The 'Ethics' of the Washington Torture Crowd

Today's online edition of the Wall Street Journal features an editorial piece titled "Presidential Poison." According to the WSJ's op-ed, the Washington torture gang that was responsible for the vile, diabolical water boarding acts in Iraq -- yes, those who were under former Dictator George W. Bush -- should get a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free" card because what they had done in the last eight years was ethical. After all, these federal thugs were just "acting in good faith," according to the neocon brown-nosing sycophants at the WSJ.

The editors of the WSJ penned the following passage in the piece, which should give more than enough reason of raising eyebrows to anyone who reads it:

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting [the Bush administration] for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

It gets worse. The news organization tries to justify President Obama's precedessor's actions with these last three paragraphs:

Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame.

Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years. As patriotic officials who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared, impeached from judgeships or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan anger and backlash will grow. And speaking of which, when will the GOP Members of Congress begin to denounce this partisan scapegoating? Senior Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts and Arlen Specter have hardly been profiles in courage.

Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies, due in part to his personal charm and his seeming goodwill. By indulging his party's desire to criminalize policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his Presidency.

In other words, the previous administration's actions were not only legal; they were also ethical. What the WSJ is really saying is this: "Then-President Bush and his administration's actions with respect to their practices of torture (i.e. water boarding) were moral and ethical, and they were necessary to prevent further attacks against American citizens in the U.S. Any attempt to undo the previous administration's decisions will put us in the cross hairs of the terrorists!"

Moreover, those who were critical of Bush's foreign and rendition policies, as the neocons want us to believe, are wrong and off-base to do so because the torture crowd was either giving the orders to have the "enemy combatants" (formerly called "prisoners of war") to be tortured or following them. That kind of attitude expressed by the pro-torture Wall Street crowd is just as bad as a Nazi soldier killing Jews with his guns or putting them in the ovens and then saying, "We were just doing our jobs!"

As LewRockwell.com blogger Christopher Manion correctly put it, the sad truth is that most politicians who "serve in office" or "represent the people" are basically legal criminals who legally steal from us and use the threat of violence in order to get what they want. They can easily punish their enemies and reward their allies in order to justify their lust for power and insulate themselves from any legal consequences, effectively making them above the law.

Partisanship does not and should not have a license to be reduced to a "policy dispute." It just simply means that some criminals legally decide on partisan politics as a career. Besides, the Democrats, according to the Journal, may be implicated as well. It's even suggested that investigations of any wrongdoing by both parties shouldn't be considered at all. If they are, as the statists say, they should be dismissed. It's an insult to the American people that both parties should not be probed even if they are tied to a crime.

And the Washington establishment says "ethics" matter in politics. How pathetic these people truly are!

[Hat tip to Chris Manion at the LRC blog.]

[Cross-posted at the Freeman Chronicles blog.]

Limousine Leftist Hollywood Actress/Comedienne Janeane Garofalo Calls Tea Party Protestors 'Racists'

Limousine leftist Hollywood nitwit Janeane Garofalo, who's also a third-rate actress and comedienne, appeared on limo lefty Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC on Thursday, April 16. The topic of discussion on the show was about the growing populist-laced Tea Party rallies that have been springing up as a grassroots movement all over the country. When asked about the groups, Garofalo attacks the Tea Parties with libels and smears by calling the protestors "a bunch of racists" and "a bunch of teabagging rednecks."

Here's a transcript of what this statist airhead said to Olbermann who did nothing to stop her idiotic rant:

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Well, the teabagging is all over, except for the cleanup. And that will be my last intentional double entendre on this one at least until the end of this segment. Our number two story tonight, the sad reality behind the corporate sponsored Tea Parties, visual proof that this is not about spending, deficits, or taxes, but about some Americans getting riled up by the people who caused these things, and finally about some Americans who just hate the president of the United States. According to both the conservative organs, the New York Post and the Washington Times, see there was another double entendre coming, the protests only drew tens of thousands nationwide, despite relentless 24/7 promotion on Fox News, including live telecasts from several locations. Like Fox's Neil Cavuto caught yesterday off-air estimating his crowd in California's capitol at 5,000, then on air claiming it might have been 10,000 or 15,000. Despite Cavuto's live show with radio talker Michael Reagan there, Sacramento police put the crowd at just over 5,000. "I wouldn't say it was among the largest we've seen here, but 5,000 is pretty large for the west steps."

