On G+ Thomas de Lorenzo challenged his readers to explain the following video (showing Oakland police attacking occupy protesters) to a 6 year old. I thought this was a pretty interesting exercise so I decided to give it a shot.
Well son, people all over the country are upset with our government and the companies who give money to people who work in that government. The people aren't really sure what to do about it because everything they've done so far has just seemed to make things worse.
So they are camping out and calling attention to the problems in the best way they know. The government doesn't like this one bit and they want to kill the people but they are afraid if they do, that even more people will come and maybe take their jobs and power away. So they are trying to scare the people and let them know that if they keep complaining they'll give them something to really complain about. You know when I tell you sometimes that if you don't stop crying I'll give you something to cry about? Well it's like that except that they really will give these people something to cry about.
The people in the government want to go back to the way things were when the people didn't notice that they were bad and hurt people for fun and stole their money and their property.
You know how I tell you that you NEVER talk to a policeman, that they are "scorpion men" like that old fable of the scorpion and the frog? Well this is what the scorpion men do. They pretend that they are protecting the people but really they want to make the people their slaves and rob them of their property and money.
But it's much easier to do this if there aren't so many in one place and when they don't think anyone is watching. But the scorpion men you're seeing in this video are a bit like the worker ants. They just follow the orders of the real scorpion men we call Mayor or Governor or President.
Oct 11, 2011
Oct 10, 2011
Before and After. Tony Perkins on the Importance of the Values Voters Straw Poll
Tony Perkins, the organizer and chief warmonger for the social conservatives last week talked about the importance of the values voters summit in the Washington Times.
"The Values Voter Summit will test each candidate’s ability to motivate its base to get out and cast a vote in the summit’s straw poll. In 2007, Gov. Mike Huckabee’s strong finish at the straw poll helped push him into the top tier of candidates right before a big win at the Iowa caucuses.
The 2012 election is going to be a contest of values. Values voters - those who understand the intersection of faith, family and freedom - are determined to win this contest. Identifying the right candidate is the first step."After Ron Paul won the straw poll here's Tony Perkins again.
"I think Ron Paul, when you look at everything is an outlier in this poll"It's important until a warmonger doesn't win...
Sep 30, 2011
If It Saves One Life: The Case Against Assassination
One of the most oft-used excuses for government interference in the lives of others is like a worn-out joke; “Hey, Bill! Did you hear the one about the the government needing to save your life?”
That’s what enters my mind whenever I hear yet another politician or pundit utter the words “if it saves one life”. The plastic men and women holding the microphone never seem to ask the question I tend to shout to no one when I hear such clap trap - “So, even if the law resulted in the deaths of a million innocent people to save that life, would it would be worth it?”
On Friday, September 30th, the world’s airwaves and internet lines were crackling with the news of the assassination of another Al Queda “higher-up”, US-born Anwar al-Awlaki. Some reports claimed that the operation was performed by the same Navy Seal team that killed Osama bin Laden. Only this time, instead of a daring raid on a farm, they apparently sent an unmanned drone into the man’s place of residence in Yemen.
Though many media reports claim that al-Awlaki was a “militant”, the government has not formally accused him of any wrong-doing. The greatest “crime” alleged is that he “inspired” terrorists or made contact with them. Both the “underwear bomber” and U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan were alleged to have contacted al-Awlaki and that his “inspiration” drove them to commit their acts.
In other words, al-Awlaki is not accused of a specific harm to anyone. The “crime” of which he’s accused is speaking words the U.S. government finds repugnant.
Of course, this is not the only time that al-Awlaki has been accused. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, al-Awlaki was held for questioning by the FBI. After months of investigation it was determined that he had committed no crime and was freed. Shortly after this he left the U.S. for Yemen and soon after arriving was arrested and held, without charges, in a Yemeni prison. This time for almost two years. Finally, after the intervention of some locals in Yemen, he was released. There are probably many U.S, citizens who would embrace such treatment of themselves if it could save one life.
Unlike the recent hikers in Iran who were finally released (after being charged and given a trial and found guilty), al-Awlaki didn’t have a gaggle of State department officials pestering Yemen for his release while declaring that Yemen’s idea of justice went against everything we in the U.S. claim to hold dear.
No, the state department, even though there was no evidence at that time that al-Awlaki had committed any crimes, were happy to have him rot. The hypocrisy of their stance in this regard was barely noticed or mentioned by the old media.
While the American government has “renditioned” and tortured hundreds of “suspects” around the world without any due process or trial (some of them American citizens) the three hikers in Iran were viewed as a symbol of barbarism. In point of fact, Iran treated the hikers with far more respect for their rights than the US has of its suspected terrorists.
But of course the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab AKA “The underwear bomber” allegedly attempted to bring down an airliner by hiding C4 in his underwear. The botched attempt was averted and Abdulmultallab is in a prison cell awaiting trial, while the man who hasn’t been alleged to have killed anyone, rather he “inspired” others with speech, has been assassinated.
Farouk is an interesting case himself. Originally from Nigeria, he went to college in London and was president of the University College London’s Islamic Society. A child of wealthy Nigerian parents, Umar Farouk had lived in London since his high school years. Touted as a “dream student” by more than one Professor, Farouk was vocally anti-war. Though many news outlets have attempted to paint Farouk as a ticking time-bomb and radical, the actual evidence shows that he was not only a superb student but also a vocal opponent of the US./British war on terror; so vocal in fact, that he helped to organize an anti-war awareness conference called the “War-OnTerror Week” co-sponsored by ULCU’s “Stop the War Society”.
While this is not the picture painted by the old media and neoconservative punditry, a look at a poster for the event makes it clear that characterizations claiming the event was pro-terror are an obvious lie.
Assuming that Farouk is absolutely guilty of the crime he is accused, the real circumstances of his turn to darkness are quite different than what is alleged. Even the government has a hard time making the case he had advocated violence prior to his single attempt at lashing out. Instead, they suggest he was converted to violence by shadowy Al Qaeda figures.
Lost in the discussions surrounding this converstion is the timing. His conversion occurred after the US and Britain systematically renounced its former ideals to protect individual rights, abandoning them to instead practice torture and denial of due process, much less basic miranda rights to those captured.
