are not U.S. territories and for no good reason, and murdering innocent civilians for decades, the DC imbeciles’ continued aggressions will do nothing but further provoke the foreigners. And these imbeciles in DC are really just stupid dogs running around in circles chasing their own tails, and at the same time they are also trampling over the lives of innocent Americans here in the U.S. They’re NUTS!

Yes, Slavery Is Offensive

Copyright LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

I agree with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who remarked recently that people now seem more overly sensitive about racial differences than 50 years ago.

In my view, the elitists of the Left seem to be obsessed over race, but not in a genuinely sensitive way, more in a self-righteous and even hypocritical way. When someone criticizes Barack Obama, for instance, the race-obsessed accuse the critics of racism, regardless of the issue. And many news editors continue to censor out the race of black youths accused of assaulting white victims.

And, believe it or not, there has even been a case recently in which the president of a prestigious university misread an article which had already quoted out of context Walter Block, an even more prestigious economics professor. This led to the university president to claim that the professor had endorsed slavery “enforced against someone’s free will,” when in fact Dr. Block had stated that the “only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons.”

Perhaps the university president who complained needs to get reading glasses (or better ones, if he already has them).

Over-sensitivity to racial matters or references to early American chattel slavery seems to go with many other kinds of politically-incorrect intolerance in America now.

Another example is the MSNBC crowd who believe that one’s support for independence from central planners has racist motivations, as the elitists look upon nullification advocates and secessionists as “neo-confederates.”

Yet, those people on the Left are the very ones who actually do advocate slavery, in the truest definition of the word.

No, they do not promote chattel slavery, in which an individual is involuntarily made to be the property of another, such as the aforementioned slaves of early America.

But both the Left and conservatives promote a more collectivized enslavement of each individual in the collectivists’ beloved compulsory government policies, such as insurance mandates and micro-managerial bureaucratic regulations, drug laws and marriage laws, which force everyone to involuntarily serve government bureaucrats and their minions, as well as the enforcers of such bureaucrats’ whims.

Another phrase for enslavement is “involuntary servitude,” such as with taxation.

Statist rationalizations for the robbery and labor-enslavement committed by government thugs are never-ending.

When government bureaucrats force someone to perform an extra hour of labor per day to serve the bureaucrats’ demands, in the absence of a voluntary contract, then it is obviously involuntary.

Oh, the collectivists and statists come up with rationalizations for such involuntary servitude and compulsory contract-less labor, saying there’s some sort of societal “contract” or “compact” (that doesn’t exist except in their own heads).

You see, those who want to force others to serve them and their interests and their causes will come up with excuses.

And when people are ordered by government officials to give them personal information, such as one’s place of employment, one’s salary or what one pays employees or one’s profits or losses — information that is none of their business — how is that not being a slave of those giving the orders?

And what about the Affordable Care Act? Bureaucrats order you to purchase an insurance policy or provide insurance to employees, or you will be punished. And doctors must follow intrusive rules written by know-nothing parasites, and doctors and hospitals must submit patients’ private medical information to those government bureaucrats.

How are all these people not the property of those dictatorial government bureaucrats? It is as though the bureaucrats own you and the most personal aspects of your private life.

In those instances, your ownership of the fruits of your labor and of your “personal effects” (such as your private medical information or business matters) is expropriated by the bureaucrats.

In contrast, when you own your own life, you decide whether or not you will purchase health insurance — not some little dictator central planner.  And doctors will decide how to run their own medical practices — not some schnook bureaucrat. In these cases, no one may rob you (called a “fine”), no one may arrest you, no harassment by non-productive uniformed thugs.

And if you own your own business that you established through your own labor, capital and investment, and on your own time, you decide whether or not to provide insurance to employees. And in such a situation free of government criminality, the relationship between employers and employees is strictly voluntary.

If the employees don’t like the unavailability of health care provision at some company, they are free to work elsewhere.

In this system of freedom, no one is the slave of a government bureaucrat giving orders that must be obeyed involuntarily.

