Saturday, May 28, 2011

RON PAUL "ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN"

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com
5/27/11


Ron Paul (R) stands virtually alone against our growing militarism and amongst other abominations against the US Constitution.  It seems as of late our Constitution means nothing to those in power and equally nothing to those without it - a default cabal of apathy, ignorance, and contempt suffocates any hope for reform or restoration.  It is exhausting to look at the news on a daily basis.  Our culture of liberty is on life support, it is no wonder why we find ourselves in such dire straights.  In an instant we could launch ourselves out this tyrannical trap, grow ourselves out of debt and break the chains of history; the same history all nations before us have fallen into, however, the path we find ourselves on looks so very similar and the finality so inevitable.  One must ask: is America better than history?


Ron Paul in his own words...



This post is uncharacteristically cynical, we apologize...

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Jose Guerena Killed: Arizona Cops Shoot Former Marine In Botched Pot Raid

Radly Balko
Huffington Post
5/25/11

Jose Guerena

On May 5 at around 9:30 a.m., several teams of Pima County, Ariz., police officers from at least four different police agencies armed with SWAT gear and an armored personnel carrier raided at least four homes as part of what at the time was described as an investigation into alleged marijuana trafficking. One of those homes belonged to 26-year-old Jose Guerena and his wife, Vanessa Guerena. The couple's 4-year-old son was also in the house at the time. Their 6-year-old son was at school.
As the SWAT team forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the officers entered, Guerena confronted them from the far end of a long, dark hallway. The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena. He was pronounced dead a little over an hour later.
The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.
I can now report a number of new details that further call into question the police account of what happened that morning. But first some context:
The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department's account of what happened, and the department's ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they're now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won't be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.
Pima County Sheriff (D) Clarence Dupnik
The department's excuses for keeping all of this information under wraps make little sense. In his May 18 press release (PDF), for example, Ogan wrote, "The investigation that lead to the service of the search warrants on May 5 is a complicated one involving multiple people suspected of very serious crimes. Sometimes, law enforcement agencies must choose between the desire of the public to quickly know details, and the very real threat to innocent lives if those details are released prematurely." Dupnik used the same line of reasoning with Brodesky. "Those are the real sensitive parts of why we are having difficulty with trying to put information out publicly--because we don't want somebody getting killed," Dupnik said.
The problem with that explanation is that the search warrants and affidavits weren't sealed until four days after the raids were executed, right at about the time the troubling questions about Jose Guerena's death began to make national headlines. If revealing the details of this investigation -- which remember, was initially described by the Sheriff's Department as a marijuana investigation -- could endanger lives, why weren't the warrants and affidavits sealed from the start? It isn't difficult to understand why some would suspect a cover-up, or at least an attempt to suppress details until the department can come up with a narrative that mitigates the damage. In any case, it's awfully audacious for a police agency to scold the media for not trusting them and for "spreading misinformation" just days after revealing they themselves released bad information.

