citizens concerned

Photo

Sun, 19 May 2013 19:47:56 -0400

McKinley said she asked the dispatcher, “I’ve got...

Tue, 14 May 2013 20:12:43 -0400

McKinley said she asked the dispatcher, “I’ve got two guns in my hand — is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door? I’m here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?”

“I can’t tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby,” the dispatcher said.

The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes. Then the door gave in.

“I waited till he got in the door. They said I couldn’t shoot him until he was inside the house. So I waited until he got in the door and then I shot him,” McKinley told KFOR.

Don’t even speak to me about your statist gun legislations.

—Shared by Elle.

Cleveland’s local ABC affiliate caught an interview with...

Tue, 07 May 2013 21:27:39 -0400

Cleveland’s local ABC affiliate caught an interview with Charles Ramsey, the man who found Amanda Berry & Gina DeJesus.

Anarchy. This is anarchy. There was no force. By the goodness of his heart he decided to help.

And we are to believe that good things could never happen without government intervention. As if there is nothing in man that would have him help another human being. Humanity is not a dreary black hole. I could care less what anyone says.

—Shared by Elle.

thevirgoan: Found on FB. The Cheeky Libertarian #antiwar...

Mon, 06 May 2013 21:55:02 -0400

thevirgoan:

Found on FB.

The Cheeky Libertarian

#antiwar #antistate #peaceloveanarchy #policestate #politics #libertarian

No politician is a saint; it takes a certain kind of person to...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:25:41 -0400

No politician is a saint; it takes a certain kind of person to want to go into the untouched business of legalized force.

—Posted by Elle.

Glenn Beck Gives Government Until Monday to Come Clean About...

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:54:10 -0400

Glenn Beck Gives Government Until Monday to Come Clean About Boston Bombing Cover-Up

Curious though, no?

—Shared by Elle.

This is why I’m not big on Justin Amash. He justifies...

Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:22:31 -0400

This is why I’m not big on Justin Amash. He justifies particular wars and instances, while remaining unmentioned, how we promote these unjust wars ourselves. We incite violence towards ourselves, and without recognizing that, you will continue to put us in danger.

—Shared by Elle.

Simply states, “I don’t believe gay marriage (Or, respectively, anything) should be,...

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:00:40 -0400

Simply states, “I don’t believe gay marriage (Or, respectively, anything) should be, “legalized,” Because that notion assumes a, therefore, legal entity takes takes precedence over my humanity. I am a human being, whose rights come from my humanity, Not from a government Or piece of paper. Moreover, So are you. You have full control over your person and will decide whom you befriend, Or whom you belove, for any amount of time. You do Not need permission to do So.

—shared by Elle.

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:22:32 -0400

—shared by Elle.

LISTEN TO LAWMAKERS TELL A RAPE VICTIM SHE DIDN”T NEED A...

Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:31:46 -0500

LISTEN TO LAWMAKERS TELL A RAPE VICTIM SHE DIDN”T NEED A GUN TO PROTECT HERSELF!

Amanda Collins, a woman who was raped on the UNR campus in sight of the campus police station, who was a CCW holder and was prevented from carrying her gun on campus due to the “gun free zone” policies, testified in Colorado hearings regarding CCW laws on the campus there. She posed a question to the legislators there at the end of her testimony. The reply is classic liberal crap. After the courage she had to tell her story, this is what she heard—

AMANDA COLLINS SAID: “How does rendering ME defenseless, protect YOU against a violent crime?”

Great question, but listen to the male lawmaker and then a female lawmaker tell the courageous rape victim what she DOES NOT NEED.

“Statistics are not on your side, even if you’d had a gun.” said sniveling Sen. Evie Hudack ph: 303-866-4840

“What we are trying to prevent here is other students and teachers from feeling “uncomfortable” in order for you to protect yourself.” — said Sen. Ted Harvey

My home state is losing its mind. And rightly so. Colorado state rep. thinks, “Passive resistance,” is the right way to deal with it.

—Shared by Elle

The Myth of Fed Independence by Murray N. Rothbard

Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:22:45 -0500

The Myth of Fed Independence by Murray N. Rothbard:

By far the most secret and least accountable operation of the federal government is not, as one might expect, the CIA, DIA, or some other super-secret intelligence agency. The CIA and other intelligence operations are under control of the Congress. They are accountable: a Congressional committee supervises these operations, controls their budgets, and is informed of their covert activities. It is true that the committee hearings and activities are closed to the public; but at least the people’s representatives in Congress insure some accountability for these secret agencies.

