Wire Report

Jack Hunter, The Southern Avenger: Host/Commentator
	The “Southern Avenger” Jack Hunter is a conservative commentator WTMA 1250 AM talk radio and columnist (Charleston City Paper) living in Charleston, South Carolina.

(WIRE/TAC) -In the wake of the Haiti earthquake tragedy, something unusual has been happening amongst conservatives. On talk radio, the blogosphere and elsewhere, some have been wondering how our government can afford to help Haiti given the current economic crisis in the United States. Considering the magnitude of the tragedy in Haiti, I found this to be a rather insensitive question. It’s also a good one.

Republican opposition to the Democrats’ national healthcare agenda is in large part due to the exorbitant cost, perceived inefficiency and intrusive, bureaucratic character of the plan. Still, argue liberals, there are too many Americans suffering for government to do nothing. Conservatives argue that there is only so much government can, or should, do. It’s time for conservatives to apply their argument more comprehensively.

In 2007 during a FOX News interview, when Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul suggested that the US was involved too much militarily around the world, talk host Sean Hannity asked “Are you saying then that the world has no moral obligation, like in the first Gulf War, when an innocent country’s being pillaged, and people are being raped and murdered and slaughtered, or in the case of Saddam, he’s gassing his own people, are you suggesting we have no moral obligation there? Do you stand by and let that immorality happen?” Paul responded “We have, on numerous occasions.” Hannity’s co-host Alan Colmes chimed in “the fact is the Reagan administration stood by while the Kurds were being gassed, it happened in 1988, we didn’t do anything.” Paul followed up “And what did we do with Pol Pot, what did we do with Moscow, what did we do at the time? We stood by while they did it to their people.” Flustered, Hannity replied “We got it, Ron, you would stand by and do that, I would not… I think that’s immoral.”

President Obama and the Democrats believe it’s immoral for government to stand by and not help uninsured Americans receive healthcare. Hannity disagrees and devotes a significant portion of his radio and television programs to opposing national healthcare. Is Hannity being immoral? Or is he simply taking the conservative position that despite the suffering that exists, government benevolence has its limits?

A nation possessing the wealth and power of the US should be in a position to help Haiti, at least temporarily, and this is something countless Americans have already done privately, donating millions. But these same Americans might not think it’s a good idea to provide government healthcare in their own country. Does this mean they simply do not care? Americans who donated to Haiti may not believe, for instance, that we should send our military to stop the genocide in the war-torn nation of Darfur, something liberals have long advocated using the same “we can’t stand by and do nothing” logic many conservatives used with Iraq. In continuing to just stand by, does this make the US “immoral?” Will Hannity soon devote significant portions of his radio and television programs to highlighting Darfur, a country that’s “being pillaged, and people are being raped and murdered and slaughtered?”

Haiti is close to the US in proximity and the earthquake was so overwhelmingly disastrous that it makes sense to most Americans to lend a helping hand, something that occurred even without government prompting. The US should be able to afford to help Haiti and the extent to which we technically are not—our government operates on a monstrous debt—is due in large part to the hyper extension of our supposed benevolence in other areas. Yet, how many conservatives who now oppose national healthcare due to the cost, or even more strangely, now question the US’s ability to send dollars to Haiti given our own bad economy, didn’t blink an eye over spending trillions on wars in the Middle East, often citing humanitarian reasons as an excuse?

This week the US Senate is debating whether to raise the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion, totaling a whopping $14.3 trillion, which is about the same size as the nation’s overall economy. Some estimate the cost of national healthcare would be in the ballpark of $1 trillion. The initial relief donation to Haiti by the US government was a relatively measly $100 million while the cost of the Iraq war alone has been estimated at $3 trillion dollars. Regardless, our government, and the debt to maintain it, keeps growing astronomically.

The old fashioned, biblical concept of charity is that it begins at home, and once a man has taken care of his family, property and immediate surroundings he can then afford to address greater concerns. Increasingly and sometimes tragically, America can no longer afford to address greater concerns—not that affordability will prevent our government from continuing to do so. The conservative’s task should be to prevent it from doing so, or “limiting” government–and not promoting its unlimited use at home or abroad, and certainly not to save the world.

