THE HUMBLE LIBERTARIAN

mind your business

Monday, September 10, 2018

29 Ways Washington Has Made America Less Safe By Funding, Arming, Training, and Supporting Dangerous Foreign Enemies

"Oceania was at war with Eastasia:
Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."
-George Orwell, Nineteen Eightyfour



In the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, one of the enduring criticisms of libertarianism is that the policies voting libertarians support would make Americans less safe from foreign terrorists and hostile foreign governments.

As you will learn from the following list, the truth is that Washington's never-ending, reckless, ill-conceived, horribly mismanaged foreign military entanglements are what actually make America less safe.

Big government advocates of foreign interventionism and military adventurism believe Washington needs to aggressively and even preemptively fight America's enemies overseas to keep Americans safe at home. Libertarians point to an indisputable fact: that most of America's enemies overseas were once funded, armed, trained, and supported by Washington itself!

Presented for your consideration, are the following 29 examples:

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Pakistan


Especially after the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda has been one of America's most notorious and hated enemies, but even before 9/11, Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization attempted to kill US soldiers at a hotel in Yemen in 1992; attacked the World Trade Center for the first time with a truck bomb in 1993; attempted to assassinate President Clinton in 1996; bombed US embassies in East African countries in 1998; and bombed the USS Cole, a US naval vessel in Yemen in 2000, killing 17 American soldiers.

Would you believe that the government in Washington promoted the growth of Al Qaeda over the decades, providing arms, financial support, and training to Al Qaeda and its affiliates for years before it turned on America, and even continues to do so to this very day?

This is a matter of record and fact:

1. From 1979 - 1989, the CIA poured billions of American tax dollars into Afghanistan to arm and finance the Mujahideen, one side in an Afghan civil war against the pro-Soviet People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan in Operation Cyclone, one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever.

This money was knowingly funneled by the tens and then hundreds of millions, year after year, into the hands of radical Islamic militants friendly to Pakistan.

These networks would spawn Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, many of its affiliates, and the radical Taliban government that harbored them during and after 9/11. All armed with American weapons, finances, and military training because of the catastrophic short-sightedness and recklessness of Operation Cyclone.

2. US officials estimate that from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 Islamic jihadists were trained in bomb-making, sabotage, and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up. 

3. During this time, Washington also poured billions of American tax dollars into Pakistan for Pakistan's intelligence service, ISI, to funnel into the war torn Afghan region and provide arms, finances, and training to Afghan Mujahideen. Pakistan's government tended to favor the most extreme Islamist militants with American money.

4. One beneficiary of these CIA-funded, Pakistani handouts to radical terrorists was Jalaluddin Haqqani. He also received money directly from the CIA and was cultivated as a "unilateral CIA asset." Influential US Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-TX), who directed tens of millions of dollars to Afghanistan at this time, called Haqqani "goodness personified."

At that time, Haqqani, backed by the Washington regime, used his resources, bought with American tax dollars, to aid and defend Osama bin Laden as he built Al Qaeda. In October 2001, the month after Al Qaeda's infamous terrorist attacks on the United States, Haqqani was named the Taliban's military commander, and may have had a role in helping bin Laden to escape the country.

5. Incredibly, after a history like this, of supporting Osama bin Laden and working within the Taliban government that harbored him, Washington and the interim government it set up in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, offered Haqqani top positions in the new Afghan government.

Remember, this was after 9/11 and after Haqqani was named military commander of the Taliban government that harbored bin Laden. Haqqani refused the offer.

By 2004, this known friend of bin Laden who Washington offered a top government position in Afghanistan was leading Taliban insurgents to fight a holy war in US-occupied Afghanistan, and according to Pulitzer Prize-winning Journalist Steve Coll, was responsible for introducing suicide bombing to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. The United States government has also accused Haqqani of planning and / or supporting the 2008 Indian embassy bombing in Kabul that killed 58 and the February 2009 Kabul raids that killed 21 people. In 2008, the US government tried to kill him in a botched drone strike. He wasn't present, but 23 other people died, including eight children.

Members of the Taliban in the White House in the 1980s

6. Another major beneficiary of Washington support during these years was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Among the most ruthless and extreme of the Afghan warlords and despite being a known drug trafficker, Hekmatyar would end up receiving the most CIA / ISI financing and armament of any Afghan terrorist in the region, taking nearly half of the CIA's covert weapons directed to Afghanistan.

With American money and weapons secretly provided by the CIA, Hekmatyar was a controversial figure, accused of spending more time killing other Mujahideen than killing Soviets, and of wantonly killing civilians. In his book, "Holy War, Inc.," bin Laden expert and CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen wrote of Hekmatyar that he:

"...had the dubious distinction of never winning a significant battle during the war, training a variety of militant Islamists from around the world, killing significant numbers of mujahideen from other parties, and taking a virulently anti-Western line. In addition to hundreds of millions of dollars of American aid, Hekmatyar also received the lion's share of aid from the Saudis."

After the pro-Soviet Afghan government collapsed in 1992, warring factions destroyed the capitol of Kabul and killed thousands of people, mostly civilians. Hekmatyar was responsible for most of the damage because of his practice of deliberately targeting civilians. During this time, he is alleged to have been working closely with Osama bin Laden, according to Bergen.

In May 2002, the CIA tried to kill Hekmatyar with a drone strike that missed. The reason? This man who had received hundreds of millions of dollars in financing and armaments from Washington was encouraging attacks on US soldiers in Afghanistan, offering bounties for those who killed US soldiers, was suspected in an assassination attempt on the Washington-backed president of Afghanistan's interim government, and would release a taped message later that year calling for jihad against the United States.

By 2003, Hekmatyar was designated by the US State Department as a "global terrorist," with a State Department official saying, "He has participated in and supported terrorist acts committed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban." In a 2006 interview, Hekmatyar claimed he helped bin Laden and Al Qaeda's second-in-command to escape from US forces as they faced bombardment and were nearly captured in the caves of Tora Bora in 2001.

