Mark

You need to put the Truman quote in context. It was made around 1946 when Jewish terrorists were sending letter bombs to England and had planted bombs in the King David hotel in Palestine, the British embassy in Rome, murdering native Israelis en masse, etc. Truman was being harassed by these Zionists to encourage Jewish immigration to Palestine and endorse a Zionist state. The next year they tried to assassinate him and various members of his staff with letter bombs. Getting back to JFK, pre-war admiration of Hitler and the Nazis was not uncommon among British intellectuals, as was admiration for Mussolini and the Fascists (in both Britain and America). George Bernard Shaw, for example. 　

Per the link that should be $100,000 between 2009 and 2011. (2011 is the last year for which data is provided.)

Of all the ham-handed ... No wonder Ridpath never published anything in print. Come to think of it there was one exception. When ARI was pushing for invading Iraq even Ridpath got in the act.

R. B., Please take your personal vendetta somewhere else. S.B. referred to "... disdain for folks like Rand Paul and others for not being Perfect." A straw man. I don't think Kacy and Brant expect Rand Paul to be perfect, with or without caps. They expect from him, if I understand them, substantive principled performance. Take the case in hand, ending the “War on Drugs.” We might agree that injustices of long-standing are usually best ended incrementally, but it should go without saying that the increments must be substantial changes, not infinitesimal ones that go nowhere. What would be a substantial increment? Thinking about it off the top, the following could done, in order, with no more than a few years in between: 1. End all mandatory federal sentencing immediately Sentences will be up to the judge. All past sentences made under the mandatory sentencing laws will be vacated and re-considered. 2. Decriminalize marijuana. 3. Decriminalize unrefined opium (it used to be called laudanum). 4. Phase out, in sub-stages, the criminalization of refined opiates. I haven’t thought much about what the sub-stages could be. Such opiates could be licensed like alcohol is now (but should not be). The quantity per sale per month could be restricted, etc. Choose your own increments, just so something tangible is always getting done toward the goal instead of empty promises, which is all Rand Paul has been good for at this point. Remember his “End the TSA” bills? A complete fraud. He wasn’t to be trusted after that. Now he seems to be promoting number one above. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/5/minimizing-authority-of-judge I hope it’s true, and part of a continuing series of increments rather than just "fine tuning" the status quo. By the way, the “War on Drugs” is not about helping drug addicts. The pithiest essay on the subject is “The Function of the Drug War” by the late J. Orlin Grabbe. Probably the best propaganda for decriminalization is from the front line enforcers’ at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.)

Perhaps some people here never had anything from which to recover. PDS can speak for himself. He cannot possibly speak for everybody here (as he starts by doing), or "virtually" everybody (as he ends by doing) either. Though if MSK allows these sorts of statements to stand uncontested they’ll become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only recovering alcoholics need apply.

I gather Mark Levin claims that Ron Paul has hired socialists to spread socialism throughout America. Who are they? The board of the Ron Paul Institute Most I've never heard of, some are pretty good: DENNIS KUCINICH ANDREW NAPOLITANO LLEWELLYN ROCKWELL MICHAEL SCHEUER LAWRENCE WILKERSON Eric Margolis, though his foreign policy views are OK, has some leftist views. The focus of the RPI is on foreign policy, so I'm not too concerned about erroneous views on other issues, such as immigration.

I listened to as much as I could stand and didn't hear the names. Don't be coy, out with it! And get the direction right. That a socialist supports Ron Paul is neither here nor there -- no one has control over who praises them. The question is, does Ron Paul support the socialist?

Per Dennis, Mark Levin (the radio talk-show host) said: "Ron Paul's organization is riddled with Progressives and socialists ..." If Levin said this he lied. He points out that Ron Paul is no fan of Buckley, Reagan, Lincoln and Burke, which is true, then calls this "contempt for conservatives" and support of Romney. Levin is right about some things, such as immigration, but I'd rather hear it from someone else. To change the subject a bit, I can't stand his voice. Whatever he says, the sound drives me up the wall.

