Libertarian Senate candidate from Iowa dies in plane crash

Libertarian Senate candidate from Iowa dies in plane crash

Libertarians and George W. Bush

Notice how quiet most of them are about him? Why is that? He practically handed them their version of a Utopian America, an America devoid of regulation of the economy, our food supply, our water, our air--you know, nothing important, and they'd be happy to tell you that to do so would be "impugning on the rights of the individual," which is the core non-sequitur of their non-ideology that bears little-or-no resemblance to European Libertarianism just as American Freemasonry bears little with their "Continental" European brothers.

Why? Besides the fact that we're a stupid culture with a hang-up regarding the Wild West, their way has made us a business dominated society. Even in these hard times, they're not getting much traction, and here's why: we just had eight years of their ideology writ large and it failed. They're just as much a part of the right-wing constellation in America as the Republicans and were in fact founded by "former" members of the GOP in 1969. As we all know, the parades and the celebrations will be legendary and their time has come as a mainstream party (hmmmpff!). Good night, Gracie.

A note to anonymous commenters...

WWW--Hey, read the comments policy: if you want to sling, you gotta sing. If you don't post under your own identity and you have nothing relevant or constructive to add to the dialog, it's not going to published, period. Don't like it? I don't care.

I'm "restricting [your] rights to free speech"? Puerile (look it up) B.S., go create your own blog and write about what "an awful human being Matt Janovic is," go for it, I might even agree with you in-part and help you out! ;0)

However, if you're entertaining enough, I might just publish your comments to make yet another example of you and the typical moron demographic overpopulating A'murka today. If none of this makes any sense to you, I don't really care and find most of your comments very amusing indeed.

But if you think yours truly is as stupid as you are and that I'm going to get into a fistfight with the Invisible Not-a-Man (or woman, thanks Monty Python!), you're mistaken, and recall that I've got a bag of flour for just such occasions. You're hopelessly outgunned here, you will lose.

All death threats will be forwarded to local law enforcement authorities, and I will come after you. But rest assured that I've had them before thanks to my own past antiwar activities and that I wasn't deterred then and won't be now, so don't bother. Also, if you think your comments are demoralizing, you're mistaken, they're going to have the opposite-effect--just as the federal government's prosecutors...

Today's postscript: Apparently you morons down in Indy have reading and comprehension problems. I don't care about your comments and won't be posting any of them without an identity, period. However, if I feel like making an example out of you, I will, so you might watch what you write--you will live to regret it. Literacy: it's not just for breakfast anymore. Edumacation ist gut!

I'd ask what Reason magazine has to say about this, but I don't care what they or any Libertarian thinks or has to say.

On Alex Jones, the Philadelphia shooter, and the red-headed step-children of the left

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--It would be unfair to lay all of the blame for the shooting rampage of Richard Andrew Poplawski in Philadelphia this week on Alex Jones (or even Glen Beck) alone, but he and the rest of the reactionary right noise machine own a good chunk of it. It's not begging the question since the unbalanced and ignorant spree killer was an avid reader and consumer of such extremist dreck.

This wasn't about someone "getting into it" with their family over a dog urinating on a rug, it was about a sick young man with a small mind who found inspiration from right-wing demagogues, some of whom erroneously get lumped-into being part of the progressive and populist left. But Poplawski wasn't part of that political stream and had direct connections with the white supremacist "Stormfront" white supremacist group and was an avid reader of Alex Jones, among others on the rightist fringe.

While it's true that Poplawski was influenced by various texts, Jones figures highly in the story, and the role of anti-government conspiracy theories play a significant part of what led an ignorant and antisocial personality to focused and violent action.

“He was really into politics and really into the First and Second amendment. One thing he feared was he feared the gun ban because he thought that was going to take away peoples’ right to defend themselves. He never spoke of going out to murder or to kill,” said Edward Perkovic, who described himself as Mr. Poplawski’s lifelong best friend.
Mr. Poplawski’s view of guns and personal freedom took a turn toward the fringes of American politics. With Mr. Perkovic, he appeared to share a belief that the government was controlled from unseen forces, that troops were being shipped home from the Mideast to police the citizenry here, and that Jews secretly ran the country.
Believing most media were covering up important events, Mr. Poplawski turned to a far-right conspiracy Web site run by Alex Jones, a self-described documentarian with roots going back to the extremist militia movement of the early 1990s. ("Suspect in officers' shooting was into conspiracy theories," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 04.05.2009)

Thanks Texas, keep on delivering, we might just let you secede. Poplawski didn't need to "speak" about murdering or killing, as actions speak louder than words, but it's obvious that Perkovic is the same kind of flat-head, and might not be the only questionable acquaintance of the shooter.

With Poplawski gone, Perkovic himself deserves closer scrutiny. Yeah, sure, Poplawski was "into politics" alright--extremist parapolitics--which is speculative-at-best and has no academic endorsements for all the right reasons. One of the key ingredients in Poplawski's rampage was the conspiricism of the fringe right, coming directly from demagogues like Alex Jones, but also "mainstreamed" ones like Glen Beck (public opinion polls aren't reflective of the Fox News agenda). Three policemen might be alive today otherwise. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that any of this will dissuade Jones's followers since they're resistant to reason (but not Reason magazine), or any of the gun-toting nuts out there who are going to react similarly in the intervening months. Oddly, none of this is mainstream thinking, yet there it is, right out in the open.

But Alex Jones often gets a free-pass from some on the left (our red-headed step-children--put down the pipe), and he shouldn't since he was once affiliated with the far-right militia movement and his associations with people you wouldn't want over for dinner, ever. Who are they? Who is Alex Jones...really? To know someone, you need to look at their friends and their allies and how closely their public statements and views correspond.

