Wikileaks takes Obama at his word

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the "release of hundreds of thousands of confidential diplomatic cables by online whistle-blower WikiLeaks" "tears at the fabric" of government.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder "condemned the disclosures as having put at risk the safety of diplomats and other American government personnel."

"Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, called the release very damaging to U.S. interests."

But "New York Times Editor Bill Keller defended the release of the information, telling All Things Considered co-host Robert Siegel 'it's history in real time.'"

And President Obama?  On January 21, 2009 he made this announcement to his senior staff and cabinet secretaries:

For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known.

Emphasis added.  No doubt Hillary would say I'm taking his remark out of context.


To no one's surprise, Wikileaks web site came under a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack on Sunday, "just as it was publishing the first of what it says are 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables. Such attacks normally are done by flooding a website with requests for data."

New CPR Technique

Developed at the University of Arizona, the continuous chest compression technique is more effective and easier to administer.  Watch the six-minute video for details.

Senator Jay Rockeller Praises TSA Chief

Being a creature of government the TSA is not subject to the market forces of competition and profit and loss.  It is instead sustained by the government methods of coercion and propaganda.  If it were a market entity its stock would've plummeted and it would likely be filing for protection under Chapter 11.  But due to popular demand the market's voice has been silenced because it is allegedly flawed and opposed to the interests of the general public.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate committee overseeing air travel, praised TSA chief John Pistole during a Senate hearing recently:  "I Think You're Doing A Terrific Job."

This is reminiscent of Bush's comment about Mike Brown, the former FEMA head, following that agency's predictable ineptitude in handling the Katrina disaster: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Three days after Bush's comment, the embattled Brown turned in his resignation.  But FEMA is still with us, with more muscle and more money.

Someday a U.S. military exercise will go seriously awry and a major city will get wiped out.  Will the president use his bully pulpit to reassure us of the fine job the military is doing to secure our precious freedoms?

Longest Home Run Ever

ESPN’s John Brenkus did some calculations that would seemingly making hitting a home run in major league baseball a virtual impossibility.  I would say something is missing from his calculations.  He might agree.

A pitcher throwing a fastball at 99 mph will get the ball to home plate in 395 milliseconds.  It takes 400 milliseconds to blink. 

A lot has to happen in those 395 milliseconds. It takes the first 100 just for the batter to see the ball in free flight and get an image of it to his brain. If a decision is made to swing, the batter generally has a grand total of 150 milliseconds to get the bat around and through the strike zone.

There's more:

And even if his timing is perfect, he still has to put the “sweet spot” of the bat within an eighth of an inch of the correct spot on the ball. To give you an idea of the margin of error, the width of an average pencil is twice as big as the margin of error on a major league bat.

Most pitchers don't throw at 99 mph, but you get the idea.  And it makes Mickey Mantle's feat of hitting a 565-foot homer on April 17, 1953 all the more mind-boggling.

Police States Implode

Gary North writes:

The police State is doomed. It cannot possibly keep up with the constant innovation of society. It cannot gain access to enough resources to maintain control. It wastes the resources it commandeers.

The free market is winning. The attempts of the Federal Reserve and Congress to delay the readjustment of capital pricing goes on, but these attempts are not bringing the promised recovery.

The voters are growing restless. They have been promised miracles by the politicians. These promises are visibly disintegrating. We are seeing a loss of faith.

 The key to government control is voluntary compliance. Without self-government, the civil government cannot exercise control. Self-government relies on widespread trust far more than widespread fear.

Widespread trust is fading. Widespread fear will fade with it.

All about sugar

I read an article in Reader's Digest many years ago titled Killer Sugar.  It's probably outdated in many respects but not in its conclusion, as expressed in the article's title.  But sugar takes many forms and not all are equally bad, and its effects on our health can be moderated by other foods we eat.  Raw honey, for example, has a glycemic index (GI) of about 30, which is considered low and relatively safe, whereas baked potatoes, watermelon, corn flakes, and white bread are in the high GI range of 70 and above.  From Wikipedia:

The glycemic index, glycaemic index, or GI is a measure of the effects of carbohydrates on blood sugar levels. Carbohydrates that break down quickly during digestion and release glucose rapidly into the bloodstream have a high GI; carbohydrates that break down more slowly, releasing glucose more gradually into the bloodstream, have a low GI.