So regarding the idea of government bureaucrats claiming ownership of the lives of those over whom they rule — in the name of “health care” — it is really just a case of covetous parasites who just get off on imposing their own will onto others as if the others are the property of the bureaucracy parasites. And this enslavement of other people isn’t just by government employees, but all those activists and special interest groups who align themselves with these State vultures.

Besides the ongoing medical slavery imposed by fascists and collectivists with power, there is the enslavement of the general population by the badged goons and thugs who enforce the bureaucrats’ diktats.

Some people out there might think it absurd the suggestion that the civilian population are “slaves” of government police. But readers here already understand the reality in modern Amerika.

William Grigg recently wrote about the relationship between us mere civilians and the “law enforcement” masters.

From that perspective, all citizens are incipient slaves, subject to detention, abduction, and other abuse at the whim of uniformed slave-keepers.

A slave is somebody who cannot say “no” – as in, “No, I can’t talk to you right now because I’m on the clock and there are paying customers ahead of you.” This is because the slave doesn’t exercise self-ownership in any sense in the presence of a slave-keeper.

A slave-keeper is somebody who claims the legal right to take ownership of another person at his discretion, and use physical violence to compel submission.

. . .

The conceit that defines law enforcement is that all claims to self-ownership evaporate in the presence of a police officer.

And Grigg also notes that

From its inception, American “law enforcement” has been in the business of harassing harmless people, demanding that they present their “papers,” and violently abducting them if they cannot give a proper “accounting” of themselves to those who presumed to own them. Victims of 18th century slave patrols might be mystified by the accoutrements of contemporary police, astounded by the technology they can employ in the service of official coercion, and horrified by their capacity for unprovoked violence, often of the lethal variety.

One example of the enslavement of civilians by both government legislators and their badged enforcers is the drug war.

Quite simply, if you own your own body and your own life, then of course you have a right to put whatever chemicals into your own body you want to have.

In a mature and just society, individuals would be expected to take responsibility for their own choices and decisions. (Sadly, our society is neither mature nor just.)

But if the State owns your body and your life, then of course the “lawmakers” (sic) and their enforcers have a right to tell you what you may or may not put into your body. You belong to them. You are their property.

The absurdity of these laws of State enslavement of the people is obvious when a peaceful individual is not harming anyone, yet is captured by a uniformed goon and thrown into a cage, merely for ingesting a drug or just for being in possession of something. It’s nuts. Only the “low-information voter” types (as the “Ditto-Heads” would say) or those bent on sadism would enforce such laws of subjugation.

Which brings me to the immigration laws. Speaking of “Ditto-Heads,” it is mainly the conservatives who support these laws which go against the truly American concepts of self-ownership and private property. The conservatives don’t realize what covetous collectivists they are when they support this communal ownership of the territory as a whole.

With the immigration issue, such communal, communistic collective ownership of the entire territory really amounts to the collective owning everything within the territory, including all property, businesses, and the people themselves. When you have armed goons going into a “private” business to harass or arrest the owner for employing a non-approved immigrant, you are claiming ownership over that person’s business, and his life. If the owner really does “own” his business, then he decides whom to employ, based on which applicant would better serve his customers.

And how un-American is it to demand from someone “your papers,” someone who is not suspected of any actual crimes, and is minding his own business?

The anti-immigration crowd believes in socialist central planning in immigration — they want more know-nothing government bureaucrats to decide who may or may not be here, work here and start a new life here. In this issue, conservatives love central planners.

So, not only do the anti-immigration people claim ownership of the lives of their fellow Americans, employers and workers alike, but over the lives of foreigners as well.

Like it or not, all human beings have a natural, inherent right of self-ownership, a right to their freedom to travel and migrate, as long as they don’t trespass on private property.

Private property rights is a concept which is foreign to the conservatives as much as it is to the Left. This is why conservatives generally want anti-gay marriage laws. They believe they own the lives of others who want to marry someone who is not approved by those covetous conservatives.

In fact, the conservatives act as though they own the “institution of marriage” itself. The conservatives and traditionalists have seized ownership of marriage, and their rules of “opposite-sex only” must be instilled into law — private property rights, the sanctity of voluntary contracts, and self-ownership be damned.

