Click Here to Read the Commentary
Thank you so much for your column. More than anything I have ever read, your column captured the essence of my wishes and hopes for our world. In our race to have more and better of everything, much of what defines each of us as human beings has been lost.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
America the Battlefield: The End of the Rule of Law
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Great writing that I completely agree with. I would go even further by saying that this can, and probably will, be interpreted to include people who disagree with government. I feel that we are heading toward Germany of old. I cannot believe how asleep we are while all this is going on. I loose more hope with every passing day. The attack on our liberty is incresses daily.
Keep up your great work.
What is there that we can do to fight, after the fact, this law that allows them to detain citizens? I had no idea that this was up for vote in Congress in December. And I understand that it is too late for just contacting my Congressman, although I am going to do that, also.
However, now that I am aware that this has passed and been signed by Obama, what can citizens do to bring this up to the Supreme Court for constitutionality of this law. I found and read the CRS Report for Congress, dated 2/24/2005, titled: "Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants" and I am very concerned to realize that this has been an ongoing dialogue because of 9/11. Homeland Security is bad enough - searches to travel is dehumanizing enough - when and where do American Citizens stand up to be counted and demand the restoration of their freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Have we been a free people for so long that we now are willing to be brought under subjection because we fear terrorists? Is that all it takes to give up our rights as free people? Fear. So many have died to ensure our freedom, did they die in vain? I don't care the promises of Obama - why should I care about the word of a man - I care that the Constitution that guaranteed my freedom and protection from corrupt governments, is now being laid waste on the words of a man. No, I want my Constitutional rights upheld - the protection of due process, speedy trail, etc.
If possible, please inform me what options are available to me to address this political crisis.
Great writing that I completely agree with. I would go even further by saying that this can, and probably will, be interpreted to include people who disagree with government. I feel that we are heading toward Germany of old. I cannot believe how asleep we are while all this is going on. I loose more hope with every passing day. The attack on our liberty is incresses daily.
Keep up your great work.
What is there that we can do to fight, after the fact, this law that allows them to detain citizens? I had no idea that this was up for vote in Congress in December. And I understand that it is too late for just contacting my Congressman, although I am going to do that, also.
However, now that I am aware that this has passed and been signed by Obama, what can citizens do to bring this up to the Supreme Court for constitutionality of this law. I found and read the CRS Report for Congress, dated 2/24/2005, titled: "Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants" and I am very concerned to realize that this has been an ongoing dialogue because of 9/11. Homeland Security is bad enough - searches to travel is dehumanizing enough - when and where do American Citizens stand up to be counted and demand the restoration of their freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Have we been a free people for so long that we now are willing to be brought under subjection because we fear terrorists? Is that all it takes to give up our rights as free people? Fear. So many have died to ensure our freedom, did they die in vain? I don't care the promises of Obama - why should I care about the word of a man - I care that the Constitution that guaranteed my freedom and protection from corrupt governments, is now being laid waste on the words of a man. No, I want my Constitutional rights upheld - the protection of due process, speedy trail, etc.
If possible, please inform me what options are available to me to address this political crisis.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
General Comments
How on Earth can you use the word liberty in the same sentence with Lincoln? He violated our Constitution worse than any politician ever has and started us down the road to socialism and mercantilism. Lincoln ended our constitutional republic and replaced it with a nationalist empire. If you truly don't get it, then e-mail me and I will provide you with a list of books and reference materials that will explain it in detail.
Joe
Dear John Whitehead and everyone there at Rutherford,
Month after month, you are doing a great job there at the Rutherford Institute. Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of people who might not otherwise notice. I especially appreciate articles such as these, "Ten Years After 9/11: Have We Become the Enemy of Freedom?", "The War on Drugs Has Become the War on the American People," even as I am sad when I reflect on the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, concerning the loss of traditional freedoms that Americans once shared.
The US Government, once sworn to upholding freedom and liberty, by degrees has become dedicated to the proposition that all men are enemies; enemies which require control, leashing, imprisonment, parasitic draining of life, and finally, liquidation and disposal. I love America: the beautiful mountains and shining seas show the handiwork of their creator. But so many in America are robbed and enslaved - or worse, enthusiastic robbers and slavers. Not figurative "slaves", but literal real slaves in real steal shackles, forced to work, or they suffer real, literal torture. And so few can even see it.
Thanks for shining some light in these dark areas of in the "land of the free."
Sincerely,
Doug
And don't even TRY to sell that moon speck!
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1025/NASA-sting-terrifies-elderly-woman
Flack jackets? I'm afraid you continue to be correct -- the country is dying.
Keep up the good work, while you can.
-Kurt
Dear Sir,
I stumbled onto your web site and after reading one of your "Speak Truth to Power" articles I had to read more. Great job. I find it incomprehensible that we don't see more of these types of coverage from the big media outlets...and that the public at large doesn't express outrage over the lack of quality coverage. I'm thankful there are some independent voices out there who are speaking out. Just hoping it will not all be too little too late.
Wanted to thank you for what you're doing.
Mr. Whitehead,
Re: "The transition to a police state will not come about with a dramatic coup d’etat, with battering rams and marauding militia."
Most coup d'états go totally unnoticed, just as ours did; on December 12, 2000 Supreme Court justices' William H. Rehnquist, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas were party to a coup d'état in America through their decision to deny the counting of Floridians' votes — in addition to violating Article 21 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Mr.Ruthorford,
I am a strong and very vocal opponent of water-boarding. I am angry that every Republican candidate for president has directly or indirectly supported water boarding with the exception of Ron Paul.
If you also oppose water boarding I hope you will say so on line and in one of your videos.
Joe
Dear John Whitehead and everyone there at Rutherford,
Month after month, you are doing a great job there at the Rutherford Institute. Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of people who might not otherwise notice. I especially appreciate articles such as these, "Ten Years After 9/11: Have We Become the Enemy of Freedom?", "The War on Drugs Has Become the War on the American People," even as I am sad when I reflect on the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, concerning the loss of traditional freedoms that Americans once shared.
The US Government, once sworn to upholding freedom and liberty, by degrees has become dedicated to the proposition that all men are enemies; enemies which require control, leashing, imprisonment, parasitic draining of life, and finally, liquidation and disposal. I love America: the beautiful mountains and shining seas show the handiwork of their creator. But so many in America are robbed and enslaved - or worse, enthusiastic robbers and slavers. Not figurative "slaves", but literal real slaves in real steal shackles, forced to work, or they suffer real, literal torture. And so few can even see it.
Thanks for shining some light in these dark areas of in the "land of the free."
Sincerely,
Doug
And don't even TRY to sell that moon speck!
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1025/NASA-sting-terrifies-elderly-woman
Flack jackets? I'm afraid you continue to be correct -- the country is dying.
Keep up the good work, while you can.
-Kurt
Dear Sir,
I stumbled onto your web site and after reading one of your "Speak Truth to Power" articles I had to read more. Great job. I find it incomprehensible that we don't see more of these types of coverage from the big media outlets...and that the public at large doesn't express outrage over the lack of quality coverage. I'm thankful there are some independent voices out there who are speaking out. Just hoping it will not all be too little too late.
Wanted to thank you for what you're doing.
Mr. Whitehead,
Re: "The transition to a police state will not come about with a dramatic coup d’etat, with battering rams and marauding militia."
Most coup d'états go totally unnoticed, just as ours did; on December 12, 2000 Supreme Court justices' William H. Rehnquist, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas were party to a coup d'état in America through their decision to deny the counting of Floridians' votes — in addition to violating Article 21 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Mr.Ruthorford,
I am a strong and very vocal opponent of water-boarding. I am angry that every Republican candidate for president has directly or indirectly supported water boarding with the exception of Ron Paul.
If you also oppose water boarding I hope you will say so on line and in one of your videos.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Speak Out: America Is a Free Speech Forum
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Mr. Rutherford, After reading the free speech commentary you wrote,I had to unsubscribe from your opinions.This is not to argue the basic right of speech(within the boundaries of the public) and by that I mean people should not have the right to speech that will upset the general welfare of the public square.I'm not going to have a long speech on my belief in free speech,but I think that free speech should include responsible! That's all. We just agree to disagree.
Mr. Rutherford,
I was a supporter of the Occupy movement which had a clear message. It is important, as your video shows, for these demonstrations to have a clear message.
Another good example was the veterans bonus march on Washington and we both know what happened there.
I believe the Occupy movement was joined by divergent groups with different agendas and the original message was drowned out.
The problem with the Occupy movement seems to be loss of message and focus. There is the general problem of health and safety which comes about from long term ad hoc encampments.
How local governments will handle those problems is sill to be resolved.
In many cities, the police behaved badly. The police departments have become a culture unto themselves and call everyone else civilians---a clear sign police departments no long understand their role in society.
The tea party movement was very disciplined and well organized and ultimately taken over by the right wing of the Republican party.
The Occupy movement seems lack the above qualities and its message became lost while folks with all kinds of agendas tried to hijack the movement.
It was easily attacked by its opponents due to the folks who joined the movement with different agendas
For many years, Washington Square Park and the Park at 14 St. in NYC served as places for speeches, talk, argument and so forth.
Mr. Rutherford, After reading the free speech commentary you wrote,I had to unsubscribe from your opinions.This is not to argue the basic right of speech(within the boundaries of the public) and by that I mean people should not have the right to speech that will upset the general welfare of the public square.I'm not going to have a long speech on my belief in free speech,but I think that free speech should include responsible! That's all. We just agree to disagree.
Mr. Rutherford,
I was a supporter of the Occupy movement which had a clear message. It is important, as your video shows, for these demonstrations to have a clear message.
Another good example was the veterans bonus march on Washington and we both know what happened there.
I believe the Occupy movement was joined by divergent groups with different agendas and the original message was drowned out.
The problem with the Occupy movement seems to be loss of message and focus. There is the general problem of health and safety which comes about from long term ad hoc encampments.
How local governments will handle those problems is sill to be resolved.
In many cities, the police behaved badly. The police departments have become a culture unto themselves and call everyone else civilians---a clear sign police departments no long understand their role in society.
The tea party movement was very disciplined and well organized and ultimately taken over by the right wing of the Republican party.
The Occupy movement seems lack the above qualities and its message became lost while folks with all kinds of agendas tried to hijack the movement.
It was easily attacked by its opponents due to the folks who joined the movement with different agendas
For many years, Washington Square Park and the Park at 14 St. in NYC served as places for speeches, talk, argument and so forth.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Rutherford Institute Urges Texas Gov. Perry to Demonstrate Commitment to Justice by Temporarily Staying Execution, Calling for DNA Testing
Click Here to Read the Press Release
I expect this kind of nonsense from Whitehead, because it has become a pattern with his totally uninformed anti death penalty rhetoric. I expect better from Nat Hentoff.
There are solid reasons for the Texas AG and the DA to fight additional DNA testing in the Hank Skinner triple murder case.
There is substantial pre trial tested DNA and other blood evidence, as well as much additional evidence, which solidified Skinner's guilt in the original trial.
We have two confessions from Skinner and Skinner tried to plead guilty to a reduced sentence, all refuting the only defense that Skinner has put forth.
Make no mistake, it was Hank Skinner's decision not to test additional
DNA, pre trial.
Had Skinner known that additional pre trial DNA testing would have cleared
him, he would have ordered it. Look at what the cabal of "test the DNAers"
want us to believe:
That Skinner refused additional pre trial DNA testing, thereby taking the
risk of receiving the death penalty, intentionally, and making that choice
over taking the risk that he would be freed, instead.
Does anyone believe that nonsense?
The allegation that Skinner bowed to his original defense counsel's
demands to not test additional DNA, pre trial, holds no water. There is the
problem of Skinner responding to his counsel "OK, good call, I'll risk death over
freedom". Absurd, of course. Not to mention, Skinner does not bow to
anyone's wishes, unless he agrees with them.
Now comes Skinner, et al, meaning defense counsel, a bunch of "well
meaning" anti death penalty folks, with a smattering of the blindly ignorant,
crying "Test the DNA" - "what have you got to lose, except revealing you are
about to execute another innocent?".
Enter reality.
We already have DNA that implicates Skinner, as well as much additional
evidence that sent Skinner to death row for the murder of Twila and her two
mentally impaired sons.
Skinner's own experts said the DNA evidence against him was solid and that
the blood splatter evidence contradicted Skinner's description of events.
First and foremost, Skinner wishes to live longer, just as Twila and her
two sons did. That is the main reason for the appeals. Understandable.
What Texas is attempting to prevent, now, in testing the DNA that Skinner
refused to test, pre trial, is a very bad precedent, to wit:
In a successful effort to delay his execution, even more, Skinner files
motions to test the DNA material he had previously rejected testing, pre
trial.