It is little known, however, that there is a federal agency that tops the others in secrecy by a country mile. The Federal Reserve System is accountable to no one; it has no budget; it is subject to no audit; and no Congressional committee knows of, or can truly supervise, its operations. The Federal Reserve, virtually in total control of the nation’s vital monetary system, is accountable to nobody – and this strange situation, if acknowledged at all, is invariably trumpeted as a virtue.

Thus, when the first Democratic president in over a decade was inaugurated in 1993, the maverick and venerable Democratic chairman of the House Banking Committee, Texan Henry B. Gonzalez, optimistically introduced some of his favorite projects for opening up the Fed to public scrutiny. His proposals seemed mild; he did not call for full-fledged Congressional control of the Fed’s budget. The Gonzalez Bill required full independent audits of the Fed’s operations; videotaping the meetings of the Fed’s policy-making committee; and releasing detailed minutes of the policy meetings within a week, rather than the Fed being allowed, as it is now, to issue vague summaries of its decisions six weeks later. In addition, the presidents of the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks would be chosen by the president of the United States rather than, as they are now, by the commercial banks of the respective regions.

It was to be expected that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan would strongly resist any such proposals. After all, it is in the nature of bureaucrats to resist any encroachment on their unbridled power. Seemingly more surprising was the rejection of the Gonzalez plan by President Clinton, whose power, after all, would be enhanced by the measure. The Gonzalez reforms, the President declared, “run the risk of undermining market confidence in the Fed.”

On the face of it, this presidential reaction, though traditional among chief executives, is rather puzzling. After all, doesn’t a democracy depend upon the right of the people to know what is going on in the government for which they must vote? Wouldn’t knowledge and full disclosure strengthen the faith of the American public in their monetary authorities? Why should public knowledge “undermine market confidence”? Why does “market confidence” depend on assuring far less public scrutiny than is accorded keepers of military secrets that might benefit foreign enemies? What is going on here?

The standard reply of the Fed and its partisans is that any such measures, however marginal, would encroach on the Fed’s “independence from politics,” which is invoked as a kind of self-evident absolute. The monetary system is highly important, it is claimed, and therefore the Fed must enjoy absolute independence.

“Independent of politics” has a nice, neat ring to it, and has been a staple of proposals for bureaucratic intervention and power ever since the Progressive Era. Sweeping the streets; control of seaports; regulation of industry; providing social security; these and many other functions of government are held to be “too important” to be subject to the vagaries of political whims. But it is one thing to say that private, or market, activities should be free of government control, and “independent of politics” in that sense. But these are government agencies and operations we are talking about, and to say that government should be “independent of politics” conveys very different implications. For government, unlike private industry on the market, is not accountable either to stockholders or consumers. Government can only be accountable to the public and to its representatives in the legislature; and if government becomes “independent of politics” it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy, accountable to no one and never subject to the public’s ability to change its personnel or to “throw the rascals out.” If no person or group, whether stockholders or voters, can displace a ruling elite, then such an elite becomes more suitable for a dictatorship than for an allegedly democratic country. And yet it is curious how many self-proclaimed champions of “democracy,” whether domestic or global, rush to defend the alleged ideal of the total independence of the Federal Reserve.

Don’t know how many times I’ve heard individuals blame the free market, for what the Fed has done.

—Shared by Elle.

Cathy Reisenwitz interviews the always charming Jeffrey...

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:23:07 -0500

Cathy Reisenwitz interviews the always charming Jeffrey Tucker.

—Shared by Elle.

Man, I love Doug Casey. —Shared by Elle.

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:49:46 -0500

Man, I love Doug Casey.

—Shared by Elle.

Am I the only libertarian who is annoyed with Ron Paul right now?

Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:43:36 -0500

moralanarchism:

How the fuck can someone who believes in voluntaryism file a suit with the United Nations over a domain name?

If Ron Paul wants the domain ronpaul.com then he should buy it off the current owners. That’s the way the free market works. You don’t go to a government agency to force the transfer.

That’s just completely fucked up.

Not the only. Can’t say I am surprised either.
Sad day.

—Shared by Elle

: Zero Dark Thirty

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:56:56 -0500

: Zero Dark Thirty:

citizens-concerned:

“Zero Dark Thirty”: Protest against the CIA’s Hollywood Thriller. Opposition within the Film Industry

Voices of protest have been raised in Hollywood against Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, an account of the hunt for Osama bin Laden, which endorses the actions of…

It is very hard to overlook the torture aspect. It’s certainly no Hurt Locker.

