“The craziest person in the history of broadcasting” is how conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck has described Alex Jones. He is another, more libertarian radio host. The backdrop to Beck’s badmouthing: The White House is preparing to unveil as many as 19 extra-constitutional imperial decrees, aimed at watering down the right of self-defense.

Beck believes this is as good a time as any to go to war against Alex Jones, who is a formidable defender of the 2nd Amendment.

Beck wrote this in his newsletter, which I receive:

“Want to know who the media wants to make the face of the pro-gun argument in America? Look no further than conspiratorial radio host Alex Jones, best known for his 9/11 Truther theories and his love of Charlie Sheen’s hernia. Jones is the man behind the petition to deport CNN host Piers Morgan for his views on gun control. Morgan invited Jones onto his show to debate the gun issue yesterday, and not surprisingly, Jones made a fool of himself, giving the left the perfect poster boy for their attempts to paint every logical conservative as an extremist nut job. WATCH.”

As a rationalist, I am not a conspiracy theorist. But disagreement among patriots does nothing to undermine my assessment of Alex Jones. He may be an oddball, but he’s more libertarian (a free man) than any welfare-warfare Republican

As I’ve said, the Jones persona is as American as apple pie. Jones is what I love about America. And he didn’t rant on Piers Morgan’s show; he treated apathetic Americans to performance art: the performance of a fanatic for … freedom.

I can’t see what Beck’s motive would be in badmouthing Jones. A conspiracy theorist himself, perhaps Glenn cares more about guarding the broadcasting niche he has carved out for himself than about freedom.

like tweet google+ recommend print

Anderson Cooper demonstrated recently that when the spirit moves him, he can perform the job of journalism passably, if not brilliantly.

Conservatives are elated, overjoyed. They got down on their knees and paid homage to little Lord Vanderbilt, AKA Anderson Cooper, because, just this once (OK, maybe twice), Cooper had challenged one of the many lies Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) tells with a straight face. Wasserman Schultz is a popular participant on cable TV shout-fests. This blond has been putting her velvety voice and forceful personality to use in promoting Obama’s statist schemes.

Glenn Beck could not contain himself, writing that, “Anderson Cooper has always been one of Glenn’s favorite people and last night he showed why. When he sees BS he will pounce…”

Cooper is a pioneer of the Oprah school of journalism, whose method is to follow feelings, and not facts, and promote “awareness” of The Issues. He is very bad for journalism.

Am I surprised that Cooper veered this once from his usual postmodern mind-set? Sure. Ordinarily, Cooper would have told Wasserman Schultz that although his reality differed from hers, he nevertheless respected “the place she was coming from.”

But am I grateful the little so-and-so did what he is supposed to do? Hell no.

There’s a name for what Glenn Beck is experiencing with respect to the left-liberal media: Stockholm Syndrome.

like tweet google+ recommend print

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is growing testy with Obama, giving the Department of Justice “until Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.” Via Glenn Beck’s The Blaze:

A federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify comments made by the president when he said yesterday that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care law (“Obamacare”).
“I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” President Obama said.
“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
He continued:
And I‘d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.

It is a good day when activist legislation is struck down. The less legislation on the obese books, the better—unless it is legislation to strike down other overreaching, unconstitutional laws of which we have tens of thousands.

Federalism is forever being “discovered” belatedly and opportunistically by the Demopublicans. Since federalism is a chimera—it no longer exists in any meaningful way—the level of decision-making is immaterial to me. In this context, what matters is the decision to strike down ObamaCare. Who cares which branch of the hydra-headed monster makes it, so long as it is made, and, once made, it holds.

like tweet google+ recommend print

I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. In fact, if I were going to characterize my—on health where I come from, I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican and I believe government can lean in the regulatory leaning is okay.—Newt Gingrich (the gibberish too).

To some—perhaps many—Republicans, to be a Theodore Roosevelt Republican is quite respectable. Therein lies the rub. If you’re the type of (Robert) Taft Republican who values your life, liberty and property—then Teddy Roosevelt, “the guy who started the Progressive Party,” and was a proponent of “progressive ideals”—is bad news.

If you didn’t already know Newt was bad news; then Glenn Beck makes it abundantly clear. Especially politically poignant is Newt’s folksy retelling of Teddy’s food safety awakening.

About “‘TR’s drummed up a phony ‘food safety crisis,’” Thomas J. DiLorenzo observed the following:

… there were no epidemics related to commercial food processing” in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Roosevelt’s “pure food laws” were aimed “at protecting producers,” not the general public. For example, as Powell recounts, some of these early laws set exceptionally high regulatory standards on imported foods as a form of veiled protectionism. Food inspection laws during the Roosevelt era were invariably favored by larger corporations who understood that the laws would disproportionately harm their smaller competitors. “The 1906 Pure Food And Drugs Act empowered the Agriculture Department’s notorious quack, Harvey Washington Wiley, to conduct crazy crusades against foods competing with the interest groups he served” (mostly larger corporate interests).