If Skinner succeeds, this sets a precedent that, within certain cases,
which can be managed, just so, the defendant will be able to go back and say,
wait a minute, I don't like the outcome of my trial, because of the strategy
I chose, I want a do-over, via new trial or appeals, so maybe I can get a
better result next time.
It is a horrible precedent, which the state must fight and for which all
criminals and defense counsel are drooling over, both for very good and
obvious reasons.
Some in the media, inexcusably, are not presenting those well known facts
to their readers.
It is "the" important and only reason the state is fighting this fight - to
stop criminals, their attorneys and their supporters from gaming the
system, even more.
The state will, eventually, prevail, as it should and a triple murderer's
life will be justly taken.
I expect this kind of nonsense from Whitehead, because it has become a pattern with his totally uninformed anti death penalty rhetoric. I expect better from Nat Hentoff.
There are solid reasons for the Texas AG and the DA to fight additional DNA testing in the Hank Skinner triple murder case.
There is substantial pre trial tested DNA and other blood evidence, as well as much additional evidence, which solidified Skinner's guilt in the original trial.
We have two confessions from Skinner and Skinner tried to plead guilty to a reduced sentence, all refuting the only defense that Skinner has put forth.
Make no mistake, it was Hank Skinner's decision not to test additional
DNA, pre trial.
Had Skinner known that additional pre trial DNA testing would have cleared
him, he would have ordered it. Look at what the cabal of "test the DNAers"
want us to believe:
That Skinner refused additional pre trial DNA testing, thereby taking the
risk of receiving the death penalty, intentionally, and making that choice
over taking the risk that he would be freed, instead.
Does anyone believe that nonsense?
The allegation that Skinner bowed to his original defense counsel's
demands to not test additional DNA, pre trial, holds no water. There is the
problem of Skinner responding to his counsel "OK, good call, I'll risk death over
freedom". Absurd, of course. Not to mention, Skinner does not bow to
anyone's wishes, unless he agrees with them.
Now comes Skinner, et al, meaning defense counsel, a bunch of "well
meaning" anti death penalty folks, with a smattering of the blindly ignorant,
crying "Test the DNA" - "what have you got to lose, except revealing you are
about to execute another innocent?".
Enter reality.
We already have DNA that implicates Skinner, as well as much additional
evidence that sent Skinner to death row for the murder of Twila and her two
mentally impaired sons.
Skinner's own experts said the DNA evidence against him was solid and that
the blood splatter evidence contradicted Skinner's description of events.
First and foremost, Skinner wishes to live longer, just as Twila and her
two sons did. That is the main reason for the appeals. Understandable.
What Texas is attempting to prevent, now, in testing the DNA that Skinner
refused to test, pre trial, is a very bad precedent, to wit:
In a successful effort to delay his execution, even more, Skinner files
motions to test the DNA material he had previously rejected testing, pre
trial.
If Skinner succeeds, this sets a precedent that, within certain cases,
which can be managed, just so, the defendant will be able to go back and say,
wait a minute, I don't like the outcome of my trial, because of the strategy
I chose, I want a do-over, via new trial or appeals, so maybe I can get a
better result next time.
It is a horrible precedent, which the state must fight and for which all
criminals and defense counsel are drooling over, both for very good and
obvious reasons.
Some in the media, inexcusably, are not presenting those well known facts
to their readers.
It is "the" important and only reason the state is fighting this fight - to
stop criminals, their attorneys and their supporters from gaming the
system, even more.
The state will, eventually, prevail, as it should and a triple murderer's
life will be justly taken.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Citing Concern for School Safety, Federal Court Dismisses Case Against Calif. School that Banned Students from Wearing American Flag T-Shirts
Click Here to Read the Press Release
please make sure the students can continue to fight for their shirts with flags. Why is it that people have to change their beliefs for others? Shouldn't each person do what they believe? We have to not say GOD, or not say CHRISTMAS because some people do not believe in it, so?, then they do not have to say it or celebrate it, but, do not make it bad for anyone else. Let these students wear their shirts and fight for them.
I read the subject article and John Whitehead’s comments. Of course I don’t know everything you’ve said on it, but I suggest we start talking about such incidents in stronger language that encapsulates the essence. I’ve copied my comments on the article below. It would convey a powerful image if we say the school and judge are discriminating, calling the American flag-wearers tolerant people (I understand they were not complaining against the display of the Mexican flag), calling those who made threats bullies and hate-mongers. We should also treat the threateners as what they are: criminals. If I threaten violence against my neighbor, the police will come for me, not my neighbor. The school and court would have them come for my neighbor. What kind of people are we raising here?
“Why are the school and judge discriminating against tolerant people in favor of hate-mongers? They are rewarding the bullies.
“They need to put the hate-mongers in counseling and explain that this is America, and that many Americans are proud of our country, just like they (the students in this school) are proud of Mexico. They need to teach these intolerant students to live peacefully, tolerantly with people who aren't exactly like themselves. And if they hate America so much, perhaps someday they can emigrate to Mexico (or return home, as the case may be).
“If a child gets what he wants by throwing a temper-tantrum, he will never learn self-control, sharing, delayed gratification, or many other character traits that make for a useful, productive adult. Ditto these immature students who can't stand Americans loving America.
“Why aren't conservatives and patriotic Americans verbalizing their actions in such language? It's what it is.
“We need to describe incidents and rulings like this in strong language that lays it out. Right now, the Lefties are winning the PR war by misrepresenting us, but they do it in strong, easy-to-remember language. We need to use the same strength of language when we lay out the truth.”
During the appeal to the ruling of the case vs.Morgan Hill Unified School District you all should associate May 5th with the Battle of the Wilderness. Give it an American historical aspect.
please make sure the students can continue to fight for their shirts with flags. Why is it that people have to change their beliefs for others? Shouldn't each person do what they believe? We have to not say GOD, or not say CHRISTMAS because some people do not believe in it, so?, then they do not have to say it or celebrate it, but, do not make it bad for anyone else. Let these students wear their shirts and fight for them.
I read the subject article and John Whitehead’s comments. Of course I don’t know everything you’ve said on it, but I suggest we start talking about such incidents in stronger language that encapsulates the essence. I’ve copied my comments on the article below. It would convey a powerful image if we say the school and judge are discriminating, calling the American flag-wearers tolerant people (I understand they were not complaining against the display of the Mexican flag), calling those who made threats bullies and hate-mongers. We should also treat the threateners as what they are: criminals. If I threaten violence against my neighbor, the police will come for me, not my neighbor. The school and court would have them come for my neighbor. What kind of people are we raising here?
“Why are the school and judge discriminating against tolerant people in favor of hate-mongers? They are rewarding the bullies.
“They need to put the hate-mongers in counseling and explain that this is America, and that many Americans are proud of our country, just like they (the students in this school) are proud of Mexico. They need to teach these intolerant students to live peacefully, tolerantly with people who aren't exactly like themselves. And if they hate America so much, perhaps someday they can emigrate to Mexico (or return home, as the case may be).
“If a child gets what he wants by throwing a temper-tantrum, he will never learn self-control, sharing, delayed gratification, or many other character traits that make for a useful, productive adult. Ditto these immature students who can't stand Americans loving America.
“Why aren't conservatives and patriotic Americans verbalizing their actions in such language? It's what it is.
“We need to describe incidents and rulings like this in strong language that lays it out. Right now, the Lefties are winning the PR war by misrepresenting us, but they do it in strong, easy-to-remember language. We need to use the same strength of language when we lay out the truth.”
During the appeal to the ruling of the case vs.Morgan Hill Unified School District you all should associate May 5th with the Battle of the Wilderness. Give it an American historical aspect.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
It's Time for All Americans to Occupy Washington, DC
Click Here to Read the Commentary
I know the boss does not read all the replys, but more folks should register and get active in the political party of their choice and not turn their party over to the ideologues of both left and right. Politics is a messy affair but then so is life.
help me contact the occupie movement the protesting that they are doning is all in the wrong placeses. the protest should be in washington agaist the tea party congressional cut cut cut program reublican that whos causeing the trouble. their're sitting up there trying to hog tie president obamha jobs programs so he cant do nothing. we need stoung voceses to go to washington dc and turn up heat to help president obamha i need the movements email address and forward the to the occupie movement let help the president jobs program the the tea party to turn people againt them to free the money and weath away from there greedy hand put demomcrats in upper and lower comgressioal district and re elect presudent obamha
I am a resident of Delaware. I am not part of the Occupy Movement/protest here in Wilmington, Del. I too am concerned about the protester's First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and speech, but do you really think that right is extended for the purposes of erecting long term, permanent camps on public property when you consider all the health risks and increased crime that comes with that when encampments are made in downtown areas? I read in the news today that there were approximately 150 tents in Oakland, but that number had decreased lately to about 50. That's a lot of tents and how do we know that I like to go hiking and even in the state parks, which is public property, there is a limit to how many days you can set up your tent and stay in any one place. The reason for this is clear to most people, but especially those who are experienced hikers and want to see the public land stay as 'primitive' as possible for other campers to enjoy. The assumption being that when you go backpacking, you probably aren't going to carry a portable potty with you and trash cans and even it you did, probably aren't going to get them emptied regularly. I support the Occupy protesters as I would any citizen protesting, but I don't think they should be allowed to erect a campground in the city indefinitely. I read your commentaries on the encampments that took place in Washington during the Bonus Army protests. I think that was the exception to what most large protest movements are about. They come, they protest, speeches are made, and then they leave. In the case of the Bonus Army, it made sense that they camped until the Congress gave them what had been promised. The Occupy protesters have been promised nothing that has been denied to them. If the big banks impose new monthly fees, then protest by canceling and switching to a locally owned bank or a credit union which thousands of American are doing. I've been a member of a locally owned credit unions for decades and encouraged others to do the same. My auto insurance company recently imposed a surcharge on my account when I added a new driver to my policy and I told them if they do that, I'm gone. They did it anyway, so I took my business elsewhere.
The problem with the Occupy movement, I think, is that there is no defined leadership. Their message seems to be what the media has focused on and the images are graphic and that works well for tv, occupying an area of the city and then setting up tents and no one knows when they are leaving unless they are issued a permit and then we know. As you said in your commentary, "Occupy lacks a coherent message" and that is hurting their cause. Would their message be more effective if they came, spoke and left. The cities are broke, so why should they expect to take a chance with encampments that can turn violent and cause vandalism? I think the encampments are also causing some people to be afraid of traveling downtown, so again, it hurts small businesses in a bad economy.
I read both commentaries posted on the Rutherford Institute web site about the Occupy movement and thought they were good: http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=738
and I agree that citizens should take their message to Washington, DC: http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=740
and I also think that most of the people involved with the Occupy movement have no idea how companies make a profit. I agree and understand why they are upset. There is greed at the top.
O, come on. You are doing practically the same thing that you and Frank Schaeffer accused the Right Wingers of doing, sensationalized reporting and reporting the bad news because people pay attention to that and donate more when they get fired up. I'm commenting on this article that you just provided your readership with, this is just plain stupid if the Occupy movement protesters are aligning themselves with anarchist groups which this report says that they did. The news story that you posted on your web site contains a link to this report:
In a statement Sunday night, police said they had been monitoring the building since Saturday night when they learned attendees of an anarchist book fair held this weekend were aligning themselves with Occupy Chapel Hill and that about 70 people had entered the former car dealership.
The group printed a flier that said: The group printed a flier that proposed a possible new use for the space that would include a free clinic, kitchen, child care, library and dormitories, among other uses. The flier acknowledged they were breaking the law by entering the building.
