‘Sixteen the Number of the Beast’

Individual Rights, Private Property, Taxation

(The title of the post is that of an essay on the 16th Amendment in Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With a Corrupt Culture.)

A self-satisfied, beaming U.S. Marshal, Stephen Monier, boasted about busting the elderly tax resisters, Ed and Elaine Brown. “They invited us in, and we escorted them out,” Monier strutted, as he described the ruse the feds used to gain access to the couple’s home. At least the feds didn’t kill the Browns.

Doug Powers covered the story here.

Income tax is immoral, not illegal. Most of what the federal government does is immoral, but not illegal. After all, those in power determine what’s licit and what’s elicit. As I’ve written:

“…the right of ownership is an extension of the right to life. If ownership is not an absolute right but is instead subject to the vagaries of majority vote, then so is the right to life…
However you slice it, there is no moral difference between a lone burglar who steals stuff he doesn’t own and an “organized society” that does the same. In a just society, the moral strictures that apply to the individual must also apply to the collective. A society founded on natural rights must not finesse theft.
The Founders intended for government to safeguard man’s natural rights. The 16th Amendment gave government a limitless lien on a man’s property and, by extension, on his life. The Amendment turned government into the almighty source – rather than the protector – of man’s rights and Americans into indentured slaves.”

(Please post comments here rather than send me e-mails; unfortunately, I don’t have the time to reply. More importantly, worthy information is best shared on the blog, where it reaches more people.)

On The George Putnam Show (More About a Great American)

America, Celebrity, Elections 2008, Ilana Mercer, Ilana On Radio & TV, Media

Tomorrow (Oct. 9, 2007) I will be on George Putnam’s nationally syndicated show, Talk Back (more about Mr. Putnam here as well). It is “distributed nationwide on the Cable Radio Network.” I’ll be on from 1:30 to 1:58 PT.

Updated (Oct 9, 2007): I’m hugely privileged to have spoken fleetingly with a great and brilliant American. (Excuse the adjectival banality, but words fail me here.) Mr. Putnam is a national treasure, who should be on TV to remind Americans how incisive, sonorous and super smart some of their media mavens used to be. (Now none of them are.) I was also touched by Mr. Putnam’s graciousness about me and my work. This is a man whose counsel Nixon and Reagan sought, and who “has a star on the Hollywood Boulevard ‘Walk of Fame.’” Again, an honor. (I did get a chuckle out of Mr. Putnam when I said that at www.ilanamercer.com, his listeners could read columns as funny and as well-written as Ann Coulter’s, only principled. Incidentally, I endorsed Ron Paul as the hope for America; Mr. Putnam agreed enthusiastically and expansively.

Roger Grace wrote a series of columns about the great man. Here is one.

George Putnam: the Voice That Keeps Booming

By ROGER M. GRACE

In a 1984 “Salute to KTTV’s 35th Anniversary,” former President Richard Nixon, on videotape, said of veteran Los Angeles newscaster George Putnam:

“He won the admiration and respect of millions of people in Southern California due to the fact that everybody could count on him to say exactly what he believed, whether it was popular or not. Some people didn’t like what he said; some people liked what he said. But everybody listened to George Putnam. That is why he has been one of the most influential commentators of our times.”

At the time of that program, Putnam was weekend anchor at KTTV, after having been off television for a spell. The station’s news director publicly stated when he brought Putnam back on board that people told him he was nuts.

Putnam no longer enjoyed the popularity he had in the 1950s and into the early 1960s. Nonetheless, unalterable is the fact of Putnam’s unparalleled attainment when his career was at its zenith. He was a powerhouse. Among those who sought his counsel back then was Nixon.

Putnam is associated in the minds of many with Channel 11. However, in the mid-1960s, he was wooed away by KTLA, Channel 5, located one block west of KTTV on Sunset Boulevard. Channel 11 later enticed him back, and Putnam was again turning east from Van Ness into the KTTV lot. KTLA once more lured Putnam away in the early 1970s, and he was again turning west from Van Ness. (He was now doing his twice-nightly news show, as well as “Talk Back,” with viewers phoning in.)

When his high-priced contract expired, it was not renewed. Putnam’s style, once viewed as one which evinced enthusiasm, was now perceived as affected and passe. He worked for awhile at KHJ and KCOP, at one point doing a two-man chat show with Mort Sahl.

In 1976, Putnam returned to radio, where he got his start in 1934. During the 1950s, he had been heard on KFI (the NBC affiliate), later on KABC-AM (as was fellow KTTV news personality Paul Coates). His new home, however, was not so prestigious. It was KIEV, a station in Glendale that was little known outside that burgh. The station, licensed by the Federal Radio Commission in 1932, had its dedicatory program on Feb. 11, 1933. It broadcast from the basement of the Glendale Hotel, receiving free rent in exchange for advertising. It began broadcasting at a meager 100 watts, but worked its way up to 250 watts the next year. It was at 5,000 watts when Putnam got there with his “Talk Back” show.

