Archive for the ‘Politicians’ Category
I am like a squirrel but instead of storing nuts in a hollow tree trunk for future consumption, I store idle thoughts away in my in-box. Then one fine day, I decide it’s time to empty the contents on an unsuspecting world. This is that day.
To start with, a doctor friend of mine informed me that while taking a patient’s history before performing an appendectomy, he discovered she was receiving Social Security disability and was on Medicare/Medicaid, but the only ID she had other than the benefit cards was a Mexican voter photo ID.
When my friend, who speaks Spanish, asked her if photo IDs were required to vote in Mexico, she said they were because the Mexicans didn’t want people who were in Mexico illegally to be able to vote. Apparently she thought that was only sensible, as do I, but unlike her, I’m aware of the irony.
In Greensboro, North Carolina, a black lawyer named Larry L. Archie has paid for a billboard that reads: “Just Because You Did It Doesn’t Mean You’re Guilty.” Now that’s what I call an honest lawyer, though not necessarily an honest man.
It doesn’t mean anything, but I find it odd that a century ago, Russia was saddled with a creep named Rasputin and today it’s run by a creep named Putin. At this rate, in another hundred years, they’ll probably be stuck with some schmuck named Tin.
I’ve heard that HarperCollins is reconsidering its decision to print an atlas to be sold in the Middle East that doesn’t include Israel in its pages. It makes for interesting speculation. Would HarperCollins be willing to remove South Korea from atlases sold in North Korea? Would they be open to Putin’s request to place Ukraine within Russia’s borders? Or to the Islamic demand that London be renamed Londonistan?
In “Fiddler on the Roof,” one of the songs has a lyric: “Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match.” Perhaps the folks at HarperCollins could adapt it to “Mapmaker, mapmaker, make me a map” and use it in their commercials.
Recently, I heard rumors that Hillary Clinton had a hissy fit when she heard that her husband had been involved with teenage sex slaves. I can’t imagine why at this late date she would have a reaction to anything involving Bill’s penis. But it did get me pondering how rarely politicians and their wives get divorced. Only a few come readily to mind: Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford and Ronald Reagan. And in Reagan’s case, he and Jane Wyman split before he entered politics.
It doesn’t make sense. I mean, millionaires get divorced, movie stars get divorced, divas get divorced, so why not politicians? The fact is that some of those other people are not only rich, but, unlike politicians, are good-looking and have discernible personalities. It makes you wonder: When politicians tie the knot, do they merely pledge vows like the rest of us or do they take blood oaths?
It turns out that even a diehard gun control advocate state Senator carries a concealed handgun for protection
Nasheed declined comment about the having the weapon, but did tell News 4 she has a concealed carry permit. A Ferguson police officer said Nasheed was carrying a fully-loaded 9mm handgun and additional rounds of ammunition. . . .
Nasheed was formally charged with Failure to Obey Lawful Order of Police and Manner of Walking in the Roadway. She was released from St. Ann jail before 11:00 a.m. Tuesday morning. . . .
If politicians and bureaucrats ever stopped lying for even five minutes, the ensuing silence would make the rest of us think we’d gone deaf.
For instance, we’re being told repeatedly that we have nothing to fear from the fellow down in Dallas who, instead of bringing back a souvenir t-shirt reading “I’ve Been to Liberia, Don’t Ask Me Why,” brought home a case of Ebola.
We’re being told by medical professionals, who just happen to be paid by the federal government, that the disease is terribly difficult to transmit. I’d almost be willing to believe them if every time I see one of these victims being transported to a hospital, he or she wasn’t being accompanied by people decked out from head to toe in hazmat suits.
Perhaps I’m simply being too doggone cynical, a trait I seem to have been born with, a trait I keep trying to overcome, but the politicians and bureaucrats simply won’t let me. For instance, just in the past few years, they lied about funneling weapons to Mexican gangsters and they lied about ObamaCare; they refer to Islamic terrorism as workplace violence, lied about the IRS not targeting conservatives and they let our veterans die while waiting for medical attention.
The bastards even lied to the Ebola victim, sending him home from the hospital the first time he showed up, essentially telling him he had a bad cold even after he came clean about where he’d just come from. On the other hand, he’d lied to the Liberians about having had no contact with Ebola victims just so he could get an exit visa. Makes a person wonder if once he’s cured, assuming he’s one of the lucky ones, Thomas Duncan plans to run for public office.
Even Obama’s former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta blames the President for what’s happening in Iraq. Unfortunately, like every other schmuck in Washington, he waited three long years to write a book, expressing his dire warnings.
It’s simply not in the DNA of political appointees to ever quit over a matter of principle. We are told, belatedly, that even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Obama to maintain a force of at least 10,000, but preferably 24,000, soldiers in Iraq to avoid the likes of ISIL filling the inevitable vacuum.