7. Hekmatyar's Mujahideen group, Hezbi Islami, which enjoyed the support of Washington during the Mujahideen years, killed nine people in a suicide attack in Kabul in retaliation for the YouTube film, "Innocence of Muslims," and claimed responsibility for another Kabul attack in May of 2013 that killed 16 people when a car loaded with explosives was rammed into a pair of American military vehicles.

8. Just days after the 9/11 attacks, in two separate bios of Osama bin Laden, the BBC reported that, "He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian," and Forbes reported that bin Laden, "not only invested some of his personal financial resources to fund the combat brigades, he also received military and financial assistance from the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States."

9. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, identified by the 9/11 Commission Report as the "principle architect of the 9/11 attacks," was radicalized and learned terrorist tactics in a Mujahideen training camp in Afghanistan during the 1980s while the region swelled with Washington funding and support for the civil war against the pro-Soviet government.

10. In May 2001, just four months before the 9/11 attacks, the State Department announced a grant of $43 million to the Taliban.

11. Nine years later, in a stunning display of Washington's malfeasance, reports began to emerge from government auditors and war analysts that as much as $1 billion in Washington money directed to Afghanistan as part of the post-war reconstruction efforts had ended up in the hands of insurgent Taliban forces.

12. Over the decades, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which has frequently been ruled by presidents installed by military coup (from the years of 1958-71, 1977-88, and 1999-2008) has played a central role in funding, training, and supporting radical Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan, and yet has enjoyed an overwhelmingly cozy and cooperative relationship with Washington, which has consistently sent the government of Pakistan hundreds of millions or even over a billion dollars a year in economic and military aid, right through to the present day as of this article's publication.

Source: Ccnter for Global Development

13. While Pakistan's role in fomenting radical Islamic terrorism before 9/11 is partially documented in the listed items above, what is shocking is that Washington ramped up Pakistani military aid to unprecedented levels post-9/11 and Pakistan has used that aid and support to continue to sponsor radical terrorist activity against the United States and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

14. This includes harboring bin Laden and offering safe haven for the Taliban. Western governments suspect and have accused the Pakistani government of harboring bin Laden who was discovered and killed by a US Navy SEAL team in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The compound was deep in Pakistan's borders and in a neighborhood near the Pakistan Military Academy. The White House has repeatedly accused the Pakistani government of being less-than-cooperative in the hunt for bin Laden, and even of knowing his whereabouts. Pakistan's government was not informed of the bin Laden raid beforehand, and even scrambled F-16 jets when it learned of the operation.

Secret US government files leaked by WikiLeaks show that Washington knew the entire time it was funding Pakistan to the tune of over a billion dollars a year, that Pakistan's government was helping Osama bin Laden to evade US forces:

"American diplomats were told that one of the key reasons why they had failed to find bin Laden was that Pakistan’s security services tipped him off whenever US troops approached.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISID) also allegedly smuggled al-Qaeda terrorists through airport security to help them avoid capture and sent a unit into Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban."

15. After Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces, Pakistan's government arrested Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA find bin Laden, charged him with treason, and sentenced him to 33 years in prison. And the Washington regime continues to send billions of dollars to Pakistan, with a 2012 bill to cut aid to Pakistan, Libya, and Egypt failing in the US Senate by a vote of 81 - 10.

16. Another WikiLeaks disclosure of US documents in 2010 showed that the US military knew that Pakistan's ISI-- again, funded with your tax dollars by Washington-- was coordinating attacks on US and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan with Taliban insurgents, and had been doing so for six years since 2004. Pakistan's government had been ordering suicide attacks in Afghanistan, and filling vehicles with explosives in Pakistan before driving them across the border into Afghanistan.

17. Another example of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in the region is the Haqqani Network, founded by Jalaludden Haqqani mentioned above, which was nurtured by the CIA and ISI during the Mujahideen period, but remained a client of the Washington-supported Pakistani government even in the post-9/11 period, with Admiral Mike Mullen, the most senior US military official calling the Haqqani group "a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency," in the aftermath of a 2011 Haqqani terrorist attack on the US embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul.

18. After Washington warned Pakistan to take action against the Haqqani Network or risk unilateral US action against the insurgent terrorist group, Pakistan threatened that it would retaliate against the United States for US action against the group. And the Washington regime continues to send billions of dollars to Pakistan.

In summary: Remember, the Washington regime has given billions and billions of dollars in financing, military training, and military armament, over decades and decades, before and after 9/11, to Pakistan and to these radical Islamist groups, which Pakistan also supports and harbors with the massive amount of American tax money that Washington doles out.

Truly, truly, as a matter of undisputed public knowledge, America's own government offers material aid and comfort to dangerous terrorists on a level unmatched by any other group or organization in the world. Want to be hard on terrorism? Demand that Washington STOP TAKING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS out of the pockets of HARD-WORKING AMERICANS to put in the hands of a KNOWN and PROLIFIC state sponsor of TERRORISM!!


Al Qaeda and Africa




19. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, whose military dictatorship was designated by the US government as a state sponsor of terrorism until 2006, managed to secure US friendship and even military aid during the Bush Administration by simply promising he would no longer sponsor terrorism and keeping that promise over a six month period. He additionally renounced his weapons of mass destruction and offered to cooperate with Washington in the fight against Al Qaeda.

Readers can decide for themselves whether this makes any more sense than allowing a convicted murderer to roam free simply because he promised he would no longer murder and kept that promise over a six month period-- and not only allowing the murderer to roam free, but actually recruiting him to work for the police to help them fight crime.

This is how Washington supported a government that had been a US enemy and sponsor of terrorism for years, and would soon be considered a US enemy for the second time...

20. In a stark example of Washington's schizo foreign policy, President Obama, who has since called the now deposed and executed Gaddafi a threat to his own people, asked Congress to increase US aid for Gaddafi's military to $1.7 million just one month(!) before attacking Gaddafi's military with coordinated air strikes to aid Libya's rebels.

"According to State Department figures, the money was earmarked to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, secure its borders and to counter terrorism."

To go from giving someone millions of dollars to waging war on them in just one month is whiplash-inducing on an epic level. Who could possibly be this insanely disorganized? Only Washington.