So why shouldn't they be arrested for breaking and entering a building? The police did the right thing. The Occupiers are victimizing themselves and hurting their cause.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/11/13/1641362/activists-take-over-vacant-franklin.html#ixzz1diLIt6fR
I know the boss does not read all the replys, but more folks should register and get active in the political party of their choice and not turn their party over to the ideologues of both left and right. Politics is a messy affair but then so is life.
help me contact the occupie movement the protesting that they are doning is all in the wrong placeses. the protest should be in washington agaist the tea party congressional cut cut cut program reublican that whos causeing the trouble. their're sitting up there trying to hog tie president obamha jobs programs so he cant do nothing. we need stoung voceses to go to washington dc and turn up heat to help president obamha i need the movements email address and forward the to the occupie movement let help the president jobs program the the tea party to turn people againt them to free the money and weath away from there greedy hand put demomcrats in upper and lower comgressioal district and re elect presudent obamha
I am a resident of Delaware. I am not part of the Occupy Movement/protest here in Wilmington, Del. I too am concerned about the protester's First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and speech, but do you really think that right is extended for the purposes of erecting long term, permanent camps on public property when you consider all the health risks and increased crime that comes with that when encampments are made in downtown areas? I read in the news today that there were approximately 150 tents in Oakland, but that number had decreased lately to about 50. That's a lot of tents and how do we know that I like to go hiking and even in the state parks, which is public property, there is a limit to how many days you can set up your tent and stay in any one place. The reason for this is clear to most people, but especially those who are experienced hikers and want to see the public land stay as 'primitive' as possible for other campers to enjoy. The assumption being that when you go backpacking, you probably aren't going to carry a portable potty with you and trash cans and even it you did, probably aren't going to get them emptied regularly. I support the Occupy protesters as I would any citizen protesting, but I don't think they should be allowed to erect a campground in the city indefinitely. I read your commentaries on the encampments that took place in Washington during the Bonus Army protests. I think that was the exception to what most large protest movements are about. They come, they protest, speeches are made, and then they leave. In the case of the Bonus Army, it made sense that they camped until the Congress gave them what had been promised. The Occupy protesters have been promised nothing that has been denied to them. If the big banks impose new monthly fees, then protest by canceling and switching to a locally owned bank or a credit union which thousands of American are doing. I've been a member of a locally owned credit unions for decades and encouraged others to do the same. My auto insurance company recently imposed a surcharge on my account when I added a new driver to my policy and I told them if they do that, I'm gone. They did it anyway, so I took my business elsewhere.
The problem with the Occupy movement, I think, is that there is no defined leadership. Their message seems to be what the media has focused on and the images are graphic and that works well for tv, occupying an area of the city and then setting up tents and no one knows when they are leaving unless they are issued a permit and then we know. As you said in your commentary, "Occupy lacks a coherent message" and that is hurting their cause. Would their message be more effective if they came, spoke and left. The cities are broke, so why should they expect to take a chance with encampments that can turn violent and cause vandalism? I think the encampments are also causing some people to be afraid of traveling downtown, so again, it hurts small businesses in a bad economy.
I read both commentaries posted on the Rutherford Institute web site about the Occupy movement and thought they were good: http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=738
and I agree that citizens should take their message to Washington, DC: http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=740
and I also think that most of the people involved with the Occupy movement have no idea how companies make a profit. I agree and understand why they are upset. There is greed at the top.
O, come on. You are doing practically the same thing that you and Frank Schaeffer accused the Right Wingers of doing, sensationalized reporting and reporting the bad news because people pay attention to that and donate more when they get fired up. I'm commenting on this article that you just provided your readership with, this is just plain stupid if the Occupy movement protesters are aligning themselves with anarchist groups which this report says that they did. The news story that you posted on your web site contains a link to this report:
In a statement Sunday night, police said they had been monitoring the building since Saturday night when they learned attendees of an anarchist book fair held this weekend were aligning themselves with Occupy Chapel Hill and that about 70 people had entered the former car dealership.
The group printed a flier that said: The group printed a flier that proposed a possible new use for the space that would include a free clinic, kitchen, child care, library and dormitories, among other uses. The flier acknowledged they were breaking the law by entering the building.
So why shouldn't they be arrested for breaking and entering a building? The police did the right thing. The Occupiers are victimizing themselves and hurting their cause.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/11/13/1641362/activists-take-over-vacant-franklin.html#ixzz1diLIt6fR
Monday, November 7, 2011
Cancer-Causing Airport Scanners? Enough Is Enough
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Kudos on another excellent article. ("Cancer-Causing Airport Scanners?
Enough Is Enough By John W. Whitehead 11/7/2011)
Involuntary X-Ray scanners that cause cancer, drones that kill indiscriminately, impersonally and without warning, snipers. These types of government methods for harming people covertly and without warning run afoul of Deuteronomy 27:24.
"Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen." -- Deuteronomy 27:24
Maybe they can just sing a little louder.
Doug
Thank you so much for this excellent article. I have had 2 melanomas removed. I have been reading about the increased risk of skin cancer from these backscatter machines and out of fear of another occurrence, I have refused to fly. I also refuse to allow myself to be sexually molested by government sanctioned perverts. I am enraged that my government is knowingly putting my health and that of my fellow Americans in jeopardy for filthy profit and power/control. I have written to both senators here in Arizona and have received a collective yawn in the form of generic letters telling me how this is all for my own good and necessary for my security. They don’t give a damn about my health or my 4th amendment rights. Government officials are willfully ignoring this and to me, this makes them nothing but accomplices in this crime.
Thank you for using your considerable influence and resources to highlight this issue. Please continue to be a voice for those of us who are being ignored. This issue is being covered up and most people who are herded through the scanners have no idea that they are risking their health just to get on an airplane. Keep fighting the good fight and thank you again for your article. I am forwarding it to everyone on my e-mail list
Sir:
You mention "our representatives" in your column. Frankly, we don't HAVE any "representatives." We have rulers who try to sound like representatives during an election campaign, but upon taking office put off such nonsense in order to more properly rule the masses.
I cannot tell you how many conservative sites send me e-mail advising me to "tell Congress" or "have Congress" or even more amusing, "MAKE Congress" do this or that. Frankly, it isn't possible. I dare say there are a few actual representatives in Congress, but even the best of them start out that way and within a few months or years are "ruling" right along with the rest of them in DC. Of course, what is true for Congress is even MORE true for any presidential administration. These people come into office - and yes, it isn't ONE person, but a cabal who take the Executive Branch - with the idea of "ruling." None of that "represent" crap for them! Again, occasionally some individual does believe that it is his sworn duty to serve the People. Much though he was far from perfect, Ronald Reagan did have that mindset. Sadly, he could no more actually "serve" in the present governmental milieu than he could fly without a plane.
Just as a colored lens changes visual reality, so too, the "color" of DC (government control) changes everything that can and does take place there, petitions, letters, e-mails and phone calls notwithstanding.
Sir:
All that has to happen is for the American flying public to go on a six-month passenger strike. The situation would be resolved very quickly. In large part, the American public is responsible to the abuses at the airports simply because they put up with it.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Thank you for writing the article ‘Cancer-Causing Airport Scanners? Enough Is Enough’. I hope you have a very large audience. This is info everyone needs to know.
You ask the question “What will it take for Americans to finally say enough is enough?” But how can Americans say enough is enough?
I have written to my Congressmen. I avoid airports. What else can an Americans do when the TSA has the power to intimidate, harass and arrest anyone with objections? Jesse Ventura has tried to take them to court, and failed. I have participated in local antiwar demonstrations that don’t get reported in the news. The Occupy Wall Street people are not getting any respect. What do you suggest.
Please write an article telling us all what can be done. A lot of people are saying ‘do something’. Do what!.
Mr. Whitehead,
Thank you for your piece on these dangerous devices. I agree with all you have written regarding how the American Public has lost many fundamental rights in the name of security against terrorism. As a retired airline captain I witnessed the theatrical charade of screening both pre and post 9-11. Now the process includes the potential for serious harm to the person because of dangerous X-ray dosage. You are correct that the TSA intends to use humiliation and intimidation to control individuals who don't wish to adhere to their chosen protocol. I was recently rudely shouted at by a TSA agent at a body scanner because my hands touched each other over my head. To be treated without respect is the norm. They may think we will not notice or care about these several indignities but there will come a day when we will collectively say "ENOUGH!"
You conspicuously forgot to mention the cocksucker who made bank off of this scanner bullshit.
ps. he looks like he just crawled out of the pits of hell and is a dual national.
Get off your ass and make an effort once in awhile.
Hi John
Yes backscatter X-ray such as AS&E and Rapiscan make to screen people, create an image from ionising X-ray however the dose levels per inspection are around the same as a dental X-ray, are we going to ban those ? what about CT scans ?
The typical dose rate from a double pose Backscatter X-ray unit is way less than what air crew and passengers are exposed to on one flight for 3 hours at over 30,000 feet, check that out ?
Other forms of people screening by L3 and Smiths Detection are MMW based so non-ionising ! Do some real research, MMW technology is no more dangerous than standing under a light bulb ! Sitting in front of a TV is exposing people to more of a dose ! Look at the radio spectrum and figure it out ?
Let’s deal with evidence. Show us all some credible and peer reviewed clinical evidence that confirms being examined by an airport security scanner has caused a confirmed case of cancer in anyone, we in the real world are still waiting for that – nothing how many years have we been waiting ? The high voltage power cable we all drive under next too or sit under in some public transport options are more of a potential health problem, look at that ?
Exposure to various forms of radiation is part of living on Earth – even when buried you can’t get away from it !
Do some work about aircrew and passenger exposure to ionising radiation when flying regular long haul flights at over 30,000 feet, a three hour flight is equal to being put through a baggage inspection machine – please do your research before pushing a barrow !
Getting out of bed each day can result in breaking an ankle – it’s all about mitigating risk and I don’t know about you, I’ve rather be subject to airport security “even when it’s in the US” than have the aircraft I and my loved ones are on blown out of the sky by mad people !
Kudos on another excellent article. ("Cancer-Causing Airport Scanners?
Enough Is Enough By John W. Whitehead 11/7/2011)
Involuntary X-Ray scanners that cause cancer, drones that kill indiscriminately, impersonally and without warning, snipers. These types of government methods for harming people covertly and without warning run afoul of Deuteronomy 27:24.
"Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen." -- Deuteronomy 27:24
Maybe they can just sing a little louder.
Doug
Thank you so much for this excellent article. I have had 2 melanomas removed. I have been reading about the increased risk of skin cancer from these backscatter machines and out of fear of another occurrence, I have refused to fly. I also refuse to allow myself to be sexually molested by government sanctioned perverts. I am enraged that my government is knowingly putting my health and that of my fellow Americans in jeopardy for filthy profit and power/control. I have written to both senators here in Arizona and have received a collective yawn in the form of generic letters telling me how this is all for my own good and necessary for my security. They don’t give a damn about my health or my 4th amendment rights. Government officials are willfully ignoring this and to me, this makes them nothing but accomplices in this crime.
Thank you for using your considerable influence and resources to highlight this issue. Please continue to be a voice for those of us who are being ignored. This issue is being covered up and most people who are herded through the scanners have no idea that they are risking their health just to get on an airplane. Keep fighting the good fight and thank you again for your article. I am forwarding it to everyone on my e-mail list
Sir:
You mention "our representatives" in your column. Frankly, we don't HAVE any "representatives." We have rulers who try to sound like representatives during an election campaign, but upon taking office put off such nonsense in order to more properly rule the masses.
I cannot tell you how many conservative sites send me e-mail advising me to "tell Congress" or "have Congress" or even more amusing, "MAKE Congress" do this or that. Frankly, it isn't possible. I dare say there are a few actual representatives in Congress, but even the best of them start out that way and within a few months or years are "ruling" right along with the rest of them in DC. Of course, what is true for Congress is even MORE true for any presidential administration. These people come into office - and yes, it isn't ONE person, but a cabal who take the Executive Branch - with the idea of "ruling." None of that "represent" crap for them! Again, occasionally some individual does believe that it is his sworn duty to serve the People. Much though he was far from perfect, Ronald Reagan did have that mindset. Sadly, he could no more actually "serve" in the present governmental milieu than he could fly without a plane.
Just as a colored lens changes visual reality, so too, the "color" of DC (government control) changes everything that can and does take place there, petitions, letters, e-mails and phone calls notwithstanding.
Sir:
All that has to happen is for the American flying public to go on a six-month passenger strike. The situation would be resolved very quickly. In large part, the American public is responsible to the abuses at the airports simply because they put up with it.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Thank you for writing the article ‘Cancer-Causing Airport Scanners? Enough Is Enough’. I hope you have a very large audience. This is info everyone needs to know.
You ask the question “What will it take for Americans to finally say enough is enough?” But how can Americans say enough is enough?
I have written to my Congressmen. I avoid airports. What else can an Americans do when the TSA has the power to intimidate, harass and arrest anyone with objections? Jesse Ventura has tried to take them to court, and failed. I have participated in local antiwar demonstrations that don’t get reported in the news. The Occupy Wall Street people are not getting any respect. What do you suggest.
Please write an article telling us all what can be done. A lot of people are saying ‘do something’. Do what!.
Mr. Whitehead,
Thank you for your piece on these dangerous devices. I agree with all you have written regarding how the American Public has lost many fundamental rights in the name of security against terrorism. As a retired airline captain I witnessed the theatrical charade of screening both pre and post 9-11. Now the process includes the potential for serious harm to the person because of dangerous X-ray dosage. You are correct that the TSA intends to use humiliation and intimidation to control individuals who don't wish to adhere to their chosen protocol. I was recently rudely shouted at by a TSA agent at a body scanner because my hands touched each other over my head. To be treated without respect is the norm. They may think we will not notice or care about these several indignities but there will come a day when we will collectively say "ENOUGH!"