As recently as March 24th, 2009, Jones was featured on a Fox News panel with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Ron Paul, and Lew Rockwell. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33154_Video-_Napolitano_with_Alex_Jones_Ron_Paul_Lew_Rockwell_Etc) Who is Judge Napolitano? He's a former federal prosecutor and mid-level state judge from New Jersey, avowed Libertarian, and nowadays--don't laugh--a Fox News commentator. He's also an alumni of Princeton's and Notre Dame's Law Schools, and was a "television judge" for a time on "Power of Attorney." While Napolitano is rumored to have connections of his own to white hate groups (probably through Ron Paul), he definitely has admirers in their ranks, evidence of which can be found on forums of the Aryan Front and others.

Presidental candidate Ron Paul? We know about him, and like Alex Jones, he's getting a free pass from the gullible on the left (and right, for other reasons) because he's come out against the war in Iraq and sounds vaguely populist and progressive. That's because he's smarter than the people he's been swaying since his first Libertarian candidacy for president in 1988. His views have changed little since that time and they are extremist in a profound sense. But Paul and his associates know how to repackage themselves as "populists" and how to appear "progressive" and "left," which is scary. They need to--again, the majority doesn't agree their core-beliefs. The same goes for so-called "mainstream"--an oxymoron if there ever was one--Libertarians, a group that needs to seriously reassess their party and the rest of its membership.

From the late Molly Ivins:

Dallas' 5th District, East Texas' 2nd District and the amazing 14th District, which runs all over everywhere, are also in play. In the amazing 14th, Democrat Lefty Morris (his slogan is "Lefty is Right!") faces the Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul, who is himself so far right that he's sometimes left, as happens with your Libertarians. I think my favorite issue here is Paul's 1993 newsletter advising "Frightened Americans" on how to get their money out of the country. He advised that Peruvian citizenship could be purchased for a mere 25 grand. That we should all become Peruvians is one of the more innovative suggestions of this festive campaign season. But what will the Peruvians think of it? ("Molly Ivins October 10," Forth Worth Star-Telegram, 10.10.1996)

In short, Paul is recommending that well-off Americans at that time engage in capital flight, which is hardly a "left" position, but parallel with that of the mainstream Republican Party as well as extremist tax resisters and Wall Street. It's certain that he feels the same now, and that's not a populist argument by any stretch--it favors the rich--the people we can presume he really serves. But this is really going easy on Ron Paul, so we'll get to the "meat."

There have been many accusations over the years levelled at Paul that he's a white supremacist. Some of this comes from his own connection with the militia movement, one he shares with Alex Jones and many other allies of the Austin-based parapolitical demagogue. But Paul's grandstanding on these issues begs-the-question of whether it even matters whether he believes what he says.

It doesn't matter, but Paul shows all the tendencies of the immovable American crank and the racialist throwback, as found in his open opposition to the Emancipation Proclamation, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and much-much more in the racial arena. He appears to be a true believer of the extreme right, a curious physician.

Paul's connections to the South Carolina-based "Partiot Network," also an organ of the right-wing tax resistance movement, but really a conglomeration of anti-government gun-toting extremists with connections to the Christian Identity movement. Former KKK leader David Duke, has spoken and written kindly of Ron Paul (posts have been removed since the summer of 2007, and no comments on Paul can now be found on his site, but it's likely that captures are out there), and Paul has spoken of cross burnings in Texas (and the rest of the nation) as "protected speech." That's not reflective of the law in most parts of America, and certainly not the attitudes of the public.

And then there's the fact that GOP Representative Paul was the lone "nay" vote recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an act that not only proscribed integration of American educational institutions (and several other types), but in the workplace and in "public places."The bill itself also includes provisions that also protect white Americans, specifically regarding the protection of the rights of women generally.

Paul just knows full well that African-Americans would never vote for him so long as they were in their right mind, not a worrying issue for his core of virtually all-white, extremist, supporters. But Paul's not talking to Blacks--obviously--but to people who irrationally fear and loathe them and anyone not like themselves:

Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. ("The Trouble With Forced Integration," by Ron Paul, M.D., lewrockwell.com, 07.03.2004)

These were Paul's groan-inducing statements on the floor of the House back in the salad days of the Bush II administration, when it still appeared that there could never be an African-American president. There was no other reason to do this except to pander to the racialist right. Things change in the modern world, and rapidly.

Yet, the historical record doesn't jibe with these revisionist interpretations of American history, especially with Paul's loss to every single candidate in the 2008 presidential elections, the opinions of the American public gleaned through numerous opinion polls, the stunning victory and broad mandate of Barack Obama, and the fact that Black Americans gained the right to vote from federal civil rights legislation under necessary federal protection from some of the grandparents of Paul's ridiculous supporters. We won't even go into his and their views on the American Civil War, evolution, the separation of Church and State, and so on--it ain't pretty.

But it's not as if the GOP weren't working overtime from at least 2000-on (with several lame attempts dating back between 1958-to-1981) to scuttle the voting rights of African-Americans in several key states, states populated with people whose views are similar to the "Paul" strain. Paul's viewpoint on cross burning isn't just mistaken, it's patently racist and not supported by the law as protected speech, but really a historically-proven invitation to violence meant to instill terror--everyone knows in America that burning a cross on any property is meant to intimidate its prospective victims; it's symbolic violence in its purest form.

This kind of intentional instilling of fear in a targeted population is as close to terrorism as one can get, but Ron Paul supports it, and a lot of other things that the American public doesn't accept anymore. Because of this, he and his kind have to couch their extremist beliefs in the garb of progressive populism, but it's anything but that and his coalition bears a closer resemblance to South American paramilitary groups, lynch mobs, and international neo-Nazis with a sprinkling of the gullible. Who else figures-in the constellation?