21. As if its support for Muammar Gaddafi's repressive, terror-sponsoring regime wasn't bad enough, Washington's move to help Libyan rebels depose Gaddafi involved supporting even worse terrorists than Gaddafi himself. The rebellion was a hotbed of Islamic extremism and radical jihadists with ties to Al Qaeda, and included the same terrorists who attacked US and NATO forces in Iraq.

Admiral James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, said of Libya's rebel force: "We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah."

Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel took things a step further: "There is no question that al Qaeda's Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Qaddafi's biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al Qaeda/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group - 2 percent or 80 percent."

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the leader of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and commander of the Libyan rebels, spent five years at a training camp in Afghanistan, admitted to waging war against US and NATO forces in Afghanistan before being captured in Pakistan in 2002, and said in an interview with an Italian newspaper that some of the rebels on "the front lines" of the fight against Gaddafi included men he had personally recruited to fight against the US in Iraq.

22. In addition to supporting radical terrorists, Islamic extremists, and Al Qaeda affiliates in their uprising against Gaddafi, the Washington regime unwittingly created a stronghold for Al Qaeda, which has swarmed the destabilized country to use it as a base of operations.

23. After providing military support for a rebellion that included Al Qaeda fighters and other extremist elements, and despite the hotbed of Al Qaeda activity in Libya after the new government took power, including an attack on US diplomats in Benghazi, killing four Americans-- Washington continues to send millions of dollars to Libya. (Also bear in mind Washington's acknowledged malfeasance in distributing money to Afghanistan, which has ended up in the hands of Taliban insurgents as noted in an item above.)

24. Additionally, Washington-approved weapons transfers from Qatar to Libya have ended up in the hands of jihadi militants with ties to Al Qaeda in the West African nation of Mali, fueling the growing crisis in the country's north, where radical Islamists took control in January 2012 with the goal of implementing sharia law.

25. The Washington regime has also sent over a billion dollars a year to Egypt, where in the hands of the secular military government of Hosni Mubarak, it was used to suppress militant Islamists, putting America in the cross hairs of foreign resentment from these groups, including Al Qaeda affiliates who had received support and training from the CIA during the Mujahideen period.

26. Washington continued aid to the new Egyptian government under Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi, supporting a regime which has the fervent support of radical Islamists, including Al Qaeda affiliates, and has adopted many troubling policies of radical Islamicization. With its embarrassing history of supporting terrorists and other violent groups, Washington's rush to send money abroad is insanely irresponsible. (And now that Egypt has undergone a military coup with the removal of Morsi-- is certainly illegal.)

27. Though the Egyptian military removed President Morsi in a 2013 coup, the US State Department bent over backwards to claim that it was in fact not a coup so that the Obama Administration could continue sending over a billion dollars a year in mostly military aid to the unstable country which has had three regimes in two years.

Over a billion dollars in mostly military aid to an extremely unstable country when there's no telling who will be holding onto and making use of that kind of aid when the dust finally settles? This kind of recklessness is how Washington makes America and the world less safe.

28. The Washington regime intervened in Somalia in 1977 during the rule of military dictator Siad Barre to aid the Somalian dictator in his invasion of Ethiopia, because its Marxist government received support from the Soviets. Washington sent Barre $100 million a year until 1989 in military and economic aid.

As a result, when the US military offered support of UN relief efforts to Somalia in 1992 and '93 because of the civil war that ousted Barre and left the country shattered, US soldiers faced enemies with Washington-supplied weaponry in the Battle of Mogadishu, which claimed the lives of 18 Americans and wounded 73.

29. More recently, Washington has armed cash-strapped Ugandan and Burundian troops to fight Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist group of Al Qaeda-allied Somali insurgents. The approximately 9,000 troops doing the fighting are given regular consignments of guns, rockets, and ammunition, with a 2007 - 2009 price tag of around $200 million, which has likely doubled since then.

The problem is this Washington-supplied weaponry is ending up in the hands of the Al-Qaeda-allied Somali insurgents! The kicker: It’s the cash-strapped Ugandans who are selling the weapons to the insurgents.



A long-form research article like this takes a lot of time to write, time that I could spend with my wife and son, or on income earning opportunities with my freelance writing business, but all of this information is out there and so few are putting it together in a meaningful way to make a deep impact on the conversation. In fact there's an entire army of journalists paid by major media corporations to hype corrupt narratives and drown out the truth in an ocean of irrelevant trivialities they call "news." Please consider supporting me on Patreon so I can continue this work. My goal is to devote all my working time to this endeavor. Thank you!

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Bob Woodward's New Book, "Fear" Is Tabloid Journalism Tripe



Could the mainstream media be more irrelevant than it is today? Bob Woodward's new book is an exemplar of fake news.



Banks & Their Five Stages of Grief - Andreas M. Antonopoulos



Andreas examines the rise of "the blockchain" as an attempt by the banking status quo to dilute the disruptive potential of bitcoin by removing it's most interesting features. This talk took place at the Decentralized Technology (DEC_TECH) event on March 17th 2015 in Toronto, Canada.



Tuesday, September 4, 2018

If You Support Big Government– You're An Anarchist!



A libertarian discussion about rule of law.

And how to change the world...



You're Not A Real Libertarian If You Don't Support Open Borders





Here's the one and only real libertarian point of view on immigration.

Everything else is collectivism and socialism with libertarianism shoehorned in.



*The U.S. has 3.8 million square miles of land within its jurisdiction, not the 4.5M Sq. Mi. figure I erroneously stated.



Monday, September 3, 2018

Police Shut Down Fish Store for Putting Googly Eyes on The Fish



Getting the police involved seems a bit much.



Sunday, September 2, 2018

Why I Think John McCain Was A Terrorist



This is what no journalist in the mainstream media is allowed to talk about.



