Design a site like this with
Get started

More Comments on Sandy Hook

It’s been over a month now since the Sandy Hook school shootings, and we still don’t know whether or not the shooter(s) had been taking prescription drugs, such as psychopharmaceuticals. But I have these thoughts regarding this story.

Now, I can only go by the articles and videos I’ve seen about the Lanza family history that led to the Sandy Hook shootings. But my own personal conclusion is that the tragedy could have been prevented had Adam Lanza not been labeled with some syndrome or disease early in his life and placed on some prescription drug (as he probably was).

Do you think that the Lanzas’ separation in 2001 and divorce in 2009 could have had very negative effects on Adam Lanza? Could those things possibly have been contributors to the development of the problems he had while growing up?

I don’t know for sure whether or not Adam Lanza was on prescription drugs, because the people in control of that investigation won’t tell us (yet), but some people close to the family had said he was.

As an alternative to early labeling and possible drugging of a child, family therapy – that includes each member of the immediate family in attendance – could have been helpful to Adam Lanza even if the parents were going through a divorce. It is possible that the Lanzas tried family therapy with Adam, but we don’t know.

However, during the Lanza’s 2009 divorce, Mrs. Lanza was ordered to attend and had completed a “parenting education program.” (Sounds like something coming from a government bureaucrat, not a rational human being.)

As opposed to those pop culture psycho-trendy treatments these days, family therapy has been helpful to many people. A great book on family therapy is The Family Crucible: The Intense Experience of Family Therapy, by Augustus Napier and Carl Whitaker.

Drugs – prescription and otherwise – stifle an individual’s emotional growth, personality and self-expression, in my view.

But the pharmaceutical industry has profited greatly from many people’s problems, that’s for sure.

Keep Marijuana Illegal, Only If You Believe That the State Owns Your Body

On the radio this morning was a discussion of the legalization of marijuana. It seems that the talk show host was against it. He brought up all the stoned people who would be walking around or driving on the roads. That sure was the case when they ended prohibition of alcohol — all those drunks out there now. Why, every time I look out my window, one person after another walks by completely plastered, bumping into the light post and saying, “Excuse me, sir,” and all the constant traffic accidents caused by those drunk drivers — there are at least three of them every half-hour. So, we better not legalize marijuana, it’s bad enough that alcohol was legalized. And so on and so forth.

Another point I want to make is that, if you believe that the government should have the power to determine what you may or may not put into your own body, then it is not really your own body. If you own your own body, then of course you have the right to put into it whatever you want, as long as you take responsibility for the consequences of your decisions and your actions. But that’s not the situation we have now, is it?

I know that I’ve brought up some of these radical ideas before, but I guess it’s time to do so again. So, not only do we not live in a “free” society, but it really is the opposite of that, a completely State-owned, government-owned society. Just about all people really believe that America is a “private-property” society, when no, not really. Only on paper and superficially are property, industry and the means of production owned privately, by individual and group private owners. But in reality, everything is publicly government-owned. That includes all businesses, everyone’s homes, and, given that the means of production includes the people, the people themselves. I’ve explained that here in my article on the true communist nature of today’s conservatives, and, as I wrote here regarding the immigration issue,

The conservatives support the federal government’s central planning of the population as far as who gets in and who doesn’t. And with such central planning, they thus support the collective ownership of the entire territory. However, when the collective assumes ownership and control of an entire territory, then everything within the territory goes with that collective (or State) control.

It is impossible to empower a collective population with that kind of group territorial ownership but at the same time say that each individual, each parcel of “private” property, and each business within the territory is privately owned, and that each private owner has ultimate control and sovereignty of one’s property, business, and one’s life. In reality, each individual is merely “renting space,” and is owned by the collective.

Actually, the more I witness the increasing power of the government — especially the federal government — the more I see that, the idea of “collective” or public ownership of everything within the territory is itself a superficial notion (like that of “private” property). It really is the government — the State — that has the ultimate ownership of everything, including the people, and that includes every aspect of the people’s lives, their homes, their business, and their own bodies. (Which aren’t really “theirs,” are they?)

But regarding marijuana, that seems to be a very unhealthy drug to ingest. There are many different dangerous chemicals in marijuana, some found to be cancerous. It negatively affects your cognitive abilities, and affects people’s memory. (More recent research here and here.) And alcohol is bad for your cognitive abilities as well. As far as smoking marijuana (or cigarettes too) is concerned, what one is doing is inhaling directly into one’s lungs the waste of burning garbage, frankly. Our lungs do not want burning garbage to be inhaled into them, as they need clean air to function best. People don’t realize how sensitive the lungs really are. But whatever, it should be the individual’s choice, and one’s responsibility for its consequences as well — that is, if we really do want to have a society in which the individual’s right of self-ownership is respected by others, and in which the individual’s life and person are not enslaved and owned by the State.

Some Misc. Items

I just had some comments regarding my article that was on on Monday, on America’s escalating fascism under Dictator Obama. There weren’t as many emails regarding that one as with other ones. Sorry I can’t reply to all emails.

Sometimes I write a piece that has a bit much “vitriolic rhetoric,” and other times it is more straightforward, without the snide remarks etc. In this one, I seemed to have overdone it on the “vitriolic rhetoric” mainly only in the first 6 or 7 paragraphs, and sorry about that. But the remaining paragraphs seemed to be much better. I think that these fascists and communists in control are really terrifying now, and it’s perhaps getting on my nerves, I don’t know. The criminals in charge are the real terrorists, if anyone around here can be accurately described as a “terrorist.”

Also in that article, in the first parts referring to Massachusetts, I had several links to the Boston Globe, but when checking links, because the Glob was then requiring registration (which it wasn’t doing originally), I had to replace all those links! No. More. Links. To. Boston. Globe. Sorry, Globe, you suck. These @#$%^&^ print media dinosaurs still can’t assimilate to the Internet! And the Boston Herald sucks too, as they archive their articles within a week or so, and then you have to PAY for them! Stupid idiots. Well, when fewer other websites and blogs link to you, you will get fewer clicks on your ads, you bozos! But they don’t get it.

So anyway, in my article, I included a reference to Obama’s half-brother, George who lives in Nairobi. I didn’t mean for any kind of “racial” references in referring to George Obama and Gov. Deval Patrick (regarding my references to Massachusetts bureaucrats). There was nothing going on there having to do with anyone being black, whether or not that day was Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

I really don’t give a damn what someone’s skin color is. If these bureaucrats are fascists, then I don’t like them. The two Bush presidents started three wars against other countries from 1991 and ongoing, countries whose people were of no threat to us, despite the government’s propaganda. The two Bush presidents have caused many hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocents, waged a sicko-psychopathic torture campaign to get false confessions, and have caused blowback against America. I don’t like them either. Who cares what their skin color is. “It’s what’s inside that counts.”