Indeed, the Obama administration’s aggressive pursuit of “limited miranda” with regard to terror suspects is a complete repudiation of the bill of rights. The “right to remain silent”, agreed by the Supreme Court as being a pre-requisite to justice for any arrested individual, is exactly the right the Bush and Obama administration’s found and find repugnant.
Those who drafted the U.S. Constutition found torture itself to be repugnant. So much so, that what we call the 5th amendment today was included specifically for the purpose of preventing the government from torturing a person to produce witness testimony against himself. (Oh, and just so you aren’t hoodwinked by people who claim that this is a magical right reserved only for those who were born on the blessed soil of America, the U.S. Supreme Court itself disabuses us of this idea in U.S. v Verdugo Urqidez (1994), when it specifically lists the 5th amendment as applying to anyone “accused”).
While on one hand, the government claims that speech “inspiring” others to commit violence is completely unacceptable - words it doesn’t want to hear - it now has no problem actually committing violence in order to get a witness to utter the words it wants to hear. ( Such as “I did it”).
Furthermore, it has stepped beyond merely denying due process to denying people their lives based on the words of the President “inspiring” those who are charged with carrying out his orders to assassinate those he deems too dangerous to try.
If you have seen or heard the views of those cheering the government’s actions, you might conclude they heartily accept the “if it saves one life” theory of politics.
No matter that al Awlaki has not been formally charged (much less accused) of hurting anyone. As long as the government merely says he’s responsible for acts committed by those inspired by his words (and the government seems to be quite short on quotes left in context), then they don’t seem to have a problem with assassinating the speaker. The government wouldn’t lie about something like that would it?
As with many government encroachments upon our basic liberties, people tend not to imagine what could happen if they were the ones under attack for their unacceptable speech.
Just last week, Orange county DA Tony Rackauckas made himself very unpopular amongst Police unions and corrupt politicians when he stated boldly, “You have a right to defend yourself from a police officer” while detailing his decision to charge two OC police officers with the murder of Kelley Thomas.
The cheering of DA Rackaukus by normal citizens, who have been watching the constant escalation of nastiness wrecked upon them by those tasked with protecting their rights, was virtually deafening. For now, the DA’s comments and the cheering will be quietly ignored by the old media whereas the words of al-Awlaki, who appears to provide a similar sentiment against the actions of the US government, is vilified and his death celebrated.
What happens when certain “pro-police (state)” lawmakers and politically connected pundits start calling for Rackaukus’ head? Isn’t he endangering the police and inciting violence?
Well, according to this current administration’s precedent and stated doctrine, the President could in fact order the Rackaukus to be assassinated. Is this likely? Perhaps not. But perhaps it is far more likely than many are ready to admit. It would certainly be considered “legal” as the doctrine does not limit assassinations to foreign soil anymore and has never excluded U.S. Citizens.
“But, But!”, say the supporters of this practice, “we cannot afford to bring these dangerous people over for trials! Besides, they don’t deserve rights or meals or lawyers. If we try them, everything good about our society goes to pot!”
Really? And how is it that we can put Tomothy McVeigh, Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj on trial without the world coming to an end? All were terrorists and all were given a chance to defend themselves. What possible reason can justify a change in the great traditions of this nation? Why would we rush to embrace the very tyranny we commit US troops to fight abroad?
The real answer to this question is that most are afraid there won’t be any evidence to convict the thousands we have held without bail, trial or formal accusation. They might go free. But there is little likelihood of that actually happening since there are very few who concede that the government might just arrest the wrong people from time to time. They are held or accused, therefore they are guilty.
To those who think that it is safe to cheer on a government which assassinates those whom it has never proved guilty of any criminal act, the life you save by objecting may be your own. If it saves one life, it could be worth it to embrace our constitution and repudiate this dictatorial approach as Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and The ACLU have done.
That’s what enters my mind whenever I hear yet another politician or pundit utter the words “if it saves one life”. The plastic men and women holding the microphone never seem to ask the question I tend to shout to no one when I hear such clap trap - “So, even if the law resulted in the deaths of a million innocent people to save that life, would it would be worth it?”
On Friday, September 30th, the world’s airwaves and internet lines were crackling with the news of the assassination of another Al Queda “higher-up”, US-born Anwar al-Awlaki. Some reports claimed that the operation was performed by the same Navy Seal team that killed Osama bin Laden. Only this time, instead of a daring raid on a farm, they apparently sent an unmanned drone into the man’s place of residence in Yemen.
Though many media reports claim that al-Awlaki was a “militant”, the government has not formally accused him of any wrong-doing. The greatest “crime” alleged is that he “inspired” terrorists or made contact with them. Both the “underwear bomber” and U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan were alleged to have contacted al-Awlaki and that his “inspiration” drove them to commit their acts.
In other words, al-Awlaki is not accused of a specific harm to anyone. The “crime” of which he’s accused is speaking words the U.S. government finds repugnant.
Of course, this is not the only time that al-Awlaki has been accused. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, al-Awlaki was held for questioning by the FBI. After months of investigation it was determined that he had committed no crime and was freed. Shortly after this he left the U.S. for Yemen and soon after arriving was arrested and held, without charges, in a Yemeni prison. This time for almost two years. Finally, after the intervention of some locals in Yemen, he was released. There are probably many U.S, citizens who would embrace such treatment of themselves if it could save one life.
Unlike the recent hikers in Iran who were finally released (after being charged and given a trial and found guilty), al-Awlaki didn’t have a gaggle of State department officials pestering Yemen for his release while declaring that Yemen’s idea of justice went against everything we in the U.S. claim to hold dear.
No, the state department, even though there was no evidence at that time that al-Awlaki had committed any crimes, were happy to have him rot. The hypocrisy of their stance in this regard was barely noticed or mentioned by the old media.
While the American government has “renditioned” and tortured hundreds of “suspects” around the world without any due process or trial (some of them American citizens) the three hikers in Iran were viewed as a symbol of barbarism. In point of fact, Iran treated the hikers with far more respect for their rights than the US has of its suspected terrorists.