Lew Rockwell, Libertarian speaker, and all-around nutcase who worked as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978-1982. He and Paul both advocate secession and question the validity of a "cohesive" America as a nation state, which is decidedly extremist and runs parallel with numerous right-wing groups, notably the militia groups that Paul is associated with. Libertarian "Reason" magazine (my pals, they quoted me once--I logically fired-back abuse) has claimed that Rockwell has ghostwritten for Paul in the past.

Rockwell's support of the militia movement is still going strong, as evinced by a series on "militia organizing" by the nutcase William S. Lind, ostensibly the "director" of "The Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation," posted on Rockwell's site (where else? Ron Paul-connected sites and Fox News, disclaimers to the contrary.):

We tried in our discussions to identify and find remedies to typical militia weaknesses. One weakness seen often in militia history is that units degenerate into mere social clubs. To prevent this, all companies would participate in annual play-offs in the form of free-play exercises against other companies. The winner would advance to the next level. Our hope is that these competitions would become big deals in communities across America, spurring the militiamen on to greater efforts.

Another typical militia weakness is doctrinal stagnation. To counter this, the militia would have its own General Staff, made up of the kind of "military dinks" who have been into military history and war games since they were kids. The General Staff would oversee doctrine, training and the regular round of free-play exercises. It would not vet individual militia members, since this would create centralization, but it would have the power to dissolve companies that performed poorly, became social clubs or got taken over by MS-13 and the like. ("Organizing the Militia, by William S. Lind," lewrockwell.com, 08.11.2005)

That's great, but what would that doctrine be, and where does the urgency to organize militias emanate from? The notion that the federal government is nothing but "evil," "the problem" (a conservative argument, not a genuinely leftist or progressive or populist one), and will eventually have to be met with force, is held by Jones and many of the individuals he not only associates with, but openly allies himself with. It goes without saying that there are legitimate concerns regarding government surveillance--most notably after 9/11, but an ongoing problem from the 20th century that has had ample conservative support--and it gives demagogues like Jones and his compatriots plenty to yell about.

That their own peculiar take is calculated and wrong is a given, hence the need to make them sound vaguely populist so that their far-right extremist agenda is more palatable.

Alex Jones's public pronouncements concur with this agenda, and as stated earlier in this piece, he has roots going back to the militia movement in the early-1990s. It's all about the "New World Order," and other paper tiger arguments that have very little basis in political, let alone human, reality. But there's just enough there for them to exploit, and exploit it they do which is what makes them all demagogues. The biggest part of the problem is that ignorant progressives and antiwar activists have been falling for it and still are. This is because they're as ignorant as Poplawski and probably harbor arch-conservative attitudes of their own.

This writer makes no bones about it: I hope that this Philadelphia shooting spree brings real enforcement of existing gun laws and an expansion of them as well as downing demagogues like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Lew Rockwell, and all the rest. With self-fulfilling actions like those of Poplawski this week, and the gun problem along the Mexican-American border, it appears inevitable.

There's another fact about Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and Stormfront in the story of Richard Andrew Poplawski: contrary to Jones's protestations that he isn't with them, many of them come very close to endorsing him on their website. This suggest a strong ideological connection, if not outright pandering. In the case of Ron Paul, they endorse him unequivocally. But if you really want evidence that Alex Jones and his compatriots are right-wing nuts and demagogues, just read their writings and watch and listen to their media appearances. But what is Jones saying about Pittsburgh? It appears that he's saying and writing nothing so far.

But Jones wasn't going to respond to the criticisms himself, so he tapped his hack writer, Kurt Nimmo, to do it:

...In the meantime, we can expect the Obama libs [Ed.--I voted Nader, thank you very much.] to continue their demonization of those of us who not only value and support the Second Amendment – the very cornerstone of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – but also those of us who realize government invariably plots against liberty and eventually enslaves the masses, as a glance at the last century reveals. ... It should be expected that the government will exploit the recent shootings in order further their propaganda and realize their master plan of an unarmed and helpless populace. It really is sad the liberals are helping them in this effort by offering themselves up as useful idiots. ("Lib Blogs Kick into Frothing Overdrive in Reaction to Pittsburgh Shootings, inforwars.com, 04.04.2009)

That's funny, I'm a philosophical socialist who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2008 presidential elections, but does that matter when you're trying to discredit your critics? It does. Nimmo and Jones like accusing their adversaries of using "Stalinist tactics," yet there isn't one mention of the fact that Poplawski was an enthusiastic reader of Jones's site anywhere in his meandering article that must be read to be believed for its acrobatics and wild leaps of logic. What do you expect in the world of the paranoiac, the demagogue? Stalin would be proud.

Additionally,Nimmo creates a straw man argument that Poplawski's comments on the Obama administration came from Edward Perkovic, when the information really came from an acquaintance named Aaron Vire. Poplawski's neighbor, Tom Moffitt, has also stated that the young man expressed comments along the same lines as the accounts of Perkovic and Vire. That's three testimonies thus far that Poplawski was afraid his guns were going to be taken from him, specifically by the Obama administratoion, with more to come.

The title of the Nimmo article should tell you all you need to know about Alex Jones and the people he calls "friend," and that these people really are dangerous to the rest of us--not that the cops appear to care since many of them share the same extremist interpretations of the Second amdendment. But somehow, they're "victims," they'll tell you...again and again, and again. Incredibly, Nimmo makes a case for government-backing of the very kinds of groups that he and his boss are ideologically-aligned with. Far be it for the radical right not to claim they're "victims" when they clearly are not. They've been in the vanguard of state repression for a very long time, and they know it.

That anyone on the left would listen to them speaks volumes about the individuals who even begin to listen to them for a minute.