A low-GI food will release glucose more slowly and steadily. A high-GI food causes a more rapid rise in blood glucose levels and is suitable for energy recovery after endurance exercise or for a person experiencing hypoglycemia.

The glycemic effect of foods depends on a number of factors such as the type of starch (amylose versus amylopectin), physical entrapment of the starch molecules within the food, fat and protein content of the food and organic acids or their salts in the meal — adding vinegar, for example, will lower the GI. The presence of fat or soluble dietary fiber can slow the gastric emptying rate, thus lowering the GI. In general, unrefined breads with higher amounts of fiber have a lower GI value than white breads. Many brown breads, however, are treated with enzymes to soften the crust, which makes the starch more accessible (high GI).

While adding butter or oil will lower the GI of a meal, the GI ranking does not change. That is, with or without additions, there is still a higher blood glucose curve after white bread than after a low-GI bread such as pumpernickel.

Mark Sisson of Mark's Daily Apple has published what he calls The Definitive Guide to Sugar.  Here is his list of warnings about sugar:

• Sugar stimulates a physiological stressor-reaction cascade that provokes adrenaline and cortisol release and thickens the blood.
• Sugar effectively disables your immune system by impairing white blood cells’ functioning.
• Sugar decreases your body’s production of leptin, a hormone critical for appetite regulation.
• Sugar induces significant oxidative stress in the body.
• Sugar appears to fuel cancer cells. **[See below] (Check out Free the Animal for much more on the cancer connection.) [In particular, see this article.]
• Sugar promotes fat storage and weight gain.
• Sugar disrupts the effective transfer of amino acids to muscle tissue.
• Sugar intake over time spurs insulin resistance, subsequent Type II diabetes and the entire host of related health issues like nerve damage and cardiovascular disease.

And sugar is also addictive. Sisson writes:

A common theory says that we evolved to crave sweet tastes in order to seek out healthy fruits to diversify our diets. The problem comes in the current age when our inclination is bombarded with the likes of Coco Puffs, Snickers and pudding packs. . . .

Sugar raises serotonin levels, and that boost can easily figure into [your sugar] cravings. But guess what? Exercise raises serotonin as well. If you can, plan your workouts around the time of day when cravings tend to hit.

Read his post.

** "The quest is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates from the diet but rather to control blood glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer and bolster immune function.  The glycemic index is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the digestion and absorption process, which provides a healthier, more gradual infusion of sugars into the bloodstream."

Teaching your kids about the state

Lew Rockwell published an outstanding satire from the late Joseph Sobran today. How do you educate your kids on the true nature of the modern state?  Sobran tells how he did it:

When your child is a little older, you can teach him about our tax system in a way that is easy to grasp. Offer him, say, $10 to mow the lawn. When he has mowed it and asks to be paid, withhold $5 and explain that this is income tax. Give $1 to his younger brother, and tell him that this is "fair." Also, explain that you need the other $4 yourself to cover the administrative costs of dividing the money. When he cries, tell him he is being "selfish" and "greedy." Later in life he will thank you.

Make as many rules as possible. Leave the reasons for them obscure. Enforce them arbitrarily. Accuse your child of breaking rules you have never told him about. Keep him anxious that he may be violating commands you haven't yet issued. Instill in him the feeling that rules are utterly irrational. This will prepare him for living under democratic government.

The Tea Party won't save us

To many, the Tea Party looks like the ideal weapon to extinguish the ruinous policies of the establishment.  But as Lew Rockwell explains, this won't happen.  First, many Tea Party members hold inconsistent views on liberty. 

