Skip to content

Month: November 2013

Jerry Williams Interview of Theo Bikel on November 22, 1963

While Jerry Williams was a talk radio host on WMEX in Boston (1957-1965), the night of November 22, 1963 he discussed the JFK assassination and other various political and social matters with his guest, Theo Bikel. Bikel cancelled his scheduled live performance that night because of events earlier that day.

Theodore Bikel is an actor and singer, and was nominated for an Oscar for The Defiant Ones. He also appeared in The African Queen and The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming, and also made many TV appearances. On Broadway and at other theatrical venues, Bikel played many roles, including the role of Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof more than 2,000 times, according to Wikipedia. Currently Bikel is 89 and still performing.

Clicking on links opens new media player window. (The quality of the sound in Part 1 is a little muffled, but in Part 2 it’s better.)

Part 1:

Part 2:

Some More Misc. Items: Racism, Political Correctness, and Post-9/11 Fascism

I especially liked Thomas Sowell’s piece today on the Left’s War Against Achievement. He is not afraid to tell it like it is. Sowell is the author of the recently published book, Intellectuals and Race.

It is unfortunate that so many people on the Left, in politics, academia and the media, grasp onto the society’s trend toward patronizing black people and other minorities. People like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Shrapnel exploit lingering emotional associations from the old days of lynchings and Jim Crow to continue their political opportunism and power-grabbing for their Party (the Democrat Party). After all, LBJ’s own exploitation and “Great Society” (but now, not so great) was meant to keep those at the bottom down at the bottom, and greatly diminish their actual opportunities toward achievement so that the power-grabbers could use the exploited ones for political advantage. Keep promising the disadvantaged and “disenfranchised” more of this or that as long as they will continue to vote for you, that’s the bottom line. Keeping the Party in power, that’s what matters. It has really been the Left who have “disenfranchised” minorities or inner-city residents, through government-imposed wage and price controls and expensive crony bureaucratic regulations to protect established businesses and unions.

And the lies continue, as actual racism against white people gets suppressed by the fearful, obsessively politically correct mainstream news media out of fear of being called “racist.” In fact, I can’t believe the infantile behavior coming from presumably intelligent people in the news business and Hollywood celebrities who say that it is “racist” for anyone to engage in ANY criticism of Obama — the current drone murderer-drug warrior-Fast and Furious gun-grabbing communist in the White House. They’re really serious.

And then there are the way-out wackos like this one ICE employee who has an anti-white racist website and calls for war on white people. Yet, this guy remains employed by the Regime.

For further federal hypocrisy, as Michael Rozeff writes, there is an Undersecretary of State heading talks with Iran who had said about the Iranians that “deception is part of the DNA.” Talk about an ignorant, racist or ethnically prejudicial remark. (Actually, deception is part of the DNA of government bureaucrats!)

Speaking of racists and collectivists and witch-hunters, the post-9/11 neocons and neo-libs not only went after ALL Muslims just because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, but they went after those who merely expressed disagreement and dissent from the unconstitutional and criminal post-9/11 policies with which George W. Bush and Dick Cheney further ruined America. Justin Raimondo refers to Andrew Sullivan, Peter Beinart and David Frum. To these neo-fascists, because “there’s a war,” you can’t criticize the government in its recklessness, its criminality and its buffoonery.

And part of our stupid government bureaucrats’ recklessness, criminality and buffoonery is this unconstitutional and immoral Gitmo prison-torture complex. Anthony Gregory has this great piece up on that. He notes that most of those prisoners there who had been abducted and detained without charges, trial or even suspicion were totally innocent, and merely the victims of a well-financed bounty campaign in Afghanistan and elsewhere to just arbitrarily grab people, suspects or not. You can see Gregory’s book on the history of habeas corpus in America here.

Related to all that, the U.K. Guardian has this unusual and extensive article/presentation on the “NSA files decoded: Edward Snowden’s revelations explained.” And they have this article by Spencer Ackerman on Fisa court documents which show the NSA’s disregard for privacy restrictions.

And Jacob Hornberger has more on the CIA and the JFK assassination. He asks, why won’t the CIA release its Joannides Files, and in a subsequent post, Hornberger asks was Oswald a CIA operative or not? And today Hornberger writes on more evidence of cover-up in the JFK assassination.

Some conservatives have said that they agree with almost everything Ron Paul has to say, “except for foreign policy.” So, tell me again, what good has the many decades of interventionist foreign policy done for America?

And there were even many “liberals” and progressives who have said the same thing about Ron Paul, except for his economic views, such as opposing minimum wage and all the other fascist controls against minority and lower-income entrepreneurs thrown at them by the Left’s politicians who rule. So, tell me again “good liberals,” what has the many decades of “Great Society” policies done for minorities and those at the lower end of the economic ladder?