But of course the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab AKA “The underwear bomber” allegedly attempted to bring down an airliner by hiding C4 in his underwear. The botched attempt was averted and Abdulmultallab is in a prison cell awaiting trial, while the man who hasn’t been alleged to have killed anyone, rather he “inspired” others with speech, has been assassinated.
Farouk is an interesting case himself. Originally from Nigeria, he went to college in London and was president of the University College London’s Islamic Society. A child of wealthy Nigerian parents, Umar Farouk had lived in London since his high school years. Touted as a “dream student” by more than one Professor, Farouk was vocally anti-war. Though many news outlets have attempted to paint Farouk as a ticking time-bomb and radical, the actual evidence shows that he was not only a superb student but also a vocal opponent of the US./British war on terror; so vocal in fact, that he helped to organize an anti-war awareness conference called the “War-OnTerror Week” co-sponsored by ULCU’s “Stop the War Society”.
While this is not the picture painted by the old media and neoconservative punditry, a look at a poster for the event makes it clear that characterizations claiming the event was pro-terror are an obvious lie.
Assuming that Farouk is absolutely guilty of the crime he is accused, the real circumstances of his turn to darkness are quite different than what is alleged. Even the government has a hard time making the case he had advocated violence prior to his single attempt at lashing out. Instead, they suggest he was converted to violence by shadowy Al Qaeda figures.
Lost in the discussions surrounding this converstion is the timing. His conversion occurred after the US and Britain systematically renounced its former ideals to protect individual rights, abandoning them to instead practice torture and denial of due process, much less basic miranda rights to those captured.
Indeed, the Obama administration’s aggressive pursuit of “limited miranda” with regard to terror suspects is a complete repudiation of the bill of rights. The “right to remain silent”, agreed by the Supreme Court as being a pre-requisite to justice for any arrested individual, is exactly the right the Bush and Obama administration’s found and find repugnant.
Those who drafted the U.S. Constutition found torture itself to be repugnant. So much so, that what we call the 5th amendment today was included specifically for the purpose of preventing the government from torturing a person to produce witness testimony against himself. (Oh, and just so you aren’t hoodwinked by people who claim that this is a magical right reserved only for those who were born on the blessed soil of America, the U.S. Supreme Court itself disabuses us of this idea in U.S. v Verdugo Urqidez (1994), when it specifically lists the 5th amendment as applying to anyone “accused”).
While on one hand, the government claims that speech “inspiring” others to commit violence is completely unacceptable - words it doesn’t want to hear - it now has no problem actually committing violence in order to get a witness to utter the words it wants to hear. ( Such as “I did it”).
Furthermore, it has stepped beyond merely denying due process to denying people their lives based on the words of the President “inspiring” those who are charged with carrying out his orders to assassinate those he deems too dangerous to try.
If you have seen or heard the views of those cheering the government’s actions, you might conclude they heartily accept the “if it saves one life” theory of politics.
No matter that al Awlaki has not been formally charged (much less accused) of hurting anyone. As long as the government merely says he’s responsible for acts committed by those inspired by his words (and the government seems to be quite short on quotes left in context), then they don’t seem to have a problem with assassinating the speaker. The government wouldn’t lie about something like that would it?
As with many government encroachments upon our basic liberties, people tend not to imagine what could happen if they were the ones under attack for their unacceptable speech.
Just last week, Orange county DA Tony Rackauckas made himself very unpopular amongst Police unions and corrupt politicians when he stated boldly, “You have a right to defend yourself from a police officer” while detailing his decision to charge two OC police officers with the murder of Kelley Thomas.
The cheering of DA Rackaukus by normal citizens, who have been watching the constant escalation of nastiness wrecked upon them by those tasked with protecting their rights, was virtually deafening. For now, the DA’s comments and the cheering will be quietly ignored by the old media whereas the words of al-Awlaki, who appears to provide a similar sentiment against the actions of the US government, is vilified and his death celebrated.
What happens when certain “pro-police (state)” lawmakers and politically connected pundits start calling for Rackaukus’ head? Isn’t he endangering the police and inciting violence?
Well, according to this current administration’s precedent and stated doctrine, the President could in fact order the Rackaukus to be assassinated. Is this likely? Perhaps not. But perhaps it is far more likely than many are ready to admit. It would certainly be considered “legal” as the doctrine does not limit assassinations to foreign soil anymore and has never excluded U.S. Citizens.
“But, But!”, say the supporters of this practice, “we cannot afford to bring these dangerous people over for trials! Besides, they don’t deserve rights or meals or lawyers. If we try them, everything good about our society goes to pot!”
Really? And how is it that we can put Tomothy McVeigh, Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj on trial without the world coming to an end? All were terrorists and all were given a chance to defend themselves. What possible reason can justify a change in the great traditions of this nation? Why would we rush to embrace the very tyranny we commit US troops to fight abroad?
The real answer to this question is that most are afraid there won’t be any evidence to convict the thousands we have held without bail, trial or formal accusation. They might go free. But there is little likelihood of that actually happening since there are very few who concede that the government might just arrest the wrong people from time to time. They are held or accused, therefore they are guilty.
To those who think that it is safe to cheer on a government which assassinates those whom it has never proved guilty of any criminal act, the life you save by objecting may be your own. If it saves one life, it could be worth it to embrace our constitution and repudiate this dictatorial approach as Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and The ACLU have done.
Jun 18, 2011
Religious absurdities
I'm sorry. I can't help myself here. The most strident anti-Muslims in the US happen to be Jewish and they're always pointing out how Islamic courts are meting out bizarre sentences. In Israel, a court has just sentenced to death by stoning a dog suspected of being the re-incarnated secular lawyer who once insulted the judges. And we're supposed to believe that the Israelis are the rational side....
Jun 16, 2011
Jun 14, 2011
Ron Paul: "I am the Commander in Chief"
Watching the CNN-hosted New Hampshire debate on Monday evening, it became clear just how much different the 2012 Replican primary race is from 2008 and yet, how it is the same.
