Skip to content

Month: October 2012

The Cognitive Dissonance of the “Conservatives” and “Liberals”

This morning on “Feinburg and McPhee” on WRKO, a lady called in and stated that Barack Obama “should be impeached,” and he should be. (And George W. Bush should be retroactively impeached, if that were humanly possible.) But then the lady said, “I hope the CIA doesn’t get me now.” I thought that was very funny — it’s nice to have a good laugh in the morning. It’s the talk radio callers that provide that certainly more than the hosts these days. In the old days of talk radio, Jerry Williams, Norm Nathan and Larry Glick would crack me up.

These days on talk radio, however, most of them are conservative now, and they don’t have nearly as many segments of taking calls from listeners as before. And when they do, because most talk radio listeners are conservatives, the conversations are usually agreeable, patting each other on the back for being good little conservative sheeple, who aren’t even “conservative,” in the true sense of the word.

But nowadays, most of these talk radio hosts just do lengthy monologues, because, quite frankly, they like to hear themselves talk. And when they do take calls, if it’s from someone who disagrees with them, the caller rarely gets a word in edgewise. Perhaps Howie Carr lets lefty callers go on for a while. Jerry Williams was an old-fashioned “liberal,” so his callers were mostly conservative, and, while he let them go on, there was good back-and-forth discussion — those were the days of great talk radio. That is why Jerry Williams’s station in Boston during the 1980s, WRKO, was consistently #1 in the ratings. Now, not so much. In fact, none of the talk radio stations get good ratings here, I’m not sure about other radio markets.

Anyway, tonight Michael Savage returns to the airwaves and it begins at 9 PM east coast time, too late for me, oh well. Since Savage has been off the air, WRKO replaced him with Mark Levin who, in Savage’s words, sounds like “Groucho’s grandmother having a hysterectomy.” I just refer to Levin as “Fingernails-Against-the Chalkboard.” He’s one of those who goes on and on and on without taking any calls.

Last night, once again Levin goes on, expressing yet more cognitive dissonance, and he is totally unaware of it. He was citing an article in The Daily Beast, I assume it was this one, I didn’t listen to the whole segment (thank God). The article goes on about Obama’s bypassing Congress such as with the immigration issue, and Levin is expressing concern about Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders, and other unconstitutional acts, for which supposedly the article states Obama could be impeach, but shouldn’t be. And also the article quotes some people who show concern that the unprecedented unconstitutional orders by Obama could then be used by subsequent Presidents.

Levin is actually saying things like, how about “following the Constitution, and the rule of law,” this coming from the guy who supported the unconstitutional Patriot Act, an Act that was rushed through Congress with most Congressfelons probably not even reading the bill to see how ghastly is it, whereas Levin and others of his ilk were criticizing the Obama Democrats in Congress for rushing the unconstitutional ObamaCare bill through without reading that!

And, while Levin is citing people who are expressing concern about unconstitutional Obama Executive Orders that might be used later by different Presidents, Levin is totally unconscious of the fact that the unconstitutional and anti-liberty, un-American policies of Bush and Cheney that Levin supported would then be used by subsequent Presidents, such as Obama, and for devious purposes! (Obviously, Levin did not read my article in March 2010, Tea Partiers May Need the ACLU Soon.)

Therefore, the cognitively dissonant Levin doesn’t really believe in these criminal government bureaucrats “following the rule of law,” or “following the Constitution.” But I don’t believe he is being dishonest or knowingly hypocritical, he’s just very short-sighted, as are most of his fellow communist-like neocons.

You see, this short-sightedness that we see from the statists of both left and right is a direct consequence of the system of dependence on central planning and the system of democracy that we have had in America. This majority-rules, mob-rule, government-confiscation of private wealth, and government-trespassing into private lives, property and businesses through criminal regulatory intrusiveness is a system destined to cumulatively result in a society of immediate-gratification-oriented, short-sighted morons like Levin and Limbaugh on the neocon side and the Pelosi-Obama left.

One further aspect of our society that has worked its way to reinforce and strengthen those traits of evil and mass criminality has been the TV-watching-staring-hypnosis addiction. The TV is the one invention that has worked against us and toward the de-civilization of our society, and our culture. And now the addiction to cell phones, texting, constantly having to check email and messages every ten seconds is making people even worse off, psychologically. These things are already destroying our youth, in addition to their being force-fed poisonous and deadly prescription drugs, and so many additional yet unnecessary vaccines.

Because of all those things, we live in a society of zombies, led by zombies in Congress and the White House, and all the zombies who will vote for the two major zombies, and the third-party zombies Johnson, Stein, et al.

So anyway, in addition to  being tortured by hearing Levin last night, earlier that day I heard Howie Carr, who was interviewing Ann Coulter for the millionth time in one week. I think he likes her, if you know what I mean. But during their conversation, Carr played a sound-bite of Congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

In the sound-bite, the DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked about differences between Obama and Romney in foreign policy, and she embarrassingly couldn’t think of any (because there aren’t any — they’re both warmongers, imperialists and Big Government expansionists and interventionists). And Coulter was making fun of Schultz as though there actually were differences (only in terms of their rhetoric, which means nothing). You see, Carr, Coulter, Levin, et al. all these sheeple and their listeners and readers really believe all the rhetoric of our government bureaucrats, regarding the “war on terror,” “terrorists,” and U.S. government foreign policy.