More Fascism, Socialism, and the Police State

Laurence Vance has this very interesting article on why government censorship of Internet pornography is a bad idea.

William Grigg writes about Nazi-like gun confiscation and property invasions in California and other fascist states.

Robert Higgs reviews a book on authority by a statist.

Wendy McElroy writes about Obama flunky Ezekiel Emanuel’s blueprint for ObamaCare and these collectivists’ vision of sacrificing the young to serve the State the elderly and the needy.

Walter Williams expands on his recent columns discussing the deceit and dishonesty regarding Social Security and Medicare.

Patrice Lewis explains why the U.S. is the laughing stock of the world.

Jacob Hornberger writes on Veterans Day and why foreign interventionism has been a disastrous mistake.

Here are’s best-selling books on JFK.

John Whitehead discusses drones, tanks and grenade launchers and the general police state militarization of local police departments. Kelley Vlahos gives a lot of details on the market for drones and the recent Global Drone Summit, and Marjorie Cohn also blogs from the Summit as well. In my view, the psychopaths who love these drones and what they do, in the military or police, are drooling to make great domestic use of them. They can’t wait to bring what they have done to Pakistanis and Yemenis home to Amerika.

ObamaCare Is Bad for You

Jacob Hornberger and Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation have this discussion on ObamaCare and talk about how free markets would be a lot better than Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Ryan-Bush medical fascism that has been forced on us. In my view, freedom is better than slavery. Duh. (You won’t hear a discussion like this on the Diane Rehm Show, or on the “NewsHour,” or on Face the Nation, that’s for sure.)

Washington Times Op-Ed: We Don’t Need a Central Bank

I’m really getting to like the Washington Times lately. Recently they published an op-ed by Stephen Halbrook (Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”) on how the Nazis were able to confiscate guns from and abduct Jews in Germany via gun registration. And the Times had an editorial promoting jury nullification. Also recently, they published an article by James Bovard (Public Policy Hooligan) on why people scorn the TSA. And the Times had this article on how one of their former investigative journalists had her home raided by the feds under false pretenses in order to engage in what I would call “journalist intimidation by government fascists.”

And now, the Washington Times has an op-ed by Cato Institute fellow Richard Rahn on how the Federal Reserve has failed. He notes the truth that we do not need a central bank — we need free markets.

Is the Washington Times becoming much more libertarian now? Or “Jeffersonian”? Whatever. I hope they continue with it.

The JFK Assassination: A Brief Primer

Historian Charles Burris writes about the ongoing CBS News disinformation campaign to continue the whitewash of the truth about the JFK assassination, including CBS’s non-mentioning of the reporting by its former long-time news anchor, Dan Rather, who was actually there and reported on Kennedy’s death for CBS News.

[UPDATE: I had posted a video here of Walter Cronkite announcing that their reporter “Dan Rather” confirmed President Kennedy’s death. But that video has since been taken down from YouTube based on a copyright claim by CBS. However, other videos with Cronkite making that announcement but which don’t include mention of “Dan Rather” are still up. Here is another copy of the same video with mention of “Dan Rather.” But we will see how long it stays on YouTube.]

Regarding the CBS News 50-year whitewash and Walter Cronkite, Burris writes,

CBS chairman William Paley, Fred Friendly, and Edward R. Murrow were part of the Agency’s Operation Mockingbird to provide deflection and cover for the CIA’s ‘family jewels’ of the day. CBS News president Sig Mickelson (1954-61) was liaison to the CIA. Because of his frequent communications, Mickelson even had a direct private phone line installed to the Agency. CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite was a former military intelligence officer also connected within this elite nexus.

Burris cites and links to several important books on the JFK assassination. And if you are one of those many skeptics who prefer not to believe the possibility that President Kennedy was assassinated by various elements in and outside the U.S. government, in this earlier post Burris links to 21 more important articles online for further information.

And in one of his many articles on the JFK assassination, the Future of Freedom Foundation’s Jacob Hornberger explains why all this matters. What motivation would the CIA or other members of the national security state have in killing a President of the United States? Well, as Hornberger points out,

Kennedy was challenging the “communists are coming to get us” paradigm that formed the justification of the national-security state. And the national-security statists knew it. He was opposing everything the generals and the CIA officials statists stood for and believed. The result was one of the fiercest political and bureaucratic wars in U.S. history — a war between Kennedy and the national-security establishment — a war that was being waged beneath the radar screen — a war whose stakes were the very highest for the future direction of our nation.

