Just as historical accounts in the old Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin would edit out any references to Leon Trotsky, so CBS News is editing out any references to its former news reporter and anchor Dan Rather in its “coverage” of the November 22, 1963 murder of John Kennedy.
For fifty years Dan Rather has been “Rather Biased” concerning the Kennedy assassination and the Warren Commission cover-up of what took place that day in Dallas. As a Dealey Plaza “eye-witness” to those tragic events, together with his tenacious adherence to the government’s “official story” is what made (and launched) his CBS network news broadcasting career.
On November 22, 1963, a coup d’état by Lyndon Johnson and the highest echelons of the National Security State was accomplished with the brutal murder of President John F. Kennedy. Andrew Gavin Marshall has written an excellent and concise online summary article, “The National Security State and the Assassination of JFK,” which compliments the definitive, path-breaking research of author James W. Douglass in JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.
The “smoking gun” in the cover-up of the assassination is found in CIA Dispatch #1035-960 (available online). This was the crucial covert directive to the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird elite media assets to vigorously denounce critics of the Warren Commission Report as “conspiracy theorists.” This is when that particular derogatory term of denunciation and disinformation entered the national conversation in an attempt to cut off and stifle informed debate on the president’s murder because the path of evidence would lead directly to those elements behind the sinister cover-up.
These facts are discussed in detail in Lance deHaven-Smith’s authoritative Conspiracy Theory in America (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press). Dr. Smith is a widely published scholar in peer-reviewed academic journals and is Professor in the Reubin O’ D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University in Tallahassee. DeHaven-Smith has appeared on Good Morning America, the Today Show, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, CBS Nightly News with Dan Rather, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and other national TV and radio shows.
The upcoming CBS line-up of “programing” (sans Dan Rather) will continue their five decades of disinformation, deceit, and duplicity regarding Kennedy’s murder.
CBS chairman William Paley, Fred Friendly, and Edward R. Murrow were part of the Agency’s Operation Mockingbird to provide deflection and cover for the CIA’s ‘family jewels’ of the day. CBS News president Sig Mickelson (1954-61) was liaison to the CIA. Because of his frequent communications, Mickelson even had a direct private phone line installed to the Agency. CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite was a former military intelligence officer also connected within this elite nexus.
CIA director Allen Dulles (fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs disaster and later the key member of the Warren Commission cover-up), CBS chairman William Paley, and CBS board director Senator Prescott Bush were intimate associates in various sociopolitical networks of the northeastern seaboard establishment found in Washington and New York during the days of the early Cold War. Whether they would meet in their elite private clubs, at the Harold Pratt House of the Council on Foreign Relations, or in Wall Street corporate and bank board rooms, these old birds of a feather flocked, connived, schemed, and conspired together.
Ironically it was Dan Rather’s reporting on Prescott Bush’s grandson which got him sacked from CBS. Investigative journalist Russ Baker’s superb book, Family of Secrets, vindicated Rather in detailing George Walker Bush’s AWOL absentee record and criminal behavior regarding the National Guard during the Viet Nam War. Baker also illuminated Prescott’s son George Herbert Walker Bush’s curious connections to the unfolding events in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
Here’s another heroic anarcho-Detroit platform: Detroit Soup is an anarcho-launching platform for citizen startups: funded by normal folks for hopeful visionaries who dream of pursuing some entrepreneurial, charity, or artistic vision within the Detroit community. Here is a description of the group from the Detroit Soup website:
- a collaborative situation
- a public dinner
- a platform for connection
- a theatrical environment
- a democratic experiment in micro-funding
- a relational hub bringing together various creative communities
- a forum for critical but accessible discussion
- an opportunity to support creative people in Detroit
Detroit SOUP is a microgranting dinner celebrating creative projects in Detroit. For $5 you receive soup, salad, bread, and a vote. You will hear from four presentations ranging from art, urban agriculture, social justice, social entrepreneurs, education, technology, etc., who have four minutes to share their idea and then field four questions from the diners. We eat, connect, share resources, and vote on what project you think should win the money gathered from the night. When the night nears to a close we count the ballots and whoever has the most votes takes home the money from the door.
Detroit Soup is about bringing people in the community together to support others in taking risk and bringing value to the city. Detroit Soup holds public dinners with a $5 charge for a “soup, salad, and a vote.” Visionaries present their projects and attendees vote on which project should receive the cash raised from the dinner. This month’s winner of the take was ‘Sit on It Detroit,’ an organization I have written about in the past on my Detroit: From Rust to Riches blog. This group builds bus stop benches (from repurposed wood with bookshelves) for placement at Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) bus stops because the government is too inept to get it done.