But, clearly, it is too much to expect public servants to forego the limos, the free junkets to exotic locales, the five-star hotels and the kowtowing entourages, over such a minor issue as national security.
It’s as if a lack of principles has become a prerequisite for those employed in Washington, D.C. We are constantly seeing the same lack of character and patriotism every time some bureaucratic nonentity claims to take total responsibility for an act of incompetence or criminality, but doesn’t resign or, unfortunately, ever face an indictment and a prison term.
One of the ironies of life is that the Democrats have assumed as one of their favorite themes the Republican War on Women. Talk about chutzpah! This is the party of Jack, Bobby and Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bob Packwood and Bill Clinton. Each of them was married and an Olympic-class sexual predator.
There used to be a popular radio show, followed by an equally popular TV show, called “The Amateur Hour.” Singers, comedians and musicians, including even accordion players, would seek fame and fortune by competing on the show. These days, that notion has morphed into any number of similar shows, the most successful of which is “American Idol.”
What led me to think about all this is the realization that by the time the next president is inaugurated, Barack Obama will have held office for 2,922 days. (Don’t forget to count leap years before writing to question my math.) Or in other words, we will have suffered through the equivalent of 70,128 amateur hours.
In his book “Presidential Power,” Richard Neustadt wisely wrote: “The Presidency is no place for amateurs. It requires politicians of extraordinary temperament. That sort of experience can hardly be acquired without deep experience in political office. The Presidency is a place for men of politics. But by no means is it a place for every politician.”
I happen to agree with his analysis, which is why I opposed Herman Cain’s candidacy in 2012 and oppose Dr. Ben Carson’s today. Both men seem to be intelligent and decent fellows, and while I consider both qualities essential in a Chief Executive, I don’t see how that qualifies them to sit in the Oval Office. Heck, I’m intelligent and decent, and have devoted far more time to politics than either of them, and even I wouldn’t vote for me. Well, not unless I was the only thing standing between Hillary Clinton and a return trip to the White House.
In the same way, I tend not to support senators or congressmen. Their jobs don’t provide them with executive experience. What it does provide them with is a megaphone, so they are able to capture people’s attention.
For instance, I very much like Paul Ryan, but except for his expertise when it comes to budgetary matters and a very pleasant personality, I have no idea how he would govern. I am also taken with Trey Gowdy, and the way he cuts through the crapola when questioning the smarmy likes of IRS chief John Koskinen. But I can’t help feeling that the country might be better served if they either stayed where they are or were promoted to Cabinet positions as Secretary of the Treasury and Attorney General, respectively.
Speaking of the IRS, I always thought I had a great way to lessen the annual pain of writing a check to the Treasury. It would take advantage of people’s addiction to lotteries. Don’t you think that people would be somewhat more anxious to pay what they owe if the IRS instituted a lottery that would pay out a first prize of, say, a hundred times the amount you paid in? I would also have runner-up prizes that would return 75-1, 50-1, 25-1, 10-1 to a handful of lucky taxpayers, and perhaps a thousand additional payouts to those whose prize would be the return of their checks torn into several pieces.
Liberal jackhole and many other more colorful pejoratives greeted me last week as I browsed comments both here on the Personal Liberty Digest™ page and on our Personal Liberty Facebook page. In fact, no single subject has led to more insults and more dropped subscribers and lost Facebook followers than our coverage of the Ferguson, Missouri, “crisis,” even though I believe our coverage has been quite fair.
However, the numerous charges that Bob Livingston is or has become a liberal (and they don’t mean liberal in the classical sense, which would be closer to the truth) indicate it’s time once again to explain my philosophy to the new readers and also answer some of the most common questions we get. I hope longtime readers aren’t put off by this, which they will likely find is a repeat of things I’ve written before. I ask that you view it as a “refresher” that helps you to remember all you’ve read here to date.
I also hope new readers will appreciate that the philosophy and questions are condensed so that they can receive it on one dose rather than either having to wade through previous articles posted here since the inception of Personal Liberty Digest™ in mid-2008.
Since we have a great many readers who come for a time and then disappear, writing this column from time to time is necessary. As we are one of the top libertarian sites on the Web, many libertarians join us but then become critical because we are not all libertarians (or all libertarian). Since we are linked to many conservative sites, many conservatives and Republicans join us and then become angry when we don’t toe the party line, when we are critical Republican politicians or when we advocate for a noninterventionist foreign policy. And since we write articles on natural health and nutrition and the dangers of genetically modified foods, we get many people here interested in those topics — many of them political leftists — who like our articles on those subjects, but vehemently oppose our other political views.