Copyright © 2010 The American Conservative – All Rights Reserved

The Smoking Argus

The June 24th Edition of Fox News’ “Freedom Watch” with Judge Andrew Napolitano. The Judge’s guests this week include Representative Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell from the Mises Institute, former Libertarian Vice-Presidential Candidate, Wayne Allen Root, Michael Shanklin, and Shelly Roche from “Break the Matrix”.

Allison Bricker

THE REGION, INDIANA – The old-media’s faux-liberty shill, Glenn Beck has attempted yet again to tie Constitutionalists, Ron Paul supporters, those calling for a second 9/11 investigation, opposition to the FEDERAL RESERVE, and liberty activists to the likes of domestic terrorists and Al-Qaeda. Mr. Beck made the statement on his show Wednesday evening after self-described white supremacist, James von Brunn went on a shooting spree¹ at the “United States Holocaust Memorial Museum”.

Click to Enlarge

Without offering any source, i.e. the Associated Press, Reuters, etcetera Mr. Beck reported on air unsubstantiated innuendo² as a means to forward his personal dislike for anyone who dare question the government story on 9/11. It is worthy to note Mr. Becks’s utter contempt for those calling for a second more thorough investigation is well documented.  During a broadcast on his radio show in 2005, he tore off into a tirade over the hatred he feels towards families of 9/11 victims due to their constant “complaining”.³

Regardless of where one comes down on the issue, and subsequently following President Obama’s admission in his Cairo, Egypt speech regarding the successful C.I.A. led overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, there is no justification in attempting to connect those requesting a second 9/11 investigation to terrorists.

For a man who has just recently been caught  lying⁴, it is but another example of the unprofessional shills in lieu of actual reporters now employed by the old-media.

However, this is not the first time Mr. Beck has lied or reported erroneously, as just this past January when he was hell-bent on insinuating that President Obama was somehow anti-God for failing to use a Bible during a second swearing in ceremony, he fictitiously stated that he researched the issue and did not find one single President who did not use the Bible.⁵

Click to Enlarge

Unfortunately for Glenn Beck, a cursory check of history shows that Theodore Roosevelt was sworn in during a hastily arranged ceremony shortly after the death of President McKinley⁶ and thus did not use a Bible. However even more devastating to Glenn Beck’s haphazardly constructed insinuation of “no Bible = UnAmerican” is the fact that our sixth President, John Quincy Adams, an outspoken religious man, stated that he felt the Bible should be solely reserved for religious ceremonies, and thus was sworn in by Chief Justice Marshall with his hand upon an American Constitutional Law book⁷.

Consequently, perhaps the only bit of truth recently spoken by Glenn Beck came during an exchange with Barbara Walters of “The View” when he stated that he is not an investigative or any other type of reporter⁴ and that he does not check his facts prior to offering commentary upon a story. (see video)

Similarly to the old-media “M.I.A.C.-like” tactics displayed by Glenn Beck, anonymous screen name only tabloid blogger, “Left coaster” writing for the “Daily Kos” attempts to infer a link between Ron Paul and those opposed to the FEDERAL RESERVE to  the murderous antisemite  James von Brunn⁸.

Utilizing a standard so circumstantial that it would be laughed out of any court in the union, even taking into account the most liberal interpretation possible for rules of evidentiary procedure, “Left Coaster” attempts to conjoin criticizing the FEDERAL RESERVE with a sociopath  by offering up a lone comment left in a Yahoo Ron Paul for President group.

Thus, if we at “The Smoking Argus Daily” desired to stoop to either of the very low bars set by Glenn Beck or “Left Coaster” in order to rile up a small group of unsophisticated, intellectually void readers, we too could make such spurious connections in our reporting and editorializing.

Whereby, since my personal feelings on abortion could be classified as “local rule” pro-choice, should I have crafted a scathing editorial insinuating a link between all Mormons, Christians, and other opponents of abortion as packs of wild blood thirsty homicidal gun wielding maniacs, due to the cold calculated shooting of Dr. Tiller?