The Epic of Gilgamesh - Tablet I, Part I: The Good King


He Who
Has Seen
Everything

I Will Show
To You

I Will Speak
Of Him Who
Tested It All

Anu Gave
Him The
Universe

He Saw
The Secret

Discovered
The Hidden

He Brought
Knowledge
From The
Time Before
The Flood

He Went
On A
Distant
Journey

Pushing
Himself To
Failure

But Then
Was Brought
To Peace

He Carved
On A
Stone Stela
Of All
His Toils

And Built
The Wall Of
Uruk-Haven

The Wall Of
The Sacred
Eanna Temple
The Holy
Sanctuary

Look At
Its Wall

Which Gleams
Like Copper

Inspect Its
Inner Wall

The Likes
Of Which
No One
Can Equal

Touch The
Threshold
Stone

It Was Made
Long Ago

Go Close Up
To The
Eanna Temple
The House
Of Ishtar

Such As
No King
Ever Equaled

Go Up
On The Wall
Of Uruk And
Walk Around

Examine Its
Foundation

Inspect Its
Brickwork
Thoroughly

Are Not Even
The Hidden
Parts Made
To Perfection?

Did The
Seven Sages
Themselves
Not Draw
Its Plan?

A League
Of City

A League
Of Gardens

A League
Of Open
Area Of The
Ishtar Temple

Three Leagues
And The
Open Area
The Wall Holds

Find The
Tablet Box
Of Copper

Open The
Lock of Bronze

Undo The Clasp
Of The Secret
Opening

Take Out
And Read
From The
Lapis Lazuli
Tablet

Of How
Gilgamesh
Went Through
Every Hardship

High Above
All Other Kings

Lordly In
Appearance

He Is
The Hero
Born of Uruk

The Goring
Wild Bull

He Walks
Out In Front,
The Leader

And He
Walks Behind

Trusted By
His Friends

Mighty Net
Keeper Of
His People

Raging
Flood Wave
Who Destroys
Even Walls
Of Stone!

Fathered By
Lugalbanda

Gilgamesh Is
Strong To
Perfection

Son Of The
August Cow
Rimat-Ninsun

Lady Of The
Wild Cows

Gilgamesh
Is Awesome
To Perfection

It Was
He Who
Opened
The Mountain
Passes

Who Dug Wells
On The Side
Of The Mountain

It Was He
Who Crossed
The Ocean
The Vast Seas

To The
Land Of The
Rising Sun

Who Explored
The World
Seeking Life

It Was He
Who Reached
Through His
Own Strength,
Utanapishtim,
The Faraway

Who Restored
The Cities
The Flood
Had Destroyed

For The
Good
Of Virile
Mankind

Who Can Compare
With Him In
Kingliness?

Who Can Say
As Gilgamesh
I am King!

Whose Name
From The Day
Of His Birth
Was Called
Gilgamesh?

Two Thirds
Of Him Is God

One Third
Of Him Is Man

The Great
Goddess Aruru
Dreamed The
Model For
His Body

She Prepared
His Form

Beautiful
Handsomest
Of Men

Perfect


Part II: The Wild One



Saturday, September 1, 2018

Creedence Clearwater Revival: Fortunate Son



Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they're red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh
But when the taxman comes to the door
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

Yeah!
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! Yo

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no

Was This Remark About John McCain What Kept Jimmy Carter From Getting A Funeral Invite?



Much has been made of the absence of President Donald Trump from John McCain's funeral, to which the sitting POTUS was not invited, as well as the absence of Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, even though she was McCain's vice presidential candidate in 2008. But no one has seemed to notice the absence of former POTUS Jimmy Carter from the highly attended event for the upper crust elite of United States politics.

Maybe it's for speaking the truth– which is never welcome or helpful to politicians.



Thursday, August 30, 2018

John McCain Wasn't A War Hero– He Was A Terrorist


"McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and was commissioned into the United States Navy. He became a naval aviator and flew ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers.

During the Vietnam War, he was almost killed in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. While on a bombing mission during Operation Rolling Thunder over Hanoi in October 1967, he was shot down, seriously injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973.

He experienced episodes of torture and refused an out-of-sequence early repatriation offer. The wounds that he sustained during the war left him with lifelong physical disabilities. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981 and moved to Arizona, where he entered politics.

In 1982, he was elected to the United States House of Representatives, where he served two terms. He entered the U.S. Senate in 1987 and easily won reelection five times, the final time in 2016."
::Wikipedia::

I.

He certainly must have felt like a god while soaring through the sky like a god and dropping bombs on the people below.

an evil god.

An actual, real life Iron Man– that is pretty crazy to think about– like fifty years ago, but instead of fighting some terrible villain, he finds one of the world's poorest, most backwater countries where no one speaks English, and just starts blasting farmers and burning the entire forest to the ground, for real, and saying that's what they get for electing a communist government.

After we elected Lyndon B Johnson.




II.

Pop quiz: What could you do to a man who was going around dropping bombs on your neighborhood?


III.

And Vietnam's just lucky we didn't elect Barry Goldwater, who was talking about nuking them:

Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona), running for the Republican Party nomination in the upcoming presidential election, gives an interview in which he discusses the use of low-yield atomic bombs in North Vietnam to defoliate forests and destroy bridges, roads, and railroad lines bringing supplies from communist China. During the storm of criticism that followed, Goldwater tried to back away from these drastic actions, claiming that he did not mean to advocate the use of atomic bombs but was “repeating a suggestion made by competent military people.” Democrats painted Goldwater as a warmonger who was overly eager to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Though he won his party’s nomination, Goldwater was never able to shake his image as an extremist in Vietnam policies. This image was a key factor in his crushing defeat by opponent Lyndon B. Johnson, who took about 61 percent of the vote to Goldwater’s 39 percent. ::History.com::



IV.


And you thought today's campaign ads are negative.

Lyndon B. Johnson was the lesser of two evils.

He had John McCain bomb these people with napalm instead.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/politics...
via:::DailyKos::



Holy shit these men are just bombing people.

Does anyone else think that's weird?


V.

::May 22 2018::Casey Research::

Justin: Doug, how will wars of the future be fought differently than today?

Doug: War’s evolving in several ways. For starters, we won’t see as many nation states fighting each other. There will, instead, be more conflict between nation states and non-state entities like so-called terrorist organizations.

Over the last 30 or so years terrorism has become a buzzword, supposedly one of the greatest evils of our era. But “terrorism” is simply a method of warfare. So you can’t fight terrorism. It’s like saying you can fight artillery barrages, cavalry charges or frontal assaults. Terrorism isn’t a thing, it’s a tactic.