Kennedy was conducting secret negotiations with then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to end the Cold War, which the national security establishment didn’t want to do. Those clingers are known as warfare statists whose existence is dependent on the tax dollars which are seized from the earnings of the everyday workers and producers of America.

At the same time, many amongst this guild of cops-n-robbers parasites are deeply indoctrinated by the authority figures during their upbringing, by their government school teachers, pop culture idols, and their parents, to be more devoted to the authoritarian state than to freedom and justice, while believing on the surface that their loyalty isn’t to the State but to “freedom and justice.” Thus, there really can’t be any more Orwellian government agencies or programs than these Cold War dinosaurs (except perhaps ObamaCare).

After World War II, by 1960 the Cold War apparatus, which included the CIA, the NSA and other Soviet-like tax-funded agencies, was a self-perpetuating, self-fulfilling regime feeding off Leviathan, and by this time it was NOT going to let go of its accumulated power voluntarily. And, as Hornberger pointed out, even when the Cold War actually did end in the late 1980s-early 1990s, the now-unnecessary national security state did not get dismantled, as is what should have happened. In my view, continuing the self-serving national security state to exist for its own sake was of high priority for President George H.W. Bush, and that is why he started his war of aggression against Iraq in 1991.

So we know why the political class and members of the national security establishment wanted to replace President Kennedy, and why the cover-ups and whitewash of the truth for 50 years. But why are so many members of the mainstream media so devoted to the Warren Commission sweeping the truth under the rug? Why are so many members of the mainstream media so devoted to the centralized federal government and its ever-expanding power and intrusiveness over the American people? Who knows. I just can’t figure them out.

But if you are still a skeptic who wishes to remain faithful to the official word of the Warren Commission, Jacob Hornberger also has this extensive series on the Kennedy Autopsy. He goes quite in depth on the details. And here is Hornberger’s extensive and highly detailed article on the Kennedy Casket Conspiracy.

Also, University of Washington cardiologist Donald Miller, MD, had this recent article on his associations with some of the medical personnel directly involved during the post-Kennedy assassination testimonies (and cover-ups).

And speaking of the former President George H.W. Bush, investigative journalist Russ Baker has a 10-part series on the elder President Bush’s own involvement in the JFK assassination. Baker’s book on the Bush family gives many details of their warmongering and corruption. Here are the 10 parts of the aforementioned series.

Part 1: Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency

Part 2: Skull and Bones Forever

Part 3: Where Was Poppy November 22, 1963?

Part 4: Barbara’s Hair-Raising Day

Part 5: The Mysterious Mr. De Mohrenschildt

Part 6: The Cold War Comes to Dallas

Part 7: Empire Strikes Back

Part 8: Prepping a Patsy?

Part 9: Planning a Nightmare on Elm Street

Part 10: After Camelot

Finally, Robert Wenzel interviewed political strategist Roger Stone on the JFK assassination and Stone’s new book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ.

Stone brings up many issues related to and people associated with the JFK assassination. For instance, I didn’t know that Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford were also involved in the JFK cover-ups. According to Stone, former President Ford had stated many years later that he had helped with the whitewashing because the issue needed “clarity.”

Huh? “Clarity”? Sweeping the truth under the rug gives “clarity”? (Oh yeah, we’re talking about Gerald Ford here. Never mind, as Emily Litella would say.)

President Ford is the one who pardoned the corrupt and criminal warmonger bankster Nixon because Ford was concerned about “the immediate future of this great country.” But really he was concerned for his poor little friend, Richard Milhaus Nixon, as Ford reflected on the “serious allegations and accusations hang like a sword over our former President’s head, threatening his health as he tries to reshape his life, a great part of which was spent in the service of this country and by the mandate of its people.” (No, Nixon was in service of the national security establishment and the mandate of the military-security-industrial complex.) Now, I don’t think that Stone brought up that Watergate pardon stuff in the Wenzel interview, but his reference to Ford’s involvement in the JFK assassination cover-up whitewash reminded me of that.

But to conclude, here is that interview of Roger Stone by Robert Wenzel:

The Corrupt, Criminal State Is Probably Beyond Repair Now

Sibel Edmonds has this post responding to those who think it is productive to attempt to reform the system controlled by Washington within the system. She writes that she can’t think of one whistleblower or reformer who was able to change anything from within the system.

There are those who get into Congress to attempt to change things, like Ron Paul, and they are just unable to do so. It’s just impossible, as Perry Como might say. Ron Paul’s influence is through his communication skills outside the system — through his speeches, his appearances on college campuses, his new Ron Paul Channel, etc. But not one of his bills in Congress ever passed, at least I don’t think so. His bill to audit the Fed got out of committee but it was placed as an amendment to a larger bill, and Dr. Paul voted against that bill that included his own audit the Fed bill.