And then there were the protest messages, seething with hate. Cavuto calling that hate bipartisan. "They hate Republicans who waste money, they hate Democrats who waste money." That claim put to the test in Pensacola when an unemployed blogger named Jeff accepted an invitation to speak to Florida.

BLOGGER JEFF: I want to start off by honoring the service of our veterans, our current service members, thank you so much for all you've done for this country. I also want to say, a little history lesson here. Back in 2000, there was a bunch of surplus in the country. And then the next ten years, it was just destroyed by the profligate spending by the Bush administration. Here we are today in a situation where we have to...Cheer if you make less than $250,000 in a year. Just cheer. Your taxes are going to be cut under the current budget. Congratulations. I was laid off in September because my employer had to make budget cuts. That was before the election. Let's remember if you're going to argue about more taxes and less spending, to place the blame where the blame belongs and that's squarely in the hands of the Republican congress and...

CROWD: Boo!

OLBERMANN: Congratulations, Pensacola teabaggers. You got spunked. And despite the hatred on display, a few of you actually violated the penal code. But teabagging is now petered out, taint what it used to be. And when you co-opt the next holiday, Fourth of July, try to adopt a holiday food that does not invite the double entendres like, you know, franks and beans. On a more serious note, we're now joined by actor, activist Janeane Garofalo. Good to see you.

JANEANE GAROFALO: Thank you. You know, there's nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite certain what he's saying. It sounds right and then it doesn't make sense. Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don't know, because their limbic brain, we've discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it's pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?

OLBERMANN: Russ.

GAROFALO: Because Bernie might not have heard this when I said this the first time. So, Bernie, this is for you. It is a neurological problem we're dealing with.

OLBERMAN: Well, what do we do about it, though? I mean, our friend in Pensacola there who played them like a $3 fiddle and led them right down the garden path with nothing but facts and then they went, wait a minute, that doesn't sound like Rush Limbaugh. If you can't get them to make that last leap to what are we all doing here, Howard Johnson is wrong, how do you break through that?

GAROFALO: I don't think you do, for most of them. This is a -- it's almost pathological or elevated to a philosophy or lifestyle. And again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House. But they immigrant bash, they pretend taxes and tea bags, and like I said, most of them probably couldn't tell you thing one about taxation without representation, the Boston tea party, the British imperialism, whatever the history lesson has to be. But these people, all white for the most part, unless there's some people with Stockholm syndrome there.

OLBERMANN: And, I didn't see them, the fact that they weren't near the cameras which is bad strategy on the part of the people that were staging this at Fox.

GAROFALO: True, and Fox News loves to foment this anti-intellectualism because that's their bread and butter. If you have a cerebral electorate, Fox news goes down the toilet, very, very fast. But it is sick and sad to see Neil Cavuto doing that. They've been doing it for years, that's why Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch started this venture, is to disinform and to coarsen and dumb down a certain segment of the electorate. But what is really, I didn't know there were so many racists left. I didn't know that. I -- you know, because as I've said, the Republican hype and the conservative movement has now crystallized into the white power movement.

OLBERMANN: Is that not a bad, long-term political strategy because even though your point is terrifying that there are that many racists left, the flip side of it is there aren't that many racists left.

GAROFALO: They're the minority, but literally tens of people showed up to this thing across the country.

OLBERMANN: But if you spear your television network or your political party towards a bunch of guys looking who are just looking for a reason to yell at the black president, eventually you will marginalize yourself out of business, won't you?

GAROFALO: Here's what the right-wing has in, there's no shortage of the natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate, fear. As long as those things are in the collective conscious and unconscious, the Republicans will have some votes. Fox News will have some viewers. But what else have they got? If they didn't do that, who is going to watch -- you know what I mean? They have tackled that elusive clam -- you know, the clam, the 18 to 35 clam -- klan. Klan. With a k demo. But, you know, who else is Fox talking to? I mean, what is it urban older white guys? And the girlfriend, and, you know, the women who suffer from Stockholm syndrome gain. There's a lot of Stockholm syndrome, is what I'm saying ultimately. What else do you want to know?

OLBERMANN: What happens if somebody who's at one of these things hurt somebody?

GAROFALO: That is an unfortunate byproduct since the dawn of time of a volatile group like this of the limbic brain. Violence unfortunately may or may not ensue. It always, it's like a, the Republican Party now depends upon immigrant bashing and hating the black guy in the White House. Will people act on that? It's not new. But, you know, Fox doesn't mind fomenting it. Michelle Bachmann doesn't mine fomenting it. Glenn Beck doesn't mind fomenting it.