Alternatively, since President Obama is viewed by me as just another government puppet, then it might be possible to score some brownie points by connecting him via an official press release⁹ supporting the administration’s pick for N.O.A.A. issued by the “Sea Shepherd Conservation Society”. After all, the organization is headed up by environmental extremist, Captain Paul Watson who as the video to the left indicates, thinks that in order to “protect” the rain forest, fellow environmentalists should “rise up and rip loggers limb from limb”.

Would it somehow prove that all abortion opponents approve of murdering doctors in order to “spread” the pro-life message, or that all environmentalists support Mr. Watson’s demented desire to tear apart fellow humans¹⁰ as a rational way to protect the environment?

Therefore, this is purely a myopic tactic employed by those who see collective group-think as an effective strategy to keep us divided in to neat and manageable “people-groups”, thereby tethered ad infinitum to the false left/right paradigm. It is not now, nor shall it ever be as long as “The Smoking Argus Daily” remains edited and published by me, to allow any post to strive for the lowest common denominator, nor view our loyal readers in such an unsophisticated contemptuous manner.

Finally, with both “Fox News” and “Daily-Kos” attempting to pigeonhole the freedom movement as “dangerous”, “radical”, or somehow equated to lunatics like James von Brunn, it can only really mean one thing. Those of us who desire to see the Constitution/Republic Restored, the abolition of the FEDERAL RESERVE, et al are making progress to a degree which has risen to rattling the cages of the status quo.

Thus with H.R. 1207 “The FEDERAL RESERVE Transparency Act of 2009″ currently sitting at 218 222 co-sponsors¹¹ and with Chairman Bernake & Co. opting to hire a public relations firm¹² to combat mounting scrutiny over their deviousness, individuals are beginning to see through the transparent “plastic-wrap” shills of the old-media for what they truly are; agents of division.

Source(s): ¹AP NEWS BRIEF: “Gunman, 88, opens fire at crowded Holocaust Museum and kills guard before being shot himself”, published June 10, 2009 • ²Fox News “Glenn Beck” aired June 10th, 2009 • ³Premiere Radio Networks “The Glenn Beck Program” aired September 2005 • ⁴ ABC “The View” aired May 20, 2009 • ⁵ Fox News “Glenn Beck” aired January 22, 2009 • ⁶ Foreign Press Centers, U.S. Department of State “Presidential Inaugurations Past and Present: A Look at the History Behind the Pomp and Circumstance”, January 13, 2005 • ⁷ “The Statesman’s Manual” by Edwin Williams, pg. 649, published by Edward Walker, 1846 • ⁸ Daily Kos “NeoNazi Killer’s Racist Rant in Ron Paul Yahoo Group” by “Left Coaster”, published June 10, 2009 • ⁹ Sea Shepherd News “NOAA Is On The Right Track With Obama”, published March 20, 2009 • ¹⁰ 2003 Los Angeles Animal Rights Convention, speech by Cptn. Paul Watson • ¹¹ Campaign For Liberty “H.R. 1207 Passes 218 Co-sponsors” published June 11, 2009 • ¹² Reuters “Fed hiring veteran lobbyist: source” By Mark Felsenthal, published June 5, 2009•

Jeff Lewis

Last Wednesday night, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann threw down the gauntlet at Fox News’ Sean Hannity and declared that he would pay $1,000 per second and donate it to charity for every second Sean Hannity lasted while being water boarded.  The challenge was the result of an interview Hannity had with Charles Grodin on Hannity’s Tuesday night broadcast on Fox network.  Hannity was making the statement to Grodin that water boarding didn’t really constitute torture because it wasn’t severe enough to be labeled as such.

Grodin paused and asked Hannity if he would be willing to be water boarded?  Hannity paused for a second and half-heartedly said, “Yea, if it was for charity for the troop’s families.”  Grodin immediately asked, “Will you do it this Sunday?”  Hannity grinned and quickly changed the subject.