To say that they're arch-conservative and not genuinely progressive, populist, or "left" should be obvious, but they suffer from the same complex as a Richard Poplawski: just enough knowledge to be a problem, a serious pain-in-the-ass. Poplawski's killing of the four Pittsburgh police officers is being called an "ambush." That it was, and with the echo chamber emanating from Jones's site and Fox News, he had ample ammunition to justify his own actions in his own small and twisted mind.

Fascism tends to come from below, not above. Welcome to stutopia. Now open a history book, stop listening to lunatics, and get a clue.

"Lib Blogs Kick into Frothing Overdrive in Reaction to Pittsburgh Shootings, inforwars.com, 04.04.2009: http://www.infowars.com/lib-blogs-kick-into-frothing-overdrive-in-reaction-to-pittsburgh-shootings/

"Stormfront Radio supports Ron Paul, Youtube, 09.17.2007:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yafeVz8eP0U

"Organizing the Militia, by William S. Lind," lewrockwell.com, 08.11.2005: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind72.html

"The Trouble With Forced Integration, by Ron Paul, M.D.," lewrockwell.com, 07.03.2004: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

"Molly Ivins October 10," Forth Worth Star-Telegram, 10.10.1996: http://www.creators.com/opinion/molly-ivins/molly-ivins-october-10-1996-10-10.html

"Suspect in officers' shooting was into conspiracy theories," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 04.05.2009: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09095/960750-53.stm

2008 Roundup

J-7--It's been one hell of a year, hasn't it? From my work for the Palfrey defense, to my paralegal classes, to the inevitable collapse of world capitalism, to incredible revelations of Bush II administration wrong-doing and the resultant inaction from Congress and the Judicial branch, there's every reason to feel hopeful. What kind of a year did you have? Not one like mine, I can state with complete certainty.

I even had the well known Libertarian "Reason magazine" quoting me next to Val Kilmer, and conspiracy-theorist Alex Constantine has threatened to sue me for having negative opinions about him. This isn't even counting the hacking of my email account (I have my suspicions here), the phony "cease and desist" emails regarding the Palfrey information on my site about two noteworthy former clients, or the other harassing ones that came my way.

Wha? Hopeful?

Yes, there's every reason to feel hopeful about reasonable change. That doesn't mean we just sit back and let it happen, because then, it won't. Demand, demand, and demand again what you need to survive. Band together, make friends with people you might never have, and organize and act for change.

I've written on quite-a-few subjects this year, from attempts to desecrate the memory of Edgar Allan Poe, to issues of the geopolitical and of illegal surveillance. What's been most alarming is the inaction of Congress and the courts against Bush II crimes, but I have a newer take on this: they only did it to save a dying system, it was never really about protecting Bush and Cheney, and it's not working. With every revelation...nothing, no action to hold anyone truly accountable. That's desperation, kids.

American Empire is ending and history cannot be fought or denied when the currents are as strong as they are against established power in North America. It's over, now it just has to play-out, and all the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to fix it. As a matter of fact, the more they keep doing what they always have to preserve their power, the faster they're going to lose it. Empires fall and things are moving faster than they have in decades, and can be counted on to move faster than in the past thanks to widespread access to telecommunications technology.

This decline is affecting everyone. There's nowhere to run for the jaded and the apathetic anymore. Yes, things will become ugly at times, but if you have it in-mind to help others, we can avoid a catastrophe as we have in the past. Use your head and have a safe and happy 2009. Understand that this won't always be the case, have realistic expectations, and stay honest if you can. And remember that the children are counting on us not to blow it, we owe them a better world where people look out for each other. Helping others is the most important thing.

On Jeane Palfrey: Watching a woman die from a distance after being driven to it by federal prosecutors was horrible, but I did help her as much as I could and she told me that she appreciated it, she even told went as far as to ask me if anyone had ever told me I was smart. God knows that I wish she had survived her ordeal and that her suicide will haunt me until the day I die. One can only hope it does that and much more to her tormentors. I intend to keep digging into these matters regarding everything that happened to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and will continue to publish primary materials on this site since it's still my right as an American to do so. The vast majority of my contact with the deceased "DC Madam" was off-the-books, it wasn't under attorney-client privilege, and the public has a right to know what happened. Eventually, everything I have will be online in one form or another.

There must be accountability in this matter, and eventually, there will be. If that means people like Federal District Judge James Robertson looks like the goon and lackey that I suspect he is in the history books after his death, then so be it. The same goes for Jeffrey A. Taylor, a most unusual U.S. Attorney for the fact that he's an interim appointment that was never approved of by the Senate, as the Bush II administration sneaked him in when they were on recess in 2006...during the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. He prosecuted Palfrey. At the very least, future generations of Americans are going to view her trial as the abomination it was, a fraud that was a matter of selective prosecution in a time when there were more than would be statistically normal. Had Palfrey lived, we might know more about what happened, although she wasn't the last word as some are painting it to my mind.

At this writing, the Palfrey Estate is working against disclosure, and it's understandable. They want things to rest and for their loved one to rest in peace. They've had enough of the circus, the press, the media, and the lawyers. So have I. They're tired of others (starting with Bill Bastone, an individual they should take to court for defaming their loved one) dragging the name of their loved one and their family through-the-mud. I concur. But that doesn't mean every revelation is going to make Jeane look bad--that's not even the point. From what I know, she's beginning to look more and more heroic, or at least edging beyond being an "antihero," which in this society isn't a bad thing to be either. She was that and a whole lot more, and she was very complicated, just like the rest of life itself.

I enjoin the Palfrey Estate to move towards transparency in the matter and to realize that the government isn't going to give them what's theirs (Palfrey's remaining assets) without a major fight. Having counsel that does contract work for the government in other capacities isn't going to help them towards this reasonable goal which their loved on died for in-part. My opinion.