In our majority-rules democracy society, everyone gets to use the powers of the State to covet and enslave everyone else and their property. That’s why we call them “statists.”

Well, the world would be a much better place if peaceful people who just want to live their own lives were left alone by the enslaving and covetous statists. The parasites need to cease their claims of ownership of other people, and of property they did not acquire justly.

Get the parasitic State and its minions out of other people’s private lives, their medical matters, their earnings and private wealth, their drug choices, out of their marriages, and stop getting in the way of people who want to migrate to a new, what used to be better, area of the world.

Scott Lazarowitz is a writer and cartoonist. Please visit his blog.

What Is Really Going on in Venezuela?

There does not seem to be adequately verifiable information coming out of Venezuela regarding the protests and government’s crackdown on them. Apparently, much of the information from both sides is controlled by the State-controlled media (much like it is here in the U.S.).

But Charles Johnson of RadGeek.com has translated several publications from various alternative sources and writers on what they say is really going on in Venezuela. I’m sure he will continue with updates at RadGeek.com.

Here are Charles Johnson’s posts an this subject up to now:

Translation of Caracas, 15-F: Impressions from the street (Humberto Decarli, in El Libertario)

Translation of Report from San Cristobal, Tachira (Anonymous, reprinted by El Libertario)

Translation of Message from CDH-UCAB: on torture and cruel and inhuman treatment of the detainees from 12-F (Centro de DDHH de la UCAB, reprinted in EL LIBERTARIO)

Translation of “Quick Overview of the Situation in Venezuela for the Curious and Ill-informed” (Rafael Uzcategui, El Libertario)

Translation of “One comrade sounds off: What’s happening now in Venezuela?” (Victor Camacho, in El Libertario)

And I found this article from a few days ago. Very shocking what seems to be going on there, and the U.S. media are fast asleep. The Olympics are more important.

Some Articles for the Weekend

Jacob Hornberger adds some common sense to the discussion of empire vs. peace and freedom.

Brandon Smith writes about the twisted motives behind political correctness.

William Grigg on the local slave patrol.

WND with an article on the GOP Establishment elitists who want to sic the IRS on Tea Partiers.

Judge Andrew Napolitano on the latest developments in the ongoing Constitutional crisis in Amerika

Wendy McElroy says, Obama, let them eat food stamps.

Glenn Greenwald discusses how idiots in government equate journalism with “terrorism.”

More Prisoners of Soviet Amerika’s Medical Establishment Cult

Speaking of the incompetent and corrupt Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, there is an alarming case involving both that agency and area medical facilities.

This is yet another case of child abduction, pure and simple, and worse. You see, child snatchers and torture are rampant amongst various state “child protective” (sic) agencies.

15-year-old Justina Pelletier was being treated by doctors at Tufts Medical Center for Mitochondrial Disease, with initial symptoms mainly involving her colon. She was transferred a year ago to Boston Children’s Hospital against her parents’ wishes. The situation went from bad to worse, as the doctors at Children’s Hospital accused Justina’s parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier, of “child medical abuse,” of “over-medicalizing” the child. Hospital officials than called in the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) who seized custody of the child away from the Pelletiers.

According to Lou Pelletier, who spoke to Glenn Beck (videos below) recently, doctors had initially performed exploratory colon surgery for possible “blockage.” The surgeon found “20 inches of cartilage wrapped around her colon and appendix.”

It appears that both Justina and her sister have congenital Mitochondrial Disease, but the sister’s issues haven’t been as severe as Justina’s.

After being moved to Boston Children’s Hospital Justina’s condition worsened and she is now in a wheelchair. When she was brought into Boston Children’s Hospital, doctors there had her see psychologists, one of whom asked her why she allowed the previous doctors to insert the tube in her colon.

With the very severe problems she was having, Justina needed her digestive system “flushed” but the Children’s Hospital doctors refused to do that, insisting that her problems were “psychological.” “It’s all in your head,” basically is what they told her and her parents. It isn’t Mitochondrial Disease that she has, but “Somatoform Disorder.”