There are other reasons to doubt the excuse that releasing the search warrants would jeopardize public safety. The raids on the other homes carried out that same morning, all part of the same operation, resulted in no arrests and turned up little if any actual contraband. (When police find illegal substances after these raids -- especially raids that end badly -- they usually quickly release that information.)
Moreover, if this was all about breaking up a dangerous home invasion ring, where are the suspects, and where is the evidence? According to an advocate for the Guerena family I spoke with this week, the police also mistakenly raided another home near Guerena's the same morning, and have since replaced that home's front door. Again, the Pima County Sheriff's Department is refusing comment, so I can't verify this allegation with them. But police officials have admitted that even the Guerena warrant was only for his residence, not for Jose Guerena personally; his name doesn't appear anywhere on the warrants. The police also concede they weren't aware that there was a child in the home at the time of the raid. Given all of this, it seems reasonable to question just how thorough this investigation really was.
I've been reporting on the overuse of SWAT teams and military police tactics for about six years now. You begin to see patterns in how police agencies respond to high-profile incidents like this one. One near-universal tactic is to lock down information once the media begins to grow skeptical. Another, often undertaken simultaneously, is to unofficially leak information that's beneficial to the police department. They're doing both in Tucson.
Michael Storie, the attorney for the Arizona police union, is apparently handling the smear campaign portion of the strategy. Storie points out on the union's website that under his watch, no union police officer "has ever been convicted on charges relating to on-duty conduct." That may be a boastworthy claim when it comes to Storie's lawyering prowess. But it isn't exactly a testament to his trustworthiness. (Police critic William Grigg also points out that the boast isn't entirely true -- Storie represented a cop convicted of a sexual assault and kidnapping committed in 2005, despite Storie's best efforts to blame the victims.)
On Friday, Storie told the Arizona Daily Star that Guerena was "linked" to a "home-invasion crew," and that police found rifles, handguns, body armor, and a "portion of a law-enforcement uniform" in Guerena's house. "Everything they think they're going to find in there, they find," Storie said. "Put it together, and when you have drug rip-offs that occasionally happen where people disguise themselves as law enforcement officers, it all adds up."
I asked Chris Scileppi, the attorney representing Guerena's family, about the "portion of a law enforcement uniform" allegation. "They're trying to imply that he was dressing up as a police officer to force his way into private homes," Scileppi says. But when police serve a search warrant they leave behind a receipt what they've taken from the residence. According to Scileppi, the only item taken from Gurena's home that remotely fits that description was a U.S. Border Control cap -- which you can buy from any number of retail outlets, including Amazon.com.
About the guns and body armor Scileppi says, "Is it really that difficult to believe that a former Marine living in Arizona would have guns and body armor in his home? Nothing they found in the house is illegal to own in Arizona." In fact, Storie himself acknowledged in the Daily Star that had the SWAT team entered Guerena's home peacefully, they wouldn't have made an arrest.
And when you "put it together," to borrow his own terminology, Storie's comments thus far lead to a pretty astonishing conclusion: After violently breaking into Guerena's home, the police found exactly the evidence they were looking for -- yet none of that evidence merited an arrest. Storie is either shamelessly posturing, or he actually believes that the police are justified in violently forcing their way into a private home with their guns drawn, even if they have no expectation that they'll find any evidence of a crime.
At his press conference last week, Storie also defended the SWAT team's refusal to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour. "They still don't know how many shooters are inside, how many guns are inside and they still have to assume that they will be ambushed if they walk in this house," Storie said.
This is absurd. The entire purpose of using SWAT teams, dynamic entry, and like paramilitary-style police tactics is to subdue dangerous suspects and secure the building within seconds. If it took more than an hour to secure the Guerenas' small home, this particular SWAT team was incompetent. By contrast, paramedics were tending to the wounded after the Jared Loughner shootings within 12 minutes, and that was a far more volatile crime scene.
Storie has offered up a number of other questionable allegations and explanations in recent days.
Last week, for example, Storie told the Daily Star that the investigation leading up to the raids was from the start about home invasions and "drug rip-offs" -- not just marijuana distribution, as the Sheriff's Department initially indicated. Storie also says the police vehicles ran their lights and sirens until they were parked in the Guerenas' driveway, and that a police officer knocked on the door and announced himself for a full 45 seconds before the SWAT team forced its way inside. He emphasized that the raid was "in no way" a "no-knock" operation.
Storie is laying groundwork for the argument that Guerena should have known that the men breaking into his home were police. That he still met them with his rifle meant he was intent on killing them, which of course would justify their rash of gunfire. For good measure, Storie added that just before they opened fire, several officers reported hearing Guerena say, "I've got something for you; I've gotten something for you guys."