Astonishingly, Palfrey's will wasn't discovered until September 2008--what took so long? Why is Orrick going around and threatening various players in the Palfrey saga with lawsuits and invoking attorney-client privilege? One could imagine it has a lot to do with brokering a deal with the government, and one still hasn't been completed in the arena of asset seizure and forfeiture The abatement issue created by Palfrey when she killed herself before sentencing created problems for the State, and a semi-secret Trust created by Palfrey is causing problems for the Estate itself. She knew what she was doing. I have to wonder if her family does, but I wish them well and empathize with their suffering. There are so many unanswered questions in the Palfrey scandal, but I don't think Jeane's death closes-the-door entirely: there were many things she simply didn't know about her predicament, things that should have been included in discovery (sharing of information, what they have on you) from the prosecution. Eventually, some of these documents are going to surface, and we'll have at least a little clearer picture. I do not believe that she was innocent, I believe that she was denied due process.

The House Judiciary committee contacted Palfrey in the spring of 2008 through a "Ms. Oo," then didn't appear for a face-to-face meeting or respond to further calls and emails. Oo wouldn't do. Why? Who or what put-the-skids to their inquiry into the effect that forfeiture had on her rights to due process? They--and others--might tell me and the public, but I'm not holding my breath on that one, it's going to take years, and it's going to take persistent demands. It was quite a year, 2008. I don't expect any miracles from President-elect Barack Obama, but it's on him and Congress to initiate lengthy and serious probes into every crime committed by the Bush II administration, to rollback the precedents, and to allow justice to be served in the matter rather than in the obstruction of it. Palfrey is a part of all of this. There's reason to be hopeful, but not without demands.


Postscript, 12.29.2008: Add to the list that Larisa Alexandrovna gave me a good review on a satire about her marrying Yakov Smirnoff, which surprised the bejeezus out of me.

Conspiracy nut Alex Constantine writes about...little old me!

WWW--If the exposures of COINTELPRO, CABLE SPLICER, CIA assassinations, FBI break-ins (all covered by the Church committee in the 1970s), and the mid-December 2005 revelations of the NSA's warrantless surveillance of millions of Americans doesn't convince you that conspiracy theorists are redundant, then nothing will. We know things are a mess and that our liberties are in jeopardy, we know already.

Conspiracy guru Alex Constantine has join the ranks of the illustrious with the Libertarian "Reason" magazine (paradoxical name) in writing about...me, again. You see, several weeks ago I got tired of reading all these baseless comments by a bunch of nimrods who have no connection to the Palfrey story whatsoever, and who never even spoke with her. I started doing some web surfing--something I rarely ever do--and found that some of these same bozos were still trying to sell the snake oil that Deborah Jeane Palfrey was "murdered," ostensibly by the government and/or former clients.

The problem--of course--is that it's not provable, and certainly not in a court of law. And that's the whole point to my mind: their theory plays-into-the-hands of the government's prosecutors, because I believe they're in a lot of trouble (de jure) for driving a mentally unstable woman to her death. I also believe that they first deprived the defendant of her of her right to due process by leaking information (an unsigned warrant) to Bill Bastone and the Smoking Gun, thereby creating the whole media circus in the first place.

Additionally, I believe that they and the Court knew full well that Palfrey was suicidal, or at least suspected it enough to warrant a competency hearing.

That's right--by suggesting that the government murdered Palfrey, these conspiracy nimrods let them off-the-hook for gross negligence, abuse of office and the law, and extraordinary incompetence. Alex Constantine? Alex Jones? Kurt Nimmo? Jeff Rense? Who are they? I can prove that I've never worked for the federal government--either as an employee of or as an "asset"--but can they? Can Bill Bastone or Judith Miller for that matter?

Like all good conspiracists, Constantine gives me a lot of power and it sounds like a good gig (if you can get it)!

Off the cuff, I think Janovic is attempting to silence me with bogus arguments - he also cites as unimpeachable proof of "suicide" that she had stated, "They'll never take me alive." I interpret this to mean that she would fight to the death - could be wrong because I'm not a post mortem mind reader (neither is Janovic) - or bravado, possibly, but certainly not concrete "proof" of "suicide." ... ("Researcher Matt Janovic Misrepresents DC Madam 'Suicide' (PART ONE)," Alex Constantine's Blacklist, 11.26.2008)

She did "fight to the death" in case you didn't notice, but being Alex Constantine, you probably wouldn't. [Ed., 12.15.2008--If only her final criminal defense attorney had fought a smidgen as hard as she had. He didn't, he stood down. She shouldn't have listened to him at the end. Finally, Burton was imposed on her.] And exactly how do I--a very little guy mind you--"silence" the great Alex Constantine? That's absurd. He accuses me of what he does for a living, namely making "bogus arguments," when he must know better. Since I know better and know what I experienced on my end with Palfrey, I'm saying that he's not used to being so accurately and effectively challenged.

There's no need to read the mind of anyone when it's obvious that the woman was suicidal during her legal proceedings, from an preponderance of evidence. If Constantine has any clue and has seen the materials from Palfrey's early 1990s arrest and conviction in San Diego for pimping, he would know that she expressed thoughts of suicide when she was in jail back then too, she reported it in a letter to the Court. I could go on and on. She was suicidal, and you're not going to disturb the sleep of the dead to sell merchandise, that's it.

Alex didn't get the desperate emails. Alex didn't watch someone disintegrate over the period of ten months, granted that it was from a physical distance. Alex didn't get the frantic emails of someone shifting-gears in several 180s as to how the investigation into her began. Lastly, Alex wasn't there at all, he wasn't someone Palfrey confided in at times, I was. Yeah, he's Alex Constantine, that guy who wrote the "Psychic Dictatorship" books that I never bothered to read because Oscar Wilde seemed to have something more constructive to offer. Big deal.