But one reference that Dumbo Wasserman Schultz made was to the Republicans’ “Backwards Cowboy Justice,” totally unaware that her guy, the current Murderer-in-Chief Obama is one of the worst war criminals when it comes to “backwards cowboy justice,” in his acting as judge, jury, and executioner, totally obliterating the idea of due process and presumption of innocence.

During Howie Carr’s interview with Ann Coulter, he also had U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte on, who, laughably, criticized those who wanted to “read the Miranda Warning to terrorists.” You see, because of the cumulative effects of our short-sighted way of life in Amerika, the idea of due process and presumption of innocence is merely a footnote. Ayotte is apparently incapable of distinguishing between a “terrorist” (convicted in a court of law) and an alleged or accused terrorist.

I’m not even saying anything for or against the reading of Miranda Warnings. But I am saying, if you want to give the government the ability to detain indefinitely or execute someone, you had better require that those government bureaucrats — military general or President of the United States, doesn’t matter who it is — show evidence against the accused. The people who founded America before it became Amerika knew that this was necessary. That is because, in a society that values freedom — freedom from tyranny — we  can’t just trust the rulers with those powers. The rulers need to have requirements, restraints, they need to be kept in check. The so-called Founders were well aware of that, even though Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Kelly Ayotte, and Bush and Obama are not.

Stated or not, and regardless of the “anti-terrorism” propaganda of the rulers, the bureaucrats, and the MSM, the sole purpose of due process-denying, anti-liberty, presumption-of-guilt legislation like Patriot Act and NDAA is to stifle, suppress and silence political dissent. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it always will be.

Statist rulers don’t like being questioned, challenged or criticized, and they will arrest, indefinitely detain, and murder those who threaten their power-grabs, as I mentioned here, here and here.

One recent example is Obama’s murder of Muslim radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki, in which Obama went by the word of a “secret White House panel,” but never actually presented any evidence against accused terrorist supporter al-Awlaki. It was much more likely that al-Awlaki was murdered because his religious sermons included criticism of U.S. government foreign policy, criticisms and sermons totally protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a document so proudly defended by the ignoramus Levin.

But to show what a zombie culture we live in now, totally under the rule of zombies, in the following video Debbie Wackerjob Schultz shows her total ignorance of the Obama “kill list” that is the very example of the Backwards Cowboy Justice of which she accused Republicans.

First, here is what Glenn Greenwald wrote regarding the widely-reported and discussed Obama “Kill List”:

On 29 May 2012, the New York Times published a remarkable 6,000-word story on its front page about what it termed President Obama’s “kill list”. It detailed the president’s personal role in deciding which individuals will end up being targeted for assassination by the CIA based on Obama’s secret, unchecked decree that they are “terrorists” and deserve to die.

Based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers”, the Times’ Jo Becker and Scott Shane provided extraordinary detail about Obama’s actions, including how he “por[es] over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre ‘baseball cards’” and how he “insist[s] on approving every new name on an expanding ‘kill list’”. At a weekly White House meeting dubbed “Terror Tuesdays”, Obama then decides who will die without a whiff of due process, transparency or oversight. It was this process that resulted in the death of US citizen Anwar Awlaki in Yemen, and then two weeks later, the killing of his 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, by drone.

The Times “kill list” story made a huge impact and was widely discussed and condemned by media figures, politicians, analysts, and commentators. Among other outlets, the New York Times itself harshly editorialized against Obama’s program in an editorial entitled “Too Much Power For a President”, denouncing the revelations as “very troubling” and argued: “No one in that position should be able to unilaterally order the killing of American citizens or foreigners located far from a battlefield – depriving Americans of their due-process rights – without the consent of someone outside his political inner circle.” …

And here is the Chairperson of the DNC, Florida Congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

George McGovern 1972 Interview

Former Democrat U.S. Senator and Presidential nominee George McGovern died at the age of 90. His campaign in 1972 was one of the most genuine anti-war campaigns in U.S. history. But thanks to the U.S. government’s propaganda campaign to continue the war crimes in Vietnam on behalf of the military-industrial-complex, the American people reelected Nixon in a landslide.

Here is a 1972 Jerry Williams interview of George McGovern from WBZ in Boston. McGovern discusses mainly the Vietnam war and the crimes of the U.S. government and military. (Clicking on the link opens a new media player window.)

Biased News “Journalists” and the Gender Gap

There was certainly a lot of feedback on the recent presidential debate coming from all sides. But a lot of the controversy seems to be regarding the debate moderator. A writer highlights how conservative pundits thought that CNN’s Candy Crowley was very biased and openly took the side of the sitting President. (Biased? Noooo.) mentions that the CNN managing editor sent CNN staff an email defending Crowley, a “full-throated list of Barack Obama talking points.”

And a writer goes further in asserting that Crowley “sets female journalists back 30 years,” and that she “(went) Dan Rather and acted like the President’s bimbo” when she interviewed Obama flunky David Axelrod on September 30th, regarding the Sept. 11th terrorist attack in Benghazi.