—Shared by Elle.

“Zero Dark Thirty”: Protest against the CIA’s Hollywood Thriller. Opposition within the Film Industry

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:04:59 -0500

“Zero Dark Thirty”: Protest against the CIA’s Hollywood Thriller. Opposition within the Film Industry:

Voices of protest have been raised in Hollywood against Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, an account of the hunt for Osama bin Laden, which endorses the actions of the Central Intelligence Agency, the US military and the systematic use of torture.

In a statement published January 9 in Truthout (“And the Academy Award for the Promotion of Torture Goes to …”), actor David Clennon explains, “I’m a member of Hollywood’s Motion Picture Academy. At the risk of being expelled for disclosing my intentions, I will not be voting for Zero Dark Thirty—in any Academy Awards category.”

Clennon goes on, “Everyone who contributes skill and energy to a motion picture—including actors—shares responsibility for the impressions the picture makes and the ideas it expresses. … So Jessica Chastain won’t get my vote for Best Actress. With her beauty and her tough-but-vulnerable posturing, she almost succeeds in making extreme brutality look weirdly heroic.”

The Emmy-award winning actor (best known for his role on television’s thirtysomething) writes, “If, in fact, torture is a crime (a mortal sin, if you will)—a signal of a nation’s descent into depravity—then it doesn’t matter whether it ‘works’ or not. Zero Dark Thirty condones torture. … If the deeply racist Birth of a Nation was released today, would we vote to honor it? Would we give an award to [German filmmaker] Leni Riefenstahl’s brilliant pro-Nazi documentary, Triumph of the Will?”

It is entirely to his credit that Clennon has made this statement, and spoken out against Bigelow’s film, which has received almost universal, shameful praise from the US media and its so-called “film critics.”

According to CBS’s Los Angeles affiliate station, veteran actors Martin Sheen and Ed Asner have also appealed “to other actors to vote their conscience on whether to reward the movie [Zero Dark Thirty] with a win on Oscar night.”

Sony Chairman Amy Pascal issued a defensive statement in support of her studio’s film, asserting, “Zero Dark Thirty does not advocate torture. To not include that part of history would have been irresponsible and inaccurate. We fully support Kathryn Bigelow and [screenwriter] Mark Boal and stand behind this extraordinary movie.”

Only a multi-millionaire Hollywood film executive, who thinks she can make up reality as she goes along, could have added this preposterous and hypocritical comment:

“We are outraged that any responsible member of the Academy would use their voting status in AMPAS as a platform to advance their own political agenda. … To punish an Artist’s right of expression is abhorrent. This community, more than any other, should know how reprehensible that is.”

One feels safe in suggesting that if a new version of the Hollywood anticommunist blacklist were to be launched tomorrow, the overwhelming majority of studio chiefs would sign up without a moment’s hesitation.

Clennon’s public statement and related events no doubt indicate revulsion against Bigelow’s film within sections of the industry.
That she was left out of the Academy Awards best director nominations, announced last week, was an indication of some degree of opposition. Bigelow was hailed as the first woman to win an Oscar for best director for The Hurt Locker in 2010. At the time, entirely false claims were made as to that work’s “anti-war” credentials.

This time around, with even less to go on, various liberal and “left” figures insist that Bigelow is being subjected to unfair attacks.
Scott Mendelson, for example, on the Huffington Post website, writes that Bigelow has “been called a warmonger, an apologist, and yes, a Nazi. … All because Bigelow and Boal didn’t spoon-feed their opinions to the audience in a way that made for easy digestion. They didn’t have a fictionalized scene where a character explicitly explains to the audience how they got each piece of vital information over the eight years during which the film takes place. They trusted the audience to make the connections.”

Filmmaker Michael Moore has chimed in, disgracefully, with support for Bigelow as part of a wider and equally disgraceful defense of the Obama administration. On Twitter January 9, Moore asserted, “I’m sorry, but anyone who claims that Zero Dark Thirty endorses torture either hasn’t seen the movie or wasn’t paying attention.

“Zero Dark 30 makes it clear: 7 yrs of torture under [George W.] Bush doesn’t find Osama bin Laden. [Barack] Obama elected, torture stops, guess what? WE FIND BIN LADEN.”

Moore’s statement fully accepts the so-called “war on terror,” which his own Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) associated with the American elite’s drive for global domination.

His miserable comments help explain how and why the official anti-war movement has folded up its tent and gone away under Obama.

Moore went on to say, “Also, this is a MOVIE. It is a work of art & tells a great story. ‘Depiction does not imply endorsement,’ says the director & she’s right.”