So who is Bob Livingston? Firstly, I am not the adulterous former congressman from Louisiana. I am an octogenarian Christian American patriot. In the 1960s, I became alarmed at the direction our nation was headed. I became frustrated with the lies, deceit, misinformation and deliberate disinformation being spread as “truth” by the government, the manipulated media and the controlling elite. I believed the lies needed be exposed, so I began to seek an outlet to do that. In 1969, I began publishing my subscription newsletter, The Bob Livingston Letter™ (subscription required). My goal is to find the truth and spread it far and wide. My favorite subjects are alternative health issues, privacy, wealth protection, the preservation of freedom and the history of man.
Do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat or Libertarian? I belong to no political party. I am beholden to none. I consider myself an ultra-conservative and a Constitutionalist. Some read what I write and call me a conservative, some a liberal, some a libertarian.
An outspoken Missouri lawmaker on Friday threatened Ferguson, Missouri, residents and government authorities with more civil unrest such as looting and violence if Police Officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown, isn’t convicted by prosecutors, according to CNN’s Jake Tapper.
State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, who represents Ferguson in the Missouri legislature, has been active in the news media criticizing everyone from the local police department and its chief to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon regarding their response to the shooting of the 6’4″ tall, 290 lbs. Ferguson. She also joined protesters almost every night.
According to CNN’s Jake Tapper, the 39-year-old Democrat all but threatened increased civil unrest and disobedience in the already damaged Ferguson community unless the prosecutor obtains an indictment against Officer Wilson followed by his winning a conviction for murder or other serious felony conviction.
“It’s amazing that Nadal, who is considered anAmerican leader, would make such statements. It really drags down the reputations of politicians even further,” said former police officer and corporate security director Joel Asgasia.
“And except for Fox News Channel and a few other news outlets, she’s being cheered on by members of the news media,” Asgasia added.
State Sen. Chappelle-Nadal continues to be loudly critical of Ferguson and Missouri law enforcement, complaining about police officers wearing protective gear including military-style helmets and driving in armored vehicles. She created controversy last week denigrating the governor on social websites such as Twitter when she tweeted: “You don’t know s— bc you never communicate. F— you, Governor!”
Besides the African American state senator, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder visited Ferguson on Wednesday and was accused of “stoking up” the resentment of blacks.
“I understand that mistrust. I am the Attorney General of the United States. But I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over… Let me search your car…Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me,” Holder told a crowd of young college students.
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell
I keep the above George Orwell quote near me at all times. It serves as a reminder to me to decipher political speech whenever I see or hear it.
Political speech contains magical properties. It mesmerizes the masses because it is more illusory than a David Copperfield grand finale.
But political speech is dangerous. While it sounds innocuous, it is as deadly as a bear trap hidden beneath the leaves or a siren singing her song. It can grab you suddenly, or it can ensnare you subtly. Either way, you learn too late that you have been conned and there is no escape.
The magic of political speech is not happenstance. There are change agents at work in the inner sanctums of power whose job it is to create special words and phrases that are used in political speech. Those words and phrases are repeated over and over by the elites in order to dumb us down and create a conditioned response.
The process of dumbing down and the conditioning of the mind to create a nation of good, obedient subjects loyal and subservient to political authority and to the legitimacy of the political order begins early on. We are now several generations into the plan by the elites to create a Nation of state-worshiping ignoramuses taught pseudo-history and inculcated with a loyalty to and dependence upon big government. For many — if not most — of the Nation’s young people below the age of 25, government provided them with most of their meals while the majority of their days were spent submitting to government authority figures (teachers/principals/school officers) in rigid, structured environments that dissuade original thought.
Also aiding the elites and politicians in this effort is an army of “journalists” who never stray far from the official line of the State apparatus. They are eager to spread their lies and half-truths because that ensures them their seats near (or even inside, in the case of the Barack Obama Administration) the halls of power. On that rare occasion one of them strays too far from the party line, retribution is swift and harsh (see Helen Thomas and Sharyl Attkisson). This discourages dissent.
Politicians have learned that the more lies they tell, the more lies we believe. And the more lies we believe, the more dependent we become. Conversely, the fewer myths, lies and deceptions we succumb to, the less dependent we are and, therefore, the more liberty we enjoy.
I long ago learned the power of propaganda. I have watched as otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people have had their minds so manipulated by political speech that they acted contrary to their own best interests without a second thought. It seems that organized and sophisticated propaganda is able to operate outside the threshold of intelligence. In other words, without some imperative to trigger inquiry, very intelligent people buy into lies and myths the same as the general population. The lies and myths then become conventional wisdom. The human mind rarely accepts a challenge to conventional wisdom.
Investigative reporter and five-time Emmy Award winner Peter Lance has investigated government cover-ups in some of the biggest stories—9/11, TWA 800 and the Oklahoma City bombing cases. His recent work has been probing the office of Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) for The Santa Barbara News-Press, in a case that reaches all the way up into the Office of General Counsel for the U.S. House.
