Skip to content

Category: Bureaucracy

More Very Important Articles

Jacob Hornberger explains the U.S. national security state and how it came to existence after World War II, a system of authoritarian rule that the American Founders had not intended to exist.

The Future of Freedom Foundation has republished The Sanctifying of Plunder, an excerpt from Leonard Read’s book, Castles in the Air.

Becky Akers still doesn’t like the TSA.

Don Boudreaux on Trump’s wall, a wall of disgrace.

Zero Hedge with an article on Mueller destroying messages from anti-Trump FBI agent’s iPhone; OIG recovers 19,000 “FBI lovebird” texts.

And Tho Bishop says the State is influencing Big Tech’s “unpersoning” — Now imagine if the State takes over health care.

The National Security State’s Useful Idiots in the Media

It really is sad to see professional journalists acting as government propagandists, i.e. de facto bureaucrats themselves, on behalf of an agenda at the expense of the truth. And we see that a lot now in Amerika especially to do with pathological Trump hatred. And I am not a Trump supporter, as many people here know.

Quite a few writers have now channeled Paul Craig Roberts with the moniker he has assigned to the mainstream Press as “presstitutes,” referring to mainstream news media chumps letting themselves be used by “anonymous intelligence sources” or “unnamed government officials” (or by people who are named) to advance an agenda at the expense of actual investigative reporting or being the “adversarial” Fourth Estate they are expected to be. That is, challenging assertions of bureaucrats and corporate flunkies, demanding answers, investigating the issues.

Instead, the news media have been plagued with activist do-gooders who have been brainwashed into believing that suppressing the truth about stories and merely repeating what bureaucrats tell them without question is “good journalism.”

But sadly, while some of the news media really are dishonest and intentionally promoting “fake news,” as I wrote about in my article on that a few months ago, I think that many of them are also just plain dumb, ignorant and/or gullible sheeple. It just never occurs to them to check what an “important source” in the bureaucracy tells them and that he might be lying to them. And as far as ignorance is concerned, like the population in general, many of them are just ignorant of history, science, economics, and did not have effective training in or encouragement of having critical thinking skills. And now with the “snowflake” generation, emotion is everything and thinking is suppressed.

Regarding the world-wide hatred for Donald Trump and the drooling drive to get rid of him, former CIA analyst and political activist Ray McGovern notes how investigative journalist Robert Parry may have had strokes and died because the “prostitution of the profession he loved so much” (journalism) may have been “too much; it’s just too much, too much.”

McGovern quotes Parry from a late article prior to Parry’s death:

More and more I would encounter policymakers, activists and, yes, journalists who cared less about a careful evaluation of the facts and logic and more about achieving a pre-ordained geopolitical result –and this loss of objective standards reached deeply into the most prestigious halls of American media. This perversion of principles –twisting information to fit a desired conclusion – became the modus vivendi of American politics and journalism. And those of us who insisted on defending the journalistic principles of skepticism and evenhandedness were increasingly shunned by our colleagues … Everything became ‘information warfare.’ …

Ironically, many ‘liberals’ who cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us, even if we’re told to accept the assertions on faith.

Sad. And Parry said that Trump hatred “had become like some invasion of the body snatchers,” a great analogy, in my view. However, in some cases there has been intentional dishonesty. But in other cases, there are members of the Press who are extremely infatuated with governmental powers, probably because they were raised to worship the government like a god, or like their mommy and daddy.

Besides my article in August on “fake news,” I also pointed out how what we have in the media is not the “liberal media” (although yes in the social agenda of many of them), but the government media. Not just journalism media but others in the academia and “intelligentsia” who promote and glorify the State and its god-like powers.

For example, Glenn Greenwald pointed to court historian Douglas Brinkley’s fawning interview of Barack Obama, and that “journalists joyously dance with top officials, swing on their tires, are creepily grateful when they’re sprayed in the face by their squirt guns, and play fun beach games with the very campaign officials they’re ostensibly covering.”

Yech. And as I further wrote in that earlier post, some examples provided by Greenwald have included Bob Schieffer kissing up to former NSA directer Michael Hayden, and Bob Shieffer hatchet-jobbing Ron Paul on foreign policy. And Scott Pelley’s “13 uninterrupted minutes of drooling propaganda” interview of Obama defense secretary Leon Panetta, how Wired manipulated chat logs to aid and abet the government’s persecution of Army whistleblower Bradley Manning, and Diane Sawyer and Brian Ross’s anti-Iran fear-mongering (things haven’t changed much).