You can read more stories like this on my Detroit: Rust to Riches blog, or follow me on Twitter @karendecoster, and follow my public Twitter list “Detroit!” that pulls all unique Detroit sources into one list.
Police do not exist to protect persons and property. Their primary mission is revenue collection at gunpoint on behalf of the political class. In Occupied America, refusal to submit to such extortion is an offense worthy of summary execution of the rebel — and any innocent bystanders, including children.
Rihanna Ferrell was stopped by a road agent for violating the speed limit. After the parasite turned his back, Ferrell drove away. She stopped again a short distance away, and the revenue collection agent attempted to abduct her (or, as he would put it, arrest her). Ferrell was in the company of her five children, the oldest of whom — her 14-year-old son — quite commendably came to his mother’s aid when an armed stranger violently laid hands on her.
A thugscrum soon coalesced and laid siege to the family’s vehicle, breaking windows and terrorizing the children. Ferrell took off again, prompting one of the cretinous tax-gatherers to fire several shots into the rear of the vehicle — an act of criminal attempted homicide. Following an extremely dangerous chase, Ferrell eventually pulled over and surrendered.
The actions of the mother may be considered intemperate and irresponsible, and they will be punished as if they were actual crimes — which they were not. Ironically, the headline supplied by ABC News underscores the identity of the real criminals in this encounter: “Police Take Aggressive Action When Mother and Her Kids Resist Arrest.” All aggression is criminal, and only aggression (force or fraud) can be considered criminal.
The behavior of the police in this episode was close kindred to that of occupation forces in Iraq who would often fire indiscriminately into vehicles that refused to stop at checkpoints. Indeed, this is entirely typical of the tactics employed by the Regime’s domestic army of occupation.UPDATE This traffic stop occurred outside Taos, New Mexico — a state where every routine traffic stop is freighted with the very real possibility of rape or other sexual assault at the hands of police and their medical enablers. That entirely plausible fear should be regarded as a compelling defense for Mrs. Ferrell’s actions.
Karen: As Ayn Rand might have put it, anyone who doesn’t know the difference between offensive words and acts of physical violence deserves to find out!
Once again, the perpetually offended, politically correct, feminist-first crowd has found something to be offended about – shocking I know!
Read the whole article on Yahoo - it’s quite entertaining. Burt’s Bees, a great company that makes all kinds of cool stuff for body & beauty had a product called Vanilla Flame Body Butter wherein the packaging contained this “offensive” statement: “Soak in the moisturizing seductiveness of shea butter and indulge in the scent of vanilla and rice milk. And let the catcalling commence.”
One member of the Perpetually & Collectively Offended Club tweeted, “Catcalling is a violence against women.” So this gal created a petition asking the company to “issue an apology and agree to stop the production of products that legitimize street harassment.” The petition website reads:
Street harassment, commonly referred to as catcalling, is the most common form of gender-based violence globally. Long-term impacts include depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and at ihollaback.org, victims report missing school, changing jobs or moving homes to avoid exposure.
So somehow, one miserable and scatterbrained bimbo has managed to take a simple product marketing inscription and turn it into something which magically gives rise to a physical act, which then becomes defined as violence, which then begets depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and therefore we shall witness the ensuing ruination of one’s life. The always-fuming, feminist crowd habitually distorts definitions of otherwise meaningful words and manages to elevate every act deemed to be personally offensive into a criminal act of epic proportions against the entire female gender.
This “street harassment” terminology is a bit misleading, as I have been on the receiving end - many times – of such harassment that has gone too far for my own comfort. Oftentimes it takes place while I am in my car, but sometimes out on the streets or other public place. It’s not violence – it’s what I deem passive-aggressive behavior from men who do not have a clue about proper social skills. This can be a cultural, behavioral, and/or IQ question, and each situation is to be judged accordingly. In fact, I always get ‘fun’ catcalls all the time. Generally, they are from otherwise friendly men who just want to convey that they find you, or something about you, appealing to their senses.
But a “gaze” or a catcall is not to be equated with violence, which is an act of physical force. Fewer people are starting to take this feminist illogic seriously anymore, thank goodness.
The Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Patriot-News newspaper let out a belch of political correctness recently when it apologized for how the paper referred to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as “the silly remarks of the president” 150 years ago. The paper, which used to be called the Patriot-Union, got it right the first time, of course.