Terrorism is essentially a form of psychological warfare, intended to sway the minds of the enemy. As such, it’s much cheaper, much less destructive, and potentially much more effective than conventional warfare. As Napoleon said, in war the moral is to the physical as three is to one.

I should also mention Sun Tzu in this light. He’s become very fashionable in recent years. This isn’t the time to discuss his views on warfare, but there’s no question he would have been a huge advocate of terror as a method.



VI.

Photo by: River Bissonnette

::Aug 28 2018::RollingStone::MattTaibbi::

McCain never changed his mind about Vietnam, in particular, and it colored his opinion of every war that followed. Here’s what McCain wrote in 2003, months into the invasion of Iraq:

"We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting and because we limited the tools at our disposal."

Between 1963 and 1974, we dropped two million tons of ordnance on Laos — not North Vietnam, but Laos — which works out to “a planeload of bombs every eight minutes, 24 hours per day, for nine years.”

The death toll from that one country is said to be 70,000 (50,000 during the war, 20,000 who died later from unexploded bombs).

Similar operations in North Vietnam are said to have killed 182,000 civilians, and estimates about bombing deaths in Cambodia range from 30,000 to 150,000.

Add another 400,000 maimed and an additional 500,000 gruesome birth defects chalked up to the use of Agent Orange, and you start to get a sense of the scale of civilian suffering caused by our invasion of Indochina.

I bring this up because the McCain view of what happened there — that we “lost” in Vietnam only because we were “limited” to, say, 2 million tons of bombs and 580,000 air missions in places like Laos — continues to this day to be a mainstream belief.

VII.

eBay's football ad on this makes it so special

"Abstract

Most people are caring and will exert great effort to rescue individual victims whose needy plight comes to their attention. These same good people, however, often become numbly indifferent to the plight of individuals who are "one of many" in a much greater problem.

Why does this occur? The answer to this question will help us answer a related question that is the topic of this paper: Why, over the past century, have good people repeatedly ignored mass murder and genocide?

Every episode of mass murder is unique and raises unique obstacles to intervention. But the repetitiveness of such atrocities, ignored by powerful people and nations, and by the general public, calls for explanations that may reflect some fundamental deficiency in our humanity - a deficiency that, once identified, might possibly be overcome. One fundamental mechanism that may play a role in many, if not all, episodes of mass-murder neglect involves the capacity to experience affect, the positive and negative feelings that combine with reasoned analysis to guide our judgments, decisions, and actions.

I shall draw from psychological research to show how the statistics of mass murder or genocide, no matter how large the numbers, fail to convey the true meaning of such atrocities. The reported numbers of deaths represent dry statistics, "human beings with the tears dried off," that fail to spark emotion or feeling and thus fail to motivate action.

Recognizing that we cannot rely only upon our moral feelings to motivate proper action against genocide, we must look to moral argument and international law. The 1948 Genocide Convention was supposed to meet this need, but it has not been effective.

It is time to examine this failure in light of the psychological deficiencies described here and design legal and institutional mechanisms that will enforce proper response to genocide and other forms of mass murder."
:::Paul Slovic, Decision Research and University of Oregon, Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, no. 2, April 2007, pp. 79-95.:::

VIII.

::The Irish Times::

IX.



X.


I'm amazed, but not surprised at the American people's entirely misplaced sense of decorum at this hour.

When Charles Manson died no one had a word to say against any one who celebrated as they pointed out the obvious about him– that he was a menace to the world, who ordered people under his spell to carry out murders in cold blood.

The only difference between Charles Manson and John McCain is the sheer scale of the mayhem and murder orchestrated by the U.S. Senator from Arizona, who just like Manson, ordered people under his spell to carry out murders in cold blood.

The unambiguous agenda of the United States is perpetual violent conflict and war, with a staggering human cost. And John McCain has made a career out of being one of its most extreme advocates for that agenda, at the vanguard of the most extreme militant wing of an extremely militant regime.

In the West we have a superstition against speaking ill of the dead– De mortuis nihil nisi bonum– Of the dead say nothing but good. Remember, it's a superstition. In an essay regarding the horrors of World War I that had devastated his continent, Sigmund Freud had this to say of the old Roman superstition:

"We assume a special attitude towards the dead, something almost like admiration for one who has accomplished a very difficult feat. We suspend criticism of him, overlooking whatever wrongs he may have done, and issue the command, De mortuis nil nisi bene: we act as if we were justified in singing his praises at the funeral oration, and inscribe only what is to his advantage on the tombstone. This consideration for the dead, which he really no longer needs, is more important to us than the truth, and, to most of us, certainly, it is more important than consideration for the living."

Indeed for most it is.

The white knights coming to John McCain's defense at this moment– those second rate peddlers of war propaganda, and of course the outrage mongers and virtue signalers– they accuse someone who speaks as I do of lacking decency, compassion, and humanity. "What about the grieving families!" they cry as they beat their breasts in a sickly tone of fevered sanctimony.

A friend of mine asked me, "Would you want people celebrating your death, Wesley? Have some human decency." I was amazed at his ability to willfully ignore the context. "Would you want people planning yours? Where's your human decency?" I asked in return.

Where is the love and consideration in their hearts– the decency, compassion, and humanity– for the many innocent dead around the world, ordered to be massacred, and slated for death by John McCain and his ilk? How can honoring such a man be a sign of decency and compassion? There are many still grieving their loss, missing their dead family members, murdered in acts of cold blood at the command of John McCain and so many, too many others like him in the United States government.

If you have the stomach for it, Google "deformed Iraqi babies," and look at them. They were born that way because of the radioactive depleted uranium shells left all over Iraq by the U.S. Department of Defense, the fruits of John McCain's life's work.

Only in a lunatic society can honoring such a man be a sign of decency, while condemning the sum of his life's work is regarded as callous. Only with a social psyche marred by the pernicious effects of political propaganda, could this be possible.

George Orwell rightly said, "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable."

Dare point out– as the uncorrupted child in the old Danish tale– that the emperor has no clothes, and people will be so embarrassed by the enormity of the lies our political system is based on, so afraid that they are unable to accept such a disheartening truth, to believe that so many "respectable" men could do so much evil and base it on such preposterous lies, that they will attack the one who points out the obvious in a spectacular display of enraged fake conviction.