Back to Trump. So besides Trump’s being rude and oftentimes insulting people like Rosie O’Donnell and Megyn Kelly, he has also criticized the national security state and elitists in Washington, especially during the 2016 campaign. And those apparatchiks there didn’t like that.

The real news has been that elements within the FBI and DOJ and their media sycophants including the Washington Post made up this “Trump-Russia collusions” and Trump-Russia “hacking and manipulating the 2016 election” in order to frame Donald Trump and to get rid of him. The same elements in the FBI and DOJ also falsely exonerated Hillary Clinton in her corruption with her email scandal and Clinton Foundation. And there is plenty of evidence to back that up, while there is no evidence to this day that proves “Trump-Russia collusions” in changing election results.

But the news media have been reporting otherwise, haven’t they? That is because they shill for the national security state, the same national security state that reads their emails, listens to their phone calls, S.W.A.T.-raids their homes or hacks their computers if their reporting goes against the grain of the apparatchiks of the national security state. Why do the media shill and propagandize? Because they are True Believers? Or because they are extremely gullible and naive and believe what FBI or CIA agents tell them?

But also because they are agenda driven. For example, the gun control agenda, in which they will only play sound bites of quotes by Elizabeth Warren or Nancy Pelosi (“How many more people have to die until we finally wake up?” “We need stricter gun legislation,” etc., etc.), but never or rarely quotes by people pointing out “Well, if someone there had been armed he or she could have taken out the shooter before those remaining 54 people could be killed,” “Gun-free zones attract the shooters because they know no one is armed who could shoot back,” “Criminals don’t obey laws against assault, murder or rape, why would they obey gun laws?” etc. You know, those rational points that the mainstream media don’t want people to hear because such points refute the irrationality of emotion-based anti-self-defense arguments.

And this anti-Trump obsession is not new. So far, the media in collusion with the national security state have still not taken down Donald Trump. There just is no evidence against Trump to prove what he has been accused of. And now people are pointing to Michael Cohen, a proven liar and sleazebag, as though his testimony is actually reliable or respectable.

But the national security state with the aid of news media colluders did take down a sitting President, and an awful statist at that, just as Trump is. It is very possible that what the mainstream media had been reporting on Watergate and the burglary is not the true story behind the story, and in fact it might very well be that Richard Nixon was set up by the national security state with that Watergate burglary and cover-up. CIA goons such as E. Howard Hunt participated in the burglary. Nixon had been trying to thaw relations with Russia and China, and the national security state didn’t like that one bit. And they had media helping to take down Nixon, including Bob Woodward.

And we see it now how Trump is trying to thaw relations with Russia, and the sycophants of the mainstream media huff and puff in their devotion to the national security state and its dependence on conflict, belligerence, and living high off the hog on taxpayer dollars.

Although, this mainstream media pathological hatred of Trump is like never before, apparently. It seems like mostly a personal thing. They just don’t like him. Well I don’t like him either, but I still think the truth is important.

On Believing Military Myths

Laurence Vance has this article this week referring to those people with bumper stickers stating, “My Son Is a Marine.” Dr. Vance points out that many people think that Marines “defend our freedoms, protect us from terrorists, keep us from having to speak German, Japanese, Vietnamese, or Arabic, and fight ‘over there’ so we don’t have to fight ‘over here’,” and probably other reasons.

And then he lists a whole bunch of things that bumper sticker really means. For example,

My son bombs other countries.
My son fights foreign wars.
My son is part of the president’s personal attack force.

My son maims foreigners.
My son polices the world.
My son is responsible for the deaths of children.

There are many items on the list. It really is quite an extensive list. And Vance adds, “Now, is every Marine guilty of all of these things? Of course not. But by virtue of being a Marine, he is guilty of many of them.”

And he adds some more honest bumper sticker suggestions, including:

My son suffers from PTSD from being in the Marine Corps.
My son lost his legs in the Marine Corps.
My son received a traumatic brain injury in the Marine Corps.
My son died for the military/industrial complex in the Marine Corps.