The system doesn’t want to be reformed. The State and all its flunkies and its media and academic propagandists suck at the power of the State like little piglets. They will resist change, and when the whole system comes crashing down on its own weight, the piglets will be lost in space.

And what happens when people get together within the system to figure out what happened and try to come up with some answers?

Donald Miller, MD, has this article on the JFK assassination and the Warren Commission and its cover-ups of the truth. The Warren Commission merely repeated what TPTB wanted it to say, just as the 9/11 Commission had done. All these Commissions really just reflect what the current dictator in Washington wants them to do. The Tower Commission, the Fulbright Hearings, etc.

Even the Church Committee had no influence on controlling the NSA as we now know. Just look at Dianne Feinstein’s bill on the NSA, which will merely strengthen the NSA’s unconstitutional powers now. As Spencer Ackerman of The U.K. Guardian wrote yesterday:

The Fisa Improvements Act, promoted by Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate intelligence committee, would both make permanent a loophole permitting the NSA to search for Americans’ identifying information without a warrant – and, civil libertarians fear, contains an ambiguity that might allow the FBI, the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to do the same thing.

“For the first time, the statute would explicitly allow the government to proactively search through the NSA data troves of information without a warrant,” said Michelle Richardson, the surveillance lobbyist for the ACLU.

Jeepers, that Dianne Feinstein really is very Nazi-like in her love for the criminal surveillance state, drones, and grabbing everyone’s guns. In fact, just recently there was an op-ed in the Washington Times by Stephen Halbrook, regarding the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht. The writer noted that Jews were much more easily abducted by the State and its minions because all the guns were registered with the government and confiscation was a piece of cake. Halbrook is the author of the recently published book, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”.

Feinstein emulates fascists, so she certainly isn’t a friend of liberty, that’s for sure. (What is it with those moonbats in California? Why do they love the State and its intrusive powers so much, and hate liberty so much? Why do they keep electing these fascists?)

And as Conor Friedersdorf asked this week, why does anyone trust the national security state? (Because they’re nuts?)

There is even an ObamaCare “secret security force,” according to one congressman and Infowars, which, in case of a national “emergency” a “Ready Reserve Corps” may be empowered to impose some sort of “medical martial law.” (Calling Dr. Mengele … Calling Nurse Ratched … Calling Dr. Emanuel …)

No, the System and TPTB resist change, reform and the truth. Keep the lies going, just hang on to the power grabs and fiefdoms no matter what. And “disappear” those who object to it.

That’s “American Exceptionalism,” for sure.

Some Important Items Today

Here are some interesting items I have seen recently:

J.D. Tuccille says: Ignore the State!

Kirkpatrick Sale sets the record straight on Lincoln’s war and clarifies long held myths.

Sheldon Richman says that libertarians need only get non-libertarians to recognize that there should be one moral standard for everyone, including government agents.

Conor Friedersdorf writes about the move in Britain to conflate journalism with terrorism.

Brandon Smith asks if it is wrong to be “anti-government.”

Jeff Taylor writes about the ideological roots of New Deal statism, and Robert Murphy writes about the economics of ObamaCare.

Jacob Hornberger writes about the cause of our violent and drug-ridden society.

And John Keller gives good reasons to shut down the NSA.

More on Jury Nullification

Jeff Berwick of the Dollar Vigilante has this post informing of his new adventure in promoting jury nullification.

The Washington Post recently did a story on Jim Babb’s efforts to place jury nullification billboards up in the Washington, D.C. area, and the Washington Times recently had an editorial promoting jury nullification, and here is a discussion I recently posted on jury nullification including Ron Paul among the panel.

And in this article a year ago I promoted jury nullification as well as states nullifying federal criminality, and I promoted police and judge nullification as well. Police and judges who nullify unjust laws, that is, not enforce unjust laws, are heroes. Those who do enforce such laws are not heroes; they are co-conspirators and aiders and abettors in the crimes the State inflicts against innocent people for no good reason.

Laws which punish victimless “crimes” are really laws which punish innocent people for disobeying government bureaucrats, and that’s it. They have nothing to do with morality, protecting the public from aggressors, or protecting the persons and property of the people.

But I wanted to address here the new endeavor by Berwick to promote jury nullification. Yes, there are certain circumstances in which a jury member can effectively convince the other members of the jury to say the State’s victim on trial is “not guilty” of any actual crime or harm done to any actual person or property, regardless of the State’s victim having either disobeyed government bureaucrats’ orders or unwittingly violated any of the thousands of laws on the books whose sole purpose is for the State’s dishonest revenue collection and power grabbing.