I think it’s more a matter of super-biased news journalists, and not whether one is female or not, and that Candy Crowley’s being female has nothing to do with her level of extreme bias, as many news “journalists” now are biased toward the State.

It’s actually the political hacks who “set women back,” or try to, whether it’s with their special-interest legislation and trying to remove from women their personal responsibility as individuals, or whether these political hacks just treat women badly or disrespectfully, such as with the Romney “binders” controversy, in which Willard Romney claims to have wooed women into his administration as governor of Massachusetts, but apparently did not (except for his woman lieutenant governor Kerry “Muffy” Healey.)

But this whole thing is reminding me of the Bobby Riggs-Billie Jean King  “Battle of the Sexes” during the 1970s, in which former tennis star and male chauvinist Bobby Riggs (1918-1995) challenged then-current tennis star Billie Jean King (1943- ) to a match.

Will a Romney Win Cause Rioting?

The Economic Collapse Blog asks whether U.S. presidential election results could cause rioting across America, especially if Barack Obama loses. The writer quotes several tweets from Obama supporters who say they will riot if Willard Milhaus Romney wins. Apparently, they have the misconception that a President Romney will take away their welfare, food stamps and EBT cards.

The Romney supporters whose tweets were quoted are largely saying they will not riot but just leave America if Obama wins reelection. Note how the ones who are dependent on government subsidies are saying they will resort to violence, while the ones who are afraid of a second Obama term just want to run away. The Left is where the violence comes from.

It is the very nature of government redistribution of wealth schemes to consist of violence or the threat of violence: the beneficiaries are the recipients of funds extracted through force or coercion against others, whether said beneficiaries are welfare and food stamps recipients or the military-industrial-security complex. (I have addressed here and here how the “conservatives” are a part of the Left when it comes to the inherent violent nature of their intrusive policies.)

But both sides whose tweets were mentioned in the article (cited above) are exhibiting misperceptions of Romney. On the one hand, the Romney opponents think he’s for “the rich,” and will reduce or eliminate government welfare programs, food stamps, etc. But Romney is in fact just as much an unthinking reactionary socialist as Obama. Romney will not reduce any government spending on social programs, including food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, or education. He’s even going to keep “some parts” of ObamaCare that he approves of (i.e. he won’t repeal ObamaCare, and he loves the fascist mandate).

And also, I think that Romney is using all those failed, miserable neocons as foreign policy advisors just to seem “tough,” but after he’s elected, Romney will show that he has been influenced by Ron Paul and reduce military spending, close some foreign military bases, and I don’t think he will be fellating Benjamin Nutty-Yahoo as much as he seems to be doing now.

And the Romney supporters have similar misperceptions of Romney as well. They are the supposedly “anti-socialist” conservatives, the “American exceptionalists,” who actually believe Romney’s “capitalist” rhetoric. Like Obama, Romney is full of you-know-what. They are both political opportunists and hacks, and extreme narcissists.

But I hope that those people who are promoting rioting are just morons shooting their fat mouths off, and they really won’t be doing those things. They didn’t seem to be rioting when the Republicans took over the House again after the 2010 elections. Hmmm. Why would this election be any different?

But the fact that Obama was elected in 2008 based on all his “anti-war” rhetoric, and “transparency” and “hope and change,” and he then turns out to expand military adventurism overseas, keep Gitmo open, expand the war on drugs and the war on government whistleblowers, and deport more immigrants than recent previous presidents, shows what gullible suckers a lot of people are.

And the fact that so-called “conservatives” nominated a very leftish socialist Big Government sleazebag like Romney (when they had their chance with Ron Paul for real conservatism, real smaller government and lower taxes, and more freedom) really does show what gullible suckers a lot of people are.

The rioting, looting and marauding will not be caused by Romney getting elected President if he wins. They will be caused by very angry youths who are screwed up on drugs (street drugs, prescription drugs shoved down their throats by government schools, high-fructose corn syrup, etc.), raised in abusive homes, and also by hungry people who have been struck by food shortages, and also by just plain ignorant and stupid people who were raised to love the government, brainwashed by many years of government schooling to be obedient slaves to the State. The food and energy shortages and stoppages of daily life will be caused by the central banking system (Where will the banksters get their food, when their own dollars won’t buy %^#@& at the store? Hmmm?), and by Herr Bernanke’s QE-Forever.

I think it’s too late now. People should have listened to Ron Paul, who has been sounding the same message for forty years now: de-monopolize the monetary system so that people have a competitive choice of which medium of exchange they wish to use and let the market decide what the best ones are and which ones should go, and decentralize the banking system and bring back competition (instead of the current fascist system in which the government protects the high profits of a single cartel of privileged banksters).

Even a better message is that of self-sufficiency. Grow your own food, and so on. (In the near future, many of us are going to have to, just to survive.)

The Biased News Media

October 8, 2012

(Link to article at Strike the Root)

Recently on the NPR show On the Media, Brooke Gladstone updated their overview on the question, “Does NPR Have a Liberal Bias?” Generally, many people believe that NPR and much of the mainstream news media are biased to the left. Among the findings from some of Gladstone’s analysts were that in some cases NPR was actually biased toward the conservative side. Go figure.

But it actually doesn’t matter whether NPR and other mainstream news sources such as PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc. are biased toward the left or the right, liberal or conservative. It seems to me that most of these news outlets actually are biased – toward the State and the statist point of view.

