obama-gaddafi

“Admiral: US Could Have Ousted Qaddafi Peacefully”

For those who prefer mainstream media, here is more on the story:

Report: Pentagon officials opened back-channels with Qaddafi regime to slow Clinton push into war

Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war

Listen to the tapes: Intel undercuts Hillary Clinton’s primary argument for Libya military action

And this from WND Politics…

By Jerome Corsi

NEW YORK – As the allied bombing of Libya began in 2011, the Obama administration rejected an offer by Moammar Gadhafi to engage in negotiations to abdicate, according to a retired U.S. Navy officer who says he was prepared to broker the deal.

Instead, the U.S. decided to provide weapons to “rebels” consisting of al-Qaida-related local Libyan militia and members of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, contends retired Rear Adm. Chuck Kubic.

Kubic began email and telephone contact March 21, 2011, between Tripoli and AFRICOM in Stuttgart, Germany, to broker an offer by Gadhafi to engage in talks with the U.S. under a white flag of truce, according to testimony he provided the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi.

As WND reported Monday, the commission – comprised of 17 retired admirals and generals; former intelligence agents; active anti-terrorist experts; media specialists; and former congressmen – has been conducting its own investigation and working behind the scenes for the past year and a half to ensure Congress uncovers the truth of what happened in Benghazi and holds people accountable.

WND reported Tuesday the commission found in an interim report that the Obama White House and the State Department under the management of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “changed sides in the war on terror” in 2011 by implementing a policy of facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias in Libya attempting to oust Gadhafi.

The commission’s April 2014 interim report said the war in Libya continued “and ultimately cost tens of thousands of lives.”

“The U.S. failure to even consider Gadhafi’s request for talks, and its determination to enter and pursue this war in support of al-Qaida-linked rebels, presents the appearance of a policy intent upon empowering Islamic forces with no measurable benefit to U.S. national security,” the report said.

Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/01/admiral-u-s-could-have-ousted-gadhafi-peacefully/#kuP12CKSXZQZbBRj.99

obama-corzine2

SOTU: Capitalism v. “Capitalism” – Podcast of January 24, 2015 Show

I didn’t mention it on the show, but in googling for images of “cronyism,” I found the picture above of Obama and Corzine…so what ever happened to Jon Corzine? Law, like taxes, is for the little people, I guess…

Hour 1

Hour 2

I guess we’re not the only ones who can’t stomach the State of the Union Address!
STATE OF THE UNION TELEVISION RATINGS DROP TO 15-YEAR LOW

Here is the book, Dynamics of World History, by Christopher Dawson, I was talking about that suggests that not only common values but a common religion are necessary for a culture or civilization to survive. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Dawson’s conclusions, this book is a very thought-provoking read with the added novelty of being a totally honest pursuit of truth in the field of sociology:

Here is an excerpt from the back cover of the book:

Several major themes run through Dawson’ work, but perhaps his most significant contribution was his insistence on the importance of religion in shaping and sustaining civilizations.

Religion, Dawson believed, is the great creative force in any culture, and the loss of a society’s historic religion therefore portends a process of social dissolution. For this reason Dawson concluded that Western society must find a way to revitalize its spiritual life if it is to avoid irreversible decay. Progress, the real religion of modernity, is insufficient to sustain cultural health.

I got some serious negativity on facebook for even mentioning this. I did so, however, because I thought it was a mind-blowing thesis that’s worth thinking through even if ultimately you disagree with Dawson’s conclusion.

Finally, I almost never click on European or Russian analyses of “wealth inequality” but given my topic this week, when I saw the new Crosstalk this morning I had to check it out. I’m glad I did. Max Lawson’s viewpoint is what I would have expected – he still has hope for the benevolent socialist government. Richard Wellings‘ viewpoint, however, is totally consistent with mine, and Michael Hudson’s, while not consistent with mine by a long shot, is interesting and much deeper than Max’s. What do you think?

What Today’s Political Right REALLY Think….

This is a review I wrote awhile back of an Irving Kristol book that I’ll be discussing on the show today…

Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea
By Irving Kristol

A review…

Several times on the show, I have made mention of the book Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Selected Essays 1949-1995, by Irving Kristol. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because it is. Kristol was a popluar and influential writer and political commentator for over fifty years; he was a father of the neo-conservative movement (neo meaning “new”) and the father of Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard who carries on his father’s tradition and, with his own compatriots, profoundly influences the Republican party to this day.