There are a number of problems here, beginning with the lights, the sirens, and the knocking. If these warrants were, as Storie claims, for suspected dangerous, well-armed members of a home invasion ring, why would they give a violent suspect such ample warning that they're coming? Why wouldn't the police have sought and obtained a no-knock warrant? This is precisely the scenario for which no-knock entry is warranted -- to apprehend suspected dangerous people who may present an immediate threat to police and the public.
This week I also spoke with Ray Epps, a retired Marine sergeant from Mesa, Arizona and president of the Arizona chapter of Oath Keepers, the controversial organization of police and military personnel who have vowed not to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional. After hearing about Guerena's death, Epps drove to Tucson to investigate.
"We spoke with several of the neighbors," Epps says. "And none of them -- none of them -- heard any sirens that morning. Every one of them told us they didn't hear anything, no knocking, no shouting, until the shooting started. They didn't hear anything until the shooting started." Scileppi, who is conducting his own investigation, wouldn't say if he had spoken to neighbors, but did say of the lights and sirens, "What we've found contradicts what they're saying." Epps added, "What I found disturbing is that none of the neighbors would give us their names. These people are terrified of the police, now. Another thing I found strange, they said the police didn't evacuate them until after the shooting."
If next-door neighbors didn't hear the sirens or police announcement at the door, it's plausible that Guerena, who was sleeping off the graveyard shift he'd worked the night before, didn't hear them either. Of course, the other possibility here is that the police are lying about the sirens and the announcement.
To buy what Storie is pitching, you would have to believe that Guerena -- the father of two young boys, who was working a night job to save money for a new home, who had no criminal record, who served two tours of duty in Iraq and was honorably discharged -- knowingly took on a team of armored, well-armed police officers, himself armed only with his rifle, and with his wife and young child still in the home. You'd also have to believe that the battle-tested former Marine forgot to turn off his weapon's safety before the shooting began.
The alternate explanation -- and I think the more plausible one -- is that Guerena thought the men breaking into his home were criminals, but held his fire until he was sure. (That's also the mark of someone well-trained in gun safety, and a stark contrast to the SWAT team, which despite never receiving hostile fire, unleashed a barrage of bullets that penetrated not only Jose Guerena but, according to sources I spoke with, also the walls of neighboring homes.)
If you're not actually a criminal and you wake up to the sound of armed men breaking into your home, your first thought isn't likely to be that you're being visited by the police. There may also have been something else on Guerena's mind: Last year, two of Vanessa Guerena's relatives were murdered by armed intruders. The intruders also shot the couple's children. What Guerena is alleged to have said -- "I've got something for you; I've gotten something for you guys" -- sounds damning if you assume he knew the men in his home were police, but there's nothing in that sentence indicating Guerena knew he was confronting cops. It also sounds like something a former soldier might shout out to intimidate armed intruders. And let's not forget, the same team of SWAT officers who reported hearing Guerena say those words also reported seeing a muzzle flash from Guerena's gun, which we now know couldn't have happened.
Storie also says police found a photo of Jesus Malverde in Guerena's home. Malverde is an iconic, probably mythical figure often described as the "narco saint". But as my former Reason magazine colleague Tim Cavanaugh points out, while it's true that Malverde has been embraced by drug traffickers, he is also revered by the poor, by immigrants, and by people who feel they've been wronged. "That Guerena had a picture of Jesus Malverde tells us two things," Cavanaugh writes. "He had a family to worry about and he shared the belief of most Americans that a supernatural being or beings can influence earthly circumstances."
When Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky asked Sheriff Dupnik if Storie's chats with the press about the details of the Guerena raid were hindering the investigation, Dupnik said, simply, "No." So while Dupnik's department is refusing to officially release any information about the raid or surrounding investigation due to "the real threat to innocent lives," he has no problem with the police union lawyer disclosing details that smear Guerena to the benefit of Dupnik and his department.
Perhaps we will at some point see convincing evidence that Dupnik and Storie are right -- that Jose Guerena was in fact a drug dealer and violent criminal who dressed up like a cop to rob rival drug dealers and innocent citizens of Pima County. But at this point, all we have is a dead father and veteran, a violent series of raids that make little sense, and a police agency that over the last three weeks has put out incorrect information, insisted that it would be dangerous to release any further information, and, at the same time, allowed a police representative to release information favorable to the department.
The government of Pima County has killed one of its own citizens. This is the most serious, solemn, and severe action a local government can undertake. It demands complete transparency. The Pima County Sheriff's Department and other agencies involved in the raid ought to be doing anything and everything to make themselves accountable. Instead, they've shown arrogance, defiance, and obstinacy -- all wrapped in an appeal to public safety.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