For example, whenever I tune in to Diane Rehm’s show on NPR, if she’s discussing the Obama Administration’s economic policies or the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, she might have a “conservative” on to “balance” out the left-leaning or socialist panelists. But modern-day conservatives who use “free-market” and “tax-cutting” rhetoric are just as socialist and deferential toward the State as the left-wing economists, pundits and analysts.

As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger pointed out, “Ever since the New Deal, Republicans have engaged in a charade in which they have portrayed themselves to American voters as fundamentally different from Democrats . . . . The problem is that it’s all a big fraud. After the New Deal, Republicans realized that the American people were being swept up in the statist tide that FDR had ushered in.”

So, like so many other program hosts, Rehm’s choice of “conservative” guest is really a statist conservative and certainly not a real free-market conservative.

Like ABC, Fox News and The New York Times, NPR is biased – toward the State. Many of these mainstreamers, in my view, direct their discussions and analyses under the assumption that the State is there to control the economy, “create jobs,” etc. The State’s existence is a given, and one’s attempt to challenge those assumptions seems to increasingly be an affront to the news media’s State-approved fiefdoms, it seems to me.

Now, if Rehm and other similar hosts of news and public affairs programs believe that I am wrong about that, they can very well have someone to interview or participate in a panel discussion, someone who holds a view that is not part of the mainstream deference to the State.

Yes, some of these mainstream outlets have had Congressman Ron Paul on their shows – begrudgingly – that is, those who weren’t outright ignoring him during the 2012 election season, or falsely reporting his delegate counts, or those who weren’t loath to report on the cheating that was going on against Dr. Paul.

But you see, to someone who has gone through 12-16 years of government-controlled schooling on behalf of the State, anyone who openly and directly questions the “statist quo,” as economist Warren T. Brookes called it many years ago, that is a threat to the statists’ false security and comfort provided by Big Brother government.

Pushing the anti-authority, anti-Establishment “crank” away is easier than considering his contrarian ideas or facing the truths he points out. “Oh, there goes that crazy uncle again, giving a lot of common sense and telling facts of history again – we better lock him in the attic, because he’s going against our inculcated flat-Earth-like myths and assumptions which guide us through life, etc.”

Well, maybe I’m being a bit harsh here, but I’m sure many readers know what I’m talking about.

So, when discussing economics or monetary policy, Diane Rehm (or Christiane Amanpour, Bill O’Reilly, The New York Times as well) might consider inviting or interviewing people such as economic historians Tom Woods or Robert Higgs, and economists Robert Murphy, Robert Wenzel, or Joseph Salerno and Douglas French of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Tom Woods’s book on the 2008 economic crisis, Meltdown, by the way, was on The New York Times Best Seller list for ten weeks. But have Diane Rehm of Terry Gross interviewed him? I don’t think so.

They might also consider including investment broker and financial analyst Peter Schiff. Schiff was one of the few people who predicted the housing bubble burst and subsequent 2007-2008 meltdown. In this June, 2012 appearance before a House subcommittee, Schiff tries to get across the common sense view that people who can’t afford to buy a house shouldn’t buy a house, and that, instead of relying on government flood insurance subsidies, people shouldn’t have a home near flood-prone areas or areas near the ocean actually below sea level. Schiff also tries to get across the notion that the free market would actually work and actually serve the consumers, if only government bureaucrats would get out of the way and cease their harmful intrusions.

But the statists on the panel repeatedly returned to their authoritarian, paternalistic mantras of how the poor, needy and the vulnerable must be dependent on the State (regardless of how many people’s lives it has wrecked). It just seems to me that most of the folks in the mainstream media share this same point of view, unfortunately.

In this talk at the Mises Circle in Manhattan, Schiff describes how with the latest round of Quantitative Easing (QE3), the central planners in Washington are merely repeating the same destructive mistakes that led to the housing and financial crisis/economic meltdown of 2007-08. The lunatic central planners are again encouraging people to buy homes they can’t afford. These sinister bureaucrats are really leading people into more debt slavery. It is yet another example of the moral hazard of central planning and statist interventionism.

In fact, economist Walter Block prepared this article with a long list of other articles and speeches by modern, non-statist and non-authoritarian thinkers who also foresaw the 2007-2008 economic crisis and meltdown. Perhaps NPR and Diane Rehm, or Scott Pelley or Bret Baier for that matter, might consider interviewing Prof. Walter Block, no?

But are the references to actual history, and all that talk of common sense and the idea of personal responsibility, just too troubling or frightening for mainstream media program hosts and newscasters to hear? Is their bias of deference to the State so important to them that alternative, non-authoritarian views must be suppressed?

Another Example: 9/11

Another example is how many in the mainstream media dismiss as “paranoid conspiracy theorists” those who question the official 9/11 narrative. For months after the attacks of September 11, 2001, on just about every media outlet we were bombarded with news item after news item and constant discussions regarding the plane hijackings, al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, the Quran, the terrorists’ religious fanaticism, and the terrorist training camps and hideout caves in Afghanistan.

Then we were bombarded with the tall tales of Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11 and his WMD, etc. Only a few people dared to question the assertions of the U.S. government that were obediently repeated by most of the mainstream media.