OLBERMANN: Lou Dobbs.

GAROFALO: Lou Dobbs. Oh, man he sure doesn't mind. But this is, this their, what have they got if they don't have this? You know what I mean? It's like an identity politics of the worst kind.

OLBERMANN: They'd have peace in our time.

GAROFALO: Is Bernie still listening?

OLBERMANN: Bernie doesn't listen. Bernie listened for about two minutes last week. And that was it.

GAROFALO: Oh, he doesn't watch your show?

OLBERMANN: No, no, no, no, no, I mean in general that was his year's contribution to the actual political

GAROFALO: So I can move up the rung from five to at least three.

OLBERMANN: Janeane Garofalo, number five, comedian, actress, political activist, and the expert on the limbic brain, great thanks as always.

GAROFALO: Very much thanks to you.

Did you get that, Tea Partyers? You guys, according to limo liberal Garofalo, are "a bunch of teabagging rednecks" and "a bunch of racists." She pretty much said that this new grassroots movement "is a neurological problem [we Democrats are] dealing with." In other words, those who speak out against Obama are not only "racists" and "rednecks," but also they're "mentally ill."

Wow. So this is what America has become, huh? What a sad sight to see.

Here's the video of Garofalo ranting about the "problem" with Olbermann:



[Cross-posted at The Freeman Chronicles.]

Joe 'The Plumber' Wurzelbacher Supports the Fair Tax and the Welfare State

Conservatoid nimrod Joe Wurzelbacher, the plumber and wanna-be entrepreneur from Holland, Ohio who gained fame for his opposition to President Obama's "spread-the-wealth" plan that he touted on the final leg of Election 2008, appeared on Sean Hannity's show Hannity on Fox News to not only bring support for a Tea Party rally in Atlanta, Georgia on April 15, 2009 (a.k.a. Tax Day), but to urge Americans to support the Fair Tax. He calls upon Americans to "become their own lobbyists. Actually become their own lobbyists. Don't listen to the Washington guys. Become their own lobbyists. Vote the IRS out, vote the Fair Tax in." As soon as he gave that, a huge cry of anti-Federal Income Tax protestors at the Tea Party rally could be heard, screaming, "Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax!" Hannity then, in a smug fashion, says, "You know why I call it Boortz Land" (in reference to "libertarian" Atlanta talk radio show host Neal Boortz).

Of course, Hannity and Wurzelbacher switch the discussion from the Fair Tax to their disgust with the Obama administration's "downplaying" of the War on Terror by calling it "an overseas contingent operation." Hannity asks Wurzelbacher:

HANNITY: This is amazing. But they — if you have a pro-life bumper sticker on your car, if you have an "America is overtaxed" bumper sticker, if you have a pro-Second Amendment bumper sticker, they're viewing you potentially as a radical.

My question...

(BOOS)

My question is, if those are right-wing radicals, does that mean that somebody that starts their political career in Bill Ayers' house and hangs out with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years...

(CHEERS)

What does that make them?

WURZELBACHER: I'll tell you what, let me ask you one more question. Am I an extremist for saying, "in God we trust"?

HANNITY: No.

(CHEERS)

And by the way, and I said God bless America.

And by the way, we might want to steal a phrase from Jeremiah Wright.

President Obama, there's 15,000 to 20,000 people here. You know what, if I was Jeremiah Wright, I'd probably say, America's voters have come home to roost.

It doesn't help that there's a Tea Party anti-tax protestor who's holding up a sign while Wurzelbacher's speaking to Hannity that reads:

2 Steps to Save the USA: Fair Tax and Term Limits

While it sounds great in theory that term limits will "save the USA" by limiting the length of time served by a congressional Republican or Democrat in office, it will not accomplish that any more than slapping a carbon tax on CO2 levels will save the Earth from Global Warming. Term limits will not stop the corruption in the Congress and the Senate, considering new blood replacing the term-limited old blood can be just as corrupt as well. Term limits will not allow congressman and senators to abide by the Constitution. After all, we have term limits on the Presidency, and the Office of the Presidency has violated the founding document countless numbers of times. Why should we expect anything to be different when a new term-limited Congress convenes?

As for the Fair Tax, it will not be any fairer than the Federal Income Tax imposed upon us by the dreaded IRS. The Fair Tax, which promises to do away with the FIT and replace it with the FT, is alleged to be a 23 percent rate on the sales of all goods in the U.S. ($23 on every $100 spent in total, even though its calculation is similar to income taxes). However, the actual rate would be 30 percent on the sales of all goods in the U.S. (meaning $30 on every $77 spent before taxes).