In fact, the jury should go further than just nullifying unjust laws. The jury further needs to advise the government court that the real criminals in that case are the “law enforcement officers” who actually caused so much disruption to the life of their victim in their acts of abduction and unjust involuntary detention. And I would say that that should also apply to a State’s victim who is on trial for murder in the killing of a “LEO” in which such officers broke into the innocent victim’s home, and assaulted or otherwise threatened him and his family, for no good reason. Here, the real criminals are the officials, the armed authorities who were attempting to enforce unjust laws and/or government red-tape violations. These State agents’ innocent victims, many of whom have been murdered, assaulted, raped, robbed, and tasered by the Sate perpetrators, have a right to defend themselves, their families and their homes. That is just another reason why the early Americans wrote the 2nd Amendment into the very severely flawed U.S. Constitution.

But then, as I think about all those suggestions, reality sets in. After all, the other one who is involved with Berwick in the new jury nullification endeavor, Ben Swann, does emphasize “reality checks.” So, in today’s society, what really is the chance that government police and judges, and juries as well, will be open to nullifying unjust laws? Some people might answer: Not. Gonna. Happen.

I know, I know. There has been progress made in several areas of the country, such as in New Hampshire. Some jury nullification is happening. Yay! And there are states which have moved to nullify federal gun laws, ObamaCare, and NDAA. More good stuff.

But we have to face reality. When you are sitting on a jury, and you know that the one on trial for drug-related “offenses” is obviously innocent because he hasn’t harmed anyone, you really need to be careful in determining if it is in your best interest to push the other members of the jury to nullify. That is, it would probably be good to add that idea to the discussion in the jury room. But, if none of them are open to it, you can still vote “not guilty” because you have reasonable doubt. However, pushing people who are hell-bent on defending the State may not be a good idea in all circumstances.

That is because our society is now one in which many people worship the State and blindly and unthinkingly obey whatever the State says, regardless how irrational it is. America has become an “If You See Something, Say Something” society now. Especially when the government has been encouraging people to turn in their neighbors to the government for the slightest reason. What that does is make people who lack meaning in their lives feel important.

So, in the jury room when you are considering saying that the State’s current victim on trial has not harmed anyone even though he bought, sold, possessed or consumed certain drugs the State says is a no-no, really make sure that the other jury members won’t turn you in as a “drug-promoter,” or that they won’t alert the prosecutors about you in which case they may very well want to investigate you and your background. Just be careful, that’s all.

And it isn’t just drug cases. There are other cases in which the “If You See Something, Say Something” sheeple would ruin the life of another human being if they thought they would get good points from the almighty government. Other kinds of cases could include gambling, prostitution, pornography, etc. Or gun-related red-tape intrusions. Or even traffic violations, such as red-light camera tickets. Or war-on-terror related anti-liberty rules that are being bent and twisted by prosecutors to put dissenters and government-critics in jail to silence them.

And worse, what if the case in which you are a jury member was something very personally important to that prosecutor? Government prosecutors now have a lot of power, as do local police departments. We know that there are now prosecution quotas, arrest quotas, and other various ways in which these government employees are primarily concerned with furthering their careers by walking all over innocent victims of the State, certainly far more than they are concerned with something boring, like “justice” and due process.

So, law and order in America is not so much. The law is not real, as it is now mostly government bureaucrat orders to obey, or else.

After all, just look at what happened to Andrew Wordes. And Tom Ball. And the Hendersons. And look at what’s happening now to Adam Kokesh. And Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, as well.

This recent column by Paul Craig Roberts is yet another harsh reminder of the police state we now have in the USSA.

While currently it is not realistic to hope for judges and police to not enforce unjust laws which call certain behaviors “crimes,” acts in which their is no victim, it may be a good idea to try to communicate to actual local “law enforcement officers” and judges some of the ideas of natural law and freedom, and that something isn’t a crime if there is no victim. Perhaps people can send them articles or books by Murray Rothbard, Judge Andrew Napolitano etc., I don’t know. Or perhaps that isn’t a good idea.

Is there any way to get local cops and prosecutors and judges to step back and see how they are ruining innocent lives in the name of criminally enforcing Orwellian rules that shouldn’t exist in a free society?

I’m sure you can see from the tone of this post how fearful of the State some people are now.

But when on a jury, be careful and get to know the people with whom you are making the decision, that’s my main point. In any event, Jeff Berwick’s new jury nullification thing certainly is a good concept to consider and educate others on those ideas, no doubt about it.