Neo-Conservatism lays out the decades-long journey Irving Kristol made from self-described neo-Trotskyist and neo-Marxist to one of the founders of the neo-conservative movement. The book is beautifully written with a truly elegant style, and Kristol brings to the subject levels of sociological analysis that one rarely finds on the right.

As a matter of fact, it’s the kind of sociological analysis that one never finds on the right – the traditional right, that is – because it is a fundamentally leftist view which starts with the assumption that the basic unit of society is society itself instead of the individuals who comprise it. As beautiful and interesting as the book is, it’s also an offense to sincere Americans, from its total lack of recognition of objective individual rights to its Machiavellian prescriptions for the Republican party. <continue reading>

590px-IAO-logo

The Internet: A Limited Hangout? Podcast of January 17, 2014 Show

If you don’t know what a limited hangout is, check my glossary….I believe the Internet was released into the wild so we would self-register everything from our silliest faces to our deepest secrets, and we have. But now those who proclaim “knowledge is power” must rein in this dangerous tool lest we gain power through knowledge…in other words, it’s time for the government to close the loop on the Internet and give us “cybersecurity” via CISPA, PIPA, SOPA or whatever they’re going to call it this year. How are the CENTCOM hack, the Sony hack & Charlie Hebdo going to play into this year’s push to bring the Internet into the fold of mainstream media, academics, think tanks and every other institution that is captive of the power elite? Listen…

Hour 1 (This is only ten minutes because I had to start after basketball.)

Hour 2

richardpryorbiopic-300x181

CENTCOM HACK + CHARLIE HEBDO = CISPA: Show tomorrow after the Dawgs (c. 4:30ET)

I’ll be on after GA Bulldogs basketball tomorrow – probably 4:30-6PM ET on WSB. I’ll tell you why I think the CENTCOM hack and the Charlie Hebdo incident will both be used to support the call for Internet regulation in President Obama’s State of the Union speech next week. Oh, and I’ll tell you why the media coverage of Charlie Hebdo reminds me of the famous Richard Pryor line “Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lyin eyes?”

IMG_0110

Also relevant to the CISPA debate will be this quote from one of my favorite books, Our Enemy the State, by Albert Jay Nock…

Thus we see how ignorance and delusion concerning the nature of the State combine with extreme moral debility and myopic self-interest – what Ernest Renan so well calls la bassesse de l’homme intéressé – to enable the steadily accelerated conversion of social power into State power that has gone on from the beginning of our political independence. It is a curious anomaly. State power has an unbroken record of inability to do anything efficiently, economically, disinterestedly or honestly; yet when the slightest dissatisfaction arises over any exercise of social power, the aid of the agent least qualified to give aid is immediately called for. Does social power mismanage banking-practice in this-or-that special instance – then let the State, which never has shown itself able to keep its own finances from sinking promptly into the slough of misfeasance, wastefulness and corruption, intervene to “supervise”or “regulate”the whole body of banking-practice, or even take it over entire. Does social power, in this-or-that case, bungle the business of railway-management – then let the State, which has bungled every business it has ever undertaken, intervene and put its hand to the business of “regulating”railway-operation. Does social power now and then send out an unseaworthy ship to disaster – then let the State, which inspected and passed the Morro Castle, be given a freer swing at controlling the routine of the shipping trade. Does social power here and there exercise a grinding monopoly over the generation and distribution of electric current – then let the State, which allots and maintains monopoly, come in and intervene with a general scheme of price-fixing which works more unforeseen hardships than it heals, or else let it go into direct competition; or, as the collectivists urge, let it take over the monopoly bodily. “Ever since society has existed,”says Herbert Spencer, “disappointment has been preaching, ‘Put not your trust in legislation'; and yet the trust in legislation seems hardly diminished.”

433637I-am-not-Charlie

Why I Am Not Charlie: Podcast of January 10, 2015 Show

For a quick answer to the question of why I am not Charlie, go to my 2015 podcasts page here and click on the word comments in the upper left.

Hour 1

Hour 2

Hour 3

Here’s the crazy picture I mention on the show.
This is where I found out about the Charlie Hebdo investigator’s “suicide.”
Here is a follow up video by SCG about the picture of the policeman I posted:

wsj charlie hebdo

Charlie Hebdo: The Strange Case of the Shot Policeman

Yesterday, I watched with horror a video of the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris in which a policeman was shot in the head from inches away with a semi-automatic weapon. Something just didn’t look right about the video though, so I decided to slow it down and see if a frame-by-frame analysis would help me understand what I was seeing. What I found is hard to believe, so I’m presenting it to you – perhaps you can make sense of it. Here are the relevant frames from the video: Continue reading