The next evening on “Countdown”, Olbermann re-aired the Hannity/Grodin segment and at the conclusion said that he would personally pay $1,000 a second for as long as Hannity lasted.  As of this post, Hannity had not responded.

2002 DOJ Torture Memo Right click to Save

My guess is Hannity won’t accept Olbermann’s call of his bluff to be subjected to being water boarded for the simple reason that Hannity, like all the others who claim that water boarding is not torture are cowards, or downright “Chicken-shits!” behind their false bravado.  Many extreme right wingers love to regale in tough talk and bluster about how “tough” they’d be on terrorists, unlike the candy-ass liberals they relish in bashing over their supposed timidity in dealing with the terrorists of Al Qaeda and such.

Recently, Rush Limbaugh has taken to audibly slapping himself on his face to illustrate how that interrogation technique doesn’t constitute torture, during his daily radio broadcasts.  You sure are a “tough guy”, Rush.  We all remember how Rush mocked Michael J. Fox’s physical impairments of Parkinson’s disease that were manifest in the actor’s TV endorsements of two Democratic candidates(McKaskill of Missouri and Webb of Virginia) for the U.S. Senate back in the ’06 congressional campaign.  Rush acted out a series of gyrations on camera during his program, while claiming that Fox was using these supposed physical afflictions as a ploy to draw sympathy for his candidates.  Some years ago I happened to hear Limbaugh making fun of homeless people on his radio show, as I was scanning the radio dial for a local traffic/weather update.  Limbaugh is an utterly shameless, despicable, and pitiful character.  I am constantly amazed at the number of people who will surrender their decency and intelligence to listen to his rants, let alone fear his wrath.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Thursday night, retired U.S. Army Colonel, Lawrence Richardson, and former right hand man for General Colin Powell, commented on the mind set of fear that grips so many members of the extreme political right wing.  He speculated that former Vice-President Dick Cheney lives in mortal fear at all times.  He referred to Cheney’s five medical deferments he received to keep himself out of military service during the Vietnam War.  But, Cheney like all of the other neo-cons that were the driving forces in the Bush administration in urging America’s pre-emptive invasion of Iraq for fear of what Sadam might do to us if he could. None of them ever served in any branch of the U.S. military and had no real understanding of what it was like to wear the nation’s uniform in combat, real or imagined.  However, they had little reticence in sending thousands of others in harms way to fight and risk death or maiming.  No one articulated these “chicken hawks” better than President Bush, in his defiant bluster, “Bring ‘em on!”  Our country is 4,000+ deaths, and 40,000+ permanent injuries of brave American military soldiers, and billions and billions of dollars later because of the neo-con, tough guy fears.  The devastation on the country of Iraq has been incalculable.  The Middle East is as unstable as at any time since the 67′ war.  But, Sadam Hussein is dead.

That our country would orchestrate a campaign of torture on captured prisoners adds a new chapter of national disgrace.  I have been stunned to learn that according to two recent national polls, almost half of the American public condones extreme interrogation techniques in some circumstances involving national security.  Expert after expert, in the interrogation field, claim unequivocally that torture produces less reliable intelligence than other measures.  No less than Senator John McCain, a victim of torture as a prisoner in Vietnam, has made his opposition to such measures abundantly clear and claims they are an ineffective means to gather information from an enemy.  In its simplest terms, the torture policy is reactionary stupidity. Water boarding has been illegal in this country since 1898 and illegal by declaration in international treaties of which the U.S. is a signator.  Japanese officers were executed by the U.S. following WWII for water boarding prisoners.  Two Sheriff’s deputies in Texas were sentenced to four years in prison each, and their Sheriff for ten years for water boarding prisoners, during George W. Bush’s gubernatorial days.

This great nation of ours has suspended rational judgment before many times under the guise of national security.  Some of the “highlights”: During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.  In WWI, President Wilson imprisoned Eugene V, Debs, among other dissenters, for opposing America’s involvement in the war, and President Roosevelt OK’d the California Attorney General’s plan to inter all Japanese citizens in labor camps in other Western states during the war; that Attorney General was none other than Earl. B. Warren, later to become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the greatest civil libertarians in U.S. judicial history.