In Into the Cannibal’s Pot, I mention the hundreds of thousands of Filipinos whom TR killed.

In all, TR was happiest when he was killing. Like many a mass murderer, TR began his career by killing animals, one biographer alleging that “after an argument with his girlfriend a young Teddy Roosevelt went home and shot his neighbor’s dog.”

Glenn mocks the self-important Speaker: “… So you’re a minimum regulation guy on making sure the people don’t fall into the vats of sausage?”

Yes, Newt Gingrich got mince-up well in the Glenn grinder.

like tweet google+ recommend print

The following is from my “Bachmann: Bling For Ron Paul?,” now on WND.COM:

“A day after the GOP debate in New Hampshire, mainstream media awoke to Rep. Michele Bachmann’s undeniable abilities and magnetism. Before June 13, this mummified lot had turned to Meghan McCain and Chris Matthews for information about the congresswoman from Minnesota. …

Rep. Bachmann catapulted to fame late in 2008. Yet not a thing was said in the muck-raking media—Republican included—about her background. Just imagine what publicity Debbie Wasserman Schultz (or Sarah Palin) would receive had she provided foster care to 23 children in addition to raising five of her own!

Bachmann, moreover, earned a Master of Laws in tax law from the William & Mary Law School. (Women lawyers tend to flock to the less-taxing field of family law.) Not that you’d know it from the way she has been portrayed, but Bachmann is very clever. …

With a perfectly straight face, Lawrence O’Donnell, also of MSNBC (a fertile seedbed for mind-sapping stupidity), lapped up the sub-intelligent message issued by the “Snooki” of the commentariat: Michele Bachmann is “no better than a poor man’s Sarah Palin,” Meghan McCain announced. …

Americans inhabit a world of reality TV and other frivolity. To win the GOP nomination in this parallel universe, Ron Paul needs political bling—he will want the punch, pizazz and money bombs a Bachmann can provide. …

The complete column is “Bachmann: Bling For Ron Paul?,” now on WND.COM.

UPDATE I (June 17): Just posted to Facebook:

My complete comment at WND: 1) Bachmann as tax attorney: people do what they need to so as to make a living: How many facebook, libertarian-leaning friends have I, a self-employed person, approved who work for the state? The state is, as Prof. Walter Block once put it, acting as a hostage-taker. The Sixteenth, as I put it, is “The Number of the Beast,” and Bachmann is forever tainted for having enforced the law.

2) However, I inhabit reality. Unlike many libertarians, I do believe in winning. We need to win if we want a future in this country. This is no time for robotic, tinny, go-by-the-book formulations and politics. 3) Bachmann under the tutelage of Paul would be a power-horse. You gotta be nuts not to reach for the closest thing to libertarian power we are likely to get. Having lived in “other” societies (check out my book to get a feel for that), I think I’m more passionate about getting to liberty than are people who were born to it, and are losing it bit-by-bit.

4) I’ve studies this woman since her appearance on the scene: Bachmann has the equanimity and force of a male. Her “manly” mind comes packaged in the frame of a well-bred, charming lady. This is America. Reality dictates that Paul needs “Bling.” He should form what will be a winning alliance.

UPDATE II: THIS IS NOT A BACKING OF THE BACHMANN BID. From Facebook, again, in reply to a friend who simply uses inaccurate language, in describing me as a backer of Bachmann’s presidential bid: I have never ever backed Bachmann’s presidential candidacy in my column or in my writing. The column is clear: I have backed a Paul-Bachmann ticket: “the GOP’s winning ticket: Ron Paul for commander in chief; Michele Bachmann as second-in-command.”

UPDATE III: JUDGE NAP. Via Austin Petersen on Facebook:

If Ron Paul were to win the GOP presidential nomination, there’s a chance he wouldn’t have to worry about geographical balance on his ticket. Paul, a Texas congressman and critic of the Federal Reserve, mentioned a former New Jersey judge and current Fox News talk show host — Andrew Napolitano — as a potential running mate, in an interview with TheStreet’s Alix Steel in Washington this week. Paul, though, did say he hadn’t “thought it through.”

You do know that this presidential pairing would advocate open borders. Or simply make laissez-faire immigration official.

UPDATE IV (June 18): The reader in the Comments section wrote this, with respect to my Update above (Judge Nap):

[Paul and Napolitano] would not be doing in the executive branch would be as important (or more so) as what they would be doing, specifically allowing the states to deal with these problems and not providing intrusive, tyrannical top cover for those who profit from these abominations.