Look, if the Church committee's report during the 1970s doesn't give you an indication that we've been going in the wrong direction for a very long time, nothing will. The output of these conspiracy theory people is pretty questionable when they'll jump at any little scrap and making wild leaps of logic as they have now with Palfrey's death, a definite suicide.

So, blah-blah-blah, Constantine writes a two-parter that focuses on a comment I posted on his own site stating that he and the rest of them are making baseless statements and are full of it regarding Palfrey. That's because they are full of it, and they are making baseless statements for dollars. In the second part of the dopey piece he tries to undermine Dan Moldea's comments that Palfrey told him she'd kill herself if she lost the case, never mind that if you read her public comments from 2007 and 2008 it's obvious that she's periodically expressing suicidal themes, the Tarpon Springs Police Department's final report on her death--no, we're all CIA operatives, something silly like that. Who are they? Who's Constantine? Great, if you don't agree with him, you're CIA, or a liar, how logical.

The biggest problem with the "She were suicided" theory is what I've already pointed-out: Constantine's "big bad government" -->Űber theory serves the interests of the prosecution under Jeffrey A. Taylor, providing a distraction and a cover for what could very well be incompetence, abuse, and negligence under the color of authority. You would have to ask him directly if this was his purpose, but it's my opinion that that's the real world effect it has.

Here's what I posted at Alex's site today, who knows if he's going to publish it. Frankly, I don't really care...

Mr. Constantine,

Like most of your ilk of parapolitical ambulance chasers ($$$), you just want to sell your merchandise. You're no different from Geraldo, George Lincoln Rockwell, Ted Nugent, Father Coughlin, Gerald L.K. Smith, or any number of demagogues in the storied history of America.

You weren't a part of her story. I was, and did my best to assist her and did general internet research for her in December of last year. This is something I can prove--can you prove any of your straw man assertions? Your "witnesses" are full of crap, incidentally.

I stand behind the February 28th email that she forwarded to just about everyone on the defense team between her and journalist Jason Leopold where she stated "the bastards aren't taking me alive." Others who interviewed her have told me directly that they thought she was acting unbalanced and expressing suicidal themes.

Thanks, you are comparable to Roy Cohn as well, I left him out there, my slip. Your evidence for a Palfrey murder barely meets the standards of the circumstantial.

Yes, I've also looked at the comments of her former condo manager (he's a crank as well), the interviews you're mentioning, but I know otherwise because I had direct contact for ten months with the deceased. She fired at least a couple of her lawyers because they knew she was suicidal. There should have been a competency hearing, and the government prosecutors are guilty of gross negligence in this area. The Court might be as well.

The problem with you Alex is that you only see what you want to see because there's money in it, period. Your readers read it because they want a simple explanation to a complicated modern world. That's shameful. If there would be one lesson learned from the current economic crisis, it's this: "they" aren't as in control of things as you would LOVE to believe because the alternatives are personal responsibility to yourselves and others. That's more complicated than "there's been a coup!" There was one long ago, grow up.

There are very real parapolitical themes to her saga, no doubt, but this contention of murder has no solid evidence whatsoever. You have nothing, nor does that crank Alex Jones, Kurt Nimmo, or the pathetic Jeff Rense who faked a death photo and put it on his site for more hits and sales.

Sell your conspiracy snake oil somewhere else, we know the system's corrupt, we don't need you. By the way: a link to the right of this article misspells Edgar Allan Poe as "Allen," that's incorrect. Never mind...

yours, Matt Janovic

PS: It's funny how you completely ignore and fail to address the February 28th email. Also, it should be known that I never had contact with Dan Moldea during the proceedings, I don't agree with his take on the RFK assassination, and don't respect his or Mr. Constantine's work.

"Researcher Matt Janovic Misrepresents DC Madam 'Suicide' (PART TWO) - DAN MOLDEA IS A SHILL WITH CIA/FAR-RIGHT SPONSORSHIP," Alex Constantine's Blacklist, 11.28.2008: http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2008/11/part-two-researcher-matt-janovic.html

"Researcher Matt Janovic Misrepresents DC Madam 'Suicide' (PART ONE)," Alex Constantine's Blacklist, 11.26.2008: http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2008/11/dc-madam-researcher-matt-janovic.html

[Ed.--On a final note--isn't it strange how much power these kinds of people ascribe to the federal government? If only they did have these powers, then we might actually be able to fix things!! The oppressed and their shepherds have a way of giving their masters more actual power than they have, but that's a slave for ya.' Whatever, shut-up little man.]

Revised 12.15.2008

AP: "Bush says government role essential to ease crisis," as the death of extremist conservatism forces Norquist into hiding

"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals-and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship."--Grover Norquist, stating a political modus operandi that's lost its effectiveness among rednecks.

Washington D.C.--Mission accomplished. Yet the GOP slithered into the White House and Congress saying (yep, especially when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House): "Government is bad. Government isn't the answer to our problems--it is the problem. " Except that it isn't, the business community is the real problem.

Then, there's this extremist wacko named Grover Norquist, who said we should shrink government "to the size that we [the business and financial sectors] can drown it in the bathtub," and that tax cuts are an absolute, even if it means we cannot fund things. Congratulations, Mr. Norquist, the mess you always wanted to create is here, and it's about to bite you and your ilk in-the-ass.

The market is crashing thanks to runaway financial deregulation that the GOP and her backers wanted and there was nary a Democrat in Congress to effectively oppose it. You're correct--GOP--this shouldn't be a partisan issue since both major parties are to blame for the current mess:

"This is a pivotal moment for America's economy," Bush said in his most extensive remarks this week on the crisis. He said that a financial contagion that began with low-quality home mortgages had "spread throughout our financial system" and frozen many financial transactions.