If you want to call someone a racist, call Obama a racist. He is waging a racist drug war, in which police and prosecutors are concentrating mainly on throwing black Americans in prison for no good reason. The drug war incarceration rate for black people is higher than that of white people. You can Google that. But do Black Americans know or care about this? Many people, black or otherwise, do not know of the criminally racist policies of the Dear Leader who just got re-installed as Dictator-in-Chief. And despite his rhetoric on immigration, Obama has deported more immigrants than all other presidents. (i.e. he’s FOS)

But the reason that Obama supporters don’t know what their guy has been doing — his racist war on drugs — is because the news media do not report on these matters. Like the reporters’ comrades who embed themselves with the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the local reporters seem to delight in joining local police forces in their arrests, S.W.A.T. team raids etc. of those unfortunate enough to be victims of the government’s crimes against them. Many news reporters seem to go with the assumption that the police and prosecutors are good and right and their victims are bad and wrong. The government should be arresting people for possession of a plant, and for ingesting some substance into their own bodies!

Reporters do not seem to be asking questions as far as “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” and especially “why.” They just seem to obediently go along with what they are reporting on like unthinking Goebbels stenographers. Perhaps the news reporters and editors of today can learn the concept of objectivity and the history behind their role of keeping the government in check, as they no longer seem to be teaching those things in the journalism schools.

So in his prosecuting the racist drug war, I guess that makes the Dear Leader a racist. But the sheeple don’t know this, and they don’t care. It’s Obama’s image that matters, and his teleprompter’s speaking abilities.

Some people believe that Obama is an anti-white racist as well. He spoke of his grandmother as a “typical white person.” Can you imagine a white politician speaking of a black woman as a “typical black person”? And also, besides running guns to gangs in Mexico that caused many deaths, AG Eric Holster has said that he won’t prosecute black defendants for voter intimidation. Holder defended his decision by expressing outrage at those who suggested that the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia in 2008 could compare to the voting rights struggle for “my people.” (See Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department by J. Christian Adams.)

And another thing about Obama, he did spend 20 years in the church of his very close minister, the paranoid anti-white racist and anti-Semite Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In 2008, many critics of Obama asked why Obama would continue attending the sermons of such a hateful, ignorant moron as Wright. Naturally, the news media wouldn’t cover any of that. Now, I happen to be Jewish, and I really couldn’t care less if someone wants to engage in name-calling if they are anti-Jewish, whatever. “Sticks and stones,” and all that. But if there were a white version of that Rev. Wright, the presidential candidate attending his church would have been ostracized and run out of the primaries immediately. Duh. There’s that double standard in this banana republic. And I am also reminded of the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s reference to Jews as “Hymies” and New York as “Hymietown” during the 1984 presidential campaign. (But I won’t mention the 1969 Life Magazine article that quoted Jackson as saying that, as a hotel waiter, spitting into white people’s food gave him “psychological gratification.” I’m sure you can Google that if you’re not familiar with it.)

Anyway, We certainly do not have the “colorblind society” that one might think an evolved and modern society would have. Do we have a society in which people are not “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”? No. Today, there is hate going both ways, and based on race, religion, ethnicity and other superficial factors. And we have “affirmative action,” which is not “affirmative, ” but in which people are accepted to colleges or hired at jobs based mainly on their skin color. Many people believe that Obama achieved his college acceptances based on that, and I believe that too. He himself has admitted that he was a druggie in his younger years. And there obviously is a good reason why we still haven’t seen any of his school transcripts. And millions of Americans voted for him in two presidential elections solely because of his race. I think that’s racist, but I hope I’m not going to be called a “racist” merely for telling the truth about these things. Also in recent years there have been those flash mob riots, in which black youths attack mainly white victims, and because they are white. The news media don’t report on all that because “we are a nation of cowards,” who don’t like to hear the truth about what’s going on. Another thing that concerns me is how, as I have noted here and here, the Obama Administration and FEMA are getting ready for mass detention camps. Given that Obama is heavily influenced by the racist, anti-Semite preacher mentioned above, well, that concerns me. As I have noted, I happen to be Jewish.


Mac Slavo posts this regarding a Facebook post by Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow that Obama’s new litmus test for military is whether they would fire on U.S. citizens or not. The ones who say no are let go. If this is true — and I would love to see some of these military leaders or commanders who supposedly have balls to come right out and say so — then Obama must be impeached and tried for treason.

End the Growing Neanderthal Rule in America: Repeal Drug Laws, Decentralize and De-Monopolize Community Policing

Today, Radley Balko begins a series of daily posts featuring one police raid each day. In today’s post, he tells of a S.W.A.T. team raid in Miami:

Today’s featured raid is the March 1996 raid in Miami, Florida that claimed the life of 73-year-old retired salesman Richard Brown.

The police in Miami had received a tip from an informant that Brown, who had no criminal record, was selling drugs from his small apartment. So they sent the SWAT team. The police claimed at the time that Brown began firing at them as soon as they entered his home. So they fired back.

And they fired back.

And they fired back.

By the time they were finished, they had pumped 123 rounds into Richard Brown’s apartment—nine of them into Richard Brown…

You see, when you receive a “tip,” Mr. and Ms. Police Officer, one thing that you need to do first is check for a criminal record of the one who has been “tipped” on. So far, you know that Mr. Brown is 73 and has NO criminal record! That should be the end of discussion! Further investigation is needed before any contact might occur with the new “suspect.” Someone who is 73 and has no criminal record is obviously not going to be engaging in illegal activity. I say “obviously,” because people with a brain can see that. (What if he was 23 and had no criminal record? Well, the police can do some kind of investigating first, before they go raiding and murdering.)

The police never found any drugs. They did find something else, which they weren’t expecting: Brown’s 14-year-old great-granddaughter Janeka, whom he had raised. They found her cowering in the bathroom. When the raid began, Brown had told the girl to take the phone into the bathroom, to call the police, and to wait until it was safe. So she waited, prayed, and trembled as bullets dug into the walls around her. When she finally came out, she saw the bloodied body of the man who had adopted and raised her slouched in his bedroom closet. Janeka Brown would later receive a $2.5 million settlement from the city of Miami.

No, she shouldn’t have received $2.5 million from the city, i.e. taxpayers who are not responsible for murderous, incompetent knuckle-dragging neanderthals’ irresponsible behavior. She should have received $2.5 million from each and every one of those “law enforcement” officers, from their personal bank accounts and their own personal assets. That is what real justice would be, in my view.

The story gets more juicy after that. More and more dishonesty and corruption, lies and deceit came out in this case, and this isn’t just Miami, or New York, or Chicago, it’s everywhere in the corrupt, decaying Banana Republic of Amerika.

Another Obama Inauguration as Amerika’s Fascism Continues to Escalate

January 21, 2013

Copyright © 2013 by (Link to article)

The Amerikan people have spoken: “We love and adore our Dear Leader. We want more fascism, more government control over our private lives, more theft of the workers and producers, more spying, more war, more drones, less freedom, more destruction and more death.”

I wonder if Barack Obama invited his half-brother George Obama to the inauguration – remember George Obama? He’s the president’s half-brother who apparently lives in a shanty in Nairobi, the one President Obama doesn’t seem to have helped out very much. However, George defends Barack’s lack of being his “brother’s keeper,” so I guess it doesn’t matter very much. (But it’s just more important that Barack Obama spend $50 million on his inauguration, that’s all.)