Its activists tend to be good on specific economic issues like taxes, spending, stimulus, and healthcare. They worry about government intervention in these areas and can talk a good game.

But just as with old-time conservatives, there are many issues on which the Tea Party tends toward inconsistency. The military and the issue of war is a major one. Many have bought into the line that the greatest threat this country faces domestically is the influx of adherents of Islam; in international politics, they tend to favor belligerence toward any regime that is not a captive of US political control.

On immigration, the Tea Party ethos favors national IDs and draconian impositions on businesses rather than market solutions like cutting welfare. On social and cultural issues, they can be as confused as the Christian Right, believing that it is the job of government to right all wrongs and punish sin.

Then there is the problem of what happens to defenders of liberty when they win an election:

They are leaned on by their new colleagues, the party elites, related financial interests, the press, and the entire system of which they are now part. Are they going to make themselves enemies of that system, or are they going to work within the system in order to achieve reform, and not just for one term but more terms down the line? Doing a good job means being part of the structure; doing a bad job means being an enemy of the very system that they now serve.

Which choice do they make? The same choice that everyone else in office makes (Ron Paul being the lone exception in all of human history). It is for this reason that newly seated "revolutionary" politicians will betray those who put them in power. It happens like clockwork, same as day turns to night.

Rockwell concludes: "We can state with confidence, all else being equal, that even the best electoral outcome will not lead to actual cuts in the power of government over our lives." 

Has US Become a True Police State?

In an essay called "It Is Official: The US Is a Police State," one of my favorite writers, Paul Craig Roberts, argues that:

An American Police State was inevitable once Americans let “their” government get away with 9/11. Americans are too gullible, too uneducated, and too jingoistic to remain a free people. As another Nazi leader Herman Goering said, “ The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace-makers for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger.”

This is precisely what the Bush and Obama regimes have done. America, as people of my generation knew it, no longer exists.

In a true police state, a libertarian like Ron Paul would be eliminated from public view.  He would not be appearing frequently on TV.  He wouldn't appear at all.  He would be silenced.  The government always has various options, and it might decide to murder him, as it likely did JFK.  The important point is, it would not only have the power to silence him, it would exercise that power.  So far it hasn't.  He's getting the rabble roused, but other than that he's harmless.  Big government marches on.  Let him talk.  The fact that he has little effect will prove that people want government to grow indefintiely.  Slavery will seem like the people's choice. 

In a true police state, the internet would be controlled to the point that no serious criticism of the government would be tolerated; an article like PCR's would be censored and its author arrested for providing "material support" to terrorism.  Lew Rockwell would find his website shut down.  This blog wouldn't exist.  A growing government crushes what remains of our liberty, it will never stop, and it has every reason to be pleased with its progress, but there's still work to do.

As we move closer to a one-world superstate and a global central banking system printing money at will, the prospects for complete state control of our lives in an Orwellian sense becomes more realistic.  Almost no one believes "1984" is a plausible scenario, which is one reason it becomes increasingly plausible.  Did the German people of 1927 foresee the Germany of 1939?  The Russian people foresee the horror of Stalin?

We're in deep trouble, but we still have a fighting chance.  Government is doing everything wrong to get the economy moving again.  As painful as this will be, the coming implosion may be our best hope for diluting the power of the state.

The Establishment has good reason to worry

In an email today from John Tate, president of Campaign for Liberty, he notes some of the recent defeats the pro-government forces have suffered:

Dear Friend of Liberty,

This isn’t a good year to be part of the establishment.

Millions of Americans have had enough of runaway spending, shadowy Federal Reserve agreements, and lack of any respect for constitutional limits.

Legislators are used to hearing from angry constituents.

They’re not accustomed to watching one another be sent into early retirement.

Pro-TARP Senator Bob Bennett didn’t even make it out of the Utah Republican convention in early May to be eligible for another term. Audit the Fed supporter and Tea Party-backed Mike Lee was eventually chosen by Republican voters to be their nominee.