The president said the federal government should interfere in the marketplace "only when necessary," and that this is one of those times. "Given the precarious state of today's financial markets, and their vital importance to the daily lives of the American people, government intervention is not only warranted, it is essential," he said. ("Bush says government role essential to ease crisis," AP, 09.19.2008)

You want fries with that? Now he and the rest of the parrots in the GOP are going to start backtracking by saying, "We only meant there are a few cases where government intervention in the economy is necessary," which is just going to exacerbate the public's anger at them. This is because everyone knows that it's their fault, their mess, and we're bailing them out of it. It's the death of conservatism.

Who got bailed-out? Why, the crooked financial institutions and major shareholders, that's who. Not homeowners, not the unemployed--not anywhere that it's going to create a long-term fix of the economy, to stabilize it and to make it sustainable. All they've done in Washington D.C. and the right wing think-tanks is to buy some more time before the elections. Too late. But sustaining the situation until the elections are over is exactly what both parties have in mind.

Talk, talk, talk, and almost no walk for the public at all. That was always part of the plan for the so-called "neoconservatives" and the rest of the holders of "conventional wisdom" regarding the economy--a group more closely-related to extremist Libertarianism than anybody wants to admit. Their goal has been to keep the government from providing any social services or relief to the working-class, relegating it to servicing defense contractors, the corporations and the banks, and little else. John McCain tows this line, and regardless of what he might contend, he will have to raise taxes. He's also not going to be ending Roe v. Wade anytime soon either, but that's another fish to fry for another time.

It's a twilight moment for the followers of the Mystery Cult of Grover (sexy name, no?) Norquist: they've gotten what they wanted all along, but now the political-costs are mounting in ways they never imagined. Their only way out of their current catastrophe of objective-reality colliding with their Alice in Wonderland economic, antisocial, and political philosophies which have hit that wall that was always waiting for them at the end is to lie and to hide.

You see, here's the problem for anyone who would give Norquist and his "leave us alone" coalition any credence: if you want social services after a natural disaster, if you want bail-outs of your financial institutions run on hokum and paradox, your wars, money for schools, municipal-spending, roads, airports, highways, drinkable water, breathable air, police, a National Guard, a competetive workforce, a future and an actual society--you have to pay taxes, and taxes naturally rise over time. There is no solution to this problem except progressive taxation, namely taxing the wealthiest and making them pay their share as part of social responsibility in a civilized nation.

This peculiarly American idea that "you don't have to pay taxes" is utterly wacko in its scope and conviction, and is not only self-serving rubbish, but has no objective merit whatsoever. This is why we're seeing the bailouts under one of its greatest presidential-adherents. If it was true at all, we wouldn't see these bailouts.

Oh yes, John McCain is going to keep saying "we shouldn't be doing this," and most Americans will agree, though they actually mean it.

But what do you suggest as an alternative? Norquist doesn't have one, though some Keynesian Democrats are already suggesting New Deal style progressive taxation of the rich. Conversely, Norquist and his ilk still want to defund all government at all levels, and while he's getting his wish, it's clear that he and the other adherents of their ridiculous pseudo-ideology intuitively understand that the fallout from a public that expects government services isn't going to tolerate the kind of world they want. Ugly confrontations are coming soon.

If you go to Norquist's site, "Americans for Tax Relief," you'll see that there isn't one article, link, or comment directly addressing the recent bailouts of IndyMac, AIG, the demise of Lehman Brothers and JP Morgan's buyout of Bear Stearns, the nationalization (that's Socialism, folks, the kind that Libertarians and so-called "conservatives" think is alright) of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Bank of America buyout of Merrill-Lynch, or any of the other lending institutions that were allowed to take things this far over the cliff. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have proven anything at all it's that privatization doesn't work, especially when it's unregulated by government agencies with real oversight powers.

But that's what regulations are for, so we won't mention the obvious fact that they--neoconservatives and wackos like Grover Norquist--birthed this unprecedented crash by creating the proper preconditions for it, actually demanding it for years. It couldn't have happened without incredibly powerful backers, however.

In 1997, Reason magazine fawned over Norquist in an interview that makes plain his Libertarian credentials:

... Reason: You have worked with the Libertarian Party in the past. When and why?

Norquist: In the 1978, '79, and '80 races I ran a group called the Tax Action Coalition. Ed Clark [the 1980 L.P. presidential nominee] was the chairman. I've found that Libertarian Party activists make the best tax activists because they never get involved in the silly questions about which tax is preferable. They understand that the total tax burden is the total amount of freedom taken away from you, and it needs to be reduced as quickly and as completely as is humanly possible.... ("Happy Warrior: Republican AgitatorGrover Norquist on building a 'leave-us-alone' coalition," Reason, Feb., 1997)

No questions here, but the Libertarians have to be loving the presidency and Congress of George W. Bush right now, since he's hitting all of their notes. But hey, they want to legalize pot...and vigilantism, more runaway deregulation where corporations can poison and exploit you with impunity (and not pay taxes at all), where children shoot their parents with easily-available assault rifles, and where we're left with a nation where basically no law and order exists anymore. Sounds great, right? I didn't think so either.

Segments of the public will swallow some of this out of fear and stupidity, but in the end, the New Deal programs and protections are holding-strong. But what's Norquist's reaction to all of these bailouts? We don't know. As expected, he's going to have to do a lot of back-peddling, flip-flopping, and being cagey, common traits of this era of the elevation of the little man coming to power politics (and the predictable abuse of the term "genius" when the economy is running "strong").

Grover Norquist was the designer and architect of the Bush tax-cuts that came in 2001, a rollback of the New Deal's progressive taxation that kept our economy reasonably stable for over five decades--the same amout of time that the GOP couldn't achieve concurrent majorities in Congress.