Momentum is gathering in both houses of Congress for additional information on the perpetrators and development of the interrogation plans in the Bush administration.  It is worth pointing out that 52 people from Nixon’s administration went to jail after the dust settled in the Watergate upheaval  This controversy is far from over and has developed legs of its own, much to the chagrin of Obama’s planners and members of the far right.  This past week marked the one hundredth anniversary of the passing of the great American, Mark Twain, who was noted for saying, among countless insights and observations, that, “In a Republic, the function of the Government is to obey orders. Not originate them.”

Joseph Marohl

I appreciate the improvement in tone of the Obama administration over its immediate predecessor, for example, Obama’s statement in Turkey that America, though enriched by its Christian population, is “not a Christian nation”; even the President’s espousal of his personal faith has, so far, avoided the arrogant display of ignorance and bullying bluster of Bush.

Obama has lifted bans on stem-cell research and the abortion bans linked under Bush to international aid. On Friday, Obama condemned homophobia in particular no less than intolerance in general in a speech at Washington’s Holocaust Memorial Museum—an inclusiveness that is poignant in light of the surge in gay bashing in the past decade and the growth of hate groups in America since his election.

All these examples speak of a bright new spirit in the leadership and values of our nation.

But President Obama has everything to gain or lose over the issue of whether to investigate those in power who promoted or condoned the use of torture of terror suspects.  So far, he appears to be failing a crucial test of integrity.

Fox TV has repeatedly criticized the President’s release of formerly classified memos showing the government’s deliberate attempt to whitewash torture techniques and to approve specific techniques, namely waterboarding, that have been used as torture since at least the Spanish Inquisition and condemned by American military courts trying foreign war criminals for the past 65 years. Fox TV pundits say that the President’s act is politics, a threat to security, an aid to the nation’s enemies.

The White House has defended its action on the basis that the information had already appeared in the media—in the New York Review of Books and elsewhere. Besides, precautions were taken to blacken out names, supposedly to protect the innocent or the legally covert. And, unlike the Valerie Plame “outing” in 2003, the White House appears to have little to gain politically from the release of this information.

The burning question is—What does the President intend to do with this information?

In his original statement to the press, Obama exempted CIA operatives who participated in torture but did so with an understanding that they were acting within certain legal bounds. In World War II and other cases, soldiers were prosecuted only for exceeding the bounds of laws existing at the time—“following orders” was a legitimate defense that many Nazis who did not just follow orders tried illegitimately to use to save their necks at Nuremberg.

Obama can reasonably justify not prosecuting low-level personnel—unlike the 2004 attempt to quiet the Abu Ghraib scandal, where investigations and prosecutions did not rise higher than low-ranking GIs.

Then last Sunday, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel announced that the Bush policymakers, namely John Yoo and Jay Bybee, whose support of torture is documented in the released memos, would likewise be exempt from further investigation and prosecution. But then later White House aides intimated that the President did “not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush lawyers who developed the legal basis for the use of the techniques.”

Troublingly, in public addresses, Obama has echoed Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan’s dribble that we should not waste time, money, and energy to “look back” to offenses in the past. (As one commenter to Noonan’s original statement put it: “Great news for hit-and-run drivers.”)

Obama told an enthusiastic crowd of CIA employees, “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn.” But the government’s detailing of specific torture techniques and fostering an air of institutional and public acceptance of what it euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation techniques” can hardly be called a simple mistake.

On Tuesday, an internal memo by Dennis Blair, Obama’s national intelligence director, was publicized, stating, “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” Blair seems to support at least the underpinning assumption that the Yoo-Bybee interrogation policy was effective.  Obama, in turn, has left the matter in the hands of Attorney General Eric Holder, who is less shy of the word “torture” and has called for the release of even more memos detailing the U.S. government’s support and defense of torture.