Pro-ObamaCare Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln just barely survived her primary and now trails her Republican challenger.

Florida’s Charlie Crist bolted from the Republican Party for an Independent run to keep his Senate hopes alive. His poll numbers and political future are now in a free fall as he scrambles to repudiate virtually every issue he once claimed to support.

Senate candidate Rand Paul handily defeated Kentucky’s Secretary of State Trey Grayson (who had been crowned the nominee by Washington GOP insiders months before the vote) in the Republican primary and leads Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in general election polling.

After he switched parties just to save his political career, Arlen Specter lost to Joe Sestak in the Pennsylvania Democrat Senate primary in May.

Ken Buck defeated GOP establishment-supported Jane Norton in the Colorado Republican Senate primary.

Sharron Angle is facing off against pro-Big Government and anti-Audit the Fed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after defeating early favorite Sue Lowden in the Nevada primary.

In Alaska, Republican candidate and another pro-Audit the Fed Republican, Joe Miller, came out of relative obscurity to defeat pro-TARP incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the Senate primary.

And just this past week, despite fierce attacks from Republican Party insiders, Christine O’Donnell shocked the establishment by defeating pro-Patriot Act, pro-Brady Bill, and pro-Cap and Tax Representative Mike Castle for the right to run for Joe Biden’s old Senate seat.

Karl Rove, who we know is a genius (or so we’ve been repeatedly told), exemplified the insiders’ reaction to what has been happening by trying to sabotage O’Donnell after she won. A day later, and facing a backlash from angry tea partiers (as well as a long-deserved loss of credibility), Rove switched gears to support O’Donnell.

Today, hundreds of grassroots activists are gathering in Richmond, Virginia to join Judge Andrew Napolitano in taking a stand for states’ rights and against an out of control federal government. They’re not only hearing some powerful speeches but are participating in training sessions to learn proven techniques to reclaim the Republic beginning in their own backyards.

Much to Congress’ chagrin, we’re not stopping at contacting legislators over the phone and via email.

C4L is getting the word out about where office holders and candidates stand on the issues that are important to us through our survey program. Our members are taking part in public forums, running for local and national office, knocking on doors to sign up more concerned citizens to take action, and spreading the message that we will no longer allow our lives to be centrally planned from Washington, D.C.

Simply stated... we’re taking the fight directly to the statists.

They’re worried about what’s coming in November and beyond. And rightly so.

We’re just getting warmed up.


In Liberty,


John Tate

President

Eric Margolis on 9-11-01

"If the official story about 9/11 is true, the attacks caught the Bush administration asleep on guard duty." - Eric Margolis, 9-11-10.

He adds:

On 28 February, 1933, fire, set by a Dutch Jew, ravaged the Germany’s parliament, the Reichstag. While the Reichstag’s ruins were still smoking, Adolf Hitler’s government declared a war against "terrorism." A "Decree for the Protection of People and State" was promulgated suspending all legal protections of speech, assembly, property, and personal liberties. The Reichstag fire allowed the government to round up "terrorism" suspects without due process of law and made police powers near absolute.

Sound familiar? . . . .

So what, in the end, can we conclude?
1. We still do not know the real story about 9/11.
2. The official version is not credible.
3. 9/11 was used to justify invading strategic Afghanistan and oil-rich Iraq.
4. The attacks plunged America into wars against the Muslim world and enriched the US arms industry.
5. 9/11 boosted pro-Israel neoconservatives, formerly a fringe group, into power, and with them America’s totalitarian far right.
6. Bush’s unprovoked war against Iraq destroyed one of Israel’s two main enemies.
7. 9/11 put America in what may turn out to be a permanent state of war with the Muslim world – a key goal of the neoconservatives .

But I’ve seen no hard evidence to date that 9/11 was a plot by America’s far right or by Israel or a giant cover-up. Just, perhaps, the Mother of All Coincidences. In the end, it may just have been 19 angry Arabs and a bumbling Bush administration looking for someone else to blame.