PAKISTAN UNDER ATTACK, CHINA COULD STEP IN

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com
5/22/11





"Militants" have just attacked a Pakistani naval air base in what the military and government call a "terrorist attack."  PNS Mehran is in the middle of Karachi, Pakistan's largest city and financial capital.  Apparently a group of 10 launched a surprise attack from 3 sides of the base with "small bombs" and "sophisticated weapons" successfully destroying a PC-3 maritime long range patrol craft recently delivered by the US government and killing two members of the Pakistani military.  


Story developing...


Pakistan has suffered 4,350 deaths over the past four years ostensibly due to Taliban attacks, however, threats have increased substantially since Operation Neptune's Spear (code name for the Osama Bin Laden raid) allegedly claimed the life of the Trillion Dollar Man, Osama Bin Laden.


Neptune's Spear has come under intense criticism on multiple fronts including the days of contradictory information following the raid, the violation of Pakistani sovereignty, the summary execution of the most important intelligence asset in the War on Terror, the quick disposal of OBL's body, the convenient treasure trove of incriminating and embarrassing information, but most importantly the timing and nature of the raid itself has raised questions of the US' real intentions


Today's attack would be of relatively little import given the history of attacks on Pakistan's government and military had the Sunday Express not reported Obama's defensive/antagonistic posture on May 15th:

“US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.”


While thousands of Pakistanis have protested the US-Pakistan War on Terror the US nonetheless maintains its "right" to defend itself against potential aggressors.  More specifically the protests emphasize the scores of attacks from unmanned drone aircraft and fluctuating support from the Pakistani military resulting in countless civilian deaths and exacerbation of the atrocious failed/police state that is Pakistan.  


Under what circumstances Obama is willing to deploy troops in order secure Pakistan's weapons of mass destruction remains to be seen, however, what we do know has been revealed in the recent Neptune's Spear operation.  The means is there, the will has been articulated, all that is left is the right opportunity - contrived or otherwise.


The stealth helicopter "ditched" in Abottobad during the raid has been vetted by expert aviation blogs all over the internet and its technologies have been corroborated to be at least more than possible given evidence from around the world.  The US has the now proven its stealthy ability to pierce far into Pakistani territory and execute major operations.  This operation outside of its official objective of killing OBL has effectively embarrassed the intelligence services of Pakistan as either complicit or negligent in allowing OBL to live right under their military's nose.  The mission resulted in top level resignations and if what I describe next is true Operation Neptune's Spear was alternatively about sending a signal to Pakistan that it was still under US supervision.  


The alternative narrative to what has been proffered by the Obama administration and the mainstream media begins with Prince Bandar's (remember "Bandar Bush") visit to Pakistan in March.  According to geopolitical experts and The Envoy the Saudi national security chief visited Pakistan in a possible effort to establish new alternative security arrangements given the lack of support the US offered Egypt in the ousting of Mubarak, in other words, bring Saudi Arabia under the Pakistani nuclear umbrella or acquire the nukes which the Saudi regime essentially underwrote.  This is very different than what was publicly speculated; that Saudi Arabia wanted Pakistani military support not only for Riyadh, but for other Sunni Gulf allies such as Bahrain.  


While both could be true the former is of prime interest here especially given the recent warnings by China 3 days ago that "warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China." 


Will the Obama administration or NATO for that matter continue their bellicosity in the face of Chinese intervention?  This recent attack is exactly what the Obama administration purports to fear - militants successfully commandeering a Pakistani military establishment and either launching or stealing nuclear material.  Will Obama test China's new emboldened position?  Does the support of China now flow through to Saudi Arabia via Pakistan?  What does this mean geopolitically?  


More of the same - global realignment.


UPDATE: 5/26/11


China asked to build naval base at Gwadar, Pakistan thereby extending the "String of Pearls."


From the Alex Jones show 5/24/11 with Dr. Webster Griffen Tarpley.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

The End of History

Editors Note:  Not to be confused with Purple Serf's "End of History for the Middle East?"


Free Radical
Zero Hedge
5/18/11


There is properly no history, only biography - Ralph Waldo Emerson










Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was famously proclaimed that what we were likely witnessing was

… not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such; that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.

In reality, however, what we are witnessing is the ideological exhaustion of “Western liberal democracy” and therefore the last gasp of the fraud upon which it rests: the state, even its best form.  No longer able to hide behind the Jeffersonian dream of constitutional freedom and order or the Lincolnian myth that the dream could be preserved at the expense of the principle upon which it was founded, the American state’s demise proves that “the final form of human government” has not yet arrived – not because a final form shouldn’t have arrived but because, for those who have had so much fun during historical times, the aftermath won’t be any fun.  On the contrary, it will be “a very sad time”:

            The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract 

            goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage,     
            imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless 
            solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of 
            sophisticated consumer demands.