And in a follow-up blog post, he writes:

In response to my article “My Son Is a Marine,” I have not received such vicious and threatening e-mails since I began to criticize the Iraq War on LRC almost 15 years ago. All of them have a common theme: It is because of the Marines fighting wars, bleeding, and dying that I have the freedom to write the crap that I write. Actually, it isn’t. That is the point that they don’t get. Marines who fight unjust wars, bleed, and die do nothing for anyone’s freedom. They fight, bleed, and die in vain. Here is a question for Marine lovers: How does a Marine going to Vietnam and dying for a lie give me the freedom to write articles for LRC?

You see, a lot of people have a deep faith in the rulers and in their beloved government in Washington. They believe the war propaganda given to them, because it may be too frightening not to believe it. “Why would our beloved rulers lie to us?” and so on. And many have been indoctrinated to believe myths about the military and other parts of the Washington racket. They really believe that the U.S. military “gives us our freedom,” and so on.

But they can’t answer the question as to how exactly the military’s wars overseas and their sacrifices have protected our freedom.

Dr. Vance cites the Vietnam War, for instance. The U.S. military’s role in the Vietnam War was to “prevent the spread of communism,” and so on. But what happened, after the deaths of 58,000 American soldiers and the deaths of a million or more Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians? Vietnam became a communist country, a united north and south communist Vietnam. And the U.S. has friendly relations with them, including trade.

And people go on and on about World Wars I and II, especially the Second World War. “If we didn’t send Americans off to die in Europe we would be speaking German now,” which is an utter crock. Just how exactly would Hitler’s forces been able to even get over here to the U.S., let alone take over the country and make us speak German?

Yet, a lot of people still believe the myths and lies about these wars. They faithfully believe, based on all the propaganda fed to them by the gubmint and repeated word-for-word by the bureaucrats’ lapdogs in the mainstream media. The masses are brainwashed by fake news, unfortunately.

The Mueller Kangaroo Investigation Continues

I heard former assistant U.S. attorney for southern district of New York Andrew McCarthy of National Review on with Glenn Beck this morning, and McCarthy said that the Mueller team seems to be preparing to indict Donald Trump, based on McCarthy’s experience in and knowledge of these kinds of things. What will they charge Trump with? Who knows, probably some made-up thing.

In a somewhat snarky, big picture kind of column at The Hill, Sharyl Attkisson says that Mueller’s findings don’t matter. You’re either in the “Trump colluded with Russia” camp, or the “Deep State conspired to frame Trump” camp. The evidence points to the latter, while the former has no evidence whatsoever. (Most people don’t know that, because they get their news mainly from the government stenographers of the mainstream media.)

Fox News columnist Victoria Toensing notes that when interviewed by FBI (as directed by acting attorney general Sally Yates),Trump former national security advisor Mike Flynn misremembered a conversation he had weeks earlier that the FBI didn’t even have to ask him about because they had recordings of the conversation. Entrapment much, FBI? And apparently Yates had violated some kind of national security laws there.

Meanwhile, in perhaps the most important of all these columns today, former state department official Peter van Buren says the whole Mueller investigation began as an investigation looking for a crime from the very beginning, a crime that had not even been committed.

You can believe what you want about all this. But the whole thing is made up. Just in the past day I heard John Batchelor again on these issues, and he brought up once again the long time FBI informant Felix Sater, who as an FBI informant had infiltrated the Trump organization as early as 2003. Could  the FBI and other gubmint apparatchiks been after Trump for decades now? It would not surprise me. I don’t think that lifelong government parasites like entrepreneurs and capitalists very much.

More “Climate Change” Analysis

Robert Murphy on how government bureaucrats and the New York Times are misleading the public about climate change. Murphy discusses the “National Climate Assessment.”

(I’ve already said what I have to say about climate change. The climate has been changing since the world began. Nothing we can do about it. But there are millions of hysterical alarmists who obediently go along with the agenda of the politicians and bureaucrats worldwide, whose main goal is to get bureaucratic control over all wealth and industry, and steal as much as possible from the people, and that’s it.)