You conspicuously forgot to mention the cocksucker who made bank off of this scanner bullshit.
ps. he looks like he just crawled out of the pits of hell and is a dual national.
Get off your ass and make an effort once in awhile.
Hi John
Yes backscatter X-ray such as AS&E and Rapiscan make to screen people, create an image from ionising X-ray however the dose levels per inspection are around the same as a dental X-ray, are we going to ban those ? what about CT scans ?
The typical dose rate from a double pose Backscatter X-ray unit is way less than what air crew and passengers are exposed to on one flight for 3 hours at over 30,000 feet, check that out ?
Other forms of people screening by L3 and Smiths Detection are MMW based so non-ionising ! Do some real research, MMW technology is no more dangerous than standing under a light bulb ! Sitting in front of a TV is exposing people to more of a dose ! Look at the radio spectrum and figure it out ?
Let’s deal with evidence. Show us all some credible and peer reviewed clinical evidence that confirms being examined by an airport security scanner has caused a confirmed case of cancer in anyone, we in the real world are still waiting for that – nothing how many years have we been waiting ? The high voltage power cable we all drive under next too or sit under in some public transport options are more of a potential health problem, look at that ?
Exposure to various forms of radiation is part of living on Earth – even when buried you can’t get away from it !
Do some work about aircrew and passenger exposure to ionising radiation when flying regular long haul flights at over 30,000 feet, a three hour flight is equal to being put through a baggage inspection machine – please do your research before pushing a barrow !
Getting out of bed each day can result in breaking an ankle – it’s all about mitigating risk and I don’t know about you, I’ve rather be subject to airport security “even when it’s in the US” than have the aircraft I and my loved ones are on blown out of the sky by mad people !
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Occupy America and Friendly Fascism: Life in the Corporate Police State
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Dear Mr. Rutherford
I'm a recent subscriber to your email list, and although I am not in 100% agreement with you on everything, I am impressed that there are “conservatives” out there who remember what the term is supposed to mean.
I do wish to take issue with one statement in today’s (31/10/11) email, however. You state that
“… what the Occupy movement's "We are the 99%" motto fails to recognize is that the problems we face have to do with much more than economic inequality between the haves and the have nots. Similarly, the Tea Party, which started off with similar zeal, failed to recognize that the problem was not merely Big Government but, rather, the merger of Big Government with Big Business.” http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=738
Whilst I agree that the slogan itself creates this impression, it is by no means true of the OWS’s core activists. I have followed this process closely since day one, and I can tell you that the core demand of the OWS is to break up the corporate state you describe so well. The “99% vs. 1%” slogan is intended to appeal to the folks out there, like the Tea Partiers, who really don’t understand how the interpenetration of Big Money and Big State has brought us to this pass. But I can assure you, there is a very keen recognition within OWS that no single demand will make a difference, because the only demand that matters is that the way decisions are made in this country needs to change.
I encourage you to read some of the links below to see for yourself that consciousness that the Corporate State is the #1 problem is well-developed in the OWS.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/david-graeber-on-playing-by-the-rules-%E2%80%93-the-strange-success-of-occupy-wall-street.html
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/first_official_statement_from_the_occupy_wall_street_movement/
http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009
sincerely,
Ted
John Whitehead,
It sounds like we need to quit asking government to provide food, clothing, housing, good jobs, and anything else except national security and then take upon ourselves all of the things we ought be providing ourselves. If we want even one thing beyond the most bare minimum from the government, it will cost the government money. And that's where the government gets its power: in the name of saving money to do the most good, it can control every aspect of every life. Only when what we want doesn't require government money, when government is not at all in the business of any kind of charity whatsoever, will we escape its grip.
However, the message I hear from others is two fold: why is the government wasting money when it could be helping the poor AND government is controlling us too much. It doesn't make any sense to me that government would be criticized for spending billions on a war except in the context that it robs the people of their personal resources they would otherwise have to take on poverty and health care on their own. Instead, however, the very criticisms of government spending on wars or bail outs are not aimed to get the government out of charity but to actually just redirect itself more to hand outs than war clubs. But this misses the point.
I don't know that I even get from your writing the clarity that government has no business being the individual, acting moral on our behalf. I think the message is that we the people need to take on all the stuff ourselves, and do so privately. And for those who say, "yes, but government is more predictable and can ensure everything equally for all", we have to come back to "only by controlling everything for all". Why do I not hear this message coming clearly from your writings. I've only heard the misdirection of spending, and about American complacency. Where is the clarion call regarding America's relying on themselves, and how the only way to get government out of our lives is to quit relying on and asking them for "stuff", no matter how good it is.
I see no other alternative than that as long as people want their benefits, then the mob, the masses, will attempt to support government efforts to "make em", to force corporations to behave in such a way as to provide what people want, whether it be taxing the rich, penalizing overweight people, you name it. It is our own greed that is killing us.
To make matters worse, in our arrogance, we talk only of our own nation's health care and what ought to be basic rights. However, you hear no one saying, "We are taking the whole boat up, everyone in the world up, at the same time." No, we want rich benefits because we're arrogantly America's and deserve it and them rich people owe us. However, to the rest of the third world, we are the rich and if the rich owe the poor, where are the mirrors we should be seeing ourselves in as someone else's rich.
Mainly, where is the message that we need to immediately stop trying to get social security, education, grants, and everything else from government and do it ourselves at the most local level. You need some things done by government, but not by coercion. People are just not content. Sometimes, it is the do-gooders that do the most dictatorial thing. The "make-em" mentally is hard to bear any longer. If it is the fact that the government, in the interest of efficiency with resources, has the moral imperfection to reduce costs and thus control everything, that is causing our problems.
When will we wake up to our own greed and say We the People are the problem. Just like a store whose prices we don't like, or like high-paid athletes or entertainers: when you don't want them to be paid that, quit feeding the systems that create those pay scales. Quit asking the government for anything, take care of all social issues privately. To do otherwise gives the government fiat power to control everything in the name of money otherwise. Efficiency and promised benefits, therefore, becomes the Trojan Horse of Plenty offered to all the masses, whereby we invite more "make-em" style dictating to "others" not realizing it is actually and always "us".
Bill
while your commentary talks about a police state, which would normally mean a highly centralized state, what is disturbing in these actions is the actions describe are done by local law enforcement and it is now common for policemen to refer to fellow citizens as civilians.
John Whitehead, you are way off base on this subject. The OWS are anarchists without any solutions to the capitalism system that is sorely in need of repair.
The socialist ideas, where in GOVERNMENT is in control and has the right answers for all the people, is wrong. It can only lead to tyranny, without the benefits
we now enjoy. No one has yet has suggested;, buy one share of corporate stock, go to stockholders meeting and ask for a "better dividend", controls on executive pay, when profits arise from foreign manufacture, then restrict executive pay to the foreign pay scales.
you write about the most interesting stuff. as a community development specialist, i have been addressing, researching, analyzing components ot education, employment, housing, healthcare services within framework of economic sustainability in these federated republican states of this us of a.
i support the democratic peoples' efforts to control more greatly the intergovernmental process over which they exercise the popular vote.
not surprisingly, i consider the registered voter the benchmark of this process, without which input none of the occupying forces currently sitting as representatives can claim no right to exist.
i think the time for evolving our democracy beyond supporting the oligarchy, plutocracy that has become the working government/business agenda and evidenced to be in effect since the nation itself was formed predating the disaster of the great depression and subsequent contrivances by these two entities to 'get the money'.
as one who supports participatory democracy, i advocate that all elective, appointive, political civil service positions on all levels of government-local/regional/state/federal-keeping the salaries in place be filled with registered voters whose names are selected at random to serve two year terms, non-recurrent, non-concurrent in all such government positions.
i believe its time to occupy government for its own good and ours.
Mr. Whitehead,
I couldn't agree more that the melding of of government and corporations into an increasingly fascist state is not only dangerous, but unchecked will surely be the end of America.
Yet, the particular #Occupy protests of which you are speaking, I can hardly see as "encouraging'. When one considers the backers, supporter, financiers of this so-called "movement", it is highly suspect. When one considers the apparent motivations of greed, of slackards, of those who want to blame someone else and assume no personal reponsibility, who want both 'freedom' and for 'stuff to be free for all', it's hard to see much to truly like and support. And it would seem to me that much of their anger and directed frustrations, resentments, and protest is aimed at the wrong targets.
The cronyism of Obama and Wall Street, the bail-outs, the favoritism, the marriage of the high rolling financial world with the administration and with many in Congress is where the rage needs to be directed. Really, Wall Street and business does what business does. The problem is what our elected representatives are doing with them and giving to them. That, to me, is what needs "occupying".
Mr. Whitehead, I like your "contrarian" columns. But please do not romanticize "Occupy America" It at times is showing itself to be a bunch of thugs, disrespectful of neutral laws, democracy and good order. When it shuts down a port, it keeps many of the 99% from earning their daily bread. Such conduct deserves firm response that is not necessarily "fascist."
Tuesday night local activists shut down the City Council meeting in Long Beach, CA—the democratically elected local body—by using 1960's-style anachronistic, disruptive, threatening language and actions. This group claims to use "civil disobedience" in order to break city ordinances preventing all-night camping in local parks—rules that apply to everyone and serve public health and good order. Thus, they show ignorance of classic civil disobedience. What "unjust laws" are they breaking that deny natural rights to some while showing favoritism to others?
When they block legal freedom of movement they are a form of kidnappers. When they prevent legitimate earning, they are robbers. When they stop democratic, civil discourse they are storm troopers.
Dear Mr. Rutherford
I'm a recent subscriber to your email list, and although I am not in 100% agreement with you on everything, I am impressed that there are “conservatives” out there who remember what the term is supposed to mean.
I do wish to take issue with one statement in today’s (31/10/11) email, however. You state that
“… what the Occupy movement's "We are the 99%" motto fails to recognize is that the problems we face have to do with much more than economic inequality between the haves and the have nots. Similarly, the Tea Party, which started off with similar zeal, failed to recognize that the problem was not merely Big Government but, rather, the merger of Big Government with Big Business.” http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=738
Whilst I agree that the slogan itself creates this impression, it is by no means true of the OWS’s core activists. I have followed this process closely since day one, and I can tell you that the core demand of the OWS is to break up the corporate state you describe so well. The “99% vs. 1%” slogan is intended to appeal to the folks out there, like the Tea Partiers, who really don’t understand how the interpenetration of Big Money and Big State has brought us to this pass. But I can assure you, there is a very keen recognition within OWS that no single demand will make a difference, because the only demand that matters is that the way decisions are made in this country needs to change.
I encourage you to read some of the links below to see for yourself that consciousness that the Corporate State is the #1 problem is well-developed in the OWS.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/david-graeber-on-playing-by-the-rules-%E2%80%93-the-strange-success-of-occupy-wall-street.html
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/first_official_statement_from_the_occupy_wall_street_movement/
http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009
sincerely,
Ted
John Whitehead,
It sounds like we need to quit asking government to provide food, clothing, housing, good jobs, and anything else except national security and then take upon ourselves all of the things we ought be providing ourselves. If we want even one thing beyond the most bare minimum from the government, it will cost the government money. And that's where the government gets its power: in the name of saving money to do the most good, it can control every aspect of every life. Only when what we want doesn't require government money, when government is not at all in the business of any kind of charity whatsoever, will we escape its grip.
However, the message I hear from others is two fold: why is the government wasting money when it could be helping the poor AND government is controlling us too much. It doesn't make any sense to me that government would be criticized for spending billions on a war except in the context that it robs the people of their personal resources they would otherwise have to take on poverty and health care on their own. Instead, however, the very criticisms of government spending on wars or bail outs are not aimed to get the government out of charity but to actually just redirect itself more to hand outs than war clubs. But this misses the point.
I don't know that I even get from your writing the clarity that government has no business being the individual, acting moral on our behalf. I think the message is that we the people need to take on all the stuff ourselves, and do so privately. And for those who say, "yes, but government is more predictable and can ensure everything equally for all", we have to come back to "only by controlling everything for all". Why do I not hear this message coming clearly from your writings. I've only heard the misdirection of spending, and about American complacency. Where is the clarion call regarding America's relying on themselves, and how the only way to get government out of our lives is to quit relying on and asking them for "stuff", no matter how good it is.
I see no other alternative than that as long as people want their benefits, then the mob, the masses, will attempt to support government efforts to "make em", to force corporations to behave in such a way as to provide what people want, whether it be taxing the rich, penalizing overweight people, you name it. It is our own greed that is killing us.
To make matters worse, in our arrogance, we talk only of our own nation's health care and what ought to be basic rights. However, you hear no one saying, "We are taking the whole boat up, everyone in the world up, at the same time." No, we want rich benefits because we're arrogantly America's and deserve it and them rich people owe us. However, to the rest of the third world, we are the rich and if the rich owe the poor, where are the mirrors we should be seeing ourselves in as someone else's rich.