As all this is going on, Barack Obama’s comrade, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick says he wants to raise taxes even higher on the workers and producers of the Bay State, on top of their federal taxes that have just gone up (thanks to the selfish degenerates in Washington).

This new tax-theft scheme is intended to fund Patrick’s education and public transportation agendas and expanding of rail service. (Rail service hardly anyone will use, that is.)

In other words, Patrick might as well be saying, “Please let me siphon off more of your hard labor so that I can pay my union buddies in the state-construction racket to thank them for reelecting me and to further my own selfish political ambitions.”

Nothing new here. “Good for you,” as Elizabeth Warren might say.

Governor Patrick – a genuine Michael Dukakis on steroids if there ever was one – is surrounded on Beacon Hill by other self-centered degenerates, as top legislators give their non-productive staff members raises to add to their salaries they don’t deserve, some of which apparently in the 6-figures, and this on top of the state auditor’s staff who had been given a 16% raise. (The state auditor’s office is in charge of getting rid of “waste, fraud, and abuse.”)

Gov. Patrick the fascist also just signed the bill to fingerprint “teachers, workers at child care centers, school bus drivers …” and “everyone seeking to adopt children or become foster parents as well as employees of school departments who may have direct, unmonitored contact with children,” with that information placed into a state police database and “forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

Obviously, Patrick is no friend of civil liberties, due process or civil rights. He is a “liberal,” after all.

And attempting to fill the shoes of his fellow anti-due process governor from New York, Patrick has filed a bill to further restrict gun ownership in Massachusetts, and to “require the state to send all relevant mental health records to a federal gun license registry,” as well as “training teachers to recognize symptoms of mental illness in students.”

But how about training students to recognize symptoms of mental illness in teachers? Hmmm? There’s a lot of that going around these days.

Too bad Muffy Healey, Patrick’s 2006 Republican opponent, lost that election.

Like Connecticut, Massachusetts already has the strictest gun control laws in the country. Connecticut’s strict gun laws did nothing to save those 27 victims at Sandy Hook. Neither will Gov. Patrick’s proposals or Obama’s proposals – they will in fact cost lives, if history is any indication.

There are very few murders per year by use of those “military-style” assault rifles, as compared to pistols, shotguns, knives, hands and feet. But what the fascists want to do is further disarm the population and make people even more defenseless against murderers, wife-beaters, and rapists who use pistols, shotguns, knives, hands and feet.

Previous to Patrick’s newly introduced anti-private gun ownership proposals, the governor of New York had exemplified the purely irrational emotionalism of the gun control crowd, as he screamed and wailed to “end the madness” in his recent State of the State address. His emotionally-charged bill to make people defenseless was rushed through the legislature, just as was George W. Bush’s reactionary Patriot Act in 2001 and Obama’s Affordable Care Act in 2010.

That act of legislation – now the law in New York – requires mental health practitioners to report to the government those patients that the doctor thinks may be a danger to others. And Obama’s new proposed Executive Orders includes this: “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

However, many of today’s physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists and counselors, especially the younger ones, were brought up in the modern, government-controlled schools, which have dumbed down the people and discourage critical thinking skills. The schools now label kids who act normally with an abundance of energy as “hyperactive,” or label kids who question their authorities’ dictates as “defiant” or suffering from “ADHD.”

Or, some of the teachers and parents are afraid to discipline misbehaved kids or to give them a failing grade when they deserve one, in an attempt to avoid “hurting their feelings.” So, many of the secondary schools and colleges are accepting or giving passing grades to total incompetents.

Therefore, I am not completely confident in the judgments of our modern and future doctors and mental health practitioners, quite frankly.

And after the school authorities label kids as “defiant,” “autistic,” or “psychotic,” the authorities dish out the psychopharmaceutical drugs, such as Ritalin and SSRI anti-depressants, like candy.

I have heard several of the people being interviewed or speaking on panels regarding the Sandy Hook shootings who have stated that alleged shooter Adam Lanza “should have been medicated,” given Lanza’s problems. However, it appears that Lanza may have been on some form of psychopharmaceutical drugs, and for many years, as asserted by the Lanzas’ hairdresser and a former babysitter.

As has been the case in many mass shootings now, it’s the opposite of that – they were medicated, but shouldn’t have been. Alleged Aurora theater shooter James Holmes is now thought to have been on medication, but the documents filed by police, who supposedly had seized pill bottles from Holmes’s home, had been heavily redacted and no specific name of drugs was disclosed.

Many of the school shootings in more recent years were committed by people on anti-depressant or anti-psychotic medication. Some may have been suffering from withdrawal symptoms after stopping their medication.

It is already known that some anti-depressant prescription drugs such as SSRIs and anti-psychotics can cause severely aggressive behavior. But, rather than addressing these prescription drugs, the chicken littles instead want to disarm innocent people and make them even more vulnerable, especially women. And the fascists want to seek out “mentally ill” people and either disarm them as well or perhaps even put them on psychiatric drugs. But who is to decide who is “mentally ill,” and is there really “mental illness”?

But given the lack of good judgment of many health practitioners these days, requiring doctors and counselors to report possibly dangerous people to the government could itself be dangerous.

In fact, already in the U.K. the Cameron Regime has been having doctors report on patients who may be “vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.” The U.K. has also engaged in the disarming of the civilian population and thus causing a rise in violent crime there (contrary to the assertions of one CNN nudnik who shall remain nameless here).

Also in the U.K., cameras being placed in private homes, government-sponsored “parenting classes,” the government monitoring all emails and website visits in the U.K.?

Yes, I know, that’s England and not America, but government-controlled education has dumbed down a lot of people in a lot of countries.

So why not have doctors reporting on patients, based on the doctors’ own subjective biases, lack of critical thinking abilities and their ignorance as well?

As I have noted before, already in the U.S. we have a DHS and FBI wanting people and businesses to report on others as “suspicious” for what are really normal behaviors. But today, thanks to years of government-controlled education, behaviors that are really harmless are now viewed as “suspicious.”

According to the FBI and DHS, some of those “suspicious” behaviors include: buying food in bulk amounts, believing in “individual liberty,” distrusting “centralized federal authority,” and “supporting political movements for autonomy.”

For many ignoramuses now, “autonomy” and “independence” = “criminality” and “terrorism.”

Being critical of the government is now being seen as “treasonous” or dangerous by some, even though it is our very own incompetent and corrupt government bureaucrats who have been acting criminally and treasonously in many ways, in my view. Just ask Bradley Manning, Brandon Raub, Susan Lindauer and William Binney.

But the psychiatric police state is here, and it won’t involve just mental health professionals but all health care practitioners whose treatment includes their asking patients for very personal information. Because of how our society has declined culturally, intellectually and socially, I am not surprised to have personally already seen doctors of an emotionally and intellectually immature character. Obviously, with Obama’s Soviet medicine, worse is yet to come. There just don’t seem to be very many Dr. Georges around anymore.

If you are not very familiar with your doctors or counselor, it would be wise not to share information with them about your political views, especially “anti-government” views, which many readers here happen to have, or whether or not you own a gun.