That’s the title of my new online Mises Academy course that begins on December 1 and runs for four weeks. The Austrian School has a long history of analysis and critique of the gimme-something-for-nothing welfare state. We will discuss these intellectual assaults on the welfare state (including the corporate welfare state) which may well be on the verge of an implosion in the U.S. and all around the world. What a wonderful Christmas present that would be!
For those who are weary of the steady diet of wimpy, wussified, politically-correct males who crawl onto television screens to beg for a few crumbs of respect, two notable examples of self-confident males can be found. One is found in the BBC program – shown on most PBS stations – “Doc Martin.” Martin is the doctor in a small English seacoast town. He is a very independent, competent, and conscientious physician; a misanthrope who has little use for the male and female boobs with whom he must deal. The other man is Mark Labbett, who is found on the Game Show Network’s new program “The Chase.” Labbett is a very self-confident individual who challenges his guests to trivia contests and wins. Known, on the show, as “The Beast,” he bests his opponents with little sympathy for their losses.
It used to bother me that the lead item in a Google search for Tom Woods was a maker of what I am sure are excellent custom drive shafts. Now The Man has the first two entries.
The difference is that Ford has smoked crack and gone about his business while US politicians act like they are on crack. Like when a conservative Republican says he opposes Obamacare because it will lead to socialized medicine but then says that he is a firm supporter of Medicare.
JP Morgan decided to host a monthly Q&A Tweet-up with its executives. Anyone can ask anything by tweeting it with the hashtag #AskJPM. Hilarity ensues and the event has been canceled as the tweet-up shows how little regard ordinary people have for these bailed-out plutocrats. A few of the better barbs:
2/3 of the 80,000 tweets were negative. Hey JPM, you getting the picture? #AskJPM
The pro-Israel lobby is widely thought to be powerful on Capitol Hill, and it has been. But by Humphrey Neill’s art of contrary thinking, we would do well to ponder the opposite possibility: that its influence bubble will deflate.
If the negotiations with the Iranians work out toward detente, the pro-Israel lobby will have met with a defeat. If Israel were unilaterally to aggress against Iran, the pro-Israel lobby will also not look good. The more that Americans see their own security and interests being subordinated to those of Israel, the worse the pro-Israel lobby looks. The more that members of Congress are pressured by the pro-Israel lobby, the more obvious its tactics become and the more resistance and resentment the lobby triggers. The more that “wolf” is cried, while Iran acts with restraint and decorum while absorbing various acts of sabotage, the more that the pro-Israel lobby looks out of touch. The very fact of negotiations going on now is a signal that the bubble is deflating. If the activities of the neocon faction and the pro-war faction should prove successful in jettisoning the talks and raising tensions again, there will be a backlash. In a war-weary America, any new war encouraged by the lobby or aggressive talk from it are likely to run into a negative assessment of the lobby’s rationality. As long as there is no direct threat against Jewish people in Israel, amounting to an extermination threat, there will be a tendency for the bubble to deflate.
There are other wild cards that may act to deflate the lobby’s influence, such as an increased understanding of the motives of all the pro-war parties involved, including those in Israel causing territorial enlargement, the neocons, the pro-war interests, and those with strange religious ideas.
It seems that no matter what happens, the high point of the pro-Israel lobby has been reached and passed.
According to a story in Stars and Stripes about a new Air Assault School being started at Fort Bragg, NC: “In the 1980s and ’90s, few soldiers wore coveted combat patches on the right shoulder of their uniforms. Soldiers would dream of earning the honor while they would ‘train, train, train,’” said Command Sgt. Maj. Isaia T. Vimoto. He said that after 9/11, soldiers had numerous opportunities to earn combat patches in Iraq and Afghanistan, but “those days are coming to a screeching halt.” Even so, “the air assault badge worn on the left side of the chest can become a source of pride for soldiers,” he said.
As one veteran put it to me: “This really means that soldiers dream of going into combat, killing people and destroying things, as well as putting their own lives at risk, just to have a neat patch to wear on their right shoulders, something to show off to their pals.” Thanks to TM.
I saw a car today with two stickers on its back window. The first said “Obama-Biden.” The second said “Constitution Voter.” How could anyone possibly make a connection between these two things? And I would say the same thing if the first sticker said “Bush-Cheney.”
As a consistent libertarian, I must oppose both U.S. aid and troops being sent to the Philippines just like I opposed the same being sent to Myanmar and Haiti. The American people are a generous people, and would do even more during disasters if the government didn’t “crowd out” aid.