Like 2008, the field is littered with so-called conservatives who have been indelibly influenced by the rise of the neoconservatives, which peaked in 2004 and has, unbeknownst to its members, been in free-fall decline ever since.
At around the same point in the race four years ago, Ron Paul was relatively unknown except for a few hard-core followers. He made an impression back then in one of the early debates by repeating something he has said for years, that he would abolish the income tax given the chance.
His famous exchange with Rudy Guiliani at another debate propelled him even further. But because Paul didn’t have nearly the financial backing his opponents had in the early part of the campaign, his showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, two key states, seemed to doom his attempt to electoral failure. In all other ways, however, he has secured a victory that no other person with whom he’s shared a stage before or since has even remotely approached.
He’s made it possible for people to associate themselves with the Republican party and be proud to do so. As long as they can do so by defining themselves as “Ron Paul Republicans” that is. So, in this respect, the 2012 cycle is vastly different .
The June 13th, 2001 debate started off rather dully for all of the candidates, including Paul. There was very little time given to answer and Dr. Paul’s timing seemed slightly off as he tried to deliver as much information as he could in the very short time allotted for answers.
But this is of no consequence really because in any debate, it only takes one defining moment. If there’s anyone who knows how to seize the moment and own the debate it is Ron Paul. His moment came, coincidentally enough following a moment eerily similar to the debate of October 10, 2007.
In that debate, the question of whether or not the President should be required to seek Congressional approval before launching military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities was posed by Chris Matthews. Romney’s response was of a person enamored with hearing himself talk while not really understanding the words emanating over his too-perfect choppers. Romney suggested that he would consult with lawyers to discover the proper course of action.
This sort of answer is in and of itself proof of not only complete ignorance, but also of willful ignorance. More than this, it is cover for actions that may be in complete contradiction to previous statements. Any deviation later can be blamed on the advice of whomever one is consulting.
The question this time was from a military veteran who asked when it would be time to bring home the troops from Afghanistan. Romney, using an almost carbon-copied answer of his response in 2008 (at least he’s consistent about some things) suggested that he couldn’t answer properly until he had spoken with the generals.
I can’t speak for what was going through Ron Paul’s head right then, but his most viable opponent in this race had just handed him, on a silver platter, the opportunity to put a stake through the heart of his presidential aspirations.
After all, if that is how a President makes decisions, then he is no President at all but a puppet. Romney has made no bones accepting the role of puppet. He has great teeth, speaks well and in any given situation, does what he’s told. The real question is, who is he trying to convince that he’s fit for the job? Certainly not the voters.
All Ron Paul had to do was to make this perfectly clear. And he did so with six words: “I am the Commander in Chief,” he continued, “the generals take their orders from me...”
And with that, Mitt Romney’s danger as a political foe vanished, to the chagrin of a few Pentagon officials who salivate at the thought of such a weak-minded person “commanding” the military.
Like 2008, the field is littered with so-called conservatives who have been indelibly influenced by the rise of the neoconservatives, which peaked in 2004 and has, unbeknownst to its members, been in free-fall decline ever since.
At around the same point in the race four years ago, Ron Paul was relatively unknown except for a few hard-core followers. He made an impression back then in one of the early debates by repeating something he has said for years, that he would abolish the income tax given the chance.
His famous exchange with Rudy Guiliani at another debate propelled him even further. But because Paul didn’t have nearly the financial backing his opponents had in the early part of the campaign, his showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, two key states, seemed to doom his attempt to electoral failure. In all other ways, however, he has secured a victory that no other person with whom he’s shared a stage before or since has even remotely approached.
He’s made it possible for people to associate themselves with the Republican party and be proud to do so. As long as they can do so by defining themselves as “Ron Paul Republicans” that is. So, in this respect, the 2012 cycle is vastly different .
The June 13th, 2001 debate started off rather dully for all of the candidates, including Paul. There was very little time given to answer and Dr. Paul’s timing seemed slightly off as he tried to deliver as much information as he could in the very short time allotted for answers.
But this is of no consequence really because in any debate, it only takes one defining moment. If there’s anyone who knows how to seize the moment and own the debate it is Ron Paul. His moment came, coincidentally enough following a moment eerily similar to the debate of October 10, 2007.
In that debate, the question of whether or not the President should be required to seek Congressional approval before launching military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities was posed by Chris Matthews. Romney’s response was of a person enamored with hearing himself talk while not really understanding the words emanating over his too-perfect choppers. Romney suggested that he would consult with lawyers to discover the proper course of action.
This sort of answer is in and of itself proof of not only complete ignorance, but also of willful ignorance. More than this, it is cover for actions that may be in complete contradiction to previous statements. Any deviation later can be blamed on the advice of whomever one is consulting.
The question this time was from a military veteran who asked when it would be time to bring home the troops from Afghanistan. Romney, using an almost carbon-copied answer of his response in 2008 (at least he’s consistent about some things) suggested that he couldn’t answer properly until he had spoken with the generals.
I can’t speak for what was going through Ron Paul’s head right then, but his most viable opponent in this race had just handed him, on a silver platter, the opportunity to put a stake through the heart of his presidential aspirations.
After all, if that is how a President makes decisions, then he is no President at all but a puppet. Romney has made no bones accepting the role of puppet. He has great teeth, speaks well and in any given situation, does what he’s told. The real question is, who is he trying to convince that he’s fit for the job? Certainly not the voters.
All Ron Paul had to do was to make this perfectly clear. And he did so with six words: “I am the Commander in Chief,” he continued, “the generals take their orders from me...”
And with that, Mitt Romney’s danger as a political foe vanished, to the chagrin of a few Pentagon officials who salivate at the thought of such a weak-minded person “commanding” the military.
Jun 11, 2011
Jun 10, 2011
Jun 2, 2011
Porn Star of David
Sarah's out pimping for Israel.
No kidding?
The former Alaska governor and one-time vice presidential candidate reiterated Wednesday that the trip is "all about America's history," although it is believed by some to be an event designed to stir buzz about a possible 2012 presidential campaign.
No kidding?
Jun 1, 2011
D'Oh
Today the stock market tanks on lots of bad news. Weren't we recently hearing the dozer talk about how Obama had saved us all?