You see, thanks to the government-controlled schools and modern Amerikans’ lack of critical thinking skills, we have historically-ignorant people who really have no idea what the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. A lot of anti-gun rights people (and some pro-gun rights ones as well) actually scoff at the idea that our own government could turn against us.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing! “Liberals” want the civilian population to be disarmed, but they want only government police and government military to be armed, and heavily armed at that! And this despite all the police brutality, the S.W.A.T team raids at the wrong addresses, and criminal behaviors committed by police and prosecutors all over Amerika, as we have seen on a daily basis in the news, on websites such as LRC and on YouTube. Many police are drugging up on steroids, and the military doctors are screwing up the soldiers with prescription drugs including those SSRI anti-depressants and stimulants.

As I have noted here, and in my articles about America’s descent and the coming civil unrest, yes, there have been moments in history in which the U.S. government has turned the guns against the people. And you think that all the atrocities committed by our military, the murdering of innocent civilians overseas, can’t happen here on the Rulers’ command? All you have to do is see one article after another on our police state in Amerika, and see exactly what the people in charge are doing to our society.

So Obama is being inaugurated into a second term, and one can reasonably expect it to not be as wonderful as his first term was.

The State vs. Aaron Swartz and the Government-Journalism-Internet-Complex

A lot of people have had a lot to say about the late Aaron Swartz, who, while being prosecuted and persecuted by the U.S. Department of “Justice,” committed suicide just recently at age 26.

According to the NYT, Swartz was charged with “wire fraud, computer fraud, obtaining information from a protected computer and criminal forfeiture.”

Glenn Greenwald describes the case against Swartz. But as Greenwald notes, the alleged “victims” didn’t even want to press charges; it was the damn zombies of the U.S. “justice” system doing this, and for no good reason.

Nobody knows for sure why federal prosecutors decided to pursue Swartz so vindictively, as though he had committed some sort of major crime that deserved many years in prison and financial ruin. Some theorized that the DOJ hated him for his serial activism and civil disobedience. Others speculated that, as Doctorow put it, “the feds were chasing down all the Cambridge hackers who had any connection to Bradley Manning in the hopes of turning one of them.”

Boston-based media analyst Dan Kennedy had this post on Swartz and the zealousness of U.S. attorney Carmen Ortiz. Some of the commenters seem to be defending the State’s actions, perhaps lacking in understanding of the specific case in question, and/or a lack of understanding of “intellectual property.”

Sadly, there are many people, especially statists who think they are “liberal,” who support the State’s “intellectual property” laws but at the same time support the State’s schemes of confiscating private wealth and redistributing it to those to whom it does not belong, i.e. against economic freedom as well as intellectual freedom.

For a better understanding of “intellectual property,” see Sheldon Richman and Stephan Kinsella.

In the case at hand, Swartz had not “hacked” or broken into anyone’s personal Internet accounts or passwords, or compromised anyone’s private personal information or security, nor was he accused of those things. If he committed any crimes, they could have been considered to be trespassing into an MIT closet, as well as possibly violating JSTOR’s Terms of Service, as Greenwald observed.

But in reality, all Swartz was doing was promoting true Internet and intellectual freedom, which is something the State does not like. The State does not like the First Amendment and all that it stands for, and will do what it can to suppress information, especially that which is critical of the State itself and which expresses the illegitimacy of the State’s various intrusions, violations and crimes.

Kevin Carson writes, regarding the Swartz case,

So the people who hounded Aaron Swartz to his death did so, not even in the realistic hope of victory, but out of the same vindictive impulse that drives a defeated invader to inflict one more indignity on the violated country on its way out. Aaron Swartz was not the last man to die for a “mistake,” but — let us hope — the last atrocity inflicted by a criminal aggressor.

Now, I was surprised to hear on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour last night (rebroadcast on WGBH radio) Margaret Warner interviewing Kevin Poulsen of Wired. It sounded like Poulsen was defending Swartz, which was a surprise to me given Poulsen’s past controversies, although it was probably because the two were friends as Swartz had worked with Poulsen at Wired.

But back around the beginning of the government’s case against Army Pvt. Bradley Manning,  Poulsen was the one at Wired who had apparently suppressed 75% of the chat logs between Manning and Adrian Lamo, the one who turned Manning in to the government, as Glenn Greenwald wrote in this lengthy post from 2010. And Greenwald updated that in this post regarding the “worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired,” and Wired‘s “severe journalistic malfeasance” in withholding the chat logs.

But in 2011, when Wired finally released the full chat logs, Greenwald asserted that they “provide vital context and information about what actually happened here.  To say that Poulsen’s claims about what Wired withheld were factually false is to put it generously.” Those posts regarding the chat logs are must reads if you haven’t read them before.

To me, there was the implication that Wired may have intentionally withheld portions of the chat logs which could have put Manning’s alleged actions into the more accurate context of his merely wanting to expose the military’s crimes and that the American people had a right to know about them, and thus showing that he could not have been doing anything close to “aiding and abetting the enemy” or revealing actual classified information. But, if that were the case, what would Wired‘s motivation have been to withhold such vital contextual information?

Beware the Government-Journalism-Internet-Complex.

When it comes to the truth, Internet freedom and intellectual freedom, and attempting to separate oneself from the State’s monopoly, Aaron Swartz was the real deal.

NPR Promotes the Pharmaceutical Industry, But Not Prevention and Staying Healthy

I really don’t have time to do a regular post today, but I felt I just had to write this, especially because of the flu outbreak hysteria and media hype. Yes, the flu that’s going around has caused several deaths. But it’s hardly an epidemic.

Yesterday I happened to hear about 20 minutes of the Diane Rehm Show, discussing this issue. I didn’t hear the whole thing, so maybe I missed something, although I have seen the transcript.  Here is the transcript. The panel of doctors and government bureaucrats discussed the current flu outbreak.

They talked about the “importance” of the flu vaccine, but didn’t really address preventative health measures, except for “hand washing,” which is a good idea, and wearing surgical masks, etc. But no one seemed to suggest taking vitamins, anti-oxidant supplements and probiotics, and eating healthy foods (and refraining from unhealthy activities such as smoking and drinking, which reduce one’s healthiness and can compromise the immune system).

They didn’t exactly invite a nutritionist or alternative medicine practitioner on the panel.

But they did have someone on from GlaxoSmithKline. (Hmmm….)

Well, one caller observed and asked, “to me, it just feels like the flu vaccine — well, I know that it’s legitimate for, you know, a certain population. It just does feel like it’s being force-fed on us and, you know, pharmaceutical companies are going to make billions of dollars. And why is the government not encouraging us to eat right and sleep well and…”

After then interrupting the caller, Ms. Rehm had the hack from GlaxoSmithKline answer that question, but NOT one of the actual MD physicians on the panel. The GlaxoSmithKline person began by repeating the caller’s suggestion of staying healthy for prevention, but then he goes on with the importance of seeing a doctor, and stressed the importance of the vaccines. No one on the panel mentioned vitamins, probiotics or supplements, or avoiding behaviors which compromise the immune system!

I really don’t want to accuse NPR of being a “shill for Big Pharma,” but … if the shoe fits ….