Putnam gave the theretofore obscure station credibility, and enabled it to attract other top personalities, such as Mr. Blackwell. For years, Putnam’s broadcasts emanated each noontime from the bottom level of the Arco Plaza, in downtown Los Angeles. Lunchtime shoppers could bob in to join the studio audience.

The station on Jan. 1, 2001, acquired the abandoned call letters of a better known station, KRLA. That year, Putnam left his broadcasting home after 27 years when the station wanted to air his commentaries during the week, but relegate his call-in show to weekends.

But that did not end Putnam’s career in broadcasting. At age 88, he’s still broadcasting, his new venue being KPLS, a right-wing station in Orange County.

In 1995, at the local Emmy awards ceremony, Putnam was given the Governors’ Award for career achievement. He has a star on the Hollywood Boulevard “Walk of Fame.”

An article in the April 20, 1956 issue of TV Radio Life observed: “Some people say he is hammy. Others say he is the best in the field.”

He was—and is—a ham. Whether he was the “best in the field” may be debated. My own local journalistic “heroes” from that supplemental news medium known as television—supplemental to newspapers, that is—are Clete Roberts, Bill Stout and Paul Coates.

Though there was bravado to his manner, he was far from a Ted Baxter. He was informed.

In offering “One Reporter’s Opinion,” he did not merely read words crafted by another; the opinion was his, the words were his.

I do find fault, however, with the lack of clear demarcation during Putnam’s early days on L.A. television between his role as a reporter and as a commentator. He did, in my view, assume the role of an advocate in contexts where journalistic ethics would have dictated neutrality.

But this cannot be denied:

There has never been a more popular and influential newsman in Los Angeles television than Putnam. He’s a legend.

Updated: Ron Paul Raises Over $5 Million

Elections 2008, Journalism, libertarianism, Media

A miserable Norah O’Donnell of MSNBC just broke the splendid news that Ron Paul has raised over $5 million. She repeatedly tagged him an “isolationist,” which we know is a pejorative intended to discredit individuals who do not support recreational, unprovoked wars. Yet more nonsense on stilts from the malpractitioners in mainstream media; Paul is no isolationist; an advocate of free, unfettered trade is never an isolationist.

O’Donnell had Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter on to confirm that, having surpassed the mummified McCain, Paul was now officially a player. You don’t say, toots.

Update: on his show, Tucker Carlson mentioned Ron Paul’s high-water mark fund raising. The ubiquitous empty dress, A.B. Stoddard of The Hill, called Paul a “spoiler.” That kind of comment, meant to indicate Paul was taking votes from a bigger ticket, is the standard shallow, smart-alecky quip one has come to expect from the commentariat. Meaningless fluff.

Bill Press, to his great credit, put her in her place perfectly. Press said Paul was the real deal; that he was raising money because he had a message people craved. It took Press, a left-liberal, to galvanize the smart but smarmy Tucker (a conservative), who then vaporized a bit about how he liked Paul, but how Paul hadn’t a chance, “Given we are all socialists now, believing government should do most things for us.” Then he muttered incongruently how he still liked Paul.

Once again, if Tucker wants to see freedom prevail and socialism defeated, why not muster some courage and stand by the man who promulgates this? That is, if you really like what you hear. Why keep up this, “I’m so witty and cynical” façade—one moment mocking the man and his chances, the next, conceding Paul’s principles are the better ones.

I can’t respect such dissembling. These commentators have no yen for freedom. I guess, feeding so close to the trough as they do, they are free. Being part of what I call the Military-Media-Industrial-Congressional-Complex, they are free. It’s you and I who lack freedom, not the connected punditocracy. They benefit from power; we don’t.

Updated: Republicans Hate the Troops

Republicans, The Military

Or else why would they have voted against Jim Webb’s “proposed amendment forcing the Pentagon to give troops more time off between deployments”? Webb comes from a military family; he’s a Vietnam veteran, a father to a son fighting in Iraq and son to a World War II warrior.

Chief among the objectors was “Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has made winning in Iraq the focus of his bid for the presidency.”

Not that he’s any less hypocritical than the Republicans, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is quite right to say that “most of my Republican colleagues are much more concerned about protecting their president than protecting our troops.”

Update: As I understand it, the idea is a simple one: to allow soldiers worn-out by lengthy deployments sufficient time to recover—allow them at least to rest up. That’s why I say Republican puling about loving the troops is nothing but posturing. They won’t even allow the poor sods to get a break from the Iraqi inferno.