Lance is facing obstacles in this case, like many others he’s covered, but is determined to reveal the complete truth, and demand justice for the family of a young woman whose death was caused by a congressional staffer employed by Capps.
Lance tells Accuracy in Media that he is troubled by the general failure of the national press to cover the unfolding corruption scandal.
He is not new to controversy. Former Chicago U.S. Attorney and Valerie Plame Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent 20 months, beginning in 2007, trying unsuccessfully to kill Lance’s HarperCollins FBI counter-terrorism book Triple Cross. Lance had argued in his book that Fitzgerald and other senior Department of Justice and FBI officials failed to properly follow up on hard evidence about al-Qaeda activities on U.S. soil.
In this case, Mallory Rae Dies, a 27-year-old University of California, Santa Barbara graduate, was struck and killed by one of Capps’ district representatives, Raymond Morua, after he had been drinking heavily. Morua fled the scene, after stopping his vehicle and looking down at the body, and finally crashed after an 80-mph chase.
The Office of General Counsel of the House of Representatives took the position, as Capps did, that she had no responsibility for the actions of her aide on the night of the hit-and-run murder.
Yet, the facts show that Morua was an Iraq War vet who made dozens of public appearances with Capps and handled “constituent liaison,” and other matters, for the congresswoman. One photo shows Capps and Morua together in a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle during the 2013 4th of July parade in Santa Barbara. Appearing in uniform, as he often did at such events, Morua carried his signature Captain America shield.
It is understandable why Capps would want to distance herself from Morua, considering the horrendous nature of what he did. But she employed him. What’s more, citing incriminating documents and messages, the Lance series makes it absolutely clear that Morua was indeed working on the congresswoman’s behalf when he got drunk and killed Mallory Rae Dies.
The record, as documented by Peter Lance in his five-part series of articles, is that these efforts took the form of maneuvers to first protect the staffer from prison time, and then to completely avoid legal responsibility for what is obviously official business on Capp’s behalf.
The case represents some of the sleaziest conduct ever alleged and documented about the actions of a member of Congress and her staff, who were clearly determined to protect the representative from negative fallout and bad press.
They didn’t count on a journalist with Lance’s reputation to get to the bottom of the scandal.
Burt’s Webcast is every Wednesday at 1 PM Pacific Time.
Tune in at K4HD.com His Call-in Number is: (818) 570-5443
I don’t recall a time when it was so profitable to be in the polling industry. It seems as if there’s a new one every five minutes, and most of them, you’ve probably noticed, show Obama cratering at the speed of light. As a result, Republicans can hardly conceal their glee. I, on the other hand, look at the numbers and I feel like tearing my hair out. That is, I would if I had hair. Instead, I’d settle for tearing out someone else’s; perhaps Chuck Hagel’s or Harry Reid’s.
I know I should celebrate the fact that 59% of the electorate think Obama is doing a lousy job, but that means that 41% don’t see it that way. How can I feel good as an American knowing that 83% of the people believe that our country is weaker and less powerful than it was six years ago? For one thing, that’s not a situation in which I ever want America to find herself, but for another, it means 17% think we’re stronger and more powerful since Obama took office, and they can’t all be smoking pot in Colorado.
There are even 9% of our friends and neighbors who think Obama has been too tough with the Russkies! One of those nincompoops, I’m happy to say, is neither a friend nor a relative of mine; he is, however, Rand Paul’s old man.
Speaking of Rand Paul, I am happy to see him peaking in 2014 because I’m hoping that by 2016, he’ll be “Rand Who?” during the GOP primaries. I don’t think he’s a bad fellow, and I wouldn’t want to misjudge him because his father is an anti-Semitic nincompoop. But I do believe his crusade against the NSA is a cheap and dangerous political stunt. I think that anyone who actually believes the government is eavesdropping on several billion monotonous phone calls every day or monitoring tens of billions of email messages every 24 hours is either a paranoid schizophrenic or is addicted to pornography and is terrified that the NSA is going to snitch him out to his wife.
Even Paul’s receiving 31% of the votes cast at the annual CPAC convention isn’t all that great when you actually break down the numbers. I mean, when your platform involves legalizing pot and other illegal substances; accepting same-sex marriages as the norm; opposing a military draft; and turning a blind eye to any evil taking place outside our borders; and you realize that a totally disproportional 46% of the CPAC voters were very young, garnering a mere 31% of the vote has to be regarded as a massive underachievement.
While listening to radio host Dennis Prager the other day, I heard him mention that at Harvard, they have come up with a notion that anything that is said about a specific group, even if it’s positive in nature, should be regarded as bigotry. So if someone assumes that an Asian got a high-paying job as a computer programmer because Asians are widely assumed to be technically proficient, that’s racism.