Anyway, I’ve posted these before, but here are some articles about the flu vaccine. People have a right to see alternative information, research and recommendations in order to make truly informed choices about their health and prevention.

The most important article is by Dr. Donald Miller, cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at University of Washington, Seattle, and among other things in the article, Dr. Miller promotes Vitamin D.

Other articles:

Bill Sardi: The American Flu Charade

Mike Adams: Vitamin D proven far better than vaccines at preventing influenza infections

Ethan Huff: In ‘Universal’ Flu Shot Push, Medical Industry Admits Current Flu Shots Are Useless

Susanne Posel: CDC Pushes Flu Vaccine for Children in New fear-Mongering Campaign

Anthony Gucciardi: 3 Reasons to Reconsider Flu Shots

Alex Newman: Risks of the Swine Flu Vaccine

Paul Joseph Watson: New Study Finds Link Between Flu Shot, H1N1 Pandemic

The Second Amendment Protects the Human Right to Resist Tyranny

Today Judge Andrew Napolitano has a column explaining why the early Americans wrote the Second Amendment into the U.S. Constitution. A lot of people, however, are afraid of freedom and personal responsibility, and love the government and want government to be all-powerful and armed with all the weapons imaginable while the rest of the population are disarmed and defenseless.

I have written this recently, but I’ll reiterate this: It is astonishing to me how people who think of themselves as “liberals” really want government agents, government police and government military to be armed, but not private civilians to be armed, nor their neighbors. And this despite so many more incidents now in the news on a daily basis and on YouTube showing police all across America bullying, intimidating, assaulting, tasering, injuring, shooting, and murdering totally innocent civilians, many of whom were not even suspected of anything. And many amongst the police are drugged up on hard drugs, prescription drugs and steroids.

And we see the problems that men and women in the military are having, injuries and brain traumas, dismemberments, and personal problems such as divorces, abusive relationships, drug abuse, depression and PTSD. Many in the military are also drugged up on hard drugs as well as prescription drugs such as anti-depressants. And in the military there is widespread violence including sexual assaults perpetrated against women as well as males. By and large now, police and military are, in my opinion, a sick and dangerous culture, as I have written here. (Also in that linked article I discuss how the U.S. government already has a history of turning the guns against the American people and that the people have a right to protect themselves from the government.)

But Judge Napolitano writes very well and succinctly in regards to those issues and the Second Amendment. Here are some important excerpts:

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Now, the Judge’s statement that refers to “shooting tyrants” and regarding “the right to shoot at them effectively” can be considered very controversial and can be misconstrued if taken out of context. No one is referring to “shooting military personnel or cops” or assassinating government officials. But when government bureaucrats and their armed agents get out of control and act like murderous tyrants, that is when the people, the average civilians, have every right in the world to use whatever means necessary to protect themselves and their families. They would in essence be protecting themselves form criminals, because, when government bureaucrats and their armed agents act criminally against the people, then that is exactly what they are: criminals, and we must call them that.

Perhaps even more controversial are these videos, posted just recently, by Larken Rose who discusses his article on the people’s right to fight back against government tyranny.

Rose explains very matter-of-factly,

If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny….

Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called ”law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow ”government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

(Here is an interesting interview of Larken Rose.)

We live in a really screwed up time now. The so-called “law-and-order conservatives” and “constitutionalists” believe in the individual’s “right to bear arms” but they simultaneously and incoherently love authority and they love armed governmental authority such as police and military and would not come to the defense of someone who “resisted” a criminal with a badge and governmental officialdom. And the so-called “liberals” say they believe in “individual rights” but they do not believe that the individual has a right to be armed to defend oneself, including from government tyrants. Such incoherence is largely due to government schooling, of course.

Gov. Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts State Legislature: Anti-Due Process Fascists

According to the Boston Globe, a bill that was rushed through the Massachusetts state legislature proposes to require the submission of fingerprints to a state police database and “forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” that would apply to “teachers, workers at child care centers, school bus drivers …” and “everyone seeking to adopt children or become foster parents as well as employees of school departments who may have direct, unmonitored contact with children.” Gov. Patrick has said he thinks he will sign the anti-civil liberties bill.

What is it with all these authoritarian collectivists who just refuse to accept the idea that individuals have the right to presumption of innocence and due process? They seem to want to treat entire groups of people as criminal suspects, and to hell with the rule of law.

I have already written about Frau Feinstein’s compulsion to not only disarm and make defenseless totally innocent, law-abiding people, but fingerprint them as criminal suspects. These government bureaucrats and their supporters and minions hysterically react to one isolated incident and with nothing but emotion and no rational thought they enact sweeping police-state policies which make the entire population less secure and more vulnerable.

According to the Globe article on fingerprinting innocent people who work with kids, “Lawmaker approval of the measure came just weeks after authorities announced an indictment against a convicted sex offender they say videotaped himself sexually assaulting children from his wife’s unlicensed day care business.”

So, because this one perv-thug acted criminally against innocent human beings, we must then treat everyone else like criminals? Sorry, that’s just not the American way. And the same goes for all the emotionally hysterical gun-grabbing reactions to the Sandy Hook shooting.

Perhaps Gov. Patrick has never read the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but I have. As I noted regarding Frau Feinstein’s latest attempt at population subjugation, the Fourth Amendment clearly states the “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” That means that we all have a right to be secure.

Fingerprinting is a search of one’s person, it is evidence taken in the processing of criminal suspects who have been arrested based upon reasonable suspicion. So to seize this personal, private information about someone from one’s very person and keep such information in a database, without reason to suspect someone of any crime is an egregious violation of one’s right to be secure, one’s right to presumption of innocence and one’s right to due process.

If Deval Patrick and his fellow police state fascists were truly concerned with protecting children, they would stop supporting making the schools into Stasi-like, Orwellian spy centers, terrorism centers and prisons, they would in fact take themselves and fellow bureaucrats out of education entirely and make education free again completely (and, of course, advocate homeschooling as well).

Some Misc. Items

There were many emails regarding my recent post, Talk Radio, R.I.P.? Sorry I can’t reply to all emails. Apparently, LRC had reposted it, and some of the emailers had the impression that it was a formal article that I had sent in to LRC. But no, it was really just a regular blog post, and I was surprised to see it on LRC. (Which is fine with me, by the way, if anyone wants to repost my blog posts or articles, with attribution. Thanks for noticing.)

Someone mentioned the “conspicuous absence” of Alex Jones in my post, Jones who has a radio talk show on a station in Texas that is also a popular Internet talk show. Another person mentioned Barry Farber. A couple people mentioned Ron Smith in regards to my referring to early deaths at WBZ and WRKO, and yes, I knew about Ron Smith, but, again, it was really just a regular blog post, and mainly about the Boston talk radio situation.


Speaking of Alex Jones, he appeared with Piers Morgan yesterday on CNN.  Jones was his typical very assertive and passionate self in his defense of the right to bear arms. Morgan is totally clueless, a sheeple statist who apparently wants only the police and military to have firearms but not the civilian population. He obviously doesn’t know his history.