Donald Trump’s Nominee for Attorney General, William Barr

After all his criticisms of the “deep state,” the Mueller Russia-collusions “witch hunt” and rhetorically raking the Establishment over the coals, Donald Trump has nominated former Bush41 AG and CIA flunky the authoritarian statist William Barr to be the next attorney general. The reason Trump picked Barr is because Trump is impressed with someone with the credentials Barr has. (Hmm, Robert Mueller has good credentials, too. And Dick Cheney. And … James Comey, and…Hillary….Clinton…)

According to Wikipedia, Barr was with the CIA for four years. That in and of itself should disqualify him! During the George H.W. Bush administration, as an assistant AG Barr advised that the U.S. feds could invade another country to apprehend a suspect for extradition, such as invading Panama to grab Manuel Noriega, whose drug trafficking was excused by U.S. feds in exchange for his cooperation for the CIA in the CIA’s Latin America coups and regime change ops.

Really disgusting stuff, in other words. Further, as attorney general under Bush Sr., Barr advised that Bush pardon former Defense (sic) Secretary Caspar Weinberger, because a possible Weinberger trial involving the Iran-Contra scandal might have implicated Bush himself. (Bush has done worse, believe me.)

Barr is also anti-immigration, just like Donald Trump and former AG Jeff Sessions. If you’re going to be anti-immigration like these socialist clowns, should you really be in America? (How about these schmucks instead go to other countries that don’t have a Declaration of Independence or a Bill of Rights? Hmmm?)

Unsurprisingly, Barr is a drug fascist. Barr’s daughter Mary Daly is a DOJ official, in charge of drug policy, apparently. She and her father Bill Barr are supporters of the war on drugs. For them it is a criminal matter. People buying, selling, possessing or using certain drugs prohibited by the gubmint are criminals, according to these fascists. (But don’t touch the drug warriors’ precious booze, right? Right.)

According to WaPo, Barr sent a letter to U.S. Senators telling them not to reform the sentencing system, writing, “Our system of justice is not broken. Mandatory minimums and proactive law enforcement measures have caused a dramatic reduction in crime over the past 25 years, an achievement we cannot afford to give back.”

Clueless.

Proactive law enforcement measures”? So pre-crime? Thus, not only does Barr believe that the government has the authority to prohibit this or that by law, like drugs, but he doesn’t believe in presumption of innocence and due process.

Presumption of innocence is: leave people alone who are peaceful and not suspected of harming others or violating the persons or property of others, and so on. But, Barr doesn’t get that.

And then I saw this. Law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that Barr is “one of the most brilliant lawyers I have known” and that Barr is the “perfect choice” for attorney general. More cluelessness, this. I think a lot of U.S. senators will obediently follow this line of thinking, and they will probably unanimously vote to confirm Barr as attorney general. I’m sure even Rand Paul will vote for him. No surprise there.

If confirmed, given his “law-and-order” authoritarianism the statist William Barr will probably rubber-stamp the police state: the drug war, asset forfeiture, all the unconstitutional post-9/11 policies including NDAA and indefinite detention, warrantless searches, warrantless wiretapping and warrantless spying, and more.

Even though Barr has expressed support for investigating Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, I still don’t believe that Barr will come to the side of transparency when it comes to the Mueller fishing expedition. I don’t think he will side with those in and out of Congress who have presented evidence against certain FBI and DOJ employees showing that they illicitly cleared Hillary Clinton from wrongdoing and these same FBI and DOJ flunkies then went on to conspire to frame Donald Trump in made-up Russia collusions involving the apparatchiks’ FISA abuses to spy on the Trump campaign (apparatchiks including, allegedly, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Sally Yates).

In the end, I believe, AG Barr will come to the defense of the national security state and all its criminality and corruption in regards to “Russia-gate” and the Mueller fiasco. I’ll be surprised if the outcome is otherwise, and if Barr actually encourages Trump to order the FISA warrants or FISA warrant applications declassified, and lets the truth be known to the general public, and if Barr actually demands that Comey et al. (including John Brennan as well) be indicted. And will AG Barr open a new investigation of the Clintons? I rather doubt it. Call me cynical.

On Questioning the Official 9/11 Narrative

One reason why many people dismiss skeptics of the official 9/11 narrative is because many people get their news mostly from mainstream news media, who mostly repeat what government officials tell them, i.e. the news media act as stenographers for the rulers.