But what would you do if you woke up last November and found the majority of society speaking in tones of great respect, honor, and admiration for Charles Manson at the hour of his death?

I would tell them to stop acting like lunatics. And warn them that we will have hell to pay if they can't stop.




More On The Humble Libertarian...

John McCain Is No Different From Charles Manson

100 Great AntiWar Quotes

100 Ways Donald Trump Is Just Like Barack Obama (He Didn't Beat The Establishment... He Joined It)

Taibbi: Why Did John McCain Continue to Support War?

And why has the rest of America never come to terms with the defining crimes of our age?


By Matt Taibbi

McCain was not, generally speaking, a man of strong beliefs. One of the most honest things he ever said was that he didn’t run for president to enact reforms or out of some “grand sense of patriotism,” but simply because “it had become my ambition to be president.” If anything, he often seemed bored by domestic issues, and was even famous after a fashion for “reaching across the aisle” on matters like campaign finance.

But he did have one unshakeable conviction: Wherever America had a foreign policy problem, the solution was always to bomb the fuck out of someone.

Long before he became a symbol of anti-Trumpism (despite having contributed significantly to the Trump phenomenon by unleashing Sarah Palin on national politics in 2008), McCain defied the mainstream GOP to support Bill Clinton’s air strikes in Kosovo. McCain wanted to go even further to a ground invasion, if necessary.

People forget, but it was this episode that first elevated McCain to media-icon status as an elected official. “We’ve turned down more than we’ve accepted,” he said in 1999, speaking about interview requests. “Five times as much.”

From that point on, he was the torchbearer for the purest bipartisan value that exists in Washington: military interventionism. He never saw an invasion he didn’t support, and it’s sadly fitting that the last piece of legislation to bear his name was a massive military spending hike that scored the rare trifecta of support from mainstream Democrats, Republicans and Donald Trump.

We leave smoldering ash-piles around the world, and instead of wondering why we’re hated in those places, we keep thinking it’s football and we’ll just call the right plays the next game. “We’ll get ‘em next time” became our official foreign policy, and McCain was long ago elevated as chief spokesperson.

McCain never changed his mind about Vietnam, in particular, and it colored his opinion of every war that followed. Here’s what McCain wrote in 2003, months into the invasion of Iraq:

We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting and because we limited the tools at our disposal.

McCain added that Iraqis had less chance to “win” because they “do not enjoy the kind of sanctuary North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos provided.”

Between 1963 and 1974, we dropped two million tons of ordnance on Laos — not North Vietnam, but Laos — which works out to “a planeload of bombs every eight minutes, 24 hours per day, for nine years.”

The death toll from that one country is said to be 70,000 (50,000 during the war, 20,000 who died later from unexploded bombs). Similar operations in North Vietnam are said to have killed 182,000 civilians, and estimates about bombing deaths in Cambodia range from 30,000 to 150,000.

Add another 400,000 maimed and an additional 500,000 gruesome birth defects chalked up to the use of Agent Orange, and you start to get a sense of the scale of civilian suffering caused by our invasion of Indochina.

I bring this up because the McCain view of what happened there — that we “lost” in Vietnam only because we were “limited” to, say, 2 million tons of bombs and 580,000 air missions in places like Laos — continues to this day to be a mainstream belief.

That concept represents one side of the acceptable spectrum of opinion, in which the Ann Coulters of the world insist we are only ever held back by liberals and reporters and other such traitors, who were/are “rooting for the enemy.”

Read the rest at Rolling Stone.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Leave Gary Johnson Alone: Let This Be The Final Word About Aleppo


I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party.

I'm an independent voter.

But I am a small "L" libertarian.

I think our political institutions are vastly corrupt and tyrannical.

I've seen all the ways over the years in which the government in Washington violates its own charter, the U.S. Constitution, and hardly even tries to keep up appearances anymore that it is even trying to follow its own laws.

I've seen all the ways in which state and local governments steal money from their states' economies and waste resources.

And I've seen how both parties actively participate in this corruption, and how the two main parties are far more alike than they are different, how they are both privileged participants in a system controlled by entrenched special interests, how taken together, their activities closely resemble the one party rule of repressive foreign governments, and how fierce, bitter partisanship disguises this reality behind a loud facade of perpetual fake conflict.

That's why I'm an independent voter.

And that's why I cast a ballot for Gary Johnson for President of the United States, a vote of conscience for a candidate outside the corrupt two-party establishment. And although I am not a member of the LP, and don't see myself ever joining with any political party, everything I've seen happen under Obama's second term and Trump's first term has validated my inherent skepticism of anybody beholden to one of the two major parties.

So imagine my sore vexation at Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine's interview earlier this year with Gary Johnson, in which this libertarian magazine can't help itself but lead with the stale Aleppo story.

At the time this interview was conducted, it had been 18 months since that MSNBC interview and 15 months since that election, and today people still heckle "Aleppo!" on every thread about Gary Johnson. Why is anybody still harping on Aleppo at all and why an ostensibly friendly libertarian magazine?

When George Bush's campaign ran fierce attacks against Dukakis over the Willie Horton scandal, Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater said, "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate."

Yeah well in 2016 the hopelessly establishmentarian and sycophantic mainstream media decided by the time they were finished, people were going to wonder whether Aleppo is Gary Johnson's middle name. And a bunch of foolish– maybe perversely self-destructive– libertarians would happily allow themselves to be recruited to the establishment's campaign to tattoo Aleppo to Gary Johnson.

I never want to hear about Aleppo again.

So let's have a final conversation about it:

Gary Johnson was castigated by establishmentarians and libertarians alike for not knowing Aleppo is the largest city in Syria in a September 2016 MSNBC interview, in which some remarkably forgettable talking head asks him:

"What would you do if you were elected, about Aleppo?" Johnson replies, "And what is Aleppo?" to which the talking head feigns incredulity, "You're kidding... Aleppo is in Syria. It's the epicenter of the refuge crisis..."