Mainly, where is the message that we need to immediately stop trying to get social security, education, grants, and everything else from government and do it ourselves at the most local level. You need some things done by government, but not by coercion. People are just not content. Sometimes, it is the do-gooders that do the most dictatorial thing. The "make-em" mentally is hard to bear any longer. If it is the fact that the government, in the interest of efficiency with resources, has the moral imperfection to reduce costs and thus control everything, that is causing our problems.
When will we wake up to our own greed and say We the People are the problem. Just like a store whose prices we don't like, or like high-paid athletes or entertainers: when you don't want them to be paid that, quit feeding the systems that create those pay scales. Quit asking the government for anything, take care of all social issues privately. To do otherwise gives the government fiat power to control everything in the name of money otherwise. Efficiency and promised benefits, therefore, becomes the Trojan Horse of Plenty offered to all the masses, whereby we invite more "make-em" style dictating to "others" not realizing it is actually and always "us".
Bill
while your commentary talks about a police state, which would normally mean a highly centralized state, what is disturbing in these actions is the actions describe are done by local law enforcement and it is now common for policemen to refer to fellow citizens as civilians.
John Whitehead, you are way off base on this subject. The OWS are anarchists without any solutions to the capitalism system that is sorely in need of repair.
The socialist ideas, where in GOVERNMENT is in control and has the right answers for all the people, is wrong. It can only lead to tyranny, without the benefits
we now enjoy. No one has yet has suggested;, buy one share of corporate stock, go to stockholders meeting and ask for a "better dividend", controls on executive pay, when profits arise from foreign manufacture, then restrict executive pay to the foreign pay scales.
you write about the most interesting stuff. as a community development specialist, i have been addressing, researching, analyzing components ot education, employment, housing, healthcare services within framework of economic sustainability in these federated republican states of this us of a.
i support the democratic peoples' efforts to control more greatly the intergovernmental process over which they exercise the popular vote.
not surprisingly, i consider the registered voter the benchmark of this process, without which input none of the occupying forces currently sitting as representatives can claim no right to exist.
i think the time for evolving our democracy beyond supporting the oligarchy, plutocracy that has become the working government/business agenda and evidenced to be in effect since the nation itself was formed predating the disaster of the great depression and subsequent contrivances by these two entities to 'get the money'.
as one who supports participatory democracy, i advocate that all elective, appointive, political civil service positions on all levels of government-local/regional/state/federal-keeping the salaries in place be filled with registered voters whose names are selected at random to serve two year terms, non-recurrent, non-concurrent in all such government positions.
i believe its time to occupy government for its own good and ours.
Mr. Whitehead,
I couldn't agree more that the melding of of government and corporations into an increasingly fascist state is not only dangerous, but unchecked will surely be the end of America.
Yet, the particular #Occupy protests of which you are speaking, I can hardly see as "encouraging'. When one considers the backers, supporter, financiers of this so-called "movement", it is highly suspect. When one considers the apparent motivations of greed, of slackards, of those who want to blame someone else and assume no personal reponsibility, who want both 'freedom' and for 'stuff to be free for all', it's hard to see much to truly like and support. And it would seem to me that much of their anger and directed frustrations, resentments, and protest is aimed at the wrong targets.
The cronyism of Obama and Wall Street, the bail-outs, the favoritism, the marriage of the high rolling financial world with the administration and with many in Congress is where the rage needs to be directed. Really, Wall Street and business does what business does. The problem is what our elected representatives are doing with them and giving to them. That, to me, is what needs "occupying".
Mr. Whitehead, I like your "contrarian" columns. But please do not romanticize "Occupy America" It at times is showing itself to be a bunch of thugs, disrespectful of neutral laws, democracy and good order. When it shuts down a port, it keeps many of the 99% from earning their daily bread. Such conduct deserves firm response that is not necessarily "fascist."
Tuesday night local activists shut down the City Council meeting in Long Beach, CA—the democratically elected local body—by using 1960's-style anachronistic, disruptive, threatening language and actions. This group claims to use "civil disobedience" in order to break city ordinances preventing all-night camping in local parks—rules that apply to everyone and serve public health and good order. Thus, they show ignorance of classic civil disobedience. What "unjust laws" are they breaking that deny natural rights to some while showing favoritism to others?
When they block legal freedom of movement they are a form of kidnappers. When they prevent legitimate earning, they are robbers. When they stop democratic, civil discourse they are storm troopers.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Vampire: A Historic and Cinematic View
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Is the vampire the FED(and by extension an all too powerful central govt) Is that the power he wields because no one believes the myth as its to far fetched and just a conspiracy theory(the central bank and those that run it)??
Is the vampire the FED(and by extension an all too powerful central govt) Is that the power he wields because no one believes the myth as its to far fetched and just a conspiracy theory(the central bank and those that run it)??
Monday, October 24, 2011
Rutherford Institute Calls on Iranian Ambassador to Intervene in Execution of Christian Pastor in Iran
Click Here to Read the Press Release
Allah is a different God. He is God of HATE and imposes his will of control by the Imams. He promises heavenly rewards to those that die by conflict with his enemies. It is the antithesis of the philosophy of the Jewish Rabbi. Jesus of Nazareth. It should not included with those religions that provide freedom of thought. It is a tyranny of body and spirit
Allah is a different God. He is God of HATE and imposes his will of control by the Imams. He promises heavenly rewards to those that die by conflict with his enemies. It is the antithesis of the philosophy of the Jewish Rabbi. Jesus of Nazareth. It should not included with those religions that provide freedom of thought. It is a tyranny of body and spirit
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
District Court Judge Finds Guilty Virginia Man Subjected to Helicopter Surveillance, Unwarranted SWAT-Team Raid of His 39-Acre Property
Click Here to Read the Press Release
So what is the next plan of action?
I guess all of us could be set up with a few dropped seeds on our farms if
we can be charged and ‘they’ acknowledge that we don’t even have to know the
plants are there! Unbelievable.
Chef Nancy
That's horse crap. Good luck on all our behalfs.
So what is the next plan of action?
I guess all of us could be set up with a few dropped seeds on our farms if
we can be charged and ‘they’ acknowledge that we don’t even have to know the
plants are there! Unbelievable.
Chef Nancy
That's horse crap. Good luck on all our behalfs.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The War on Drugs Has Become the War on the American People
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Sir -
You simply don’t understand (tongue firmly in cheek): we are all children needing guidance by our superiors, our betters. After all, how could we live without them?
Take a look at what our superiors, our betters, have done to this nation. Aren’t things much better in the last 40+ years than at any time before in our history?
We need them to continue “leading” us down the road to “utopia” since we are incapable clods and unable to fend for, or take care of, ourselves. Without them, we face an existential threat.
We should be thankful that, in the end, it is Hamilton’s wishes of a strong central govt with a king that have triumphed over Jeffersonian individualism.
Kirk
I read your article on the Internet. Your comments were very appropriate, and your conclusions are correct. While drug addiction is a major problem in the USA, the more serious, or just as serious problem is giving the establishment an excuse for entering a house under this pretext. This extends to the family in general where the state comes between children, and their parents for various trumped-up reasons. The America I, and we grew up in has completely vanished since about 9-11.
The war on drugs has always been a war on Americans. How can we get
politicians to talk about legalizing marijuana? The conventional wisdom
is that being hard on crime gets votes. How do we reverse the world wide
anti-marijuana bias? We have only begun to see any discussion as medical
marijuana is considered and adopted.
Even people who used marijuana when they were young (Obama) are reluctant
to support changes in drug policy because of concern for kids. The
reality is that kids can get marijuana as easily as they can get
prescription drugs from the medicine cabinet at home. I'm pretty sure
that prescription drugs do far more harm than marijuana.
There is zero discussion of the relative advantages of legalization. No
one mentions the fact that marijuana has never caused anyone to die. Your
own article points out deaths from marijuana raids. Drug users are the
new closeted class (used to be gay people). You can't advocate for
legalization due to the risk of job loss or incarceration.
We live in a society where enforcement is the preferred over harm
reduction. This runs all the way from foreign policy to drug testing at
work. We need less police and military and more social workers and
treatment programs. People need help not enforcement.
Drug users and the legal trade of drugs don't do as much harm as
prohibition does. A rational comparison with the affects of alcohol shows
that "drugs" are less harmful.
When I was 20 I thought marijuana would become legal. I still think it
will but probably not in my lifetime (I'm 63). American think they live
in a free society, well, not really.
Thanks,
mark
This truly is a war on some people who use some drugs. In Canada we have a conservative government determiuned to implement the worst of your drug policies
The problem lies in the fact that the Government is trying to use a neutral Healthcare Act to shoehorn its prohibitionist policies on to the public based on a moral attitude towards some drugs. They have neglected to put before the parliament the most dangerous drugs: Alcohol and Tobacco. This would not mean prohibition as the minister is able to make any and all exemptions for any and all classes of users. There is actually no such thing in law as "illegal and legal" drugs. Drugs are inanimate objects and have no agency before the law. These are propaganda tools which have worked their way into even Supreme court decisions. (See my comments to Neil Boyd's article Klaus Kaczor) They end up serving the oppressors by conflating the user with an illegal object and thereby denying them the same rights under common law as the users of the more dangerous drugs alcohol and tobacco. The Minister has no right not to give full effect to the CDSA by not putting these two dangerous to the public substances before parliament (there are no exemptions for historical, cultural or hard to do political reasons), actually it is their duty to do so. By conflating all use of these substances to misuse the peaceful responsible users of these substances are denied their basic equality before the law with users of A&T the producers of which enjoy a virtual monopoly.This is exactly the same as the Jim Crow laws in the 50's. This is not a war against drugs it is a war against "some people." I will be going to court to challenge this law, on not charter, but common law disparity of treatment issue. We are the same class of people. Please feel free to follow my blog "Off the Bell Curve"
Thanks again for your rational piece of journalism
Klaus
John,
Just read your piece in the FFF.
Working as a lobbyist in DC the past six years, IMHO the Republicans will zero out the Medicare, Medicaid and SS budget before they give up on 11 aircraft carriers, 2500 new F-35 and 1.6 million soldiers.
Reason? Usa is Gods chosen country and must lead the world.
Howard
The War on Drugs/Drug Prohibition has been the most destructive, most dysfunctional and immoral policy since slavery and Jim Crow.
John,
I believe that the main impetus for outlawing hemp came not from the cotton industry but the paper industry dominated by Hearst who had purchased extensive timber holdings in the pacific north west and saw that a new technique to harvest hemp and turn it into paper without the use of dioxins would put a major dent in his profits. Also DuPont saw that fuel from hemp would eliminate the need for their lead fuel additives.
It would be nice if we made fuel from hemp rather than corn. It would not drive the price of food stock up so much.
A great thing about hemp is that it will grow practically anywhere, doesn't need fertilizer and is pest resistant.
John.
Sir:
Many law enforcement officers have crossed the line and have become public menaces. If a citizens committee decided to take some unilateral action, SWAT teams would become a thing of the past.
Charles
Mr. Rutherford,
I believe that the number of people in prison for drug offenses is much higher. If a person breaks into a house or business and gets caught in the act of stealing property, would this be considered a drug violation? I’m not sure. The problem still remains that each drug offender, crack, heroin etc., is physically addicted. When he serves his time he is released. What do you think he is going to do as soon as he gets out? How long will it take to figure this all out? Great article and thanks for fighting the good fight.
Kelly
Thanks for shedding more light on this egregious behavior.
The significant point is that US citizens do this to other fellow citizens. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t right to do it to the Iraqi’s, … this list is long I expect the SWATs are mostly the same military trained, mentally deranged, that some groups worship as our freedom saviors. Behavior morons watch on TV as entertainment.
I have lived an adult life of chronic, at times debilitating pain – unnecessarily. My doctor and insurance were a Big Pharma and I paid.
Strive to thrive,
Tom
Great article and right on. I am a retired police officer and former SWAT operator for a police department in south Florida. I have seen this kind of tragedy up close and personal. I have since become a member of LEAPS, Law enforcement against prohibition. The war on drugs is a war on private property, American citizens, and it offends the US Constitution. It should be immediately terminated. Drug addiction and use is a health and social problem. It should be managed as such and not a criminal matter. No one should ever go to jail for marijuana. This is just a way for government to seize property, generate revenue and to control non-criminal behavior of the populace.
Sir -
You simply don’t understand (tongue firmly in cheek): we are all children needing guidance by our superiors, our betters. After all, how could we live without them?
Take a look at what our superiors, our betters, have done to this nation. Aren’t things much better in the last 40+ years than at any time before in our history?