And only a few people dared to bring up what exactly the U.S. government had been doing on those foreign lands before 9/11 that might have actually been provoking the inhabitants of those lands.

But thanks to the State-biased media who have been acting as the government’s stenographers, to this day many Americans don’t know or remember that the U.S. government started a war against Iraq in 1991, intentionally destroyed its civilian electrical, water and sewage treatment facilities, and imposed sanctions throughout the ‘90s that included deliberately preventing the Iraqis from rebuilding. Those inhumane actions caused diseases including cancer and cholera to skyrocket, and the deaths of between 500,000 and a million Iraqis by the year 2000.

By 2001 the anti-Americanism of the Middle East was widespread. But did we hear any reminders of this by the mainstream news media after 9/11? Not really.

In fact, Ron Paul predicted during the 1990s that because of what our government was doing overseas, there could very well be terrorist attacks within our shores.

Sadly, many people feel uncomfortable when it comes to exposing wrongdoing, lies, and irresponsible acts when committed by their “authority figures,” like their parents or their government rulers. So, to protect themselves emotionally from those uncomfortable or painful feelings, they choose to censor, stifle and/or ignore those who are uncovering such truths.

And we were told by the Bush Administration that the U.S. had to invade Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and disrupt the al-Qaeda network. The actual truth, however, was that Bush demanded that the Afghanistan Taliban hand over bin Laden, but the Taliban insisted that Bush show evidence that bin Laden was involved in planning or directing the 9/11 attacks. Since Bush had no evidence against bin Laden – and indeed there never was any such evidence and bin Laden, while approving of the attacks after the fact, denied involvement in them – Bush’s planned war was to proceed no matter what.

But did NPR cover any of this? CBS? Did Martha Raddatz ever report these things?

Because of the mainstream news media’s bias and deference to the State, government bureaucrats and their plundering and murderous criminality get swept under the rug.

So, because of the sad state of 21st Century mainstream news media, people who actually want the truth of what’s really going on have to rely on Internet reporting and bloggers such as Washington’s Blog and James Corbett. Even progressive bloggers such as Marcy Wheeler and Glenn Greenwald have done extensive reporting, analyses and criticisms of the Left’s beloved President Barack Obama and his administration.

In this video, Corbett describes many facts regarding 9/11 in just five minutes. The video is also on this page which includes a transcript with many links to back up his assertions (link to Google cache of that, if needed).

Recently, Marine vet Brandon Raub was criminally abducted by government officials and involuntarily detained in a psychiatric ward, merely for a Facebook entry in which he openly questioned the government’s official 9/11 narrative. That link includes a video of various mental health professionals who assert that questioning the official narrative is the healthy thing to do, whereas unquestionably believing and repeating what government bureaucrats say is not particularly healthy.

While there really were terrorists who hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings, the idea that the buildings could have been pre-wired to be taken down by controlled demolition might sound absurd to those who blindly accept as proven fact information that was given to us by the government and repeated by the news media.

But I wonder if any of the mainstream news reporters have viewed or considered viewing this video by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a group of over a thousand professionals, in which they explain in great detail how the cause of the World Trade Center towers’ collapse could not have been what the government has told the American people, that the news media merely repeated unquestionably.

In fact, even members of the government’s own 9/11 Commission questioned the Commission’s conclusions.

In a case similar to Marine vet Brandon Raub’s but more severe, former CIA asset Susan Lindauer was labeled by government-appointed psychiatrists as “delusional” in perhaps one of the most extreme cases of government slander and smears against a government whistleblower. Lindauer had crucial information prior to 9/11 that she gave to some U.S. government officials in her attempt to prevent 9/11, and to prevent the second Iraq invasion as well.

(Lindauer describes some of her pre-9/11 experiences here, and describes the unidentified vans repeatedly going to the WTC towers parking garage each night in the weeks prior to 9/11 here.)

But instead of taking Lindauer’s information seriously, those government bureaucrats arrested her and, thanks to the evil Patriot Act, detained her for five years without a trial. Lindauer, who insisted on having a trial, was denied a trial based on psychiatrists’ diagnoses of “delusional” behavior. While the psychiatrists’ testimony was based solely on only a few assessments of Lindauer, the judge would not consider testimony of other mental health professionals who had been treating Lindauer extensively throughout those years, and who had stated that she was not delusional.

And who was the judge in that case? Why, it was Judge Michael Mukasey, who was later appointed U.S. Attorney General under George W. Bush.

But Googling Susan Lindauer or her whole case mainly gives us articles from mainstream sources such as that reliable paper of Truth, The New York Times, as well as USA Today and others, and it’s all “delusional, delusional, delusional” regarding Susan Lindauer. It’s difficult to find information that isn’t blindly repeating the government’s conclusions.

So, once the government has labeled as “crazy” a whistleblower who had consistently brought forward reliable, substantiated facts backing up her assertions, those labels nevertheless stick. And this is particularly the case now as we witness the progressive disease and death of mainstream investigative journalism in America. Just look how they have slandered and smeared WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and the persecuted and tortured whistleblower Bradley Manning.

Here is an interview of Susan Lindauer. Now, does she sound “irrational” or “delusional?” Hmmm?