Looks like we'll be in for some massive new bailouts since these have worked so well..
"We faced an auto industry on the brink of extinction. Because of what we did, the auto industry is rising again. Manufacturing is coming back. And our economy is recovering and gaining traction."
Looks like we'll be in for some massive new bailouts since these have worked so well..
May 28, 2011
Adam Kokesh - Staredown
Great video. Adam Kokesh stares down a Nazi. Apparently dancing is a subversive activity.
Allen West's Past Rears Its Ugly Head
Allen West firmly believes that the best way to resolve an argument is to subject your opponent to gunfire. Before you turn away and suggest that this statement is merely hyperbole, there are some facts you may want to consider.
“I would take these gentlemen over and let them get shot at a few times and maybe they’d have a different opinion.” - Allen West, referring to Ron Paul and other Congress members who supported ending US involvement in Afghanistan.
When West made the above statement, he was responding to the recent bi-partisan effort in Congress to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. West, a former Lt. Colonel in the Army is no stranger to the effects of persuasion at gunpoint. His military career ended in infamy after he fired his sidearm at an unarmed Iraqi policeman suspected of being involved in an assassination plot..
The National Review in 2003, ran a piece defending West and suggesting (correctly) that his commanding officer should not have been given leniency if West himself was given none (West was fined $5,000 dollars and got to keep his pension). But the details, even though presented by the NRO in the best possible light for West, should give anyone serious misgivings about allowing West any access to authority in government or elsewhere.
Sometime in October of 2002, while stationed in Iraq, West was told by fellow soldiers that they had captured an Iraqi police officer who wouldn’t cooperate. West and his unit took over the interrogation, which for some time did not yield any better results than did the two women interrogators who preceded him.
Two of West’s men beat the policeman while West looked on, but could not get him to reveal any details of his alleged involvement or reveal the names of others who may have been involved. When it was clear that the beating wasn’t having any effect, West finally stepped in and took matters into his own hands.
Drawing his sidearm, he pointed it at the suspect and demanded that he talk. This didn’t have any positive effect so he dragged the suspect outside, making him kneel down on the ground. He then threatened the man two more times before finally discharging his sidearm within a foot of the man’s ear.
Convinced that West was serious, the man started giving out information, though it is unclear that this information was anything other than nonsense designed to appease West and his men. West’s supporters claim that after the incident, attacks against the base ceased and that West’s actions had “saved” his fellow soldiers. The Army hasn't released any specific details that support this claim.
Some months later, when Army brass discovered the incident, West was forced to face a hearing and finally sent back to Fort Hood where he retired after 20 years of service.
History would suggest West would rather his ideological opponents be unarmed. For this reason, West has no business being anywhere near the halls of power. Calling him heroic is not even remotely appropriate.
Over the years West has shown absolutely no remorse for his actions. In interviews and at his hearing(pdf) he claimed that under similar circumstances he'd do it again. Contrary to the NRO's puff piece, West did not inform his superiors of any of the details other than a vague "I discharged my firearm", statement. He also told his subordinates that details were to be kept a secret, according the the testimony of soldiers interviewed.
With enablers like the neoconservative National Review and World Net Daily, why should he feel any remorse?
West’s behavior and his most recent outburst suggests he’s a sociopath. Yet, with the help of an enabling media, he’s been able to craft himself folk-hero status and a seat in Congress.
There are even calls for West to put his hat in the ring for the Presidency. It apparently does not concern anyone that this would give him command of not only the world’s largest military force, but also the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. This is exactly the sort of person they prefer to have in charge of the military.
If that doesn’t scare you, then you have far more courage than Allen West.
UPDATE: (A facebook friend pointed me at some very good information)
The New York Times - THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: INTERROGATIONS; How Colonel Risked His Career By Menacing Detainee and Lost
"Indeed, it is possible that the abusive interrogation might never have come to light if a sergeant in another battalion had not subsequently written a letter of complaint about the ''command climate'' under Colonel West's superior officer. In that letter, the sergeant mentioned almost as an aside, according to Mr. Puckett, that Colonel West had interrogated a detainee using a pistol. An investigation was set in motion."From the Army Report:
Q: After the incident, did LTC (West) tell you not to tell anyone about the incident?
A: Yes, after he was finished talking to Col. (West) we headed back to our living quarters. He then told us to keep this incident to ourselves and to people we trust. (CID Report: Page 22).
LT. COL. (West) said that this night stays with 2-20 and 2-20 only. We all gave a Hooah and continued to walk to our rooms. (CID report: Page 48 - See 4 of 11).
May 27, 2011
By their Fruits: Rand Paul Goes to Washington
During Rand Paul’s campaign to become Senator from Kentucky, he held a few positions that gave some of his father’s supporters pause. Specifically, his disagreement with Ron over the issue of criminal trials versus military tribunals was a point of contention making it difficult for some to back his candidacy without trepidation. Rand thought we should keep the tribunals while Ron was vehemently opposed to any trial that didn’t give the accused the best protection of his rights.
After this past week, It probably isn’t far fetched to say that any trepidation one may have had about Rand Paul’s commitment to the principles of freedom has vanished.
Paul managed to single-handedly take control of the Senate chambers in a heroic attempt to move the Senate to consider and debate the Patriot act - something shockingly absent since it’s first passage. In fact, in 2000, when the Patriot Act was first introduced, a single Senator read the bill before casting a vote. The vote cast was a resounding “NO” by Russ Feingold, coincidentally, the only vote recorded in opposition to the bill.
Rand’s efforts were unsuccessful if you deem passage of the Act’s extension the sole measure of success. However, Rand did far more than capture the imagination and attention of the country for a suspenseful 36 hours, 7 of which were spent on the Senate floor.
Rand’s actions were quite shrewd for someone with so little working experience in Washington. If Rand couldn’t achieve a total sunset of the Patriot Act’s “temporary” provisions, he would settle on a compromise that would allow Senators to propose and debate amendments, having plenty of his own that would be brought forth.
