Posts Tagged ‘hit piece’

Lew RockwellFrom this January 25, 2014 New York Times hit piece against Rand Paul and Mises Institute associates, Lew Rockwell told a New York Times reporter who requested a tour of the Mises Institute campus that he’s “part of the regime“, yet Lew Rockwell himself is the Chairman of a government-sanctioned and government-regulated institution, the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Despite the claim that tax money is better off in the hands of its donors, and the analogy given by Rockwell and other anarcho-capitalists that it is valid and even a moral duty for an individual to seek to pay as little taxes as possible, it doesn’t hold in the case of the Mises Institute, since it was created by Lew Rockwell and others voluntarily entering into an agreement with government, whereas individuals are being taxed on the basis of their very natural existence.

For a close examination of Lew Rockwell’s anti-state credentials, see my articles:

1) 10 questions for Lew Rockwell

2) Lew Rockwell entered into a voluntary agreement with the same government he regards as “far worse than the mafia.”

3) The Ludwig von Mises Institute hates government so much, they’re a government-sanctioned and regulated tax-exempt organization.

4) Austrian economics is big business: The Mises Institute’s $22 million war chest

5) Self-described anti-state LewRockwell.com regularly posting state media articles by Russia Today

6) Lew Rockwell promotes the government-granted privilege of concealed-carry more than the natural right of open carry

Read Full Post »

Tom WoodsFrom his January 30, 2014 podcast, Tom Woods said, in response to this January 25, 2014 New York Times hit piece against Rand Paul and Mises Institute associates like Walter Block (at 9:47):

“Basically, I don’t talk to the New York Times anymore. They write to me, they want some comment, I tell them no, I’ve been smeared by you guys before.”

Yet, five days after the article, Woods is still touting that he’s a “New York Times Bestselling Author” on the top of his website, and on his Facebook page.

Tom-Woods-New-York-Times-bestselling-author-Screen Shot 2014-01-31 at 7.45.29 AM

Tom-Woods-New-York-Times-bestsellling-author-Screen Shot 2014-01-31 at 7.46.28 AM

Tom-Woods-Facebook-Screen Shot 2014-01-31 at 7.50.49 AM

If the New York Times is so bad and has been known to “smear” him and others like Walter Block and Ron Paul, why is he still touting their lauding of his authorship?

Read Full Post »

Brian AlexanderCanadian Freeman, Brian Alexander, the subject of some recent hit pieces against him, is scheduled to be on Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb, September 15, 2013 at 8 PM Eastern on Truth Frequency Radio.

I found it worthy to counter the overwhelmingly negative comments from readers to the Toronto Star article, stemming mostly from the Freeman movement being misunderstood.

Here are my comments that the censors kept up on the site:

Some taxes are necessary to pay for legitimate government services. We got by fine in Canada before WWI without a personal income tax. Is the private sector, which still makes up the bulk of our economy, really that inefficient in providing these additional goods and services on a voluntary basis, that our government is providing by force?

They’re not “anti-government”. They’re pro, limited government — government limited to the protection of life, liberty and property. That, therefore, does not include most of what Canada’s federal and provincial governments engage in today (i.e. telling us what we can and can’t consume, redistributing wealth from average people to wealthy land developers, bribing us with our own money, …). The U.S. is a great example now of what happens when government becomes increasingly unlimited.

They’re not saying they don’t want roads, or don’t want to pay for them. They object to being forced to pay for them. It would be nice if gas taxes actually went directly and only to pay for roads, instead of the general revenue, where it can be spent on whatever politicians decide, including paying interest on our massive debt incurred from extravagant spending.

If you don’t like it, get out.” — A lot of Canadian hi-tech workers, doctors and entrepreneurs did get out of Canada when we had stifling taxes in the 90s, up until we reduced them to be more than competitive relative to the U.S., with the effects being felt over the last four years when we have been ranked more economically free than the U.S. for the first time ever.

And here are the ones that they removed, keeping this important information away from subsequent readers:

“He drives without a license” — it’s lawful to travel on public roads without a license. Getting a license entitles you to be a commercial driver. Of course you will run into all sorts of problems travelling without a license, and there are some public safety benefits to travelling with one, but it is our right to do so without having a license to “drive”.

@Couch Potato: It’s an offense if you have a license and don’t have it in your possession, or if you’re driving someone for a fee without a license. You really need to read the Highway Traffic Act carefully, as I have, and study the legal meaning of words like driver, license, lawful, legal, statute, right and privilege.

I hope you’re not implying that being insured means safer roads. New Hampshire has no mandatory auto liability insurance, and it has among the safest roads in the U.S., in large part because individual drivers will be held fully and personally liable for any negligence, instead of relying on other lottery ticket (insurance) holders to pick up the tab.

Drunk driving is a separate issue. In that case, you’re potentially capable of posing a clear and present threat to others on the road, and drunk drivers can be dealt with criminally independently of whether they are licensed or not.

Drive without one, no, but travel, yes. We have a common law right to travel. Driver is a legal term meaning you are licensed to transport others for payment. Steve Jobs used to drive without a license [plate] and there are a few in U.S. states I know of who have done it. Canada is no different, in principle, being a common law jurisdiction. Of course you will be repeatedly stopped and detained by police, if you are going about your business lawfully, but it’s still your right.

He [Oliver Wendell Holmes] said [“taxes are what we pay for a civilized society”] that in the U.S. in 1935 — back when federal spending was 13% of GDP, from official historical tables. In 2011, it was 38.9%. Only anarchists argue for no government. The question is, are we getting our money’s worth these days?

Read Full Post »

Canadian PressI saw this hit piece in the January 15, 2013 edition of my local online newspaper, which I have previously documented is a corporate feudalist newspaper, and the article was originally published by the Canadian Press. The title is “Latest American conspiracy theory claims Newtown mass shooting a hoax.

For non-Canadians, it can’t be underestimated the power that labeling something as uniquely American has on the average Canadian psyche.

I see this hit piece as a victory for critical thinking, and for the authentic alternative media, as it took five years for the 9/11 Truth movement to start gaining traction, whereas a far smaller incident took only a month for the pressure to build to have the corporate feudalist media go public in a desperate attempt to suppress critical thinking, with the smear of critical thinking as “conspiracy theory.”

They predictably invoke 9/11 Truth and those who doubt the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama in a kitchen sink approach of throwing anything they can at readers in order to find something that will resonate with them in order to turn them off of critical thinking.

The author has the audacity to assert that:

Their theories on the Dec. 14 shooting in Sandy Hook appear to lack any basis in fact, reality or common sense.

It’s not a theory that there is evidence pointing to multiple shooters, for instance, as indicated by police radio, helicopter video, and the testimony of at least two witnesses, including a young child at the school, who would have no reason to lie — all of which has been documented by Charles Giuliani and Joel Skousen, as I have previously written about.

That evidence, of course, is conveniently and predictably omitted from the article.

Yes, fellow Canadians, it’s an “American conspiracy theory.” It’s just as crazy as the American gun culture, the electoral college, and the election year “silly season.” Pay no attention to the evidence of multiple shooters behind the curtain.

I have to hand it to the author of this hit piece, and her corporate feudalist employer. The difference between this story and 9/11 is that, this time, many critical thinkers have been raising questions since day one, and are alert to the patterns of disinfo they have seen with the 9/11 coverup, the London 7/7 bombings coverup, and others.

Read Full Post »