Most people tend to not look into these matters further. If the Congress had a commission and “investigated” 9/11, then their conclusions are good enough for me, most people say. And then when others question or challenge the mainstream media and congressional committee’s conclusions, and even bring forth evidence which refutes such conclusions, then those challengers and skeptics are to be dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” tinfoil hat wearers, and crackpots. That is the extent to which many people have obedient faith in their rulers and in government investigations of catastrophes that are mainly caused by government’s own actions especially abroad, and by government’s failures.

And that brings me to this extensive article by Elias Davidsson, in which he critiques a HuffPo article aiming to discredit a professor and others’ legitimate questioning of the official 9/11 narrative. The Davidsson article is quite extensive and gives quite a bit detailed information on the “investigation” following 9/11.

Davidsson is also the author of Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence. People with open minds should check these things out.

Prisoners of the National Security State And Corrupt Prosecutors

Law professor Jonathan Turley blogged about conservative investigative reporter Jerome Corsi’s being pursued by “special counsel” Robert Mueller, and noted that Corsi filed a “criminal and ethics complaint” against Herr Mueller for attempting to pressure Corsi to intentionally give false testimony.

Turley writes, “There is no strong legal basis for such a challenge.” Hmm, you mean it’s illegal to lie under oath, but it’s not illegal to lie under oath if the prosecutors threaten you otherwise? Is that what Turley is saying here?

Turley concludes, “Prosecutors and police will often push witnesses with accusations and demands. However, if the charge is based on independent grounds, courts are leery of speculating on motive. After all, if Mueller’s team truly believes that Corsi was a critical player with Wikileaks, they are allowed to press a witness on that theory.”

Some of the commenters wrote, “Come on Turley, if you had any reasoned compassion (or stones), you’d see the justice in hunting the wolf and the routine injustice done by federal prosecutors.” And, “Yep. Looks like Turley pulled back the curtain and gives inside baseball type look at our criminal justice system: if persecutors have theories then they can move with unfettered zealotry on potential witnesses with culture of defense attorneys and judges turning blind eye on this type of abusive behavior.” And, “The truly sad reality is how comfortable our constitutional scholar host is at describing how lawfare works without a hint of the injustice of it.”

Some of the commenters then go on to say that Turley’s initial description of Corsi might be biased.

I have a feeling that liberal progressive Turley could be more sympathetic to Corsi and less sympathetic to the prosecutors if Corsi were not a conservative. But I could be wrong. I probably am wrong, because Turley has generally been quite objective in defense of those who are the victims of government overreach or of prosecutorial misconduct.

On those issues, Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote about Trump campaign minion Paul Manafort and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and about Trump current lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s recent comments on the Mueller fishing expedition.

After summarizing Giuliani’s record as a sleazy, corrupt prosecutor in New York during the 1980s, and noting some of Giuliani’s grandiose and frankly deranged treatment of his victims at the time, Judge Napolitano then writes, “The courts have ruled many times that prosecutors, FBI agents and police may lie, cheat, threaten, intimidate, coerce and deceive to extract cooperation and obtain evidence from witnesses. This is the dark side of the criminal justice system. It requires a strong stomach. It can be used against even the president.”

And by “to extract cooperation and obtain evidence” he probably means obtain false confessions or false testimony against others in exchange for leniency, or based on threats of false prosecution, probably for made-up crimes such as “insider trading” or “process crimes,” such as “lying to prosecutors” for merely recalling something inaccurately.

Government judicial system apparatchiks use the system to go after someone they don’t like, or based on political differences, such as the Obama FBI and DOJ abusing already unconstitutional FISA spying authority to either find dirt on their political opponents of the Trump campaign or make it all up, such as with the Steele dossier. That is what this whole made-up “Russia collusions/hacking the election” is all about.

Government apparatchiks, with a monopoly over the administration of justice, also go after innocent people for reasons other than political ones, including advancing an agenda of bamboozling the public to accept more governmental intrusions into their lives and a police state. Such as the FBI infiltrating mosques to motivate young Muslim males to want to commit “jihad” in order for the FBI to thwart terrorist plots that the FBI themselves concoct.

Or the CIA using software to not only hide their own cyber “fingerprints” but to leave fake fingerprints, such as spoofed IP addesses, etc. to make it look like Russians or others did the hacking, phishing, or otherwise computer intrusions.