Harry Reid, a Senator with far more experience in the art of chicanery, had to work overtime to scuttle the upstart’s efforts. But not without first exposing his intent to keep government power in place, and simultaneously his hypocrisy in carrying water for neoconservative Senate Republicans who didn’t want to openly oppose Paul. Rand won that battle and quite possibly the war, the passage of the act notwithstanding.
Reid’s was not the only hypocrisy exposed. One of Rand’s amendment’s would have placed strict restrictions on the government’s ability to use Patriot Act provisions to inspect gun-owner records. To kill the filibuster, Reid finally succumbed to allowing amendments to be debated and Rand’s proposal was killed in an 85-10 floor vote. But not before Reid uttered statements such as this one that sounded as if he had David Frum’s hand up his back:
Mitch McConnel, who is up for re-election in 2012, was forced to openly oppose Rand’s amendment. . If he previously thought he might avoid a primary challenge in 2011, all hope is now lost.
There are some very tired arms in Washington heading into the weekend. Even the NRA was forced to carry water for McConnel by coming out against Rand’s amendment. In a bizarre twist, the NRA had to defend itself using an explanation that sullied its credibility (and McConnel’s) even further. As Mike Riggs reported regarding an email he received from the NRA:
Not only does the NRA come out against gun-owner privacy, it does so to ensure that the Patriot Act continues to live. Both the NRA and McConnel have been forced to take desperately risky measures that in previous years would have gone un-noticed while the media and pundits whistled past, but it doesn’t seem likely that this will happen now.
Maybe some people will even note that if it weren’t for the NRA, there wouldn’t be millions of gun-owner records for the government to examine and their alleged devotion to liberty will be seen for the farce that it is.
Some hours after the Senate fiasco ended, the house took up its vote to extend the Patriot Act and the majority Republican house voted it into Obama’s care with little dissent. From the ranks of the House, that is. Very shortly after recording her vote, Michelle Bachmann, a Republican “hopeful” for the 2012 Presidential election, urgently took to the floor to defend herself and calm the obviously bad reaction from constituents and supporters.
It gets better though. The blogosphere went nuts. Even Free Republic, a site known for supporting teocons like Bachmann and Andy West and smearing Rand’s father at every opportunity, was supporting Rand’s efforts.
Raising the issue of gun records was utterly brilliant. Rank and file Republicans do not have the luxury of hiding in Washington with equally sleazy politicians who condone, nay encourage them to preach principles while campaigning but undermine them while in office. Real people have to face their friends and their mirrors.
Rand took the Patriot Act, something that was a foregone and forever destruction of liberty, considered a necessity to keep us safe, and turned it into a gun-rights issue, something a significant number of Republican voters consider their only issue.
He’s also shown us how true and wise the following words, spoken by the Prince of Peace:
After this past week, It probably isn’t far fetched to say that any trepidation one may have had about Rand Paul’s commitment to the principles of freedom has vanished.
Paul managed to single-handedly take control of the Senate chambers in a heroic attempt to move the Senate to consider and debate the Patriot act - something shockingly absent since it’s first passage. In fact, in 2000, when the Patriot Act was first introduced, a single Senator read the bill before casting a vote. The vote cast was a resounding “NO” by Russ Feingold, coincidentally, the only vote recorded in opposition to the bill.
Rand’s efforts were unsuccessful if you deem passage of the Act’s extension the sole measure of success. However, Rand did far more than capture the imagination and attention of the country for a suspenseful 36 hours, 7 of which were spent on the Senate floor.
Rand’s actions were quite shrewd for someone with so little working experience in Washington. If Rand couldn’t achieve a total sunset of the Patriot Act’s “temporary” provisions, he would settle on a compromise that would allow Senators to propose and debate amendments, having plenty of his own that would be brought forth.
Harry Reid, a Senator with far more experience in the art of chicanery, had to work overtime to scuttle the upstart’s efforts. But not without first exposing his intent to keep government power in place, and simultaneously his hypocrisy in carrying water for neoconservative Senate Republicans who didn’t want to openly oppose Paul. Rand won that battle and quite possibly the war, the passage of the act notwithstanding.
Reid’s was not the only hypocrisy exposed. One of Rand’s amendment’s would have placed strict restrictions on the government’s ability to use Patriot Act provisions to inspect gun-owner records. To kill the filibuster, Reid finally succumbed to allowing amendments to be debated and Rand’s proposal was killed in an 85-10 floor vote. But not before Reid uttered statements such as this one that sounded as if he had David Frum’s hand up his back:
"If the senator from Kentucky refuses to relent," Reid said earlier Wednesday, "that would increase the risk of a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland and hamper our ability to deal a truly fatal blow to al-Qaida."By introducing his gun-records amendment, Rand also managed to twist so-called pro-gun Republicans in knots trying to get the Patriot Act extension passed.
Mitch McConnel, who is up for re-election in 2012, was forced to openly oppose Rand’s amendment. . If he previously thought he might avoid a primary challenge in 2011, all hope is now lost.
There are some very tired arms in Washington heading into the weekend. Even the NRA was forced to carry water for McConnel by coming out against Rand’s amendment. In a bizarre twist, the NRA had to defend itself using an explanation that sullied its credibility (and McConnel’s) even further. As Mike Riggs reported regarding an email he received from the NRA:
“If the Paul amendment were adopted, the FBI would have used other ways to access whatever firearms records it might need for intelligence or anti-terrorism investigations. This is especially troublesome for gun owners.
What the NRA is saying is that if we bar the intelligence agencies and the FBI from using the Patriot Act to rifle through gun-owner records, they will just use other means, already at their disposal, to get access.
This would result in United States Attorneys simply demanding the same records through grand jury subpoenas, which require no judicial approval before issuance. Fighting a subpoena after the fact can be very costly and carries legal risks of its own, including possible charges for obstruction of justice.”
Not only does the NRA come out against gun-owner privacy, it does so to ensure that the Patriot Act continues to live. Both the NRA and McConnel have been forced to take desperately risky measures that in previous years would have gone un-noticed while the media and pundits whistled past, but it doesn’t seem likely that this will happen now.