We need them to continue “leading” us down the road to “utopia” since we are incapable clods and unable to fend for, or take care of, ourselves. Without them, we face an existential threat.
We should be thankful that, in the end, it is Hamilton’s wishes of a strong central govt with a king that have triumphed over Jeffersonian individualism.
Kirk
I read your article on the Internet. Your comments were very appropriate, and your conclusions are correct. While drug addiction is a major problem in the USA, the more serious, or just as serious problem is giving the establishment an excuse for entering a house under this pretext. This extends to the family in general where the state comes between children, and their parents for various trumped-up reasons. The America I, and we grew up in has completely vanished since about 9-11.
The war on drugs has always been a war on Americans. How can we get
politicians to talk about legalizing marijuana? The conventional wisdom
is that being hard on crime gets votes. How do we reverse the world wide
anti-marijuana bias? We have only begun to see any discussion as medical
marijuana is considered and adopted.
Even people who used marijuana when they were young (Obama) are reluctant
to support changes in drug policy because of concern for kids. The
reality is that kids can get marijuana as easily as they can get
prescription drugs from the medicine cabinet at home. I'm pretty sure
that prescription drugs do far more harm than marijuana.
There is zero discussion of the relative advantages of legalization. No
one mentions the fact that marijuana has never caused anyone to die. Your
own article points out deaths from marijuana raids. Drug users are the
new closeted class (used to be gay people). You can't advocate for
legalization due to the risk of job loss or incarceration.
We live in a society where enforcement is the preferred over harm
reduction. This runs all the way from foreign policy to drug testing at
work. We need less police and military and more social workers and
treatment programs. People need help not enforcement.
Drug users and the legal trade of drugs don't do as much harm as
prohibition does. A rational comparison with the affects of alcohol shows
that "drugs" are less harmful.
When I was 20 I thought marijuana would become legal. I still think it
will but probably not in my lifetime (I'm 63). American think they live
in a free society, well, not really.
Thanks,
mark
This truly is a war on some people who use some drugs. In Canada we have a conservative government determiuned to implement the worst of your drug policies
The problem lies in the fact that the Government is trying to use a neutral Healthcare Act to shoehorn its prohibitionist policies on to the public based on a moral attitude towards some drugs. They have neglected to put before the parliament the most dangerous drugs: Alcohol and Tobacco. This would not mean prohibition as the minister is able to make any and all exemptions for any and all classes of users. There is actually no such thing in law as "illegal and legal" drugs. Drugs are inanimate objects and have no agency before the law. These are propaganda tools which have worked their way into even Supreme court decisions. (See my comments to Neil Boyd's article Klaus Kaczor) They end up serving the oppressors by conflating the user with an illegal object and thereby denying them the same rights under common law as the users of the more dangerous drugs alcohol and tobacco. The Minister has no right not to give full effect to the CDSA by not putting these two dangerous to the public substances before parliament (there are no exemptions for historical, cultural or hard to do political reasons), actually it is their duty to do so. By conflating all use of these substances to misuse the peaceful responsible users of these substances are denied their basic equality before the law with users of A&T the producers of which enjoy a virtual monopoly.This is exactly the same as the Jim Crow laws in the 50's. This is not a war against drugs it is a war against "some people." I will be going to court to challenge this law, on not charter, but common law disparity of treatment issue. We are the same class of people. Please feel free to follow my blog "Off the Bell Curve"
Thanks again for your rational piece of journalism
Klaus
John,
Just read your piece in the FFF.
Working as a lobbyist in DC the past six years, IMHO the Republicans will zero out the Medicare, Medicaid and SS budget before they give up on 11 aircraft carriers, 2500 new F-35 and 1.6 million soldiers.
Reason? Usa is Gods chosen country and must lead the world.
Howard
The War on Drugs/Drug Prohibition has been the most destructive, most dysfunctional and immoral policy since slavery and Jim Crow.
John,
I believe that the main impetus for outlawing hemp came not from the cotton industry but the paper industry dominated by Hearst who had purchased extensive timber holdings in the pacific north west and saw that a new technique to harvest hemp and turn it into paper without the use of dioxins would put a major dent in his profits. Also DuPont saw that fuel from hemp would eliminate the need for their lead fuel additives.
It would be nice if we made fuel from hemp rather than corn. It would not drive the price of food stock up so much.
A great thing about hemp is that it will grow practically anywhere, doesn't need fertilizer and is pest resistant.
John.
Sir:
Many law enforcement officers have crossed the line and have become public menaces. If a citizens committee decided to take some unilateral action, SWAT teams would become a thing of the past.
Charles
Mr. Rutherford,
I believe that the number of people in prison for drug offenses is much higher. If a person breaks into a house or business and gets caught in the act of stealing property, would this be considered a drug violation? I’m not sure. The problem still remains that each drug offender, crack, heroin etc., is physically addicted. When he serves his time he is released. What do you think he is going to do as soon as he gets out? How long will it take to figure this all out? Great article and thanks for fighting the good fight.
Kelly
Thanks for shedding more light on this egregious behavior.
The significant point is that US citizens do this to other fellow citizens. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t right to do it to the Iraqi’s, … this list is long I expect the SWATs are mostly the same military trained, mentally deranged, that some groups worship as our freedom saviors. Behavior morons watch on TV as entertainment.
I have lived an adult life of chronic, at times debilitating pain – unnecessarily. My doctor and insurance were a Big Pharma and I paid.
Strive to thrive,
Tom
Great article and right on. I am a retired police officer and former SWAT operator for a police department in south Florida. I have seen this kind of tragedy up close and personal. I have since become a member of LEAPS, Law enforcement against prohibition. The war on drugs is a war on private property, American citizens, and it offends the US Constitution. It should be immediately terminated. Drug addiction and use is a health and social problem. It should be managed as such and not a criminal matter. No one should ever go to jail for marijuana. This is just a way for government to seize property, generate revenue and to control non-criminal behavior of the populace.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Rutherford Institute Appeals Airline Passenger, Pilot Lawsuit Against DHS & TSA Over Scanners, Virtual Strip Searches & Full-Body ‘Rub-Downs’
Click Here to Read the Press Release
I appreciate your efforts, In Aug. 2011, returning from UK, TSA treated us like criminals at Dulles. Herding, yelling, using bullhorn, dismantling us, etc.
Pat
I appreciate your efforts, In Aug. 2011, returning from UK, TSA treated us like criminals at Dulles. Herding, yelling, using bullhorn, dismantling us, etc.
Pat
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Rutherford Institute Warns Against California Legislation Allowing Minors to Receive STD Treatments Without Parental Consent
Click Here to Read the Press Release
Hello John. Here's the nanny state update along with the definition of the
vaccine Gardasil.
California is using the schools to implement their insane 12 year old agenda
with no parental consent. Will they be offering the nanno RFID chip
particles
along with the shot next? Governor Brown has now crossed over the
threshold into
the world of Dr. jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Only a court order can now stop it.
I decided to write you hoping you and your organization could do something.
Thank you for any consideration.
God bless,
Chuck
http://www.infowars.com/jerry-brown-legalizes-12-year-old-children-giving-consent-to-gardasil-vaccine-injections-but-bans-tanning-beds-for-those-under-18/
Gardasil definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil
Hello John. Here's the nanny state update along with the definition of the
vaccine Gardasil.
California is using the schools to implement their insane 12 year old agenda
with no parental consent. Will they be offering the nanno RFID chip
particles
along with the shot next? Governor Brown has now crossed over the
threshold into
the world of Dr. jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Only a court order can now stop it.
I decided to write you hoping you and your organization could do something.
Thank you for any consideration.
God bless,
Chuck
http://www.infowars.com/jerry-brown-legalizes-12-year-old-children-giving-consent-to-gardasil-vaccine-injections-but-bans-tanning-beds-for-those-under-18/
Gardasil definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil
Monday, October 3, 2011
Decrying Threats to Privacy, The Rutherford Institute Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Declare Warrantless GPS Use by Police Unconstitutional
Click Here to Read the Press Release
Thank you very much for this. Critical in our fight to remain dignified citizens in a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty.
Thank you very much for this. Critical in our fight to remain dignified citizens in a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty.
George Harrison: Living in the Material World
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Your columns on civil liberties and abuses of the Constitution are among the best being written these days. This column on George Harrison is perhaps the best I've ever read on the "quiet Beatle." Thank you for all your great work advocating for people whose rights are abused, and for this column.
Wow!! That is beautiful and much appreciated!!!
Thank you, John Whitehead!
Regards,
Jo
…and your point is?
To the best of our knowledge George never did discover spiritual truth. In spite of all his searching and yearning, he sadly walked down the wrong road.
You never make that point.
“He found comfort in spirituality”. But he did not find the truth and it was the truth of the gospel of Christ that would have set him free.
That’s all that matters in the end John.
Dave
Your columns on civil liberties and abuses of the Constitution are among the best being written these days. This column on George Harrison is perhaps the best I've ever read on the "quiet Beatle." Thank you for all your great work advocating for people whose rights are abused, and for this column.
Wow!! That is beautiful and much appreciated!!!
Thank you, John Whitehead!
Regards,
Jo
…and your point is?
To the best of our knowledge George never did discover spiritual truth. In spite of all his searching and yearning, he sadly walked down the wrong road.
You never make that point.
“He found comfort in spirituality”. But he did not find the truth and it was the truth of the gospel of Christ that would have set him free.
That’s all that matters in the end John.
Dave
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Twilight Zone: At the Threshold of the Fifth Dimension
Click Here to Read the Commentary
John—Wonderful commentary on The Twilight Zone… I was 11 years old when it premiered, and I, too, was utterly captivated and fascinated from the beginning.
Regarding your favorite twelve episodes--- my personal favorite, (not on your list,) was “The Lonely”. Now there was an episode that really spoke to alienation and the need to reach out for human companionship…
Cheers~ Patrick
Mr. Whitehead:
Very well said, sir. My only complaint – and it isn’t really a complaint because favorite episodes are subjective – is that you did not mention “Deaths-Head Revisited,” which was a truly chilling episode, not only because of what happened to Oscar Beregi’s “Captain Lutze” at the end, but because there actually was a Dachau concentration camp.
After the inhabitants, the ghosts, of Dachau, led by Becker (Joseph Schildkraut), stage the trial of Lutze, sentencing him to become insane, which we see happening, Becker tells Lutze, writhing in pain on the ground, that his final judgment will come from God.
As the doctor who later arrived on the scene looks around and asks, “Dachau ... Why do we keep it standing,” we hear one of Serling’s most impassioned closing narrations of the entire series.
"There is, of course, an answer to the doctor’s question. All the Dachaus must remain standing. The Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwalds, the Auschwitzes—all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the Earth into a graveyard. Into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all, their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its remembrance, then we become the gravediggers. Something to dwell on and to remember, not only in the Twilight Zone, but wherever men walk ... God's Earth."
I’d say it’s undoubtedly one of the finest half-hours of television ever produced. Those you cited definitely have merit (I’m quite partial to “The Obsolete Man” and “The Howling Man” myself), but, in my opinion, “Deaths-Head Revisited” is certainly among the best that the series had to offer. Rod Serling’s brother Robert later opined that the beautiful “Walking Distance,” with Gig Young as a harried ad exec who suddenly finds himself back near Homewood, the town he lived in as a child, as among his best work, wonderfully displaying his nostalgia for his hometown of Binghamton.
But, I won’t try to debate any further – in part because there’s still another 142 episodes left! Ha.
Best regards,
Tom
Mr. Whitehead,
WOW! Really enjoyed your Twilight Zone article "Are we at the threshold of the Fifth Dimension?"
For me...the best show growing up, the show was right up there with Warner Brother's cartoons and Alfred Hitchcock when I was a kid; I'm still a kid at heart. Today's generation is missing so much not watching those episodes every week. As a youngster, not knowing what a genius meant, I knew he was one!
I remember some of my friends talking about Rod Serling when he taught at Ithica, brilliant man!
The episode that really hits home for me was "The Bewitchin Pool." When I was in 1st through 5th grade my parents fought all the time; I would be up stairs in my bed trying to sleep with a wicked knot in my stomach praying that they would stop fighting. Boy-O-Boy do I wish I had a swimming pool where I could go and be with Aunt T!
Wonderful article and thank you for the memories...
Best regards,
Jeff
Can John suggest or offer a place to get and relive these episodes. Does John recall the episode of the man that was horribly deformed and hideously ugly, but was offered the chance to go to another planet to escape Earth. He accepts and travels to the new place. As he disembarks a very beautiful, young lithe woman meets him and is about to board his craft to go back to Earth, obviously an exchange. She looks at him and says "You are so beautiful and I am so ugly. Will they accept me on Earth?" He is speechless.
Yep, 45 years ago and I remember that one like yesterday.