How sad, in other words, that if people were in fact freed from “the worldwide ideological struggle” (though of course they have not been), they would at long last be able to live their lives on their own terms. How sad that without “the struggle for recognition,” people would not have to endure another Pharoah, Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Clinton, Bush, or Obama, and would instead be left to while away the hours in the peaceful pursuit of their own happiness. How sad that without the “purely abstract goal” of one or another statist ideology, grandparents, parents, spouses, children, and grandchildren would not know the “daring, courage, imagination, and idealism” that continues to send their loved ones home in flag-draped cartons. How sad that “environmental concerns” could actually be solved, rather than perpetrated by governments and perpetuated by their bloated “regulatory” agencies. And how sad that “economic calculation and the endless solving of technical problems” – i.e., the day-by-day work of an increasingly complex and thus more richly rewarding world – would not be complicated by the relentless onslaught of the state.



















Yes, there is the hope that “centuries of boredom at the end of history might serve to get history started once again,” so that murder and mayhem can once again spice up the dreary “satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands.” What is a cell phone, after all, compared to a land mine? What is communication compared to mutilation? With “no struggle over ‘large’ issues and consequently no need for generals or statesmen,” how much attraction can life hold?  What’s the use of living, in other words, if you can’t make a killing killing people?


And a twofold killing it is – over 15 billion people “since the beginning of authentic history,” at a cost of over a thousand trillion dollarsi  – according to the research published in a 1914 New York Times piece that also makes the following observation:

Brilliant deeds on the battlefield are done by the man who will take the greatest risks in support of an ideal; the man who will take the greatest risks is, ordinarily, the best of men. So these are least likely to escape. …

… And even though large numbers of the best of men are left, many are destroyed, and of those remaining many have been deteriorated physically by the effort, by the wounds, by the diseases, of wartime; while the economic course of every man participating in a war is interrupted by his service, and, in the majority of cases, such an interruption harms his industrial or professional or mercantile future, thus directly affecting the opportunities that he may offer to the rising generation, which, for a time, depends upon him.

And thus does the killing of the best in war also kill “a certain portion of the incalculable social and educational effort of the ages.”

But no matter. For as war is its very health, the state will have a war if it wants one, never mind how much the people, understandably, do not:

Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.  … But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country.

But why? The answer is as old as Plato’s Dorians:

[I]t is immaterial for the citizens of any nation where the frontiers of their country are drawn. It is of no concern for anyone whether his country is big or small, and whether it conquers a province or not. The individual citizens do not derive any profit from the conquest of a territory.

It is different with the princes or ruling aristocracies. They can increase their power and their tax revenues by expanding the size of their realms. They can profit from conquest. They are bellicose, while the citizenry is peace loving.

The “princes and ruling aristocracies” will object, of course, that they are not bellicose at all and only want to increase their power in order to be of greater service to humanity. They are public servants, after all, seeking only to do good on their constituents’ behalf. What they do not understand, however – what they dare not even contemplate – is that because Men are cruel, but Man is kind, no men are more cruel than those who would do good with mankind’s money – with the proceeds, that is, of the legalized theft by which “Western liberal democracy” and every other manifestation of the state perpetuate themselves. For as easy as it is to make this theft legal, it is impossible to make it moral, the resulting assault on society being all the worse for the pretence upon which it is based: namely, that legalized theft is the price that must be paid for a civilized society.

And it is because of this vast charade – the biggest of all big lies – that its perpetrators fail to realize that they are but the latest incarnation of the iniquity that has prevailed from time immemorial, that however much the forces of history have been debated over the centuries – are they blind, cyclical, progressive, eschatological, dialectical, etc. – there are actually no forces of history; there is only the history of force. In fact, there is only history as force, the absence of which is not history but biography – the ability to graph, as it were, one’s own bio in cooperative association with one’s fellow human beings.

Its perpetrators do not understand, that is, that their role in history is history, for history is nothing more than the biographies of those who have used the political means to trump the economic means, the producers of which have had their biographies expropriated in the process. As such, history is merely a chronicle of conquest, subjugation, and confiscation, and therefore a glorification of perpetual war for perpetual war. And just as war and the state are one, so, then, are the state and history one.