Maybe some people will even note that if it weren’t for the NRA, there wouldn’t be millions of gun-owner records for the government to examine and their alleged devotion to liberty will be seen for the farce that it is.
Some hours after the Senate fiasco ended, the house took up its vote to extend the Patriot Act and the majority Republican house voted it into Obama’s care with little dissent. From the ranks of the House, that is. Very shortly after recording her vote, Michelle Bachmann, a Republican “hopeful” for the 2012 Presidential election, urgently took to the floor to defend herself and calm the obviously bad reaction from constituents and supporters.
It gets better though. The blogosphere went nuts. Even Free Republic, a site known for supporting teocons like Bachmann and Andy West and smearing Rand’s father at every opportunity, was supporting Rand’s efforts.
Raising the issue of gun records was utterly brilliant. Rank and file Republicans do not have the luxury of hiding in Washington with equally sleazy politicians who condone, nay encourage them to preach principles while campaigning but undermine them while in office. Real people have to face their friends and their mirrors.
Rand took the Patriot Act, something that was a foregone and forever destruction of liberty, considered a necessity to keep us safe, and turned it into a gun-rights issue, something a significant number of Republican voters consider their only issue.
He’s also shown us how true and wise the following words, spoken by the Prince of Peace:
“By their fruits, ye shall know them”
May 26, 2011
The Two Faces of Michelle Bachmann
Teocon Michelle Bachmann wants it both ways. She wants to be one of the gangsters while pretending she is shocked and appalled by what the government is doing. Back in 2009 she was very upset with the GM bailouts and the effect it was having on dealers in the midwest. She called the cronyism that flourished afterward proof that the government was a "gangster government".
But spying and wiretapping? No Problem. Bachmann recently spent 5 minutes on the house floor attempting to assuage constituents and tea-partiers. Bachmann did a poor job in suggesting that her recent vote in favor of extending the Patriot Act was for your own good. When the government starts going after those "lone wolves" who probably sport Ron Paul stickers, the gangsters patriots are doing it to screw protect you.
After Rand Paul's heroic effort in the Senate to kill the inappropriately named assault on the people's liberties, and the overwhelmingly positive reaction to it, I think this may become one of the seminal issues of 2012. Bachmann was clearly nervous given the negative feedback she's already received regarding her vote and the backlash on Facebook is overwhelmingly against the gangsters.
Texas lawmakers blink in the face of war threats.
That's what it is. You can't really get around that. When the federal government threatens to shut down all of your airports, that's an act of war, and to use an over-used word, Treason. In this case that word is perfectly appropriate.
It's supposed to be about education isn't it?
Yet the University of Virginia, where Michael Mann of ClimateGate has been a professor has been fighting tooth and nail to release its climate data.
"I want to look at what they’ve given us and examine what they’ve withheld and see why it’s been withheld,” Mr. Marshall told The Washington Times. “The more they stonewall, the more they’re making Richard Nixon look like a choirboy.”
Just what's so secret?
May 24, 2011
Judaism... Religion of Peace
For praying outside a Synagogue, Aaron Rottenberg (you can't make this stuff up folks) had his car vandalized, his house vandalized and finally, a young zealot decided he and his family should be burned alive. Thankfully, he lived. I wonder if he may consider a change of religion.
Oh, and of course we need to examine the response of the local police over time because they are so interested in protecting the rights of those in their jurisdiction.
Police acknowledged that these incidents occurred but have made no arrests in any of them. They also said they have no known motive for Sunday's attempted firebombing.
About that End of the World thing.
The point really isn't that his math has been "off" twice now, but whether or not Harold Camping actually believes what he's telling people.
Probably not.
But he also said that he wouldn't give away all his possessions ahead of Oct 21. "I still have to live in a house, I still have to drive a car," he said. "What would be the value of that? If it is Judgment Day why would I give it away?"Of course, he's also still taking donations from people, more proof that he doesn't believe his own prediction.
Camping offered no clues about Family Radio's finances Monday, saying he could not estimate how much had been spent advertising his prediction nor how much money the nonprofit had taken in as a result. In 2009, the nonprofit reported in IRS filings that it received $18.3 million in donations, and had assets of more than $104 million, including $34 million in stocks or other publicly traded securities.
May 23, 2011
Some People Think They're Free...
But I bet not the juveniles who were thrown into jail over the objections of parole officers in order to enrich two politically-connected prison vendors. Two Judges in PA are being charged with bribery for taking 2.9 million to fill up the private jails. They could get up to 7 years in jail. Poor guys. They probably get to keep their ill-gotten gains too....
Why markets are so important.
This is true of all markets because the market is about a lot more than just money.
It is a real-world social network, a web of friendships forged through decades of early mornings and bad jokes. For some who lost their shops in the tsunami, it also is a place to rent a spot on the pavement for 300 yen ($3.70) and sell a few items to help make ends meet. "I thought it would be months before people came back. But 20 days later, they just naturally started showing up again," says Yoshihiro Suzuki, 63, whose family has run the market for at least four generations. "The market gives people strength to go on with their lives."
May 21, 2011
We don't need no stinking Constitution
"From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today." - Jake Tapper
The President has come out swinging against the constitution but to my addled brain he's really tripped himself up by mentioning the words "declaration of war". We've been in Afghanistan and Iraq for almost 10 years (20 in Iraq) and as of yet, no declaration of war. Obama admits that after 6 months he needs a declaration of war. Where is that pesky thing anyway?
May 15, 2011
Game On! Ron Paulunteers Ready to Hit The Streets.
It feels like it was just a few months ago, though it has been almost 4 years, since I was excited about politics or optimistic about the future. Since the time that Ron Paul wound down his second attempt to become President, I have experienced personal financial catastrophe and witnessed the same on a national level. Like the days when I was younger and played football or hockey in the middle of a neighborhood street, pausing for cars, so has my enthusiasm paused since we elected the man Robin Koerner of the Huffington Post has dubbed “Bush-plus”.
I find that many of my friends have been in the same “car” mode after Obama was elected. The strides made by the Congressman and his Campaign for Liberty are of interest, but it seems as if the time has been passed trying to find ways around the ever-increasing bureaucracy and regulatory encroachments enacted since 2008. Most of them a reaction to inept government
policies that Ron Paul so presciently highlighted during his previous Presidential campaign.