Bob
John—Wonderful commentary on The Twilight Zone… I was 11 years old when it premiered, and I, too, was utterly captivated and fascinated from the beginning.
Regarding your favorite twelve episodes--- my personal favorite, (not on your list,) was “The Lonely”. Now there was an episode that really spoke to alienation and the need to reach out for human companionship…
Cheers~ Patrick
Mr. Whitehead:
Very well said, sir. My only complaint – and it isn’t really a complaint because favorite episodes are subjective – is that you did not mention “Deaths-Head Revisited,” which was a truly chilling episode, not only because of what happened to Oscar Beregi’s “Captain Lutze” at the end, but because there actually was a Dachau concentration camp.
After the inhabitants, the ghosts, of Dachau, led by Becker (Joseph Schildkraut), stage the trial of Lutze, sentencing him to become insane, which we see happening, Becker tells Lutze, writhing in pain on the ground, that his final judgment will come from God.
As the doctor who later arrived on the scene looks around and asks, “Dachau ... Why do we keep it standing,” we hear one of Serling’s most impassioned closing narrations of the entire series.
"There is, of course, an answer to the doctor’s question. All the Dachaus must remain standing. The Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwalds, the Auschwitzes—all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the Earth into a graveyard. Into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all, their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its remembrance, then we become the gravediggers. Something to dwell on and to remember, not only in the Twilight Zone, but wherever men walk ... God's Earth."
I’d say it’s undoubtedly one of the finest half-hours of television ever produced. Those you cited definitely have merit (I’m quite partial to “The Obsolete Man” and “The Howling Man” myself), but, in my opinion, “Deaths-Head Revisited” is certainly among the best that the series had to offer. Rod Serling’s brother Robert later opined that the beautiful “Walking Distance,” with Gig Young as a harried ad exec who suddenly finds himself back near Homewood, the town he lived in as a child, as among his best work, wonderfully displaying his nostalgia for his hometown of Binghamton.
But, I won’t try to debate any further – in part because there’s still another 142 episodes left! Ha.
Best regards,
Tom
Mr. Whitehead,
WOW! Really enjoyed your Twilight Zone article "Are we at the threshold of the Fifth Dimension?"
For me...the best show growing up, the show was right up there with Warner Brother's cartoons and Alfred Hitchcock when I was a kid; I'm still a kid at heart. Today's generation is missing so much not watching those episodes every week. As a youngster, not knowing what a genius meant, I knew he was one!
I remember some of my friends talking about Rod Serling when he taught at Ithica, brilliant man!
The episode that really hits home for me was "The Bewitchin Pool." When I was in 1st through 5th grade my parents fought all the time; I would be up stairs in my bed trying to sleep with a wicked knot in my stomach praying that they would stop fighting. Boy-O-Boy do I wish I had a swimming pool where I could go and be with Aunt T!
Wonderful article and thank you for the memories...
Best regards,
Jeff
Can John suggest or offer a place to get and relive these episodes. Does John recall the episode of the man that was horribly deformed and hideously ugly, but was offered the chance to go to another planet to escape Earth. He accepts and travels to the new place. As he disembarks a very beautiful, young lithe woman meets him and is about to board his craft to go back to Earth, obviously an exchange. She looks at him and says "You are so beautiful and I am so ugly. Will they accept me on Earth?" He is speechless.
Yep, 45 years ago and I remember that one like yesterday.
Bob
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Citing Free Speech, Rutherford Institute Appeals Case of State Worker Found Guilty Under NJ Hate Crime Law for Joking with Black Co-Worker
Click Here to Read the Press Release
I am SO grateful you are taking on precisely a case like this. Being charged for a crime based on anything other than objective criteria is wrong. I loathe pranks (because it is very disrespectful and selfish) but I also think that you aren't a criminal based on subjective feelings. Thank you. I really look forward to hearing how this case results. Your the first person I've heard about that is taking on a case like this. I don't hear about much but still, this is welcome, welcome news.
Bill
I am SO grateful you are taking on precisely a case like this. Being charged for a crime based on anything other than objective criteria is wrong. I loathe pranks (because it is very disrespectful and selfish) but I also think that you aren't a criminal based on subjective feelings. Thank you. I really look forward to hearing how this case results. Your the first person I've heard about that is taking on a case like this. I don't hear about much but still, this is welcome, welcome news.
Bill
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Identity Ecosystem: Big Brother Logs On
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Guys:
This is one of these days I like the Rutherford Institute. As you might
guess, I happen to agree with this position. Virtually all administrations
are guilty of trying to invade personal liberties. It just so happens that
this particular one wants to add to the "Nanny State" adding "Big Brother's"
influence whilst the last one justified invasion on "national defense"
grounds. Yet, where the ACLU was vociferous during the Bush years, they are
tepid lap dogs to this Administration. They are a left leaning politically
driven entity without real regard for the Constitutional rights "they
trumpet" they seek to protect.
Regardless of parties, Presidents and movements, once we give an "inch" of
our personal liberties they will be forever gone in the precedents and
ratio decidendi of civil rights decisions. The Rutherford Institute
consistently seeks to vindicate rights without regard to proponents of encroachment.
Guys:
This is one of these days I like the Rutherford Institute. As you might
guess, I happen to agree with this position. Virtually all administrations
are guilty of trying to invade personal liberties. It just so happens that
this particular one wants to add to the "Nanny State" adding "Big Brother's"
influence whilst the last one justified invasion on "national defense"
grounds. Yet, where the ACLU was vociferous during the Bush years, they are
tepid lap dogs to this Administration. They are a left leaning politically
driven entity without real regard for the Constitutional rights "they
trumpet" they seek to protect.
Regardless of parties, Presidents and movements, once we give an "inch" of
our personal liberties they will be forever gone in the precedents and
ratio decidendi of civil rights decisions. The Rutherford Institute
consistently seeks to vindicate rights without regard to proponents of encroachment.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Rutherford Institute Challenges Biometric Photo Requirement for Oklahoma Drivers’ Licenses, Demands Religious Accommodation
Click Here to Read the Press Release
The United Nation's International Civil Aviation Organization, that handles driver's licences, may be the Last and 8th head of the beast. Beginning with the fist world ruler to the last: Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Medo Persia, Greece, Rome, Britain (the sun never set on the British empire), The League of Nations [that was wounded in it's authority or head], has come back after the head wound as the U.N. and the whole world wonders after it. You have a case for the Beast as well as the mark of the Beast. I hope this helps you.
The United Nation's International Civil Aviation Organization, that handles driver's licences, may be the Last and 8th head of the beast. Beginning with the fist world ruler to the last: Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Medo Persia, Greece, Rome, Britain (the sun never set on the British empire), The League of Nations [that was wounded in it's authority or head], has come back after the head wound as the U.N. and the whole world wonders after it. You have a case for the Beast as well as the mark of the Beast. I hope this helps you.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Zero Tolerance: Appeal Filed Over Suspension of High School Lacrosse Players Charged with Possession of Deadly Weapons (Penknife, Lighter)
Click Here to Read the Press Release
All the members of the Talbot County School Board deserve an award plaque. LACK OF CONSCIENCE. --- LACK OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF IN LOVE AND CHARITY
LACK OF COMMON SENSE --- IMPLEMENTING AN ABUSE OF POWER
All the members of the Talbot County School Board deserve an award plaque. LACK OF CONSCIENCE. --- LACK OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF IN LOVE AND CHARITY
LACK OF COMMON SENSE --- IMPLEMENTING AN ABUSE OF POWER
Monday, September 19, 2011
E-Verify: De Facto National ID and the End of Privacy
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Mr. Whitehead,
I read the editorials of many authors in my search for information and understanding in my effort to be prepared and to encourage those around me to also prepare. I would like to tell you that your work is some of the best I have found. You are clear, eloquent and always illuminate the lay of the land to your readers great benefit. Thank you sir, for all you do. It is greatly appreciated.
~Kaye
E-Verify is necessary. We must stop illegal aliens from coming here and working. The status quo is unacceptable. We have legal quotas that numbers almost a million people a year for people to come here legally. Surely you don’t suggest we do nothing to stop people from coming here and working illegally. This is insanity.
Ralph
Mr. Whitehead,
I read the editorials of many authors in my search for information and understanding in my effort to be prepared and to encourage those around me to also prepare. I would like to tell you that your work is some of the best I have found. You are clear, eloquent and always illuminate the lay of the land to your readers great benefit. Thank you sir, for all you do. It is greatly appreciated.
~Kaye
E-Verify is necessary. We must stop illegal aliens from coming here and working. The status quo is unacceptable. We have legal quotas that numbers almost a million people a year for people to come here legally. Surely you don’t suggest we do nothing to stop people from coming here and working illegally. This is insanity.
Ralph
Monday, September 12, 2011
Constitution Day: Is the Constitution on Life Support?
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Per the Sixth Amendment, don't forget that the jury has the right to judge *the law itself* in addition to the facts of the case.
And you are right about education. People are taught *what* to think rather than *how* to think. Please see my essay on education at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com.
Thank you.
Alice
John
I am a constitutional law researcher based in Minnesota. I was taught how to study and interpret the constitution by an individual that spent 30 years of his life and probably over 50 thousand hours studying and compiling research in this area. He died in 2008 without once ever petitioning the courts.
The State and federal taxing powers. Licensing and administration. Police powers. Contract and property rights. Gun control.
As for the constitution. Its still there. Under most circumstances, it simply cannot be reached because of complicated relationships created through unknown waivers.
An example:
Property law and building codes.
The State, under its police powers has the power to regulate building construction, alteration, or repair. It creates administrative agencies to oversee those activities. Here in Minnesota, as determined by the MN Court of Appeals, the Code regulates the “ACT” of building.
Most engaged in the activity are contractors and engaged in an activity subject to regulation under a license. The Code is written by the same agency that licenses.
The power to license includes the power to regulate under the license.
That would mean that the Code would fall within the context of business regulations. Hence in MN, the Codes controlling statutes fall under Chapter Title “Trade Regulation/Consumer protection Laws”
The Code must be enforced equally upon all whom would fall within its scope.
The law must be enforced within the purpose and context of the political/economic aspects of this States police powers it was created under at its inception.
THE RUB:
Substance over form. What is the State really doing?
Its placing restrictions on one mans right of property through a third party regulatory scheme (licensed activity) by a licensee who lacks property and therefore standing to argue injuries or wrongs or that those restrictions are unreasonable or arbitrary.
It is beyond the competency of the courts to engage in any such collateral inquiry.
In other words, the licensee cannot reach into the right of the property owners as a means to limit the powers of the State to regulate what amount to be a business/occupations privilege. The very powers upon which the Code is created. Judicially untouchable
Moreover, regulation of the privilege under the license poses a political question upon the courts.
The same laws created under the same political economic aspects of this States police powers are being lifted up and out of context and are applied upon the property owners themselves via integration with zoning permits.
Like and similar circumstances? Constitutional/judicial Due Process for challenge of a code violation? Hardley. The law must be enforced equally upon all.
Where then does this leave property and its constitutional/judicial protection?
Unreachable. The power to regulate INCLUDES the power to PROHIBIT under the license. Application to the privilege includes the acceptance of the conditions under the license.
The CONSTITUTION and it protections are irrelevant.
It get better.
The State also has the power to impose an occupation tax upon its licensees. This would fall within the context of an excise or privilege tax. Based on the value of the materials, labor, overhead and profit of the work done.
Instead they call it a permit fee and allow municipalities to contract Code enforcement to LLC’s to save money.
Revenue derived from a fee is a TAX. If the State is prohibited from imposing an EXCISE TAX upon civil liberties (property) (power to tax is power to destroy) how can the municipality hand an LLC the power to derive revenue from a so called fee if they themselves are prohibited from doing so?
Where the power to tax exist in this State, it cannot be suspended or contracted away. It must be collected for public purposes.
AND, if the State has the power to tax the occupation based on valuation of the work done, how can a private for profit LLC move into the constitutionally exclusive sphere of an occupation tax whereby deriving revenue from a fee for private purposes?
Where the power to tax exist the privilege of corporate profit and gain cannot displace it.
HMMM
And what of the constitution?
Again. Irrelevant.
We are all being taxed and regulated as if we are mere trespassers on our own property. And the courts sit by idle doing exactly as they are suppose to....as what is left of this once great republic burns. Think mere procedural due process under a licensed and taxable privilege as distinguished from constitutional/judicial due process involving an activity that is a bona fide civil liberty.
If the law is to be enforced equally upon all, which form of due process trumps? How does the court sit in relation to the “RIGHT” as that right is affected by the enforcement of the law?
Are we to believe that the courts would apply an entirely separate standard of scrutiny upon the codes provisions depending on whether or not an actual right was exercised and possessed?
