cross-posted from the LewRockwell.com blog
The AP is reporting that the FBI has arrested a California man for making threatening phone calls to Nancy Pelosi.
Several federal officials say the man made dozens of calls to Pelosi’s homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband’s business office, reciting her home address and saying if she wanted to see it again, she would not support the health care overhaul bill that was recently enacted.
Meanwhile back at the ranch….
Barack Obama has threatened the lives of millions of people in Iran, and he walks free. ABC News reports that Obama, in backing off the use of nuclear weapons, made “exceptions for Iran and North Korea or any other country which violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.”
In other words, Obama to people of Iran: Make sure your criminal leaders do what WE want them to do, or you’ll never see your home again.
The lone wolf is a criminal for threatening the criminal. Sure, I get that. But Obama is a far bigger criminal – and so is Pelosi too. And that’s not even getting into the previous administration’s crimes…
The criminals are running the “justice” system.
In a panel at the Cato Institute on conservatism and war, U.S. Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and John Duncan (R-Tenn.) revealed that the vast majority of GOP members of Congress now think it was wrong for the U.S. to invade Iraq in 2003.
My esteemed colleague at THE NEW AMERICAN, Thomas R. Eddlem, does an excellent job dismantling the latest effort by the mainstream, beltway Right to hijack the Tea Party Movement (TPM) and link the Constitution with war and torture. Don’t fall for the latest lies from these establishment neoconservatives, people! Here’s an excerpt of Eddlem’s article:
[A]n “energetic” government doesn’t mean a war-mongering government or a government that can lock people up without trial or charges (or, for that matter, torture). But that hasn’t stopped the very worst of the leadership of the neo-conservative “war on terror” supporters from endorsing the document. Among those who have endorsed the Mount Vernon Statement are Kathryn J. Lopez of National Review, Edwin Feulner, Jr. of the Heritage Foundation, and Former Attorney General Ed Meese. Of these, Ed Meese is perhaps the most hypocritical of the bunch. Click here for the rest…
The recent Medina debacle on Glenn Beck’s overrated show highlights the obvious hypocrisy of the Beltway Right-wing when it comes to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories that question government action are shunned while ones that endorse all-out war are to be embraced and repeated.
I have one simple question though for anyone free-thinking enough not to immediately follow whatever the voice on the radio tells them. What “conspiracy theorists” are more dangerous and deserve to be shunned by public opinion?
The ones trumpeted by people like Alex Jones whose goal is to have the 9/11 attack investigations to be reopened?
Or the ones feverishly hawked by the likes of Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that call for the American military to begin attacking Iran? The aforementioned talking heads of the mainstream conservative movement are the same voices who were mindless, unquestioning cheerleaders for Bush’s tragic, costly and unconstitutional war with Iraq (with the exception of Palin who was quiet on Iraq until shortly after McCain picked her for his running mate).
These people, who literally have blood on their hands, are now telling us that we should look with disgust on anyone who questions the official account of 9/11?
I don’t know about you but I strongly believe the guy wearing a baseball cap that says “inside job” isn’t a threat to anyone. On the other hand, the self-appointed leaders of the conservative movement, who have already gotten countless people killed and seriously maimed with their “conspiracy theories” while screeching for more war are the dangerous ones.
Via Jason Ditz
I’m not sure where the US Federalis get the idea that they should have any say, whatsoever, on the tax rate structure of other countries – or where they’d even get the authority to be involved in such activities in the Constitution – but there you have it. It doesn’t matter whether the policy is foreign or domestic, economic or defense. The bottom line remains the same – the US government feels it has the legal authority to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. It’s time for that to end.
Whether the war is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan or the many places our government decided to interfere with, there is only one known. INNOCENT PEOPLE are always hurt or killed. I will repeat that again since people always tend to forget, INNOCENT PEOPLE are always hurt or killed in war.
Conservatives and liberals alike can be blamed for this. Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike can be blamed for this. Ignorance and discrimination are the root cause of this. All in the name of peace or God. All in the name of right or wrong, or good verses evil. It is an eternal trap that society can not escape.
Every time an innocent person is killed on one side, someone wants revenge. Every time that person or group seeks revenge, more innocent people are killed on the other side. The cycle never ends.
I wish Americans would stop for a second and ask why we are always at war. Ask yourself are you more free or more afraid? Some people demand more security to protect us. This security directly conflicts with personal liberty. So now even more innocent people are caught up in destructive path of war.
Most Americans see war as a place we send our troops off to and never have to see first hand what goes on. However, the destructive power of war always hits home and leads to a society that is less free and less prosperous. Our economy is robbed of resources that could be used for the production of goods and services. Instead resources are wasted on bombs.
So why do people support war if it has so many negative effects on society. Why do people not care about the loss of our liberties, or wealth? How can people justify killing innocent people for the sake of revenge? Why do Christians, Muslims, and Jews overlook their moral obligations to respect life by destroying it. Why would anyone embrace such destruction? Please ask yourself the next time your government tries to incite more military action.
Liberty can only be achieved by respecting the individual lives around you. Please bring our troops home!
As this article from Time Magazine makes clear, there’s a long-running effort for independence in Vermont. And this movement isn’t about anything remotely “right-wing” in the traditional sense. In fact, their primary motivation is opposition to war.
Here’s an excerpt:
A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as “left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy.” The group not only advocates the peaceful secession of Vermont but has minted its own silver “token” — valued at $25 — and, as part of a publishing venture with another secessionist group, runs a monthly newspaper called Vermont Commons, with a circulation of 10,000. According to a 2007 poll, they have support from at least 13% of state voters. The campaign slogan, Naylor told me, is “Imagine Free Vermont.” In his fondest imaginings, Naylor said, Vermonters would not be “forced to participate in killing women and children in the Middle East.”
A provocative piece, as usual, from Glenn Greenwald. Definitely worth looking at… (h/t Lew Rockwell)
Here’s an excerpt:
Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests.” They’re entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration’s policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges – based solely on the President’s claim that they were Terrorists – produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn’t Obama’s policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind – not imprisoned, but killed – produce at least as much controversy?
While doing some research for an article that I was planning on writing about gun control – both domestic AND foreign – I came across an article that I feel sums up the position quite nicely.
Here’s Scott Lazarowitz at LewRockwell.com in his recent article, The Conservative Nut That’s Hard To Crack:
A few months ago, National Review’s Andy McCarthy questioned the US’s presence in Afghanistan, and NR’s Mark Levin responded with Not So Fast. Perhaps that should be “Nutso Fast,” because clinging to Big Government whether it’s in the name of preventing the spread of Islamism or the spread of communism, or for “spreading democracy” through military force, is irrational and counter-productive. For many years, such debt-increasing policies of military socialism have required huge sacrifices, and, while the costs of “protection services” have risen, the quality has declined to such a degree that such policies are making us more vulnerable.
Most conservatives agree that, domestically, the biggest enemy of freedom and prosperity is government. If only they could see that government is also the enemy of our security and safety, and that our government is destroying our country more than terrorism ever could.
The principle is simple – Conservatives so often (and rightly so) rail against government programs in health care, regulation, and the like – but those same principles go out the window when it comes to trying to do much of the same in some foreign country. Cognitive dissonance reigns supreme, I guess.