The official story is that the Saudi had nothing to do with the Boston bombing, that the bombing just brought him to the attention of the police and media. It seems to be true. But apparently more is true: (a) he shouldn't have been allowed to enter the country, (b) the government is altering records and lying about it. This is reminiscent of what occurred before and after 9-11 regarding some of the hijackers. Which is more important, the Saudi or 9-11? 9-11, duh! Why isn't Mr. Beck publicizing this recent event in the context of 9-11? Why isn't he pushing the Shea Memorandum? Glenn Beck couldn’t be more insincere. He pretends to be a government watchdog, goes through a good act, but his performance only helps the government do a "limited hangout." Oh, well, yes, we messed up with the Saudi, but nothing bad came of it, we won't do it again, now everything's OK. Beck is not on our side. Consider his trashing of Ron Paul during the last two presidential campaigns. In 2007 he said Ron Paul supporters were a domestic physical threat (his very words) because of what they whimsically styled a "money bomb," which raised four million dollars in one day, the day they chose being Guy Fawkes day (celebrating the English King's escape from a bomb plot in 1605). Then he trots out David Horowitz to trash Ron Paul further. (administrator: please leave this as a text link)

Cato, Norquist, Rubio Use Boston Terror Attacks to Push Immigration Reform The Cato Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) are using the Boston Bombing to – believe it or not – promote the latest immigration amnesty. See also The Boston Bombers & "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" reprinted from Vdare.

Yealch. MSK has no reason to say I have a "beautiful mind" – a phrase that in any case must be meaningless if applied with such catholicity. The trash-mouthed Kolker is background noise – wrong on most things, ill-natured, the blowhard found on every discussion group who replies to threads even when he has nothing to say.

He has a mind? It appears Beck is making two separate claims. The first is that the feds allowed a known threat – the Saudi character – into the country, just like they did for some of the men who soon became the 9-11 hijackers (see the Shea Memorandum). The second is that this Saudi character has something to do with the Boston Marathon bombing. Is that right? (I don't watch Beck.)

Good grief. Yes, let's say nothing of the other things we enjoy! Even if not as much as the federal level state governments are bloated. The cost of the legitimate work of the police, courts, jails and prisons is a small fraction of the taxes (direct and indirect) you are forced to pay. The state pays men too much for legitimate work, uses too many men for legitimate work, does work that's legitimate but the state should not be doing it, does "work" that is illegitimate. Plenty of room for spending cuts, some states more than others.

The Russians Warned Us – Why Didn’t We Listen? by Justin Raimondo Because the Neocons support Chechen terrorists / "freedom fighters" against Russia. FBI "dropped the ball" The Telegraph The last time Russia warned the FBI about the Boston bomb suspects was November 2012.

The little twerp claims they acted alone, no contact with a foreign group. We must assume he will say whatever he thinks will benefit him regardless of the truth. news.antiwar.com/2013/04/22/boston-bombing-suspect-charged-in-civilian-system-of-justice www.washingtonpost.com/national/boston-bombing-suspect-cites-us-wars-as-motivation-officials-say/2013/04/23/324b9cea-ac29-11e2-b6fd-ba6f5f26d70e_story.html One terrorist group in Dagestan claims they had nothing to do with it: "Dagestan’s leading terrorist grouping [sic] distanced itself from the Tsarnaev brothers ... . The group ... said it was not engaged in operations in the US and was battling solely against Russia." www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/boston-marathon-bombing-tamerlan-tsarnaev-may-have-met-dagestan-rebels-8583614.html

Mike, It distresses me to be arguing with you like this as you're one of the OL members whose posts are always interesting. I usually agree with you too (not that I always post yea or nay about it) but in this case ... "According to [the Times] article, Treasury agents seized from 'known hoarders' $38,901,009 in gold. Unknown hoarders gave up $300 million more. That left about $560,201,000.unaccounted for." So by hook or by crook the Treasury received, in round millions, 339 M out of a total of 899 M. That's about 38% -- a massive seizure of gold. It was a seizure even in the case of the voluntary sellers because they were cheated out of the full value of their gold when the government in effect devalued the dollars it paid them. "Driving is not illegal. Gold was never illegal." -- This is sophistry and equivocation. Driving without a license is in fact illegal. "Hoarding" gold was (I gather from what you've written) in fact illegal. This subject is not in my field and I haven't thought about it much. Maybe I'm all wet. You can have the last word if you want to comment.