Worse, after the second segment of Jones and Morgan’s yelling match argument discussion, a female producer “shed tears” and the CNN honchos and Morgan decided not to continue with Jones in the planned third segment, in which Jones was to debate the government gun-grabbing issue with Alan Dershowitz. So the cowardly Dershowitz came on with just Morgan to lie about the statistics and historical facts that Jones brought up, as well as calling Jones a liar.

It is very sad to see how Dershowitz has sunk since the old days. He used to be a champion of the First Amendment, free speech and civil liberties. Now, not so much. His anti-Arab bigotry and Israel-Firstness, as well as his increasing disregard for civil liberties and due process, have been extremely disappointing. As Infowars described last night in the linked article, “Jones said he also confronted Dershowitz on his support for creating warrants that would allow police and security services to torture suspects, adding that Dershowitz was not interested in debating Jones.” They linked to an article on Dershowitz’s website, “The Case for Torture Warrants,”  but I’ll link to this one on Reuters for further info on that.

Dershowitz doesn’t like being called an “Israel Firster,” so he had attempted to get MJ Rosenberg fired from Media Matters. Here is another link regarding Dershowitz’s obsession with Israel, and his refusal to hear any criticism of the “Jewish State.” (It’s not a “Jewish State,” it’s a “militant nationalist” State.) Hmmm. I wonder if Dershowitz has an opinion on Israel’s anti-black pogrom currently going on.

And Robert Wenzel posted the video of that third segment from CNN of Piers Morgan and Alan Dershowitz talking and lying about guns and Alex Jones.


In the aforementioned interview between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones, Jones declared, “1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms.” As I have mentioned before, the main reason for the early Americans’ 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is for the people, the civilian population, to have the means to defend themselves against their centralized federal government. They already knew from their own experience then that the more centralized a government is, the more likely it is to become too powerful, repressive and tyrannical. That was why they revolted and separated themselves from the British rulers.

Just look at all these articles I have now on my “USSA Amerika” page that show how our own country is turning into an increasingly repressive, freedom-less prison-State. “It can’t happen here”?

Now, regarding the right to bear arms, and more specifically the right to bear the kinds of arms that Dianne Feinstein and other fascists want to ban: The individual human being, with the natural, God- or nature-given right to life, liberty and security, has the natural right to defend oneself against the aggression of others, no matter who those others are, including government agents, government police or government military. And it is the individual’s right to possess the means of self-defense and self-preservation to defend oneself. That means, as Stewart Rhodes very eloquently detailed in this declaration of his right to bear arms, that if the government possessed certain types of weaponry and firearms and so forth, then the civilian population has the right to possess the exact same things. The early Americans could not have carried out a revolution had their means of defense been inferior to those of the British.

Getting People to Question Long-Held Beliefs Is a Difficult Task

In many of my articles and blog posts over the past three or four years I have been attempting to convince people that freedom and decentralization are what’s necessary to have a genuinely civilized and prosperous society. However, there may have been too many times in which my own frustration has caused me to engage in too much name-calling, sarcasm, etc, and may have in fact pushed away those new readers I intended to sway toward supporting liberty rather than government (Yes, those two are opposites.)

Now, in his recent article, The Rationally Misinformed Voter, Thomas DiLorenzo just tells it like it is, much in the same way that I have preferred to be doing. He points out one item after another as examples of the cognitive dissonance that afflicts most Americans. But I doubt that if you have the average Obama supporter or Romney-Bush supporter read that article, that their minds will change at all. They will still be an Obama or Romney-Bush supporter, and generally continue to support the statism they have supported all their lives, the very statism that has been responsible for the ruination of America.

However, Paul Craig Roberts has this article, Does Truth Have a Future in America? in which he notes that

most readers read in order to confirm what they already think and believe. It is the same for the right-wing and the left-wing. They cannot escape their ideological boxes and are creatures of their biases. They want their prejudices vindicated and their beliefs supported. A writer who tells them something that they do not want to hear receives abuse. These readers cannot benefit from facts and new information and change their minds. They already know everything and only want information that supports their beliefs and advances their agendas.

If a writer makes the case so clear that readers simply cannot avoid it, the reader will intentionally misread the article or book and attack the writer for saying everything that he does not say. The chorus will join in the effort to shut down the unwelcome information before it reaches others.

Because of modern government-controlled education, many people don’t actually understand that the current President is a fascist. He certainly is not a “liberal” in any way whatsoever!

To me “liberalism” should be associated with “liberalizing,” or “liberating” others, that is, making people freer. But both sides, the Left-progressives and the conservatives and neocons have been supporting government policies that have taken away much of our freedom, especially since the turn of the 20th Century.

But, as Roberts observed, it is difficult to convince people of your argument when their own (albeit erroneous, incoherent or irrational) positions are firmly cemented, whether having been reinforced for many years by government-controlled education, the biased news media, and especially, government propaganda. A lot of people are never or rarely exposed to alternative ideas. When they are, they often dismiss the messenger as “fringe,” as many people have done to Ron Paul and his ideas (despite that many of his ideas are exactly those of the early Americans and Revolutionaries, while the very kinds of policies the Revolutionaries fought against are staunchly supported by most Americans today). So, many people know what they know, and that’s that, as I have noted regarding many people’s views on Israel.

For example, a lot of “liberals” support the current Social Security system. But how is it “liberal” to force people to have to participate in this government-run retirement scheme? Especially when it is based on a major fundamental lie, that a portion of your earnings taken from your paycheck against your will will be returned to you when you retire. At least, that is what has been intentionally implied. But it is a fraudulent scheme, especially when there is no “account” that your Social Security taxes go into for the future, as many people mistakenly believe. All the money the government takes is put into the general fund at the U.S. Treasury. And you don’t “put into” Social Security throughout your working years, as though that’s voluntary, it is taken from you.

And those are indisputable facts about Social Security that most liberals and conservatives probably know. Well, maybe many people don’t know. Many people prefer to go through life believing the myths, and they don’t want to hear the truth. But the truth is this: government bureaucrats and politicians have taken your earnings away from you, to spend on general government spending, from pork barrel crap to counter-productive wars in the Middle East. But I guess too many people just don’t want to hear these truths, and so they will  continue to support these policies. That is what makes it difficult for me not to refer to people as “sheeple,” as they willingly and in many cases knowingly let themselves be bamboozled, robbed and enslaved by those who mask themselves as good guys.

We can see now how there is little to no objection amongst America’s conservatives to the reelection of John Boehner as House Speaker, despite his kowtowing to the Democrats on taxes, and his otherwise Big Government agenda. Regardless of his “fiscal conservative” rhetoric, he is just another Big Government Republican hack. And who are those Congressmen who voted for the new Obama tax-stealing legislation? This is why I can’t help but call people “sheeple,” although I apologize for that.

And also in the news has been the gun control debate. Well, it’s not really a “debate,” as the Republicans, the NRA, and so-called gun-rights advocates are going right along with Obama’s real agenda to disarm the American people.

Right now, it does not seem likely that I could convince very many people on the Left to support the right to bear arms. And they do seem so terrified of guns, supposedly. But they seem so much more terrified by a school worker or teacher being armed and possibly using a gun to protect children from an armed madman, than they are terrified of the madman himself shooting people.