Another 9/11 whistleblower is FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, author of Classified Woman. Edmonds’s 9/11 Commission interview was completely redacted by the Commission.

Edmonds details here how she came upon information regarding informants who told the FBI in April 2001 of plans for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, information which then higher-ups in the FBI and later the 9/11 Commission both ignored.

But have Jim Lehrer, Scott Pelley or David Gregory interviewed Edmonds? No, the mainstream media generally do not want to hear an alternative voice that is not obedient to the U.S. government, it seems to me. (Here is a recent interview of Sibel Edmonds by Lew Rockwell.)

Foreign policy analyst Justin Raimondo responds to the label of “9/11 truther” here. And if you are interested in the possible Israeli government involvement in 9/11, see this, this, and this.

And, as Washington’s Blog reported, many of the post-9/11 unconstitutional intrusions and governmental criminal activities against Americans were planned long before 9/11. But have Chris Wallace, Matt Lauer or Maureen Dowd ever reported on these matters?

So, the mainstream news media really are biased – in deference to the State, and to all its non-productive bureaucrats and their minions and flunkies. People who believe in the truth and that individual liberty and truth supersede the State – particularly those amongst the growing libertarian movement in America – are obviously different from the statist media.

As Jacob Hornberger observed, “The statist version of patriotism entails citizens who rally to their government in time of crisis. When the 9/11 attacks took place, the statist patriot did not hesitate. ‘We have been attacked,’ the statist patriot declared. ‘This is not the time to debate and discuss. We must all rally behind the president and support whatever actions he takes’ . . . . The libertarian version of patriotism is totally different. We say that genuine patriotism entails a critical analysis of government conduct, especially during crises, and a willingness to take a firm stand against the government if it is in the wrong.”

Decentralize the Cities, and the States, Too!

I posted this in December of 2010 and will repost it now. I added a video of Hans-Hermann Hoppe explaining the advantages of smaller states and the dangers of centralization, a video I have posted here before.

December 30, 2010 (with additional video added)

Yesterday Mark Steyn was filling in for Rush Limbaugh and he was discussing the Business Insider story of the 16 U.S. cities facing bankruptcy, and several of them are located in California, which itself is facing bankruptcy. And Steyn was asking, well if a city such as San Diego needs to be “bailed out,” how can nearly-bankrupt California possibly bail out San Diego, and so who is going to bail out California? And so on. That means that the debt-ridden federal government would have to bail out Commiefornia and its bankrupt cities? How absurd is all this stuff? This is a truly sick, dysfunctional country, when city, state and federal governments usurp so much control over community life and steal more and more private wealth and property away from the workers and business people, when organizations unionize and use collective might and intimidation to get city councils, state legislatures, governors and congressjerks to seize such control away from private individuals and businesses. These mob-ruling selfish parasites are literally turning America into a Third World tyranny.

One major problem, besides the usurpation of individual rights and confiscation of private property through taxation and regulation of course, is the centralization of government, not just nationally in Washington but in each state in which the state government has grown like a balloon about to explode and in the big cities in which the city government is becoming so tyrannical it is literally pushing the productive Middle Class and businesses out to the more “red” cities (as in “red state”), i.e. freer cities and states. Take New York City. Please. Rush Limbaugh isn’t the only one with any sense who has left NYC (and California for that matter) — those who don’t like being picked up and turned upside down and shaken down for every last cent by the greedy Mayor Bloomberg (and his fellow communist flunkies) are leaving in droves.

The more people who are fleeing these big communist cities, the less wealth there is for the politicians to steal from them. When you allow people in power to take your wealth and property, rather than requiring them to acquire such income through voluntary trade and contracts, you are removing from them the incentive to budget their incomes and treasury wisely and responsibly. And when you allow the governments to have monopolies that restrict the right of others to do business in whatever endeavor that has been monopolized, you are removing from them the incentive to serve their “customers” which is reinforced through competition.

In recent interviews Congressman Ron Paul has addressed the “moral hazard” of the monopoly that the Federal Reserve has in our monetary system, in which Americans are compelled by law to use the constantly value-crashing dollar for trade and commerce, while competitive currencies and the people’s right to use other means of trade and commerce are restricted by law. (Robert Wenzel has a post today, in which he thinks The Bernank is going to print more money in response to city protests and riots in the near future, so that with more phony money the cities won’t have to make any cuts in budgets.)

We are experiencing the same kind of “moral hazard” from other forms of government-monopolizations besides the Fed’s money scheme, such as in law and judicial decision-making, local policing of communities and territorial protection, among other activities that federal, state and local governments have usurped from the people. The “moral hazard” in the cities has also been exacerbated through cultural and ethnic collectivization and politicization, in which the traditional family has been torn apart by the welfare state’s discouragement of personal responsibility. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has addressed these issues in his book, Democracy: The God That Failed, and in many other writings including his 2005 article The Rise and Fall of the City:

With the upper class and the merchants leaving in larger numbers, however, one of the last remaining civilizing forces will be weakened, and what is left behind in the cities will represent an increasingly negative selection of the population: of government bureaucrats who work but no longer live there, and of the lowlifes and the social outcasts of all tribes and races who live there yet who increasingly do not work but survive on welfare. (Just think of Washington, DC.)…

Rather than regarding intra-family or -household matters…as no one else’s business to be judged and arbitrated within the family by the head of the household or family members, once a judicial monopoly has been established, its agents — the government — also become and will naturally strive to expand their role as judge and arbitrator of last resort in all family matters. To gain popular support for its role the government (besides playing one tribe, race, or social class against another) will likewise promote divisiveness within the family: between the sexes — husbands and wives — and the generations — parents and children. Once again, this will be particularly noticeable in the big cities.