John: Just how widespread is the understanding of the NSA’s intrusions into everything was brought home to me about 15 minutes ago. I stopped at a service station to refill my car’s gas tank. I was wearing a T-shirt that read: “NSA: The only part of government that actually listens.” The young clerk running the cash register saw it and said “I really like your shirt.” He then went on to tell me about the NSA’s gigantic facility in Utah; and how they can’t seem to keep enough electricity there to power it. He then added how “the government keeps taking more and more of our freedom.”
Privacy may not be a “right” in the libertarian sense, but it is as necessary as sunshine, friends, and music to being a happy, healthy human. Certainly the government has no a priori “right” to know everything about someone’s life, as Mike Rozeff and I have pointed out on multiple occasions. So as Drudge’s headline links to the latest revelation that the government spying and information sharing goes beyond the NSA, a few additional thoughts come to mind.
The constant surveillance creates a pall of neurosis over the entire country. This is perhaps the hardest to explain or quantify unless you’ve traveled to countries outside the US, UK, and Western Europe. The first thing you notice is that people seem happier and freer in their actions. Then you notice the lack of street cameras, shoplifting cameras, and lobby cameras everywhere. Coincidence? Maybe it’s my imagination, colored by some sort of confirmation bias. Then again, maybe not.
The corollary to this is that the government has and will use its surveillance selectively, against political opponents and critics. This is not conjecture, but proven with the IRS targeting of Tea-Party groups the latest in a long line of selective prosecution and profiling in the tradition of J. Edgar Hoover. As we learn the definition of a terrorist has been expanded to include anyone critical of the government, the NSA will continue to turn its eye of Sauron increasingly inward.
Then as Harry Silvergate’s Three Felonies a Day shows, given access to the browsing history, email, past purchases, financial transactions, phone records, and movements of its critics, the government will find some minor malum prohibitum crime and use it to harass, bankrupt, imprison and destroy its perceived enemies. As Beria said “show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime” . In the age of digital everything, the government can selectively release information to make anyone fit the profile of a terrorist, child-molester, tax-evader or all three. If a crime can’t easily be found, a few records might be inserted into the digital profile to create one. Naturally there are safeguards to prevent such digital tampering with the evidence – just like the ones in place to keep a mid-level admin like Edward Snowden from walking off with thousands of records and documents.
Delenda est NSA. Shutdown the NSA. Wipe the hard drives. Auction the data centers.
It’s strange how political hardliners get away with making their peoples more insecure while claiming that by taking a hard line they are increasing security.
Netanyahu in Israel is a prime example of a hardliner on Iran. But the harder his line gets and the greater the chance that it succeeds in causing a war of the U.S. against Iran, the less secure that his country becomes. I mean, how secure can Israelis be at the epicenter of a major war in which all hell breaks loose?
The U.S. Congress is another body taking a hard line on Iran. On July 31, 2013, the House passed a new Iran sanctions bill by a vote of 400 ayes to 20 nays. This was 6 weeks after Rouhani had been elected president. But does this bill make Americans more secure or less? Some will say it increases the chances that Iran will negotiate, but it has the opposite effect. It increases the pressures brought against Rouhani and negotiations by the hardliners in Iran. It rewards Iran’s seeking of an agreement with a slap in the face. More sanctions are a form of greater warfare against Iran by people who effectively want an unconditional surrender or for Iran to give up rights that every other nation has and claims. This increases the odds of outright warfare and decreases American security.
And the third group of obstructionists are hardliners in Iran. They too are placing obstacles in the path leading to an agreement that reduces the chances of an outright shooting war.
It is all around strange that hardliners can preach their basically evil nonsense, thinking or at least claiming that it somehow increases the security of their peoples when it does the opposite. And it is equally strange that they can find supporters in their respective countries. Do these groups actually fear peace and somehow believe that peace is going to make suckers out of them? Are they making the mistake of thinking that they will be appeasing the other side? Are they so imbued with chauvinistic hatreds and distrust of foreigners that they forget that everyone involved is a human being? Do they not appreciate or care that it’s the little people, the silent majorities, who are the ones most likely to suffer from a new and greater war? Are they so imbued with twisted and one-sided religious views that they cannot tolerate views other than their own? Do pride and arrogance blind them?
I have been amazed that with substantial progress having been made in talks with Iran that the negative forces would react with such evidently furious hatred and seek to scuttle the process. They come across as downright evil, extraordinarily inflexible and paranoid. They are surely working directly against the peace and security of their peoples.