The show's host, Joe Scarborough, then tells us all what to think about this exchange, and it seems like everybody listened to him unquestioningly except for me:

"So Aleppo is the center of a lot of people's concerns across the planet about the terrible humanitarian crisis that's unfolding, not only in Syria, but especially in Aleppo. You asked what is Aleppo. Do you really think that foreign policy is so insignificant that somebody running for president of the United States shouldn't even know what Aleppo is? Where Aleppo is? Why Aleppo is so important?"

Okay Joe, Aleppo's not "so important." And only in a United States that has become a global empire instead of a constitutional republic would a civil war in a small country halfway around the world be so important to the government of the United States.

Our Constitution does not give our government the authority to be the world's police, our people are not and have never been interested in being the world's police, and policing the world and maintaining global military-monetary hegemony has been a rotten deal for most Americans while enriching a few at the cost of vast amounts of American treasure and blood.

And that's exactly the answer that Gary Johnson gave, so whether he knew the name of a city in a tiny war torn third world country or not, Aleppo was Gary Johnson's brightest shining moment in the campaign, the one in which he advocated for a wise, prudent, and constitutional foreign policy, unlike the strong continuity signals we were getting from Hillary Clinton.

Or the deliberately vague and contradictory answers we were getting from Donald Trump, which turned out– predictably enough– to be cover for him to swing full neocon as president and give the military industrial complex and deep state nearly everything they want short of regime change in Iran.

But since people– even libertarians– can't seem to give up on the idea that not knowing the name of the city of Aleppo somehow made Gary Johnson look like an unserious presidential candidate, let's review just how stupid that really is.

Aside from the problem with caring about random trivia more than substantive principles, it's clear that every desk jockey typing in his scorn for Gary Johnson after looking up Aleppo on Wikipedia so they could pretend they knew what it was the next day, hasn't even been paying close enough attention to world politics themselves to remember this is a game the media has been playing with presidential candidates for a long time.

Some smart-ass journalist in 1999 asked George W. Bush to name the presidents of four foreign countries, knowing he wouldn't be able to name any of them (because who would?), and when Bush was only able to name one, the mainstream media gleefully went: "Gotchya!"

Here's the story:

'Texas Gov. George W. Bush was hit with a surprise quiz on foreign affairs and scored only 25 percent.

The Republican presidential front-runner sat down Wednesday with WHDH-TV, the NBC affiliate in Boston, and was asked to name the leaders of four current world hot spots: Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan.

He was able to give a partial response to just one: Taiwan.

That drew immediate criticism from the camp of Democrat Al Gore, which said the vice president could have answered all four correctly.

"I guess we know that 'C' at Yale was a gentleman's 'C,'" said Gore spokesman Chris Lehane, referring to the way Bush has described his academic record.

The Bush campaign brushed off the incident.

"The person who is running for president is seeking to be the leader of the free world, not a Jeopardy contestant," said Karen Hughes, Bush communications director.

"I would venture to guess that 99.9 percent of most Americans and probably most candidates could not answer who is the president of Chechnya," Hughes added.'


No one believed that this gotchya question really disqualified Bush as a serious presidential candidate. And as it turned out, Bush was widely praised in the years after 9-11 for cultivating a close working relationship with one of those foreign leaders he couldn't name, Gen. Pervaiz Musharraf of Pakistan.

So what mattered was not being a walking encyclopedia, but having a good executive skill set, a quality that no one can deny Gary Johnson has in abundance.

The mainstream media played the same game with Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin in 2008 when ABC's Charlie Gibson asked her: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"



And despite the fact that virtually no one, even in political journalism– which I was following obsessively at the time– much less in common parlance, was referring to pre-emptive war as The Bush Doctrine (they were calling it "pre-emption"), people all pretended the next day that Sarah Palin was alarmingly ignorant for tripping over Gibson's likely deliberately obscure usage.

This isn't what good faith conversation looks like. This isn't how we earnestly investigate someone's credentials. It's just laying sophistry-based traps that look dramatic on television to shallow-minded people who have already made up their hearts and minds to shout and boo down everybody but their own "team."

This article was originally published at IVN.



Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Senator Rand Paul Endorses Gary Johnson for U.S. Senate 2018 - Humble Libertarian Podcast



Some thoughts on Rand Paul's endorsement of Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson for Senate in New Mexico in 2018.



Rand Paul Endorses Libertarian Gary Johnson For U.S. Senate


In a press release Tuesday, the Tea Party Senator from Kentucky, and relentless thorn in the side of establishment Republicans and Democrats, announced he is endorsing the Libertarian Party candidate in New Mexico's 2018 Senate contest:

"I have an important announcement today. I'm endorsing Gary Johnson for US Senate.

Gary Johnson is a true fiscal conservative. As Governor, he reduced the size of government while improving services. He cut taxes, and he set what may be a record by vetoing more than 700 unnecessary pieces of legislation.

His leadership on issues of government overreach, protecting Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights against mass surveillance, and common sense foreign policy is sorely needed in the United States Senate, for New Mexico and the nation.

He will be an important ally and a critical independent voice."

How you can help if you don't live in New Mexico:

DONATE here: https://www.garyjohnsonsenate.com/donate

How you can help if you do live in New Mexico:

Volunteer here https://www.garyjohnsonsenate.com/volunteer

Please do what you can to help elect Gary Johnson to the US Senate.

In Liberty,
Rand Paul, MD




Monday, August 27, 2018

Ron Paul Schools John McCain on Live Television



"The real question you have to ask, is why do I get the most money from Active Duty Officers? Military personnel?"

It's true, Ron Paul raised more money from active duty military members than any other presidential candidate in either party that election, and his top three contributors were:

The U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Airforce.

I love the talking heads with Ron Paul in this like a reality television show or a mockumentary. This is amazing.

Lol at the way Ron Paul looks at John McCain when the warguy calls him an isolationist, like "Oh no, you did not just play yourself like that, son!"

Savage: "He's approaching it emotionally. He has so much invested in the war he's invested in. He has a misunderstanding of foreign policy. I don't think he has the vaguest idea about what the Founders taught– how beneficial it is to have a non-interventionist foreign policy. He uses the cliche of isolationism, and that is not what it is. And he really hasn't studied on all the blowback that the CIA has taught us and that we have suffered from."