Every form of government welfare — the compulsory wealth or income transfer from “haves” to “have nots” lowers the value of a person’s membership in an extended family-household system as a social system of mutual cooperation and help and assistance. Marriage loses value. For parents the value and importance of a “good” upbringing (education) of their own children is reduced. Correspondingly, for children less value will be attached and less respect paid to their own parents. Owing to the high concentration of welfare recipients, in the big cities family disintegration is already well advanced. In appealing to gender and generation (age) as a source of political support and promoting and enacting sex (gender) and family legislation, invariably the authority of heads of families and households and the “natural” intergenerational hierarchy within families is weakened and the value of a multi-generational family as the basic unit of human society diminished.

Indeed, as should be clear, as soon as the government’s law and legislation supersedes family law and legislation (including interfamily arrangements in conjunction with marriages, joint-family offspring, inheritance, etc.), the value and importance of the institution of a family can only be systematically eroded. For what is a family if it cannot even find and provide for its own internal law and order! At the same time, as should be clear as well but has not been sufficiently noted, from the point of view of the government’s rulers, their ability to interfere in internal family matters must be regarded as the ultimate prize and the pinnacle of their own power…

Just as the removal of the welfare state and other government interferences in private life must be removed in order to restore Liberty and order, especially in the cities, and require that people within communities help one another out voluntarily and not through government-imposed coercion or compulsion, politicians and bureaucrats must be forced to not just cut budgets but to eliminate whole programs that should be taken care of in the private (voluntary) sector. “Tough love” is necessary: No Bailouts!

Related: Carl Watner’s article, The Tragedy of Political Government

…The main tragedy of political government is that few people realize it is an immoral and impractical institution. Nor do they realize “that the power of any government is dependent on the cooperation of the people it governs, and that government power varies inversely with the noncooperation of the people.” They have been conditioned to accept government as a natural part of their environment. After being raised in a culture in which “politics” is the norm, and after attending years of public school and being taught that political government is a necessary component of society, most people place government in the same category as the weather – something they complain about, but can’t change. As people accept the structural trap called politics, they fail to realize that their actions support and undergird the State. Their demand for government services – from Social Security benefits to police protection – is what fuels the State.

Most people are capable of high values and responsible behavior, but once they enter the seductive garden of politics, they no longer notice that its wonders cannot be reconciled with individual responsibility and their own personal moral values of honesty and hard work. It is not usually apparent that what they are doing or supporting is vicious and would not pass the test of ordinary decency. So long as the criminality is veiled by the political process, most people accept it because they do not see that it conflicts with their basic values. The main tragedy of political government is not only that the voters are the ones pointing the gun, but, most importantly, that the indecency of this act is concealed from them by the political process. It is the concealment that is the tragedy. The concealment is not the result of some conspiracy by some distant elite: it is inherent in the political process…

Here is the video of Hans-Hermann Hoppe explaining the advantages of smaller states and the dangers of centralization:

More from Banana Republik Amerika

Free Range Kids author Lenore Skenazy has this post on a parent bringing the kids to Sunday school, to “Vacation Bible School” over the Summer. You just can’t believe all the security-related steps this parent and others have to take now just to leave their kids … in a CHURCH! You see what Dick Cheney and Jamit Napolitano have done to American now?

And it’s the whole culture now of distrust and fear of risk-taking. it’s just sick what’s going on, such as:

My sons are 12 and 15, and they are allowed to attend without name tags for the first time this year.  HOWEVER, they are both “too young” to be in the hallways unaccompanied by an adult during the program hours, and “too old” to be allowed into ANY of the public restrooms if ANY other child is in there.  There are literally guards for every bathroom.  Kids up through the age of 7 or 8 have to be escorted to the bathroom by not one, but TWO adults…

And you should see the rules for how the parents must drop their kids off and how they must pick them up … at a CHURCH! This is ridiculous!

And in Texas, a government school is ordering all kids to have to wear Big Brother surveillance chips. This police state is just unbelievable now. The linked article gives all the details. What is particularly disturbing is that the ACLU wouldn’t take this case. Private school anyone? Homeshooling?

Another disturbing finding recently is that almost half of Americans approve of local police departments using domestic surveillance drones. These drones are flying over and spying on Americans indiscriminately, and violating Americans’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, as those operating the drones do not have any reasonable suspicion that the unsuspecting victims below have committed any crimes, and most of all they certainly do not have the constitutionally-required warrants.

Charles Krauthammer mentioned that the first person who shoots down a drone will be a folk hero. I agree. And Alex Jones and others practiced on test drones for the possibility of some day having to protect themselves.

Kids treated like criminals in church bathrooms. Kids kept under surveillance in schools like prisoners. And everyone under the illegal and intrusive watch of Big Brother. (Big Stupid Tyrant, that is.)