Or NSA stealing industry secrets, and NSA or Britain’s GCHQ in an “information ops” campaign to “manipulate, deceive, and destroy reputations,” using made-up stuff to discredit individuals and companies.

Sadly, because of our government’s apparatchiks exploiting what James Bovard has called “Battered Citizen Syndrome,” the people continue to blindly accept the criminal racket in Washington. Any one of us could be the next victim of bureaucrats’ political witch hunts and crusades.

The current national security state- and Democrat-led “witch hunt” fiasco is yet another example why letting our lives be ruled by elites with a monopoly in “justice” is not good. We should probably dismantle the whole thing.

The Mueller Crime Spree Continues

Is the Mueller Inquisition still going on? I can’t believe it. The latest is that conservative investigative reporter Jerome Corsi is being pursued by Mueller, as well as Roger Stone. All this bunch of stuff is involving Corsi and Stone’s alleged communications with WikiLeaks hacker Julian Assange.

The national security state and the fake news media are really after Assange because of his providing an apparatus for government whistleblowers to expose government criminality. The criminals of the national security state don’t like that!

Corsi is now alleging that Mueller was trying to coerce him into deliberately and knowingly lie in testimony in exchange for, I don’t know, a “lighter sentence” or whatever, and Corsi says he won’t do that and is in fact going to sue Mueller and his cohorts.

This reminds me of how CIA Gitmo torturers have been torturing innocent, uninvolved victims as a way to get false confessions and to falsely justify a 2nd invasion of Iraq, in 2003. So, while the criminals of the national security state entrap someone for “lying” to FBI or to Congress, it is they the government criminals who want people to lie when it benefits their agenda, or who want to criminally invade another country based on lies.

Besides the latest in the news with Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone, I heard some of the John Batchelor Show this week and he interviewed a Larry Johnson regarding so-called “Individual 2” of the Mueller Inquisition, “Individual 2” being a Russian FBI informant named Felix Sater who had infiltrated the Trump organization as early as 2003, according to what was said on the show. Sater supposedly had been an FBI informant since 1998.

According to the Examiner, Sater was a childhood friend of Michael Cohen, the scummy former Trump lawyer and flipper-on-Trump. Sater has also gotten into bar fights, was a stock broker and was involved with the Mafia. And it appears that Mueller wants to make use of Sater’s business dealings with Trump over the past 15 years to try to get Trump. Supposedly Sater’s association with Trump’s organization over the years as an FBI informant was mainly to help the FBI go after “organized crime.” (Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.)

So the FBI really has had an agenda of getting Trump since 2003? (Or earlier?)

These bureaucrats of the FBI and other national security state (or “deep state”) operatives, as well as many in politics and pop culture since 2016, are obsessed with getting Trump and impeaching and removing him from office.

It was not like that with George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, even though many on the left hated those two while they were President. But then, they were not nearly as successful businessmen as apparently Donald Trump has been all these years.

So I think this Mueller-Comey-Brennan conspiracy of going after Trump fits the typical pattern of government bureaucrats going after private businesspeople, whether it’s Rudy Giuliani targeting Michael Milken, James Comey targeting Martha Stewart, and many, many other bureaucrats targeting those in the private sector who had been successful entrepreneurs prospering with their talents and abilities through the process of voluntary exchange to serve the needs of others.

Bureaucrat prosecutors who are life-long government employees (or following government employment continuing in crony lobbying or or consulting firms) are the opposite of the entrepreneurs who serve the consumers. The bureaucrats are parasites who go through life siphoning off the fruits of other people’s labor as well as shooting down their victims using the judicial branch of government to do it.

As I wrote in this post, the real motivation of those who want to get Trump is out of envy and covetousness. Bureaucrats and their supporters in the media and “intelligentsia” are haters of the successful, haters of the “greedy capitalists.” The haters have what Ludwig von Mises called an “anti-capitalistic mentality.” [Also see Mises’s Bureaucracy (.pdf)]

Mainstream Media Whitewashing and Fawning Over War Criminal George H.W. Bush

Just as I had been predicting rather recently, the praises and whitewashing of George H.W. Bush are flowing from the mainstream media, and once again, the truth is to be swept under the rug. This is just like the Richard Nixon funeral in 1994, with the newscasters including Baba Wawa then not uttering a word of the Nixon war crimes in Vietnam or his other terrible criminal policies and impositions.