To my mind, torture is a bigger issue than the economy. The cost of investigating and prosecuting those of both political parties who were actively or tacitly behind the senseless, brutal, and unjustified beatings of detainees fraudulently in the name of the American way of life and at the expense of justice-loving American citizens is worth more than ten General Motors and fifty Bank of Americas.

And if we taxpayers could fork out $6.2 million to investigate a blowjob in the Oval Office, we owe at least as much to our sense of ourselves as a just, moral, tolerant, and humane people.

Government funds are at least as justly spent in supporting the rule of law as in supporting military actions abroad and sustaining economic growth.

One of the reasons we elect a President every four years is to permit the opportunity to investigate and legally address the flaws—both simple mistakes and flagrant illegalities—of the previous administration. If he or she does not do so, why bother with term limits or even elections?

Our nation’s much-praised propensity for “smooth transitions” distinctly implies that we transition to something new and different from its precedent—not continuation of the same, and not erasure of recent memories of injustice and lawlessness.

If Obama does not address the wrongs of the previous administration, he betrays the fundamental reason for his (or any new President’s) election: change.

If he does not push the investigation and prosecution of injustices committed in the name of America, he does nothing to build the nation’s reputation for democracy and rule of law.

If he does not look into charges of wrongdoing in the Bush administration, even if he  and (less likely) his political party could remain blameless of those wrongs, he furthers the erosion of American values and liberties and, in this case, leaves torture as a tool for future leaders with a bent towards tyranny and a cruel streak.

Jeff Lewis

This past week we witnessed the “Tea Bag” Tax Protest. It was an orchestrated event that was co-opted, or hijacked by rightwing extremists and Republican conservatives from Ron Paul’s vocal, but normally civilized followers. The purpose for the protest was designed to draw attention, ostensibly, to multiple contemporary evils: excessive taxation, excessive government spending, and excessive insensitivity from our national political leadership.

The “Protest” allowed participants the chance to use inflammatory rhetoric that often characterizes such gatherings.  One of the unique aspects of this cause celeb was the contradictory outcries of “Socialism” and “Fascism”, plus numerous Obama hate messages.  It reminded me of the conundrum one of my innovative professors in college once posed in a political theory lecture that began with the rhetorical question, “Can any one succinctly explain the difference between communism and capitalism?”  After several seconds of deafening silence, he answered by saying, “In Communism, man exploits man.  In Capitalism, it’s just the opposite.”

The national network television news media in general acknowledged that the protest was grass roots, in nature. This aspect was driven home repeatedly by the Republican Party leadership and the Fox television news personalities, two entities often in political lockstep, prior to and after the event.  House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), called the event “Astroturf” because of the overt push it received from fat cat donors and Fox network talking heads.

While the President participated in a gathering of Western Hemisphere political leaders on the island of Trinidad, the release of the DOJ “torture memos” started a firestorm that, I believe, has the potential to sprout a genuine grass roots movement. Obama’s progressive supporters on the Democratic side of the aisle, or his own political family, are aggressively circulating a petition on the internet calling for the prosecution of all those governmental agents in the previous administration who participated in the policy that created the alleged tortuous acts.  The petition’s import is in direct opposition to Obama and the Attorney General’s promise not to prosecute any CIA operatives that may have direct involvement in carrying out these acts, as described in graphic detail in the previously classified DOJ documents.  Obama and Eric Holder have promised those CIA participants taxpayer supported legal defense, because the perpetrators were acting on advice from the DOJ, or, just carrying out orders from higher-ups.  The Nuremburg trials, immediately following WWII, featured prosecutions of Nazi’s, “Just following orders.”