Wrong—at least as far as the Judge goes. He has repeatedly claimed that immigration is within the constitutional purview of the federal government. This has been his constitutional argument against just about anything the states are doing to defend their beleaguered citizens. Yet the Judge has also advanced the anarchist’s more-congruent argument: any person in the world has the absolute right to venture wherever, whenever. You can’t have it both ways, or is this an effective intellectual strategy to rule out the legitimacy of any response to the ongoing invasion of considerable swaths of private property along the border?

This libertarian and leftist protest over any impediment to the free flow of people across borders is predicated not on the negative, leave-me-alone rights of the individual, but on the positive, manufactured right of humanity to venture wherever, whenever. In a world where absolute private property rights were upheld, this might be a proposition, but not as the statist status quo stands now.

UPDATE V (June 19): Paul Wins Straw Poll.

Writes the campaign for liberty on behalf of Ron Paul:

“And the winner of the 2011 Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll is . . . RON PAUL!

Those are the words – uttered just minutes ago here at the RLC in New Orleans – that are sending shockwaves throughout the entire GOP establishment.

And it was YOU that made it happen! I can’t tell you how much that means to me.

You see, at last year’s straw poll, establishment darling Mitt Romney defeated me by only one vote.

But this year I defeated my nearest rival by more than 200 votes!

That means the establishment can no longer deny the fact that there is widespread grassroots support within the GOP for a return to constitutional government.”

If you’re in it for winning, Rep. Paul, it’s time to get some of that Bachmann bling, with which to broaden the base.

You can read my new book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” on Kindle now. The print copy is available both from Amazon and from the Publisher. Hurry: Publisher is currently offering free shipping, including to our readers in South Africa. To purchase, click on the “Buy From StairwayPress” Button.

like tweet google+ recommend print

If Christians value celebrating the Easter Holy Week in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem’s Old City—and it is majestic, believe me—they ought to pay more attention to the plans the Middle East Quartet is hatching for Israel. The United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia may push Israel to “withdraw to the [indefensible] armistice lines drawn up between the Jewish state and Jordan in 1949.” For the time being, the US has postponed a Quartet meeting, probably because Obama is already in bad odor with American on so many other issues.

Last Friday, Glenn Beck infuriated FoxNews’s Saudi shareholders by taking a symbolic, if unequivocal, stand for the Jew among the nations (yeah, yeah, I oppose foreign aid); for the civilized society (instead of the adjacent savage society). For “in Israel—foibles and frailties notwithstanding—the West has reclaimed a small spot of sanity in a sea of savagery, where enlightened western law prevails, and where Christians and Jews and their holy places are safe. (Muslims are always secure in western societies, Arab-Israelis too.).

When Jews commenced what must be the most remarkable modern-day national revival, Israel was a wasteland. Palestinians had done precious little for the land they purport to so love. As Ludwig von Mises (a utilitarian classical liberal), observed: For centuries the Near East has been a cultural backwater. “The Mohammedans”—to quote the delightfully archaic Mises—have for hundreds of years failed to produce so much as a “book of significance,” much less any scientific or other advancement.

Is there any wonder? The catalysts for creativity and prosperity are the ideas of individual freedom and freedom from the state. As Mises noted, these ideas are inimical to the cultures of the Near East, and the Islamic world in particular. Yet the “civilized” world is working diligently to shrink the civilized sphere that is Israel and expand the barbaric Palestinian Authority. (Question: What does unoccupied Palestinian land look like? Answer: Like Gaza.)

I must say that the rabbi Glenn entertained for his hour long “In Defense of Israel” show instantiated everything that is wrong with the American rabbinate, in particular, and American Jews, in general. Let me explain.

A woman in Beck’s audience asked the perspicacious question about the divide between American and Israeli Jews. Israelis and diaspora Jews: never the twain shall meet. But Rabbi Joseph Potasnik (a real “tembel”) gave her some tribal reply. Where does Glenn find these people? The rabbi was as ghettoized as any representative of CAIR.. Contrast that with the concision with which Dore Gold (a former Israeli ambassador) made his points.

American Jews are left-liberals, for the most, when it comes to the concerns of their fellow Americans, but rightist on matters Israel. In other words, hypocrites. They advocate a multicultural, immigration free-for-all, pluralist pottage for America. But when it comes to Israel, that’s another matter entirely.

As most left-liberal Jews who support Israel see it, Israel has the right to retain its creedal and cultural distinctiveness and its Jewish majority, but not so America. Israel should control immigration and guards its borders, but not the US. Ask this kind of Jew if he supports a “Right of Return” for every self-styled Palestinian refugee, and he’ll say, “Never. Are you insane? That’s a euphemism for Israel’s demise.”

The very thing he opposes for Israel, the left-liberal Jew champions for America: a global right of return to the US for the citizens of the world. When it comes to “returning” to America (but not Israel), humankind has a positive, manufactured right to venture wherever, whenever.

like tweet google+ recommend print