Therefore, the end of the state will be the end of history.



Sunday, May 15, 2011

RON PAUL TROUNCES CHRIS MATHEWS, AGAIN

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com
5/14/11

Ron Paul is constantly sucked into the same rhetorical trap time and time again.  The gotcha moment that every pundit loves to fabricate in order to malign those of the libertarian persuasion: "Yes or no.  Would you vote to legalize heroin?" as if the question is tantamount to a yes vote effectively enslaving millions of American children to a life of gang banging and drug addiction!  It is disingenuous and contradictory to the American experience of this well known opiate.  Posing this question is a base tactic that has been employed incessantly against Ron Paul by the left and the right to illicit a purely emotional reaction, in other words, a direct assault on critical thinking, pure and simple.  Dr. Paul, however, handily dealt with the ploy in the recent South Carolina debate when the Texas representative elicited massive applause and laughter much to the chagrin of Fox News moderator Chris Wallace.  


See Chris Mathews' Hardball interview below featuring the GOP debate.


Frances Martel of Mediaite.com recently boiled down the interview on Hardball to: "Thus Rep. Paul’s two biggest contributions to the 2012 campaign season so far have been a staunch defense of heroin and a repudiation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

Are we watching the same interview!?  Or perhaps a better question, do we live in the same country?  First, I saw a staunch repudiation of the drug war not a validation of heroin use!  Ending the farcical war on drugs is embraced by growing numbers of people across the United States as a failed and benighted mission that has eroded civil liberties, fostered a reckless police state, impoverished inner cities, romanticized drug dealing and its subsequent lifestyle through popular culture (video games, rap music, movies, TV shows, etc.), imprisoned larger segments of the population than in any other part of the world, corrupted countless foreign countries, and ultimately has wasted billions of tax payer dollars (my money!) and created incredibly detrimental distortions in the market place!  How many times do you have to see Scarface posters on MTV Cribs or in a college kid's dorm room before you want to tear your hair out?  This movie came out almost 30 years ago and now you can pick it up as a video game!  "The World is Yours", so go blow it up (all puns intended)!

Just another day in the barrio as Tony Montana.

As for the 1964 Civil Rights Act - its a non-issue.  Nobody is saying racism is good, no libertarian embraces that position.  As with any good legislation, however, there are bad elements weaved into the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Namely, the precedent it set, which is so abhorrent to libertarians that it forces enterprise to engage in certain actions the state deems moral and therefore violates basic first amendment rights of voluntary association.  To Rachel Maddow, Chris Wallace, and Frances Martel's credit this intellectual exercise is for the most part too hard for the American public to wrap their collective heads around.  Politically this is an issue best left alone, rhetorically it requires demanding precision to negotiate, and in the end really doesn't get libertarianism anywhere except trashed in sound bytes all over the internet. 

In conclusion, Frances Martel has glossed over a treasure trove of topics mentioned in the Hardball interview including the wondrous worlds of raw milk (see health benefits), sound money, and the peace dividend this country could reap if we ended our empire.  She also glossed over the fact Ron Paul is turning into a veritable political powerhouse no doubt helping his son, ostensibly another libertarian, earn a senate seat, single handedly spawning the Tea Party movement, turning public opinion against the once obscure private federal reserve, and ushering in the possibilities of a peaceful and enduring re-revolution in this country based on the restoration of our constitution.  

Moreover, Martel grossly distorted who submitted what in this interview.  Chris Mathews injected the 2012 presidential debate with the drug war and the 1964 Civil Rights Act not Ron Paul, albeit the former is of great import.  Words have meaning Frances and to say that Ron Paul was responsible for bringing these issues up makes it seem as though Chris Mathews was on the Dr. No Show not the other way around.  The real issues Ron Paul brings up this election cycle and are the same ones he has brought up since his first presidential run in 1988: sound money, free markets, and a humble foreign policy - all qualities necessary to a strong and healthy republic. 


Check out Ron Paul's Fox News interview with Andrew Napolitano. 

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Why Don't We Hear About Soros' Ties to Over 30 Major News Organizations

Dan Gainor
Fox News
May 11, 2011


Editors Note: This is the first of two series on George Soros and the Media.




When liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”

This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.

The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure” – “progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.

Read more about this article at FoxNews.com