One of the most compelling aspects of Obama’s campaign was his representation that among the “change” he would bring about was his vow to restore America’s moral authority in such matters. As he positioned himself against unjust prosecution of a misguided war, he promised transparency in his leadership in direct contradiction to Hillary and later McCain.  On Wednesday night, progressive stalwart, Keith Olberman of MSNBC, vehemently editorialized on Obama’s decision in this area and unequivocally stated, “Mr. President, you are wrong!”  Ooops!  Up jumped the first “family feud” in the Obama bunkhouse.  Among the graying and balding heads of Obama progressives are veterans of “real grass movement” protests from the 60′s.  Millions of these folks were on the front lines on behalf of civil rights and anti-war (Vietnam) conflagrations that occurred throughout the Republic with intensity and, on many occasions, with ferocity.  It is important to remember that Obama was born in 1961, therefore his memory of these cataclysmic struggles are not indelibly etched in his memory tapes.

At the present moment, Obama has opened a significant rift with conservatives that are outraged at his approved revelation of the previously top secret classified memos, and the bedrock of his political support, by saying he was turning a blind eye toward the perpetrators of these deeds.  Deeds, which are specifically prohibited by international treaties, of which our country is signator.  The president’s position is on a collision course.  The potential problems of this controversy are not inherited like the economic hand of cards he walked into upon his election.  Obama has chosen this present course entirely of his own volition.

In my judgment, President Obama is about to get a “real education” in presidential decision making and “grass roots movements.”

Kelly

The ever anticipated April 15th has arrived.  It’s tax day.  It’s tea party day.  The debate between which political party or grassroots movement gave way to the idea of tea party protests continues to rage. Was it the Ron Paul supporters, the Liberatarian Party, or the Republican Party dipped in radicalization?  Is it too little to late for such a protest, or is this a gimmick that will end up as muchadoaboutnothing?   The left is apparently still confused, it seems the liberals enjoy the taxing and spending that has helped this country arrive at where it is today.  Who can blame them,  seeing as Fox News has jumped into the tea party pool?   If  Sean Hannity is participating, then Rachel Maddow instinctively knows she must take the opposite approach.

A Gallop poll released yesterday, quite cleverly I might add, insists that 6 in 10 people feel they are fairly taxed.  Andrew Cline of The American Spectator justifiably points out the absurdity of fair taxation in his article claiming It’s Way Past Tea Party Time.

What so many Americans are calling “fair” is often between 20 percent and 45 percent of their income — not including taxes on capital gains, interest and other incidentals. President Obama wants to raise the highest federal bracket to 39 percent. If that happens, Americans earning more than about $373,000 a year will give to government roughly 50 percent of all they earn. In states such as New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and California, where such an income is not all that unusual for a dual-income couple, that already happens when all taxes are accounted for.

How did it become “fair” for an American family to give to government a third of its income? How did it become “fair” for an American family to give to government half of its income?

At Campaign for Liberty, Anthony Gregory writes,

It is notable how little concern there is for the oppressed taxpayer coming from the progressives, the liberals, and the left. Although they might complain about poor priorities and busted budgets, few of them attack the institution of income taxation for what it is: violent exploitation of the worker by the most monopolistic, immense and predatory corporation to be found, the national government.

This of course goes for all the payroll taxes, not just the income tax. It should be obvious by now that Social Security is not an investment, and no more voluntary than the income tax.

The hardship of taxation is most clear to the worker on tax day, when the proletariat must consummate their economic enslavement over the previous year with an intimidating and self-deprecating ritual of paperwork. It is akin to adding homework to injury. Having paid rent on their lives to the corporate state, a large fraction of which payment has financed slaughter, persecution and further oppression of workers, the tax serfs must prove to the state to its satisfaction that the right amount has been extracted from them. If they fail, they go to jail.

Unfortunately, we will likely not hear these types of coherent arguments from the mainstream media later today as the talking heads scramble about to exploit the tea party rally-goers.  Instead, those on the talking picture box will continue to childishly talk of “teabagging.”  (sigh)

* FYI,  just in case you do not have your tea party slogan picked out yet, LukeAmerica2020 is offering 223 slogans to choose from.  I think I’ll stick with Don’t Tread on Me.

Kelly

Whose fault is it when a man shoots another man? Or in the case of Richard Poplawski, whose fault is it that he shot and killed three Pittsburgh police officers? Do we blame the actions of Richard Poplawski for the deaths of these officers, or are we going to put the right-wing propaganda machine and so-called conspiracy theories on trial?  Because, by the tone and accusations thrown about by the liberal blogosphere, it seems that the latter is more-so the case.