Amerika, the Banana Republik.

Should Israel Be Held to the Same Standards as Iran?

I posted this in June 2010 and will repost it now.

June 6, 2010

A few days ago I posted a link to Stephen Kinzer’s article that suggested we hold Israel to the same standard as Iran.

…It is always difficult to compare the danger one country poses to global security with that posed by another, and it is natural to treat old friends differently from longtime enemies. Israel is a far more open and free society than Iran. Millions of Americans feel personally tied to its fate. Nonetheless the contrast in American attitudes toward the two countries is striking. Toward Israel the attitude is: You may be rascals sometimes, but whatever pranks you pull, you’re our friend and we’ll forgive you. Toward Iran, it’s the opposite: You are our implacable enemy, so nothing you do short of abject surrender will satisfy us….

…Treating Israel and Iran more equally would also mean judging their nuclear programs by equivalent standards. If Israel and Iran are placed under the same set of rigorous nuclear safeguards, the Middle East will quickly become a safer place.

In the same spirit of equality, the world should do whatever possible to encourage higher human-rights standards in Israel and Iran. Ruling groups in both countries treat some honest critics as traitors or terrorists. They rule without the tolerance that illuminates Jewish and Persian history…

I have heard people say that such a suggestion of holding Israel up to the same standards as Iran is an insult to Israel, and an absurd suggestion. However, I happen to be someone who does not believe in the moral relativism of expecting some groups to follow rules but not other groups. I believe in equal justice under the law. We should all be expected to follow the same rules with no exceptions.

Hasn’t Glenn Beck been emphasizing “equal justice” a lot recently? He’s been criticizing the Obommunists and their views of social justice, which is not equal justice. I assume that Beck is referring to “equal treatment under the law,” at least I hope so. That applies to individuals, and I believe that the same kind of equal treatment should be for nations, like Israel, Iran and the United States. Israel should follow the same rules regarding nuclear weapons as the U.S. is pressuring on Iran. However, Israel has not been wanting to even admit publicly that their country possesses nuclear weapons, and refuses to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Unfortunately, governments of countries such as Israel and the United States have been excused from various violations of laws, rights and procedures that they expect others to follow. I wonder how the U.S. government would react if they heard that the Iranian military were killing innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan with remote-controlled drone bombs. And I wonder how the world would react if a country were to “lock in” their Jewish population, as the Israeli government has locked in the Gaza Palestinians* so they are prevented from getting out.

And how much does the history of Jews being persecuted play a role in the Israeli government’s getting away with its treatment of the Palestinians and especially Gazans (as discussed in this space in recent days)? In the U.K. Independent, Antony Lerman wrote,

…A team led by Professor Daniel Bar Tal of Tel Aviv University, one of the world’s leading political psychologists, questioned Israeli Jews about their memory of the conflict with the Arabs, from its inception to the present, and found that their “consciousness is characterised by a sense of victimisation, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanisation of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering”. The researchers found a close connection between that collective memory and the memory of “past persecutions of Jews” and the Holocaust, the feeling that “the whole world is against us”….

…Early in January this year, Israel’s former Mossad chief and former national security adviser, Efraim Halevy, said: “If Israel’s goal were to remove the threat of rockets from the residents of southern Israel, opening the border crossings would have ensured such quiet for a generation.” Daniel Levy, former adviser in the office of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, shows clearly where the wrong choices were made: withdrawing from Gaza without co-ordinating the “what next” with the Palestinians; hermetically sealing off Hamas and besieging Gaza after the 2006 elections instead of testing Hamas’s capacity to govern responsibly…

…(I)f we pause to think of the suffering of a dying Jewish child in the ghetto and a dying Palestinian child in Gaza, who would dare to suggest that their suffering is any different. Yet, as Professor Baron seems to imply, we fall all too easily into the trap of thinking that there is something unique about Jewish suffering. There isn’t.

While there probably are Nazi Holocaust survivors and Soviet Gulag survivors  still living in Israel, much of Israel’s population never did experience actual persecution. Rather, those who do not know what it’s like to be the victim of actual persecution were taught about that history from schools and from their elders. But what further teachings were or are instilled in Israeli Jews during their upbringing? If there is such a condition as a “persecution complex,” could that make it easier for someone to himself persecute those among a particular minority? And how much far off could a persecution complex be from a superiority complex?

I ask those questions, because, while we tend to hear so much of how Iran or more specifically Iran’s leader Ahmadinejad wants to “wipe Israel off the map” (which itself may not be accurate), apparently with nuclear weapons, I have seen suggestions that Israel should initiate not only an attack on Iran but a nuclear strike on Iran, and I’ve seen a lot of nasty versions of those calls in comments sections of articles such as at the Jerusalem Post. Such an action may now be closer to reality. Now in the 21st Century and supposedly a modern era of great progress since the times of the neanderthals, I can’t remember hearing such attitudes of dehumanizing aimed toward others of different ethnic or nationalistic heritages, with the most simple-minded rationalizations of such attitudes, and calls for violence to be initiated against them.

There are people who, for some reason, think it is less immoral to mass murder innocent Iranians or Pakistanis than it is to mass murder innocent Israelis or Americans.

I, however, stand for equality and equal justice.


* (link added for this reposting)