BigThink.com: "Bitcoin is closer to breaking into the mainstream than ever before"


A glowing article about Bitcoin from Big Think Sunday:

Crypto could be closer to the mainstream than we think


Right now, it might feel like we’re a long way off from a world where crypto is mainstream.

However, the industry has come a long way within the past two years alone. With more and more companies working on solutions to solve some of crypto’s biggest problems and making it more practical for real-world application, it could be closer than we’ve been led to believe.

There have even been rumors that big companies like Amazon are planning on jumping onto the crypto bandwagon. The retail giant has released no official statements on the topic, but its recent purchases of domain names including AmazonEthereum.com, AmazonCryptocurrency.com, and AmazonCryptocurrencies.com, suggest that it could be gearing up to become more involved in this growing industry.

Amazon is also pushing its ‘Blockchain on AWS’ platform that provides users with the resources they need to experiment with blockchain networks and deploy solutions. Qtum is an example of one blockchain platform that has recently become available through Amazon Web Services (AWS). Qtum is a decentralized, open source smart contracts platform that aims to completely revolutionize the way that smart contracts are viewed, developed, and used.

This launch will enable AWS users to access the platform and use it to develop and launch their own smart contracts by using Amazon Machine Image (AMI), without having to go outside of the platform.

Having Qtum available on the Amazon platform has already served as a huge boost for the QTUM cryptocurrency. And this is just the beginning. Over the next few years, it’s likely that Amazon will become increasingly interested in the potential of the blockchain.

Who knows...within a few years, buying a loaf of bread with Bitcoin could be the new norm.

On the same day, Forbes asked:

Could Bitcoin Replace Credit Cards?

"Arran Stewart, Co-owner and CVO of Job.com, explains how Bitcoin could replace credit cards. Credit cards, he says, could be replaced with simple wallet verification that could be confirmed 'with something as simple as a fingerprint. We are already used to doing the same and similar behavior with Apple Pay. This is far more secure and efficient as it would allow retailers to receive payment for goods and services much faster. The only roadblock to this becoming reality is the stability of the crypto market, which will come in time and as transaction volumes continue to increase.'

That’s bad news for companies like Visa and Master Card, which dominate the credit card payment industry -- and for the banks that issue these cards and take their own cut.

But it is good news for Bitcoin investors, as it will raise exponentially the adoption rates for day to day transactions, and boost its price."

And Reddit co-founder, Alex Ohanian, had this to say:

"As a store of value, there is some real traction [with Bitcoin], and actually as we’re seeing in countries like Turkey that are having significant economic crisis — where people are losing faith in the Turkish lira — we’re going to see money move over to bitcoin because as unstable as it is, it is actually a lot more stable for a lot of people than their own [currency]... But right now, we’re still in the earliest, earliest stages."



Sunday, August 26, 2018

John McCain Is No Different From Charles Manson




I'm amazed, but not surprised at the American people's entirely misplaced sense of decorum at this hour.

When Charles Manson died no one had a word to say against any one who celebrated as they pointed out the obvious about him– that he was a menace to the world, who ordered people under his spell to carry out murders in cold blood.

The only difference between Charles Manson and John McCain is the sheer scale of the mayhem and murder orchestrated by the U.S. Senator from Arizona, who just like Manson, ordered people under his spell to carry out murders in cold blood.

The unambiguous agenda of the United States is perpetual violent conflict and war, with a staggering human cost. And John McCain has made a career out of being one of its most extreme advocates for that agenda, at the vanguard of the most extreme militant wing of an extremely militant regime.

In the West we have a superstition against speaking ill of the dead– De mortuis nihil nisi bonum– Of the dead say nothing but good. Remember, it's a superstition. In an essay regarding the horrors of World War I that had devastated his continent, Sigmund Freud had this to say of the old Roman superstition:

"We assume a special attitude towards the dead, something almost like admiration for one who has accomplished a very difficult feat. We suspend criticism of him, overlooking whatever wrongs he may have done, and issue the command, De mortuis nil nisi bene: we act as if we were justified in singing his praises at the funeral oration, and inscribe only what is to his advantage on the tombstone. This consideration for the dead, which he really no longer needs, is more important to us than the truth, and, to most of us, certainly, it is more important than consideration for the living."

Indeed for most it is.

The white knights coming to John McCain's defense at this moment– those second rate peddlers of war propaganda, and of course the outrage mongers and virtue signalers– they accuse someone who speaks as I do of lacking decency, compassion, and humanity. "What about the grieving families!" they cry as they beat their breasts in a sickly tone of fevered sanctimony.

A friend of mine asked me, "Would you want people celebrating your death, Wesley? Have some human decency." I was amazed at his ability to willfully ignore the context. "Would you want people planning yours? Where's your human decency?" I asked in return.

Where is the love and consideration in their hearts– the decency, compassion, and humanity– for the many innocent dead around the world, ordered to be massacred, and slated for death by John McCain and his ilk? How can honoring such a man be a sign of decency and compassion? There are many still grieving their loss, missing their dead family members, murdered in acts of cold blood at the command of John McCain and so many, too many others like him in the United States government.

If you have the stomach for it, Google "deformed Iraqi babies," and look at them. They were born that way because of the radioactive depleted uranium shells left all over Iraq by the U.S. Department of Defense, the fruits of John McCain's life's work.

Only in a lunatic society can honoring such a man be a sign of decency, while condemning the sum of his life's work is regarded as callous. Only with a social psyche marred by the pernicious effects of political propaganda, could this be possible.

George Orwell rightly said, "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable."

Dare point out– as the uncorrupted child in the old Danish tale– that the emperor has no clothes, and people will be so embarrassed by the enormity of the lies our political system is based on, so afraid that they are unable to accept such a disheartening truth, to believe that so many "respectable" men could do so much evil and base it on such preposterous lies, that they will attack the one who points out the obvious in a spectacular display of enraged fake conviction.

But what would you do if you woke up last November and found the majority of society speaking in tones of great respect, honor, and admiration for Charles Manson at the hour of his death?