Later yesterday I heard Michel Martin on supposedly “liberal” NPR’s All Things Considered and this morning Lulu Garcia-Navarro was talking to Mara Liasson. And on other stations the news coverage with interviews of people talking about what a “decent” “gentleman” Bush Sr. was. No objective, thorough discussions, just cringe-worthy praise and fawning.

And I don’t expect to hear the truth from the conservative talk radio crowd. Certainly not Bush pal Rush Limbaugh, or Mr. Authoritarian Dennis Prager, who still defends the U.S. military’s bombings of Vietnam.

And I’m not even talking about “Read my lips — no new taxes” and then raising taxes stuff. It’s the Bush war crimes and the police state thanks to George H.W. Bush. We’re not hearing about any of that.

In the newscasts and on the discussion shows not a word about Bush’s starting a war of aggression against Iraq in 1991 that included the bombing and destruction of civilian water and sewage treatment centers which caused the Iraqi civilian population to have to use untreated water which led to skyrocketing disease and infant mortality rates. The U.S.-led sanctions and no-fly zones, which I wrote about recently, that were imposed on Iraq and enforced sadistically, prevented the Iraqi people from being able to rebuild those water and sewage treatment centers and the electrical service as well. And the sickness, deaths and suffering of the civilian population was intentionally caused by the U.S. military, as James Bovard and others have noted.

By the mid-1990s hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians because of the sanctions and no-fly zones imposed by George H.W. Bush that were continued by Bill Clinton, “liberal” Bill Clinton. Then hundreds of thousands more deaths by the year 2000. Bush Sr. also established more U.S. military bases in the Middle East, bases and military personnel that don’t belong in those areas! So such an invasion, bombings, and occupations were provocations of those Middle Easterners, those mainly Muslim people living over there.

The Nuremberg Tribunal determined that starting a war of aggression was in and of itself a war crime.

The Bush war in Iraq in the early 1990s brought on heavy blowback. There probably would not have been terrorist bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, or the bombing of the USS Cole in the year 2000, and, very likely wouldn’t have been a 9/11 had George H.W. Bush not started that war, destroyed civilian infrastructure and imposed sanctions and no-fly zones. The 9/11 terrorists had stated as part of their motivations that war and those sanctions.

And then there’s the police state that had already been building up since well before 9/11, but hugely escalated after 9/11. Much of the post-9/11 police state was planned since before 9/11. During the 1990s a Patriot Act-like major piece of legislation had been continuously voted down in Congress. The national security state needed some kind of excuse to finally get that passed, and they got their excuse.

So now, in addition to NSA, CIA, FBI, we have DHS, TSA, and a huge increase in Constitution-free zones on the borders, as well as the roads and highways.

Now as an aside, here’s something a bit of a “conspiratorial” nature. A possible Bush association with the JFK assassination. To most people that would sound really far-fetched. But I’m not too sure about that.

Russ Baker, author of Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years, had this 10-part article, on the possible Bush-JFK assassination connection. Baker gives a lot of detailed information to show that Bush may have been with the CIA (either formally or informally) long before he was its Director under Gerald R. Ford, and may have played a role in the JFK assassination. If Bush was involved with the CIA since the 1950s, could he have been involved in Operation Ajax, CIA’s coup that took down Iranian leader Mossadagh?

Regarding the JFK assassination, most people want to believe the Lone Nut conspiracy theory, which makes no sense. Given that Kennedy was starting to have peace talks with Khrushchev, something the national security state did not want, then why would an alleged communist and Soviet sympathizer Lee Harvey Oswald want to kill Kennedy?

In fact, given how entrenched the national security state was in Amerikan life by the 1980s and ’90s, one can see how the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War would motivate the bureaucrats of the national security state, a.k.a. “deep state,” to try to find or create some new “enemy” to go after. The “Islamic threat” coming from the more primitive societies of Middle Eastern and Asian Muslim countries had already been built up by that time. In Iran following the CIA’s Operation Ajax, the CIA supported the Shah’s new Iranian SAVAK police state from the rest of the 1950s up to the Islamic Revolution of 1979. So, there was an ulterior motive in Bush Sr.’s starting his war on Iraq in 1991 and imposing sanctions as mentioned above. A whole new program of provoking Muslims to elicit retaliation against the Western regimes to justify further expanding national security state bureaucracies and their budgets, and so on. The Bureaucracy is the bottom line on that.