A little less than 4 years ago, I remember writing about Ron Paul’s chances of winning. The one thing I was wrong about, was that the majority of the US was ready to accept what Ron Paul was saying. I over-estimated the public’s ability to see how far the US had devolved from its heady days of the late 18th century. However, that has changed dramatically since just after the primary battle ended. Bush signed a 700 billion dollar extortion demand written by former executives (and some would say current) of Goldman Sacs and which Obama extended after his own election.
Since that time, Bloomberg was able to extract details of the Federal Reserve’s obscene actions in the wake of the bi-partisan TARP bills which are beyond the pale. Hundreds of billions went to foreign banks while their “discount window” offered cheap dollars to domestic banks in exchange for their virtually worthless “assets”.
The situation for the US is dire. While we have had some movement in the right direction, it is apparent that the US has devolved into an unsustainable world police-state that if left unchecked will not only bankrupt those living today but generations to come. The freedoms which are our birthright have been eroding at an accelerated pace as unemployment and the dollar’s debasement march in side-long fashion.
It is almost a shame that Ron Paul’s predictions weren’t realized until after he had already dropped out of the last race, but it may be just as well. Since the bailouts were passed and budgets containing trillions in deficits have been passed since, it is obvious that the status-quo and conventional wisdom achieve no justice or remedy to the problems they are purported to correct. The American people had to see for themselves that the cure proposed is to give us more of the disease and that party labels are utterly meaningless in this regard.
In fact, because Ron Paul was able to predict the poor results of our ill-conceived federal monetary , foreign and legislative policy, he has removed the most potent weapon the opposition used against him during the last cycle. His opposition blew off his warnings as the ramblings of a conspiracy nut while they were claiming that the economy was sound and growing. Oops. In the words of Tyler Durden, “How’s that working out for you?”
This is why more and more pundits are realizing that this truly is the “Age of Ron Paul”.
But beyond the fact that Ron Paul’s credibility has soared amongst those who were previously skeptics, we can look to the man himself for a reason to hope. Not only has he never shied from controversy but he has also never compromised his beliefs merely to make short term political gains. Because his goal is not personal power and influence, but to educate in principles that transcend his own personal desires, he has achieved both without meaning to.
Shortly after announcing his candidacy on Friday, I received an email from Dr. Paul discussing the unprecedented media attention he’s received and some of the day's details. You may have received it as well. In it he suggested that it would be up to us, those who believe that individual freedom is the only way to restore our nation to some semblance of its lofty ideals, to make his Presidency a reality.
It also contained a pledge which, if you haven’t already read, I feel compelled to share.
Given recent events, I hope you’ll join me in running out into the streets and screaming to anyone who wants to come back and play: “GAME ON!”
I find that many of my friends have been in the same “car” mode after Obama was elected. The strides made by the Congressman and his Campaign for Liberty are of interest, but it seems as if the time has been passed trying to find ways around the ever-increasing bureaucracy and regulatory encroachments enacted since 2008. Most of them a reaction to inept government
policies that Ron Paul so presciently highlighted during his previous Presidential campaign.
A little less than 4 years ago, I remember writing about Ron Paul’s chances of winning. The one thing I was wrong about, was that the majority of the US was ready to accept what Ron Paul was saying. I over-estimated the public’s ability to see how far the US had devolved from its heady days of the late 18th century. However, that has changed dramatically since just after the primary battle ended. Bush signed a 700 billion dollar extortion demand written by former executives (and some would say current) of Goldman Sacs and which Obama extended after his own election.
Since that time, Bloomberg was able to extract details of the Federal Reserve’s obscene actions in the wake of the bi-partisan TARP bills which are beyond the pale. Hundreds of billions went to foreign banks while their “discount window” offered cheap dollars to domestic banks in exchange for their virtually worthless “assets”.
The situation for the US is dire. While we have had some movement in the right direction, it is apparent that the US has devolved into an unsustainable world police-state that if left unchecked will not only bankrupt those living today but generations to come. The freedoms which are our birthright have been eroding at an accelerated pace as unemployment and the dollar’s debasement march in side-long fashion.
It is almost a shame that Ron Paul’s predictions weren’t realized until after he had already dropped out of the last race, but it may be just as well. Since the bailouts were passed and budgets containing trillions in deficits have been passed since, it is obvious that the status-quo and conventional wisdom achieve no justice or remedy to the problems they are purported to correct. The American people had to see for themselves that the cure proposed is to give us more of the disease and that party labels are utterly meaningless in this regard.
In fact, because Ron Paul was able to predict the poor results of our ill-conceived federal monetary , foreign and legislative policy, he has removed the most potent weapon the opposition used against him during the last cycle. His opposition blew off his warnings as the ramblings of a conspiracy nut while they were claiming that the economy was sound and growing. Oops. In the words of Tyler Durden, “How’s that working out for you?”
This is why more and more pundits are realizing that this truly is the “Age of Ron Paul”.
But beyond the fact that Ron Paul’s credibility has soared amongst those who were previously skeptics, we can look to the man himself for a reason to hope. Not only has he never shied from controversy but he has also never compromised his beliefs merely to make short term political gains. Because his goal is not personal power and influence, but to educate in principles that transcend his own personal desires, he has achieved both without meaning to.
Shortly after announcing his candidacy on Friday, I received an email from Dr. Paul discussing the unprecedented media attention he’s received and some of the day's details. You may have received it as well. In it he suggested that it would be up to us, those who believe that individual freedom is the only way to restore our nation to some semblance of its lofty ideals, to make his Presidency a reality.
It also contained a pledge which, if you haven’t already read, I feel compelled to share.
1. I will work as hard as I can and do everything in my ability to make this campaign a success.
2. We will build the strongest team we possibly can and execute the best, most professional effort in our power.
3. I will never compromise and never, ever back down.
Given recent events, I hope you’ll join me in running out into the streets and screaming to anyone who wants to come back and play: “GAME ON!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)