Many on the Left — so-called “liberals” — seem to want all private civilians to be disarmed and defenseless, but only government police and government military to be armed. This is where their cognitive dissonance really shows itself. You would think that, after we increasingly see one incident after another, day after day now, in the news, on websites and on YouTube, of police harassing, assaulting, unlawfully arresting and incarcerating, beating, tasing and murdering innocent civilians, that so-called “liberals” might begin to question whether or not only police should be armed and not civilians. We saw what the police are capable of now during the Occupy movement, which apparently has now been stifled by the FBI. The gun control people are more terrified of any peaceful protester who might be armed than they are of these government criminal goons, which is basically what police have become now.

And it’s not just the police, many of whom are drugged up on dangerous steroids and other drugs, some illegal, but the military as well. The military have been trained and deployed over in Iraq and Afghanistan where they have done a lot of murdering of innocent civilians over there. Many of them are psychologically screwed up, with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other serious issues, physical injuries and brain trauma. Along with the police, do “liberals” really only want military and vets when they return here to be armed, but not everyday, honest, peaceful civilians? But what if there is economic collapse, and civil unrest, and martial law? Do you really trust and feel safe with only police and military to be armed but not your next door neighbor? (“Liberals” might want to refresh their memories on how police and National Guard behaved during Hurricane Katrina.)

This brings me back to my earlier assertion of Obama being a “fascist,” which many people, liberal or conservative, don’t really understand. A lot of people have this mystical view of Obama, based on his rhetorical skills (when the teleprompter is working), and his “charm,” etc. But because a lot of people don’t really pay attention to the news (and even those who do pay attention, it is to government-mouthpieces like the New York Times, CNN or FoxNews, etc.), they don’t know that Obama has deported more immigrants than all the other presidents combined, and that he has stepped up the drug war including cracking down on medical marijuana. Obama has also stepped up the drone war, with his CIA drones bombing and murdering many innocent civilians in Pakistan and other countries. The Obama regime merely labels “all military aged males” as “combatants” or as “militants” as their rationale for their murders. How could “liberals” be supporting this?

And I’m sure that many “liberals” do not know about Obama’s many fascist and unconstitutional Executive Orders. I wrote about that here, but there have been more since then. If it were George W. Bush doing this, the “liberals” would be calling for his impeachment.

And it’s just as difficult to reach conservatives as it is so-called “liberals.” Like the Left, there is also cognitive dissonance with conservatives, such as when they support a socialist Willard Romney and refer to him as a “conservative” or a “capitalist,” when he is neither of those things.

And there were those who actually call themselves “conservatives” who believe in Christian moral values who actually “booed” Ron Paul’s suggestion of applying the Golden Rule to U.S. foreign policy. I’m sure that, during the many times that I have challenged the idea of “American Exceptionalism,” and criticized the war-supporters and Bush supporters, that I probably lost some readers, mainly the conservative ones. But, I want those who believe in this Exceptionalism thing, who believe that America is “exceptional” or special, and has some extra rights or God-given powers that other countries don’t have, to try to see the irrationality in that as well. If you believe in morality and the rule of law, and that all people must be equal under the law, then you couldn’t believe that it is acceptable for the U.S. government to invade and occupy the territories of other countries who were of no threat to us, but not acceptable for other countries’ governments to invade or occupy the United States.

Many people accepted without question the U.S. government’s reasons for starting wars against other countries, such as Bush 41′s 1991 war on Iraq, and Bush 43′s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and then 2003 in Iraq. But all those initiations of invasions and occupations did was to provoke foreigners to act against Americans. And waste a lot of money.  In fact, because these government bureaucrats are just that: government bureaucrats and government central planners with a monopoly in Washington and no incentive to be accountable under the law, it might be best to assume that when they do want to start a new war or enter Americans into someone else’s war, that they are lying. And don’t let them do it.

And that brings me to 9/11. There have been some readers who found my blog, either from LRC, Strike the Root, or other places, or from comments I left on other blogs, and who liked some of my posts or articles, but when getting to my article on the biased news media, or on questioning the government’s word on 9/11, would then reflexively remark that “oh, he’s a 9/11 truther, so much for that guy,” etc. And that is because they react emotionally to the suggestion that what the government told us about 9/11 may actually not be the case, and some people just want to blindly and obediently believe what government bureaucrats tell them.

Well, I believe that the truth is important. As Justin Raimondo noted, “the opposite of a truther is a liar.” And the government is full of pathological liars. So I’m not referring as “liars” to those who believe the government’s propaganda and assume that everything the media reports from government press releases is true and unquestionable, but it’s those government bureaucrats — they are the liars, and the “presstitutes” as Paul Craig Roberts calls them.

I just wish that people would take the time to look at this video by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is an organization of over 1,700 professional architects and engineers who assert with valid evidence from 9/11 and demonstrations to back them up, that the collapse of the World Trade Center towers could not have occurred in the way the government has officially explained to us. You can also see this information on 9/11 whistleblower Susan Lindauer here, here, and this interview of her here. And this information from whistleblower Sibel Edmonds here and here. I’m sure those more closed-minded amongst readers won’t bother, and in their blind faith of everything they know to be true that the government and its media spokespeople have told them they will just dismiss what I’m saying as “conspiratorial” or “crazy.” But those who consider themselves to be more open-minded might take a look.

Talk Radio, R.I.P.?

It appears that one of Boston’s two commercial all-talk radio stations is being closed down and replaced by another music station. WTKK 96.9 FM, “NewsTalk Ninety-Six Nine,” will cease to be, tomorrow. Last August, Boston’s until-then third all-talk radio station, “Talk 1200,” also ceased to be, and became an all-comedy radio station. The joke’s on us talk radio listeners, though. Now we’re down to just WRKO, which has local hosts Jeffrey Kuhner and Howie Carr, and syndicated hosts Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, for commercial talk radio. But public radio stations WBUR and WGBH are heavy in news and talk, and provide a needed alternative.

I am not surprised with WTKK’s expiring, given the decline in talk radio in general over the last 20 years, and the decline in our culture that used to appreciate a diversity in points of view. But nowadays, the Left, which controls the government education system, doesn’t even want to consider or hear other points of views, and the neocons, who mainly have ruled over talk radio since the early 1990s, also don’t want to hear other points of view, as both sides remain ignorant and closed-minded.

So now, only a small portion of the population listens to talk radio, because it’s no longer very informative or entertaining, and only a small portion listens to NPR or watches TV news or cable talk/news. Mostly people turn on the radio to hear the crappy music that is now offered, and watch boring crap on TV. America is now a nation of unthinking, texting zombies, who vote for corrupt political sleazebags like Barack Obama and Willard Romney, and show contempt for truth-tellers such as Ron Paul.