Plus, the bad part about this tax scheme is that it creates a new bureaucracy, which would oversee the imposition of the tax at the federal level. Proponents of the tax say that the new tax would just be done at the state level rather than at the federal level, but that's just political sophistry. Even the FT opponents know this, countering that compliance would not be carried out by the individual, and that massive tax evasion could result. While the first part of their claim would most likely happen, the last part of the opponent's argument is speculative. It implies that the current system is better than the alternative. In actuality, the new tax could bring about a new underground economy, as many other opponents observe, because intermediate goods and services are factors of production and can be exempt and are not final sales on the purchases.

Moreover, another reason to oppose the Fair Tax is the fact that the proposed legislation favors a welfare state approach. It can issue checks to the Fair Taxpayers in advance, acting as welfare handouts to them in the process. Family households under the new system would receive what would be prominently known as a "Family Consumption Allowance" -- a tax rebate (or "prebate") -- that would easily be used as welfare cash handouts to families in advance for twelve months. A new welfare state can be easily generated because of this. Is this what the conservatives have in mind when they say that they are "anti-tax"? Shouldn't they just drop the "anti-tax" moniker and just say that they are "anti-Federal Income Tax" but pro-tax on other areas, including inflation and the Fair Tax?

And with this system in place, how would it be "fair" to everyone involved? I thought conservatives were against creating welfare classes. But of course not! They're only against welfare if it doesn't serve their interests and doesn't profit from it. How "pro-American" and "pro-liberty" all of that is!

And, as for the final part of the anti-Fair Tax argument, does anyone really believe that the conservatives, including Boortz and Hannity, will really push for the elimination of the Federal Income Tax and replace it with this new tax? This legislation can easily be amended to keep the original tax and tack on the new tax to go with it. That would mean that the IRS would still be in business, and Americans would be getting their federal income tax refund checks and begin to receive their new monthly "prebate" checks as well.

It should be of no surprise that conservatives like Wurzelbacher, who is also pro-Iraq War, pro-Israeli government, and pro-Fair Tax, is also pro-welfare state. Like Hannity, he also supports the warfare state as well. That's another part of the welfare state that conservatives love so much because they benefit from it.

Isn't it time for them to stop saying that they are for liberty and are for government, conservative-style? But then again, isn't this what you would expect from the old, tired Republican siren song that continues to be played every time they lose the White House and both Houses of the Congress?

Here's the video of Wurzelbacher and Hannity at the Tea Party "anti-tax" rally in Atlanta, Georgia:



[Cross-posted at The Freeman Chronicles.]

Ron Paul's Fantastic Interview with Ivan Eland on Recarving Rushmore

Ron Paul interviewed former CATO Institute Director of Defense Policy Studies and current Independent Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty Ivan Eland on his newest book Mounting Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, which can be purchased here, here, here, and here.

The following entire six-part YouTube videos are a treat. Enjoy them!

Part I


Part II


Part III


Part IV


Part V


Part VI


[Cross-posted at the Freeman Chronicles.]

WKBK's Pro-Statist Talkback and Its Censorship Practices

Keene, New Hampshire's very own pro-statist Talkback, a political talk radio show hosted by Cynthia Georgina and Paula Phillips on its local radio station WKBK, is now engaging in randomly systematic censorship practices against Free Staters who frequently call into the program to offer anti-state, pro-liberty viewpoints against the political establishment in the town. Georgina, who is a statist serving in the Keene City Council, has espoused her political annoyance with the pro-liberty activists who call in repeatedly because, according to Cynthia:

CYNTHIA GEORGINA: We get caller after caller after caller calling in and saying, 'You're stealing homes, you're stealing homes.' That's not what it is. We are following the law. And that's not stealing homes. And that's where the problem lies.

Not only that, a number of statist callers phoned into the show, complaining about the Free Staters calling into the show for expressing their anti-state views, including one female caller who has once called into the show before and, on today's show, says once again that Ian Freeman and Mark Edge of Free Talk Live should only talk about their views on their show and stay off of Talkback's airwaves.

Georgina and Phillips, who have agreed with these statist callers that the Free Staters should not be allowed on the show's airwaves, allowed me on the air while I was waiting to go on for a few minutes. While I tried to complain about the statist clods who were defaming my fellow liberty activists in the Keene area, Phillips changed the subject about Obama's stimulus package for Michigan, considering I mentioned my name and my home state to the two of them. I didn't want to get into Michigan's economic woes (considering that's not why I called), but I played along wondering where they were going with this.