He was paraphrasing Bigelow’s comment at the New York Film Critics Award ceremony earlier this month: “I thankfully want to say that I’m standing in a room of people who understand that depiction is not endorsement.”

It is difficult to conceive of a more dishonest or self-deluded comment. Mendelson, Moore and Bigelow, first of all, leave out one minor detail: Zero Dark Thirty (which borrows its very title from the US military) was developed and made with the fullest cooperation of the military, the CIA and the highest echelons of the American government. Is it likely that the latter would have facilitated a work that offered criticism of their activities?

As we reported last May, Bigelow and screenwriter Boal, a former “embedded reporter” in Iraq in 2004, were given “top-level access” to those involved in the bin Laden killing. They were even offered the opportunity, which they jumped at, to meet with a member of the US Navy Seal death squad involved in the assassination.

Right-wing media watchdog Judicial Watch, for its own purposes, obtained hundreds of pages of emails and transcripts of conversations, including a July 14, 2011 meeting attended by Bigelow, Boal, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers and other Defense Department officials. The transcript reveals that Boal had previously held discussions with top administration officials, including Obama’s Chief Counterterrorism Advisor John O. Brennan and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough. Brennan, the man in charge of the murderous drone program, has recently been nominated as CIA director.

The transcripts and emails reveal Bigelow and Boal as accomplices of these top murderers in the US military and intelligence apparatus.

In an email to Vickers on June 9, 2011, for example, Pentagon media official Robert Mehal spoke glowingly of Boal, who had promised not to reveal any military secrets, adding “that he [Boal] was proud of not giving anything away in Hurt Locker.”

Furthermore, the screenwriter had explained that he wanted “to highlight the great cooperation/coordination between CIA/DoD [Department of Defense] and the extensive Intel work (decade) that culminated in the OP.” Boal told Mehal that assassinating bin Laden was a “gutsy decision” by Obama.

When Vickers, at the July 14, 2011 meeting, told Bigelow and Boal that the military would make available to them “a guy … who was involved from the beginning as a planner, a SEAL Team 6 Operator and Commander,” Boal responded, “That’s dynamite,” and Bigelow put in, “That’s incredible.” At the end of the conversation, Bigelow told Vickers, “So wonderful meeting you.”

Bigelow, supported by Moore and others, claims Zero Dark Thirty is neutral in relation to the events it depicts. “The film doesn’t have an agenda and it doesn’t judge,” she told the media. “I wanted a boots-on-the-ground experience.”

This is spurious. Zero Dark Thirty tells its “great story” from the point of view of the CIA and its torturers. Its supposed objectivity is a self-conscious aesthetic stance. Bigelow has long been fascinated with violence and brutality and those bold enough to carry it out, without regard for commonplace concerns. (For example, this bit of sophomoric dialogue from anti-hero Bodhi [Patrick Swayze] in Bigelow’s 1991 Point Break: “See, we exist on a higher plane, you and I. We make our own rules. Why be a servant of the law … when you can be its master?”)

We noted in regard to The Hurt Locker that the film “glories in and glamorizes violence, which the filmmaker associates with ‘heightened emotional responses.’ All of this, including its element of half-baked Nietzscheanism, is quite unhealthy and even sinister, but corresponds to definite moods within sections of what passes for a ‘radical’ intelligentsia in the US.” The Hurt Locker, we pointed out, “merely pauses now and then to meditate on the heavy price American soldiers pay for slaughtering Iraqi insurgents and citizens. As long as they pull long faces and show signs of fatigue and stress, US forces, as far as Bigelow is apparently concerned, can go right on killing and wreaking havoc.”

I liked the film, for the most part. But it does portray torture as leading to helpful information. It glorifies it. It hearkens back to Bush-era torture, without mentioning George Bush. It subtly praises Barack’s effort and accomplishments. It begins, precisely, now, and doesn’t remind us that it began with Bush.

The same people that condemned torture, are the same people praising this torture porn of a movie.

“How many times does the American public need to be told that torture did not yield the results the government promised? How many times does it need to be said that waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, 183 times obviously didn’t work? How many times does it need to be pointed out that torture can — and did — produce misleading or false information, notably in the torture of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the Libyan who ran an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and who confessed under torture that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?”

Karen Greenberg says. I couldn’t agree more.

—Shared by Elle.

moralanarchism: Peter Schiff: Inflation Propaganda Exposed...

Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:16:50 -0500

moralanarchism:

Peter Schiff: Inflation Propaganda Exposed

This is brilliant. He has personalized this whole issue, which is perfect.

—Shared by Elle.

Stefan makes the case — at about the 7:39 mark —...

Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:50:09 -0500

Stefan makes the case — at about the 7:39 mark — that the poor are, in fact, getting poorer and not richer.

Steve Horwitz contends that this would seem the case, when not comparing the absolute condition of the poor.

While it’s true, that the poor share a smaller portion of the national income, and the rich a larger share, the absolute condition of the poor is better than it was in the 60s and 70s. He states:

According to U.S. Treasury data, an astounding 86 percent of households that constituted the bottom fifth in 1979 had climbed out of poverty by 1988.

I am inclined to believe this to be the case, from my uneducated studies. It is true that cell phones, newer cars, televisions, game consoles, et cetera, ave prevalent in our households today. Over 50 percent of households own a computer today.

It’s important to consider, because the poverty guidelines have similarly risen in conjunction with gov’t revenue.

Lastly, while they may share a smaller percentage, the revenue they are sharing fromm is bigger, overall.

Thought I’d throw that out there. Thoughts?

—Shared by Elle.

Fracking is Safe, Says New York State Health Department

Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:12:00 -0500

Fracking is Safe, Says New York State Health Department:

Spooked by left-wing environmental activists, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been dithering over whether or not to approve the production of natural gas by means of hydrofracking from the Marcellus Shale formation in his state. Activists are trying to block approval by claiming that fracking can cause health problems. Today, theNew York Timesis reporting that a study done a year ago by the state’s Health Department finds thatfracking can be done safely. TheTimesnotes:

The state’s Health Department found in an analysis it prepared early last year that the much-debated drilling technology known as hydrofracking could be conducted safely in New York, according to a copy obtained by The New York Times from an expert who did not believe it should be kept secret….

The eight-page analysis is a summary of previous research by the state and others, and concludes that fracking can be done safely. It delves into the potential impact of fracking on water resources, on naturally occurring radiological material found in the ground, on air emissions and on “potential socioeconomic and quality-of-life impacts.” …

“By implementing the proposed mitigation measures,” the analysis says, “the Department expects that human chemical exposures during normal HVHF operations” — short for high-volume hydraulic fracturing — “will be prevented or reduced below levels of significant health concern.”

TheTimesalso reports that a much longer Environmental Impact Statement—1,500 pages—is still being compiled.

Of course, these studies are largely excuses for delaying decisions made politically painful by activist misinformation campaigns. Unless the studies find (which they won’t) that fracking causes massive cancer outbreaks and pollutes thousands of water wells, activists will simply dismiss inconvenient information and try to provoke fear and uncertainty among citizens using whatever junk science they can gin up.

If oil and gas production actually resulted in detectable health risks, it would already be apparent. Why? Because something like 75,000 conventional oil and gas wells have been drilled in New York since the late 1800s, and 14,000 of them are still active.

I have always been in favor of fracking. It is obviously a controversial subject with very outspoken critics and advocates. However, I am for any market responses to cheaper, quicker, and easier access to gas. There is a movement here, in Colorado, even among libertarians, to end fracking. I can’t condemn this method.

ReasonTV, in my opinion, posted a great videon on this.

—Shared by Elle.

How Cash for Clunkers Hurt Both the Poor and Small Business People

Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:01:21 -0500

How Cash for Clunkers Hurt Both the Poor and Small Business People:

I am a big fan of used cars generally. I just can’t bring myself to buy a new one given the immediate depreciation which occurs once I wave goodbye to the salesman. It’s just too painful for me. I prefer to buy my cars used.

The secondary market is also important for those who can’t afford a new car. Given that 2013 autos average over $25,000, that’s true for a good number of American families. The total amount paid of course, depending on the interest rate, is in the end a whole lot more than $25K too. The used car market is a key (but often overlooked) part of the economy, and a vital resource for millions of people.

Cash for Clunkers decimated this market because it took many functioning (and paid for) older cars off the road, while at the same time it encouraged people to take on heaps of debt in the midst of the worst recession in 70 years.

Sadly this brilliant scheme didn’t work so well and many people who bought new cars could not actually afford them. To boot, the good used vehicles which remained in the market rose significantly in cost. Many Americans found themselves with a repo man in their driveway and suddenly priced out of a once affordable market.

I suppose if people wait it out enough repossessions will hit the street eventually that used car prices will again edge down. But it sure seems like a lot of pain to get nowhere, and way too much time on the bus.

—Shared by Elle.