So what we have here in crazy Amerika is this. Medical establishment zombies either diagnose a normal child who acts like a child as “abnormal,” or “hyperactive” and all those terms, and then they drug up those kids which causes further problems including actual medical, physical side effects. OR, they take a kid like Justina that they KNEW had a REAL medical condition as diagnosed by earlier doctors — a condition that was actually seen to exist via exploratory surgery — and they tell her that her problems are psychological.

So, instead of allowing the “flushing” treatment to continue, these doctors forced Justina to instead sit on the toilet for hours, according to her father, Lou Pelletier. Mr. Pelletier stated that the term the doctors used for how they were treating her was “behavior modification.”

You see, there are some doctors who are objective, and they take all the information of a particular case into account and act accordingly in the best interests of the patient.

And then there are doctors who believe in an ideology. In this case, the ideology is “behavior modification.” When doctors — or other kinds of providers — have an ideology, they are not objective, they are instead fixated on their ideology. In this case, as I see it, the doctors receive a new patient, and, regardless of what her symptoms are, the doctors attempt to get the patient to fit into the particular structure their ideology calls for. But it doesn’t fit in with reality, or with what the patient is actually experiencing. Then, it becomes a cult, in my opinion.

In fact, that these doctors and hospital administrators seized custody away from the Pelletiers and gave that illicitly-obtained custody over to the state’s Department of Children and Families, is relevant to this “behavior modification” ideological mistreatment of Justina. This is because the hospital’s research agenda involves children who are a “ward of the state.” According to the Blaze, Boston Children’s Hospital’s own Clinical Investigation Policy and Procedure Manuel states that “Children who are Wards of the state may be included in research that presents minimal risk…or greater than minimal risk with a prospect of direct benefit.” The Blaze notes that there is no assurance as to whether or not Justina is being used in research.

More recently, however, Justina was transferred from Boston Children’s Hospital to the Wayside Youth and Family Support Network facility in Framingham, Massachusetts. Wayside is a place for teens with behavioral problems and many come from “broken homes.” According to this local news article, “There are no doors to the rooms for the kids who live there, just curtains. Doors would allow students to barricade themselves in their rooms, said Dennis Miles, the campus residential director.”

You see, collectivists who may in fact be using others in experimentation don’t believe in the concept of privacy, as well as common sense. Actually, collectivists in general don’t believe in privacy, hence ObamaCare, NSA, TSA, FBI, etc.

The article also notes that “Pushbars for some of the doors have a 15-second delay to prevent students from running through or out of the school.

“Many doors need a security card to open, while others leading outside trigger an alarm.”

Hmmm. Now it’s beginning to sound more like a “correctional institute.” Is there a fence outside with barbed wires facing in?

Is there a Nurse Ratched there?

Mr. Pelletier describes Justina’s treatment by all these doctors as “torture.” He describes his daughter as now in a wheelchair, paralyzed below the waist, almost no muscle control above the waist, with her hairline and gumline receding, and says she seems to be malnourished.

So much for the psychologists’ “behavior modification” ideology.

Here is a video of Justina’s father, Lou Pelletier, talking to Glenn Beck and describing this ordeal being perpetrated against their family by the vultures of the DCF and the medical establishment quacks:

Another aspect of this case which is just as troubling is that the DCF judge imposed a gag order on this case. The Pelletiers are not allowed to talk to the media about what’s being done to their child. However, since later last year, Mr. Pelletier has been talking to media, including Glenn Beck.

Now, what authority does any judge have to order the Pelletiers not to speak out about their ordeal? Some sort of Fascist Manifesto, perhaps?

Worse, because of his talking about what the vicious state and the psychopathic medical establishment have been inflicting on them, Mr. Pelletier has now been charged with “contempt of court.”

Here is the video of Pelletier telling Glenn Beck about the contempt charge:

In my view, these medical establishment people are not just medically incompetent, but criminally dangerous. If there were any justice at all, criminal charges of child endangerment, kidnapping and hostage taking, and physical abuse need to be pressed against those who were actually responsible for refusing to allow the Pelletiers to take Justina out of the hospital last year, and such charges pressed against those who then seized custody away from the Pelletiers. (The judge also needs to be impeached and charged with violating the Pelletiers’ First Amendment-protected rights of free speech.)