Basically, I said that Governor Jennifer Granholm (my governor, yes!) was responsible for destroying the state due to excessive taxation, regulations, overspending, and other pro-state machinations. They tried to make it sound like I was favoring companies getting away with not being regulated (although the fact is, they are regulated), and I was merely ignoring her questions because they were off-topic. As I tried to get back on topic about the other callers, Phillips, as the liar she is, claimed, "That's the caller's opinion, not my opinion!" Yet she and Cynthia agreed with the callers who had a beef with us about our calls into the show.

Anyway, here's a widget of the callers and me calling into the show:

The Statist Caller...

[Cross-posted at The Freeman Chronicles.]

Penn Jillette on Larry King Live: "I Think The President Should Have Much Less Power..."

Libertarian magician/TV personality Penn Jillette was on Larry King Live last night, with leftist talk radio show host Stephanie Miller, leftist Clintonite James Carville, and conservative and former RNC advisor Terry Holt, in which he points out that Obama "should have much less power." Collectivistic liberal Miller rebutts his argument by saying:

STEPHANIE MILLER: Penn, we got to have, you know, help around the world with the War on Terror. I mean, I know, after the Bush administration, it's kind of a low bar for an overseas trip [to London for the G20 Summit]. Uh, as long as, you know, he didn't throw up on someone, uh, chew with his mouth open, or give someone, uh, an unnecessary back rub, I guess we're happy. But, I do think his popularity around the world is really going to help us. You know, I mean, he said something starting for an American president. He said, "I'm gonna listen ... I'm here to listen and not just talk." And I think, I think that's really important.

Jillette responded with the following:

PENN JILLETTE: I was just going to say Bush didn't say the opposite. I mean, it's not, uh, that's not a very profound to thing to just say that you're going to listen. I mean, yes, people like him more. He's better looking, he's a better speaker, and I guess that's okay. But the whole country rallying behind somebody is always a bad idea.

And the following exchange between Miller and Jillette occured, especially given her smug remarks:

MILLER: Listen, Penn, the only people that are in bad shape after George Bush is gone are the people in the effigy business, because he was burned in effigy more times when he went on overseas trips...

JILLETTE: You can't, you can't, you can't I pretend I'm pushing for Bush. I'm not. I'm just saying the President shouldn't have that much power.

Right on, Penn! That statist scumbag Miller, whose demeanor on the show is atypical of a limousine leftist, thinks that the American people shouldn't be exercising individualism whatsoever. And not only that, she claims that we must "have help around the world with the War on Terror." But wait a second! Aren't Democrats for civil liberties? Aren't they for ending the War in Iraq? Aren't they against the War on Terror?

The answers to those questions are no, no, and no. It certainly proves that the Democrats were never against the War in Iraq; they were against Bush's handling of the war, because, had they had the White House for eight years after the attacks of 9/11, they would have launched their own invasion and occupation of Iraq. It proves that they are not for civil liberties, as they are not for releasing the inmates of Guantanamo Bay into civilian custody, even though Obama allegedly ordered an end of the detention center. It also proves that they are not for ending the war in Iraq, despite the fact that Obama claims that military operations will "cease" in Iraq on August 31, 2010.

The fact that Miller takes a hostile position against Jillette shows the Left's hypocritical nature and its vile, repugnant ways.

King himself arrogantly says, "You can be individualistic as much as you like. Someone's gotta think for the masses." Excuse me? Someone's "gotta think for the masses"? This sheeple mentality is indicative of the statist mind, including the limousine leftists like King, Miller, and Carville.

Can someone please remind these clowns that America was founded on the ideals of individual liberty, personality responsiblity, and limited government, not collectivism of the tyrannical kind, protection from personal responsibility, and limitless, out-of-control government?

Watch the video of the chat if you dare:



[Cross-posted at the Freeman Chronicles.]

Update: I was told by a fellow libertarian (a big LRC'er) that the conservative guest Terry Holt under Penn Jillette "was also okay but not as forceful." He also said that Holt was "more of a conservative" and had embraced "too many of the democrat premises and terms." For once, he's right. The conservative clown seemed to be more in agreement with Carville and Miller than with Jillette, although he did side with Jillette by saying that the government creates a system of "winners and losers" via the tax system. But, as a typical right-winger, he refuses to call for ending the state's control over the individual, especially by ending the federal income tax and other vile, diabolical government machinations.