In article after article, Richard Paplawski is labeled  as a conspiracy nut, an avid Fox News absorber, and a tin foil hat wearing, Alex Jones following young man who apparently let the crazy out of the bag.  And according to David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars, the media ought to be embarrassed for the important role they play in “whipping up the far-right crazies out there.”  Neiwert goes on to say that,

Because not only did Richard Poplawski avidly participate in white-supremacist online forums and right-wing conspiracy-theory sites, he also avidly consumed mainstream conservative media, particularly Fox.

I am reading this correctly?  To paraphrase, not only did Poplawski engage in white-supremacist online forums, because that is bad enough, but to top in off, Poplawski couldn’t get enough of conservative media, mainly the Fox News machine.  Now, I’m not interested in the least bit to defend any white-supremacist group or forum.  I do not support their whacked out ideas or their very blatant racism, however I do support their inherent right to the freedom of speech.  I am not aware of any online forum that coerces people to join, which leads me to understand that Poplawski likely sought out the forum based on his own beliefs.  Fox News, on the other hand, no one can escape them, right?

Laughable, nonetheless, and yet Media Matters has attempted to seriously postulate to its readers that Alex Jones’ appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch is just the sort of hyperbolic act that people like Poplawski will use as a launch pad for violence and death.  Eric Boehlert writes,

Jones also noted with excitement that Fox News’ Glenn Beck had recently begun warning about the looming New World Order on his show, just like Jones had for years. “It is great!” cheered the conspiracist. (Like Jones, Beck recently warned viewers that “the Second Amendment is under fire.”) Concluding the interview, Fox News’ Napolitano announced “it’s absolutely been a pleasure” listening to Jones’ insights.

We don’t know if Poplawski tuned in to watch Jones’ star turn for Fox News last month. But is there any doubt that Fox News is playing an increasingly erratic and dangerous game by embracing the type of paranoid insurrection rhetoric that people like Poplawski are now acting on? By stoking dark fears about the ominous ruins that await an Obama America, by ratcheting up irresponsible back-to-the-wall scenarios, Fox News has waded into a territory that no other news organization has ever dared to exploit.

Well, yes, I would say there is plenty of doubt that “people like Poplawski” are becoming cop-killers as a result of too much Fox News programming, Alex Jones or not.  And interestingly, that type of accusation is much akin the “Marilyn Manson caused Columbine” ridiculousness that typically comes out of the mouths of the right wing nuts to begin with.

But, most important is what is truly at stake here.  And what’s very telling is that since the right wing lost its mojo when George W exited the stage, they have found a way to leech on to the momentum of the liberty movement, while distorting it the way only the spin masters of Fox can do.  And while the lefties want to feel secure in their Obama win, they do not, and as they too feel threatened by liberty and tea parties, they have in turn exploited themselves and their enemies at Fox.

Rest assured, and to use the term so well coined by Alex Jones, the “left/right paradigm” is not only unraveling, but exposing itself more now than ever.

Kelly

Glenn Beck has done a fine job of turning a so-called conspiracy theory into a cable news soap opera.  Beck first appeared on Fox and Friends about 4 weeks ago a bit distressed and seemingly certain that FEMA concentration-like camps existed.  At that time he claimed that as much as he wanted to be able to debunk said camps, he could not.  Then, just hours after his appearance on Fox and Friends, his plan to go ahead with the story on FEMA concentration camps came to a halt as Beck decided that something so large and full of implications had to be further investigated before he could report on it.

The debunking job was given to Popular Mechanics and 4 weeks later, here is their report-

Kelly

Yesterday’s installment of Freedom Watch included trends forecaster Gerald Celente, John Stossel, free market economists Tom Woods and Peter Schiff, and as always Ron Paul.  Also, Judge Napolitano talks to Steve Bierfeldt of Campaign for Liberty regarding his detainment by the  St. Louis Airport.