But I’ve been a talk radio junkie since the 1970s, beginning with Mike Miller on WTIC in Hartford, Bernard Meltzer and Arlene Francis on WOR and Larry Glick on WBZ. Larry Glick took calls from people in many different states, as WBZ’s reach is quite wide, and Glick talked about the “light” topics and was very funny. Arlene Francis had a wider variety, discussing political issues as well as interviewing celebrities. While Meltzer didn’t discuss politics — his was sort of an advice show — he nevertheless cracked me up with his addressing the callers as “honey,” and “sweetheart.” Today he would be called a “sexist” for that. And Pegeen Fitzgerald and her husband Edward were also on WOR, broadcasting from their apartment that also included sounds of the cleaning lady vacuuming in the background, and their gossiping about the neighbors and bickering. What fun they were, the Fitzgeralds.

But it was really Jerry Williams who got me much more interested in the issues and current events. His show on WRKO during the 1980s was #1 in Boston radio for several years, as were most of the other shows on WRKO. Here is the website devoted to Jerry Williams, who died in 2003.

Jerry Williams’s background was in theater and acting, and he had an extremely diverse palette of interests of his to discuss. He interviewed many people from politics and show biz, and the arts and sciences. I don’t think there has been a talk radio talent as good as Jerry Williams. He was an old-fashioned, pro-union, pro-choice “liberal,” who became more populist in the later years of his show, thanks to the corruption of Gov. Michael Dukakis, the New Braintree prison deal, and the rise in tax-thefts in Massachusetts. Starting in 1994, Williams gradually reduced his hours on WRKO, and then fully retired in 1998. He made a brief comeback in December 2002 on WROL in Boston, and then, prior to his death in April 2003, had a “last hurrah” on WRKO on March 1st, 2003.

I kind of hadn’t been as enthusiastic in listening to Jerry Williams maybe starting in the early 1990s, as he seemed to have become obsessed with the seat-belt law and repealing it, and his discussions of the state political “hacks” were endless. In other words, he was becoming a little boring.

And with WRKO’s decline starting around 20 years ago, I would say that the decline of talk radio in general started around then, too. The cultural decline since the early ’90s is related to that. The 1980s gave us Iran-Contra and the Nazi-wannabe Oliver North plotting his future police state, and then the Cold War came to a close. So with those things then-President George H.W. Bush started his war on Iraq to keep the military-industrial-congressional-security-complex going. But no one seemed to question any of that. Bush managed to whine his way to the UN to get that collection of dictators, war criminals, misfits and degenerates to go along with Bush’s Iraq. But thanks to the decline in education in America, the decline in critical thinking, and the increase in State-worship authoritarianism, the American people didn’t question the propaganda.

Since the 1990s, talk radio has been dominated by the neocons. Rush Limbaugh really became popular thanks to Bill Clinton, the Left’s own Teflon President. And now, when you listen to the average talk radio program, you will hear the host spending long segments talking just by himself, and when they finally do take calls, usually it is fellow neocons agreeing with one another and patting themselves on the back in blindly supporting the military and the “war on terror,” and hating Muslims and immigrants. Basically that’s it now. No wonder their ratings continue to decline.

But if you compare the average hour of talk radio now with discussions that talk radio hosts had during the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, you’ll hear a big difference, not just in the diversity of points of view and the talk hosts’ allowing that diversity, but the quality of conversations was much higher then than it is now. For example, you can hear Jerry Williams’s 1965 WBBM interview of well-known atheist Madeline Murray O’Hare (before the O’Hare), who discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling on prayer in public schools and how she had been beaten by the police (interviews are at the end of that linked post).

Or you can hear Jerry Williams interviewing John McLaughlin on WBZ (who later hosted the “McLaughlin Group” on TV) in 1974 while McLaughlin was still a Jesuit priest and working as a Nixon Administration flunky. I think that link is the second hour of the discussion, which is provided by the website. Here is the following hour.  (Links open a new media player window.)

And here is a 1972 Jerry Williams interview of then-Democrat Presidential nominee George McGovern. I don’t think they took calls from listeners, but it is an interesting discussion.

And here is Jerry Williams’s 1967 discussion of Jack Ruby’s death and the Warren Commission, from WBBM.

And here is a 1970 interview by Jerry Williams of controversial investment advisor Richard Ney, here and here.

And here is a four-minute audio clip from the early 1970s with Jerry Williams taking a call from a frustrated Marine, who stated that we the people needed to take our country back from the liars who rule over us. Not much has changed since 40 years ago, I’m afraid.

There are some clips from WRKO provided on the website, but they do not seem to be as good as all the shows I remember hearing on WRKO throughout the 1980s.

There have been plenty of times that I have turned on the radio, wishing that Jerry Williams was still on, because on WRKO at that afternoon hour is Howie Carr, who replaced Jerry Williams in 1994. Howie Carr is still on! Some people had already been predicting that WRKO is also on its way to changing formats, as its ratings have also been very poor. Oh well, “Entercom happens,” as Carr would say.

Now, WBZ is considered an “all-news” station, and has good ratings. But from 8 PM until 5 AM they do have talk shows. I suppose former WBZ-TV reporter Dan Rea is okay as the evening WBZ talk host, but you can only hear the Registrar of Motor Vehicles so many times, you know. (It seems every time I tune in, he has the Registrar of Motor Vehicle on.)

But regarding WBZ’s evening talk hosts, Rea replaced the funny and politically-observant Paul Sullivan, who died in 2007 at the age of only 50, and Paul Sullivan replaced the libertarian intellectual David Brudnoy, who died in 2004 at the age of only 64. And even Brudnoy had replaced Lou Marcel, who died at an even younger age. (Hmmm. Could there be something wrong there at the WBZ studios? Also, WBZ radio news anchor Darrell Gould died in 1996 at age 56.)

But early deaths do not seem to be reserved for WBZ, as WRKO talk host Andy Moes died at only age 50 back in 2001. Perhaps there’s something going on with radio electronics or radio waves etc., I don’t know. However, some talk radio hosts still seem to have very good endurance, regardless of what might be going on in those radio studios. Howie Carr, 60, continues on WRKO for 18 years despite the health issues he’s had, and Rush Limbaugh, almost 62, continues his syndicated show of 24 years despite his health issues.

And Jerry Williams was a talk radio host from 1957 until 1998. Now that’s endurance. But how much longer will talk radio itself last, as long as we have a country lacking in critical thinking, and a population of zombies who constantly hold and stare at their cell phones like a second sex organ?

But there still seems to be hope for us, and for talk radio. Despite the neocons and progressives and the biased news media‘s attempts at suppressing Ron Paul’s message of freedom and peace this past year, those ideas have been making their way back into talk radio. Investment and monetary analyst Peter Schiff has his new show which is live 10 AM-Noon Eastern, and can be heard on several radio stations (although quite a few of those stations air only the rebroadcast of the show on weekends).

And economic historian Tom Woods fills in for Schiff quite a lot. Now, Woods is the one, in my opinion, who has the kind of communications and conversational talent and abilities to carry on a great talk radio show. If we can just get the Left-progressives and neocons to try to open their minds a little more to the moral principles of individual rights and non-aggression, and get them to step back and see that the State is not really what it and its handlers present it to be, then maybe Woods and others can rejuvenate the talk radio medium, and make it better again.

And if we can only get the zombies all across America to put down those damn cell phones!