Who’s Behind the Boston Marathon Attack? Two lone nuts – or a conspiracy with overseas connections? by Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com A bit verbose but he argues well for the second case: "premeditated Islamist terrorism with an overseas connection." Two excerpts: "... the idea that we can invade other countries – indeed, that we must invade countries like Afghanistan – so as to prevent terrorists from acquiring a 'safe haven' is absolute nonsense. We tried that, and it didn’t work. Boston is the proof." "Anti-interventionists are ... given more intellectual and political ammunition on account of this incident ...: the invade-the-world strategy hasn’t worked. And unless Senators McCain and Graham are going to be advocating a US invasion of Chechnya and Dagestan, it’s clear the War Party hasn’t got an answer for this one." ARI will have a hard time spinning this attack into "we must bomb Iran."

A law and its enforcement are two separate issues. Regarding the first you say that "hoarding" -- a non-objective term -- more than $10,000 (today's dollars) in gold was illegal. So what are we arguing about? You point out the law wasn't enforced to speak of, but that's a separate issue. How many people voluntarily turned their gold in to the government even though they didn't have to, and what was the total quantity?

About the "Brother Nathanael" video: "The jews control the DHS" is over the top. And his manner turns me off. How to describe it? He talks as if everything -- everything -- is a joke. Setting those flaws aside, in this particular video he's right. I'd rather hear it from someone else though. The man is a nutcase. He didn't deserve this: www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x844359234

Thoughts of Token-Libertarian-Girl (Julie Borowski):

Sure you've got the right book? In None Dare Call It Conspiracy there's no such reference.

How can you sell something you don't own or that is owed to you? Though I understood little of Anta Fekete's article the following seems relevent: Perhaps he's saying the banks are selling what they don't have because they can get cash from the fed, and instead of gold the buyer will be forced to accept dollars.

Interesting article, but doesn't it show that the coin dealers and conservative patriots were for the most part right? You couldn't legally own more than $10,000 (today's $) worth of gold? Not much, really. As a practical matter you could own any amount clandestinely and, if desired, sell it slowly in different markets so as not to attract attention.

Latest news: www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/boston-bombers-fbi-hunting-12-strong-1844844 The brothers were part of a larger group. The article repeats earlier reports that the mother claims the brothers were tracked by the FBI during the last several years, and that the FBI denies it, saying they only interviewed them once two years ago. The three people arrested the 19th have been released, two others arrested: www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130420/NEWS/130429995

I'm not into psychoanalyzing creeps but it seems to me the perps are more psychopaths than Moslem terrorists. There's a religious fanatic connection to be sure but it seems to be more an excuse than sufficient reason. Perhaps the strongest we can say in that line is that Islam nudged them over the edge. One indication is that the younger man, a psychopath as much as his brother, wasn't nearly as much into Islam as his brother. But whether they are religious fanatics or psychopaths doesn't matter in one respect. As Mike points out: their act will inspire politically motivated terrorists. Mike's solution to that, though, goes but halfway. Besides carrying the big stick the U.S. needs to stop mucking around all over the world. Why is it unpatriotic to point out that if you enter a war, whether it's a just or unjust war, you will be attacked? And that the particular wars the U.S. enters are unjust? The U.S. behavior is a total loss to Americans, though it lines the pockets of those connected to the war machine. Andrzej Łobaczewski on psychopaths – I don't buy all of it but it's an interesting interview.