If ObamaCare continues as the “law of the land,” we can just multiply by many times all these fiascoes and crimes perpetrated by the State-medical establishment cult.

Sandy Hook: Independently Investigate Those Who Act Like They’re Covering Something Up

I realize that there are those who view some of my writing as “conspiratorial,” and they won’t take some of those matters seriously. Mainly that is because many people prefer the coddling and syrupy stuff fed to them by mainstream news organs, and they feel “uncomfortable” with those who challenge the status quo, or who question the government and media’s official narrative. But if there is the chance that people are not being told the truth, and that news media are not questioning and probing for facts, then someone has to do the real investigating.

Furthermore, actual conspiracies really have happened, whether people are comfortable with that fact or not. The Obama DOJ conspired in an illegal gun-running op known as “Fast and Furious. Members of the U.S. CONgress conspired to knowingly ram a terribly written health care bill into law, known as “The Affordable Care Act.” Oliver North and others conspired to sell arms to Iran and divert the funds to the Nicaraguan Contras. Richard Nixon’s flunkies conspired to break into psychiatrists offices and steal private information, and Nixon himself conspired with his henchmen to cover up those crimes.  And “The Rev.” Jim Jones and others conspired to murder hundreds of his followers at Jonestown with cyanide-laced “Kool-Aid.” (That is where the phrase, “Drinking the Kool-Aid” came from. Now you know.)

Regarding the very emotional issue of Sandy Hook, there are those who believe that government officials and investigators have not been forthcoming. Some “conspiracy” accusers believers that one motivation of such behavior might be to further the activists’ gun control agenda.

And now, there is one investigator who happens to be an expert on school security, Wolfgang Halbig, who says that not only have Sandy Hook shooting investigators not been forthcoming about the facts, but some have actually visited him and made threats against him to cease his investigating. Now, when government agents act like they are covering something up, then of course we must find out what’s going on. If they are covering something up, then what is it they are covering up? And I Googled this Wolfgang Halbig, and he seems like a credible expert, not some goofball or wacko, or someone with something to gain from his involvement.

Halbig has asserted that important questions need to be asked regarding Sandy Hook. For example, he wants to know why no medical helicopters were brought to the Sandy Hook school at the time of the shooting, which apparently is standard procedure at such times. And why were emergency medical personnel prevented from entering the school at the time? And why did the school get torn down? Following other similar incidents, places of similar crimes are not torn down.

But, after months of intensive investigating, can Halbig seriously conclude that the Sandy Hook shooting massacre was an elaborate hoax? And that no one actually died? Again, I spent a bit of time searching about this investigator, and the information I saw indicates that he has a very good record, very credible, as an expert in school security and risk management.

But such an occurrence which he is alleging is extremely bizarre and far-fetched. How could so many people be involved in such an alleged hoax? If the kids didn’t actually get killed, then where are they? If the parents and others there are all involved in this elaborate scheme, then one possible explanation would be financial motives. And as mentioned above, a very believable motive as to the actual instigators of the alleged scheme would be to further the gun control agenda that fanatics want to bring about.

Now, if you’re continuing to read this far into this post, then it shows that you really do have an open mind. But there are those who can’t even hear these kinds of discussions, as such a thought of such things is so disturbing to them, they just can’t tolerate it. But freedom of speech means that ALL possible explanations of events should be explored and discussed.

These issues, of a possible hoax and the right or the duty of people to discuss all the facts, came up about a year ago, in late January of 2013 which was about a month after the Sandy Hook shooting, when a former candidate for Connecticut attorney general, Martha Dean, posted a controversial video about the alleged hoax on her Facebook page.

In this excellent interview of her which I have posted once before, Ms. Dean discusses how, despite the pain among those involved with certain cases that investigations or discussions might bring up, it is nevertheless important to have public, free discussions of these issues. Dean also mentions the gun control issue, and she also discusses how political minorities (such as conservative Republicans in Connecticut) must “stand their ground” on principle in these kinds of circumstances.

If the video does not appear below, you can see it at this link.

WFSB 3 Connecticut