And George H.W. Bush was a True Believer in the national security state and the Bureaucracy. He was Mr. Bureaucrat, in my view.

And to those who are saying that being critical of someone on the occasion of his death is “dancing on his grave,” well, no, someone needs to point out the truth of who Bush was and what he actually did. The mainstream news media commentariat and pundit class will not do that, because the mainstream news media are an entrenched wing of the bureaucracy in Washington, including the national security state!

The truth is, rather than abolish the agencies of the national security state following the end of the Cold War because they were no longer needed, Bush criminally started a whole new scheme of conflicts and provocations and expanded the police state in Amerika.

Why Hasn’t the Libertarian Party Been Successful?

In a tweet linking to Ben Shapiro, Justin Raimondo says that the reasons why the Libertarian Party isn’t more successful have more to do with Gary Johnson and Bill Weld than John McAfee. Shapiro asked why the LP isn’t more successful, after he linked to a vulgar tweet by former LP Presidential candidate John McAfee.

The truth is that the Libertarian Party just has not been successful (except for little pockets here and there with some LP elected state officials) since it began as an official political party in 1971, because generations of Americans have been brainwashed to believe that statism and government are supreme, freedom not so much.

According to Wikipedia, the 1972 LP Presidential nominee John Hospers received only 3,674 votes, but he did receive one Electoral vote. By 1980, Ed Clark received almost 1 million votes. But it went downhill from there, and then up again. In 1988 Ron Paul received a little more than 400,000 and it remained roughly around that number until Gary Johnson in 2012 with 1.2 million and Johnson in 2016 with 4.4 million. I’m not sure I believe that last number. Bob Barr and Gary Johnson de-libertarianized the Libertarian Party more than anyone could ever dream of doing.

So, the real reason for the LP’s lack of success since it began is the fact that, when there has been an opportunity to bring the principles of the so-called Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into the federal government in Washington, most people among the masses reject such principles.

Accepting those principles of those founding documents requires dismantling the empire and the warfare state by closing down ALL foreign U.S. military bases overseas and bringing all the U.S. troops back to the U.S. (and ultimately putting them to honest work in the private sector), end all U.S. tax-funded foreign aid and let private Americans and groups donate to foreigners if they want to, and end all U.S. government collusions with foreign regimes (a.k.a. foreign entanglements). Most Americans are ignorant, gullible sheeple and they believe the propaganda of the Washington warmongers. In the early 1970s, despite the truth telling of the Pentagon Papers, the American people still voted for war criminal Nixon by a landslide. Most Americans would not have been able to tell you what the Pentagon Papers actually revealed. They would not have even believed that their own government officials in Washington knew during the 1960s that the Vietnam War could not be won but continued to send troops there to die for no good reason anyway. And in 1990-91 the American people again believed all the propaganda of George H.W. Bush and approved his starting a new war of aggression, now against Iraq, for no good reason.

And accepting the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights also requires dismantling the welfare state, including Social Security, Medicare, and all private property-trespassing laws and policies that the Founders would never have approved of. It would mean repealing all income tax laws, because those involve transactions that are involuntary and intrusions into the privacy and personal lives of the people. It would also means repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and ending that bureaucracy, ending the federal money monopoly and declaring separation of money and State and separation of economy and State. But the sheeple would never stand for all those things, which the Libertarian Party platform has endorsed since the beginning of the Party.

The sheeple are brainwashed to believe that dependence on government and the police state is a given, a fact of life that is inherent in society. No, it is not. And I am sorry if some people are offended by my use of the words, “sheeple” and “brainwashed.” I calls it like I sees it. If the shoe fits….

So that is mostly why the Libertarian Party hasn’t been successful. One other minor reason is the elitists of the mainstream media who look upon libertarians as “tinfoil hat-wearers,” and refuse to cover them as they cover the total clowns of the two major parties, Republicrat and Demopublican. Clowns, corrupt criminals, morons and misfits. THOSE are the ones who get free coverage by the mainstream media elitists. And look who they helped get elected President with such free coverage.