That should tell you something: as the WWII generation has died-off, the lessons that they learned over 70 years ago have been going with them. "Victory" leaves Norquist in a strange place that he never expected--what to do next.

As anyone could have predicted, wacked-out little men like Grover Norquist will have to take their brand of snake oil to the state and local levels where the tax-crunch is being felt the strongest. Their chances at making any real inroads are very poor. The public also expects social services at these levels, yet another byproduct of the New Deal policies that continued their expansion into the Johnson years. The expectation of social services being provided by the federal goverment have become engrained into the public mind and aren't going-away.

But it's always 1928 to the GOP and her allies on the far-right, and that's saying something in one of the more right wing nations of the developed world, the red-haired stepchild called America. And so Norquist and others have decided to keep below the radar down at the state level as their handiwork explodes at the national level.

Isn't it great to agree with oneself? Yes it is, so the Big business-backed right wing has created the Caesar Rodney Institute in Delaware.

Norquist was their for the birth:

"What we're really stressing is policies that give people the ability to exercise individual initiative and to take personal responsibility for it," said Bergh, a Brandywine Hundred mathematician and economist, who is an information technology consultant. "Those are the kind of things that will lead a government that is very open and appropriately limited. We want government to be outcome-focused."

He said the organization wants to build bridges between the political parties.

Norquist said Delaware was in need of an independent research and education think tank like the Pioneer Institute in Boston, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich., and the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, Ariz. Mackinac pushes individual choice and free markets, said Michael Jahr, spokesman for Mackinac.

"Ideas communicated with other people that are dramatized and explained can change the world. That's why the Caesar Rodney Institute is important," Norquist said. "You can change the world from Delaware." ("Free-market advocates open for business," Delaware Online, 09.17.2008)

We'll be sure to keep it isolated to places like Delaware, but thanks for the warning. Their rhetoric all sounds reasonable until you realize that they don't actually mean it when they speak about accountability for all. If they did, they'd be out defending their past-arguments on how the economy should be run (no regulation by the "mean old government" with their inconvenient "laws" and "regulations").

Freaks like Norquist aren't doing any defending, and it's a telling admission of defeat--not that any journalists are going to be confronting them on it anytime soon, just another byproduct of a dying pseudo-ideology and economy.

The fixes aren't going to have a long-lasting impact without--say it--greater regulation of the financial and business sectors of the economy, and more laws to do so if required. Taxes are also going to be raised, especially for the wealthiest. It's coming. Without this logical rise in tax- revenues, the entire American--and "global"--economy will go into total insolvency. Some pundits and supporters of Norquist have crowed over the years that this is exactly what the plan was: bankrupt the government to get them off-the-backs of the average American, namely wealthy businessmen and bankers. Toronto writer Jeff Berg notes:

Another winner in this battle of ideas over very big money are those like Grover Norquist whose self-professed goal over the last two decades has been to “shrink it down to a size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” It being the U.S. government. The only way to do this of course is to bankrupt it first. Reagan had a good go at it but his “legacy” has been left in shade by the outsized profligacy and recklessness of Bush and Cheney. As he has so very often Gore Vidal turned the most memorable phrase about this tickets unerring abilities: “Everything Bush touches turns to poo like King Midas in reverse.” ("the Banks Get Their Presidential Pardon-You and I Bail Out Wall Street," GNN.tv, 09.18.2008)

The problem with Berg's argument is that all of this undescores the failures of the current conservative ideology and its application. What next? Where's all the crowing over their "great victory"? There is none, because there is no "great victory," only an underscoring that their so-called "ideology" doesn't work in the real world. What they want and have gotten only leads us towards another crash, another bank failing and having to be bailed-out--then what? What next?

Then the banks and business and tech sectors have everything...and the global economy collapses, and all of that capital they've hoarded is now worthless. Perhaps we can assume they advocate a police state after that, since it's the only thing that would save them and the remnants of their wealth and power. "Conspiracy"? Hardly, this was all a mainstream deal, policy.

Granted that there is no other choice in nationalizing these private lenders and brokers, but remember that the bailouts and the resultant debts and social spending will all have to be serviced through a pronounced progressive taxation and a solvent government. These extremist elements aren't going to get their way in this area, and many of them don't genuinely want to. Without those preconditions, none of the current economic order works or is possible at all, what with its predictable and cyclical excesses.

Of course, there will be a lot of grumbling over the inevitable rise in taxes. None of it will matter.

But what could we expect if taxes weren't raised on the wealthy? A crash that would eclipse 1987's, and would likely compete with 1929. Nobody knows, ultimately, but it won't be good. And so now you know why extremists on the right want to pretend it's 1928 forever: They're nuts. They have no clue, and neither do those who stupidly believe a word they write or say.

Most of this mindless insanity begins with the Reagan administration (under which Norquist served as an adviser), but its cultural and political-roots go far back to the asinine resistance to the New Deal back in the 1930s. Soon, very soon, people will begin a decades-long cursing of Norquist, Rove, Bush, and all the rest, just as they did with the impotent and inactive Herbert Hoover. Frankly, I'm enjoying the show and all of the scrambling--and I haven't even mentioned the mounting-debt from the wars in the Middle East.

"Free-market advocates open for business," Delaware Online, 09.17.2008: http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080917/BUSINESS/809170353/1003

"Happy Warrior: Republican AgitatorGrover Norquist on building a 'leave-us-alone' coalition," Reason, February, 1997: http://www.reason.com/news/show/30147.html

The utterly wacko Fifth columnist "Americans for Tax Reform": http://www.atr.org/

"Bush says government role essential to ease crisis," AP, 09.19.2008: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20080919/48d323c0_3ca6_15526200809191995788214