Sincerely
Mark
Dear John W. Whitehead,
As a Yellow Dog Democrat it was an easy and delightful read of your opinions in your current article. I am a freelance stage director and spend time in lots of different venues. At the moment I am in the small, highly Republican town of Mt. Carmel, Illinois. It is so politically partisan that the local paper is called THE DAILY REPUBLICAN. Seeing your column in this "rag" I almost skipped it, being pretty certain that it probably would be more "Fox News" cant. Happily, I did not skip it.
Thanks for so cogent and well reasoned a summary of what has gone wrong with our country. The only thing you omitted that I would love to see in print is a repudiation of the Supreme Court's right wing majority for ignoring their own bias toward "states rights" and then blatantly intruding into the Florida recount process and thus stealing for Bush an election that most voters thought ought to have gone to Gore.
Keep up the good work.
Tom
Per the Sixth Amendment, don't forget that the jury has the right to judge *the law itself* in addition to the facts of the case.
And you are right about education. People are taught *what* to think rather than *how* to think. Please see my essay on education at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com.
Thank you.
Alice
John
I am a constitutional law researcher based in Minnesota. I was taught how to study and interpret the constitution by an individual that spent 30 years of his life and probably over 50 thousand hours studying and compiling research in this area. He died in 2008 without once ever petitioning the courts.
The State and federal taxing powers. Licensing and administration. Police powers. Contract and property rights. Gun control.
As for the constitution. Its still there. Under most circumstances, it simply cannot be reached because of complicated relationships created through unknown waivers.
An example:
Property law and building codes.
The State, under its police powers has the power to regulate building construction, alteration, or repair. It creates administrative agencies to oversee those activities. Here in Minnesota, as determined by the MN Court of Appeals, the Code regulates the “ACT” of building.
Most engaged in the activity are contractors and engaged in an activity subject to regulation under a license. The Code is written by the same agency that licenses.
The power to license includes the power to regulate under the license.
That would mean that the Code would fall within the context of business regulations. Hence in MN, the Codes controlling statutes fall under Chapter Title “Trade Regulation/Consumer protection Laws”
The Code must be enforced equally upon all whom would fall within its scope.
The law must be enforced within the purpose and context of the political/economic aspects of this States police powers it was created under at its inception.
THE RUB:
Substance over form. What is the State really doing?
Its placing restrictions on one mans right of property through a third party regulatory scheme (licensed activity) by a licensee who lacks property and therefore standing to argue injuries or wrongs or that those restrictions are unreasonable or arbitrary.
It is beyond the competency of the courts to engage in any such collateral inquiry.
In other words, the licensee cannot reach into the right of the property owners as a means to limit the powers of the State to regulate what amount to be a business/occupations privilege. The very powers upon which the Code is created. Judicially untouchable
Moreover, regulation of the privilege under the license poses a political question upon the courts.
The same laws created under the same political economic aspects of this States police powers are being lifted up and out of context and are applied upon the property owners themselves via integration with zoning permits.
Like and similar circumstances? Constitutional/judicial Due Process for challenge of a code violation? Hardley. The law must be enforced equally upon all.
Where then does this leave property and its constitutional/judicial protection?
Unreachable. The power to regulate INCLUDES the power to PROHIBIT under the license. Application to the privilege includes the acceptance of the conditions under the license.
The CONSTITUTION and it protections are irrelevant.
It get better.
The State also has the power to impose an occupation tax upon its licensees. This would fall within the context of an excise or privilege tax. Based on the value of the materials, labor, overhead and profit of the work done.
Instead they call it a permit fee and allow municipalities to contract Code enforcement to LLC’s to save money.
Revenue derived from a fee is a TAX. If the State is prohibited from imposing an EXCISE TAX upon civil liberties (property) (power to tax is power to destroy) how can the municipality hand an LLC the power to derive revenue from a so called fee if they themselves are prohibited from doing so?
Where the power to tax exist in this State, it cannot be suspended or contracted away. It must be collected for public purposes.
AND, if the State has the power to tax the occupation based on valuation of the work done, how can a private for profit LLC move into the constitutionally exclusive sphere of an occupation tax whereby deriving revenue from a fee for private purposes?
Where the power to tax exist the privilege of corporate profit and gain cannot displace it.
HMMM
And what of the constitution?
Again. Irrelevant.
We are all being taxed and regulated as if we are mere trespassers on our own property. And the courts sit by idle doing exactly as they are suppose to....as what is left of this once great republic burns. Think mere procedural due process under a licensed and taxable privilege as distinguished from constitutional/judicial due process involving an activity that is a bona fide civil liberty.
If the law is to be enforced equally upon all, which form of due process trumps? How does the court sit in relation to the “RIGHT” as that right is affected by the enforcement of the law?
Are we to believe that the courts would apply an entirely separate standard of scrutiny upon the codes provisions depending on whether or not an actual right was exercised and possessed?
Sincerely
Mark
Dear John W. Whitehead,
As a Yellow Dog Democrat it was an easy and delightful read of your opinions in your current article. I am a freelance stage director and spend time in lots of different venues. At the moment I am in the small, highly Republican town of Mt. Carmel, Illinois. It is so politically partisan that the local paper is called THE DAILY REPUBLICAN. Seeing your column in this "rag" I almost skipped it, being pretty certain that it probably would be more "Fox News" cant. Happily, I did not skip it.
Thanks for so cogent and well reasoned a summary of what has gone wrong with our country. The only thing you omitted that I would love to see in print is a repudiation of the Supreme Court's right wing majority for ignoring their own bias toward "states rights" and then blatantly intruding into the Florida recount process and thus stealing for Bush an election that most voters thought ought to have gone to Gore.
Keep up the good work.
Tom
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Ten Years After 9/11: Have We Become the Enemy of Freedom?
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Mr. Whitehead,
Whatever the actual cause of the collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) buildings 1, 2 and 7, plane crashes and/or fire were not the cause. Architects, engineers, physicists too numerous to ignore - even people with a good knowledge of high school physics - have proved that the collapses happened at near free-fall acceleration (of gravity: 9.8 m/sec/sec). The flaw in the NIST reports is that they computed an average acceleration of the collapses, instead of the dynamic (instant-by-instant) acceleration of the collapses. Any high school physics teacher, with software available free on the Internet, could compute and graph the data points obtainable from on-line videos of the collapsing buildings. I have personally done such computations and graphed the data: points of fixed points on the three buildings after the actual collapses began, rather than at the first buckling and shuddering, with no actual downward movement. The results are inescapable: the buildings met NO significant physical resistance by the underlying floors - impossible unless those floors had had their structures destroyed before being reached by the collapsing floors above. Only an event comparable to a so-called "controlled demolition"could have achieved this result.
Therefore, the questions that remain are: Who? and Why? Your commentary, while accurate, is too timid - and far too late. The fascist state has arrived in the U.S., as it did in 1930's Germany, in the guise of "security". As the German people (out of the belief that "it can never happen here"), failed to recognize early enough the destruction of the Republic, so have the American people. NOT a "democracy", but a Republic called the United STATES of America, as the Founders intended.
Now it is too late! The situation is beyond repair or restoration by political means. Only methods that would result in the deaths of millions of our own citizens by a government determined to retain power. And, just as people like yourself failed to challenge those seizing power while they were seizing it, you will also be late in calling for the overthrow of the usurpers who have seized our nation's government. Your commentaries, therefore, are as smoke in a wind storm - they will achieve nothing of consequence. Those now in power will never yield that power back to the citizenry; only force will attain that goal. And men such as yourself, too weak and too late in their critiques when power was first being seized, will likewise delay the call for decisive action by the citizenry.
Brave words by timid men: Were you "part of the problem", as the Vietnam War-era protesters used to chant? My personal opinion is "Yes", as were most Americans. "When good men do nothing..." You certainly must know the rest of that quote.
Dear Sir,
Very well done! Great writing and the truth too!
It is time for all of America to confront the path that America has been
taken and route out those that are doing it and to take it back to its roots
of respect and freedom. Enough is enough.
Thank you very much for all of your work for us!
Sincerely,
Larry
Mr. Whitehead, you shock me!! While there are arguable reasons why we should not have gone into Iraq the supposed lack of weapons of mass destruction was NOT one of them! Surely you haven't bought into the leftist lie that Iraq didn't have any, you are certainly better than that!! Hussein had and USED his weapons on his own people many times throughout the Iran Iraq war and after and had threatened to turn those onto neighbors. You have much of the Liberal theology in your articles that has brought Christianity down to the level of "just another religion" but you have always had many thought provoking ideas in them. Please don't destroy your credibility by spreading hogwash.
We, meaning in this case John, has done an excellent job of refusing to acknowledge that today's US population is a bunch of profligates unworthy of the nation they inherited. And until we can unbreak an egg, or make butterflies strong, or a charismatic leader emerges, there's nothing anyone can do to change that.
Alas,
Rey
Follow the money. There is a war in this country, but its against the White Christians. There being pushed out of all the sports, tv, movies, name it and you'll see. a negro can committe a crime and not concidered racism. But, if a white man even speaks out against the racist in this country, its turned around. What a bunch of hyprocrites.
On April 23rd, during a debate on immigration law, Congressman John Rankin makes the following statement to the House on the subject of the Jews, which is recorded in the Congressional Record, "They whine about about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation...Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslvakia, and many other countries I could name. They have been run out practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Chrisitan people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here."
Don't forget GOD took away the Kingdom from the Jews and made their house desolate (Matt.21:43;23:38). They are still enemies of Jesus Christ, this country and its Christians. The white are systematically pushed out of everything great they have done in this country.
Mr. Whitehead,
Whatever the actual cause of the collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) buildings 1, 2 and 7, plane crashes and/or fire were not the cause. Architects, engineers, physicists too numerous to ignore - even people with a good knowledge of high school physics - have proved that the collapses happened at near free-fall acceleration (of gravity: 9.8 m/sec/sec). The flaw in the NIST reports is that they computed an average acceleration of the collapses, instead of the dynamic (instant-by-instant) acceleration of the collapses. Any high school physics teacher, with software available free on the Internet, could compute and graph the data points obtainable from on-line videos of the collapsing buildings. I have personally done such computations and graphed the data: points of fixed points on the three buildings after the actual collapses began, rather than at the first buckling and shuddering, with no actual downward movement. The results are inescapable: the buildings met NO significant physical resistance by the underlying floors - impossible unless those floors had had their structures destroyed before being reached by the collapsing floors above. Only an event comparable to a so-called "controlled demolition"could have achieved this result.
Therefore, the questions that remain are: Who? and Why? Your commentary, while accurate, is too timid - and far too late. The fascist state has arrived in the U.S., as it did in 1930's Germany, in the guise of "security". As the German people (out of the belief that "it can never happen here"), failed to recognize early enough the destruction of the Republic, so have the American people. NOT a "democracy", but a Republic called the United STATES of America, as the Founders intended.
Now it is too late! The situation is beyond repair or restoration by political means. Only methods that would result in the deaths of millions of our own citizens by a government determined to retain power. And, just as people like yourself failed to challenge those seizing power while they were seizing it, you will also be late in calling for the overthrow of the usurpers who have seized our nation's government. Your commentaries, therefore, are as smoke in a wind storm - they will achieve nothing of consequence. Those now in power will never yield that power back to the citizenry; only force will attain that goal. And men such as yourself, too weak and too late in their critiques when power was first being seized, will likewise delay the call for decisive action by the citizenry.
Brave words by timid men: Were you "part of the problem", as the Vietnam War-era protesters used to chant? My personal opinion is "Yes", as were most Americans. "When good men do nothing..." You certainly must know the rest of that quote.
Dear Sir,
Very well done! Great writing and the truth too!
It is time for all of America to confront the path that America has been
taken and route out those that are doing it and to take it back to its roots
of respect and freedom. Enough is enough.
Thank you very much for all of your work for us!
Sincerely,
Larry
Mr. Whitehead, you shock me!! While there are arguable reasons why we should not have gone into Iraq the supposed lack of weapons of mass destruction was NOT one of them! Surely you haven't bought into the leftist lie that Iraq didn't have any, you are certainly better than that!! Hussein had and USED his weapons on his own people many times throughout the Iran Iraq war and after and had threatened to turn those onto neighbors. You have much of the Liberal theology in your articles that has brought Christianity down to the level of "just another religion" but you have always had many thought provoking ideas in them. Please don't destroy your credibility by spreading hogwash.
We, meaning in this case John, has done an excellent job of refusing to acknowledge that today's US population is a bunch of profligates unworthy of the nation they inherited. And until we can unbreak an egg, or make butterflies strong, or a charismatic leader emerges, there's nothing anyone can do to change that.
Alas,
Rey
Follow the money. There is a war in this country, but its against the White Christians. There being pushed out of all the sports, tv, movies, name it and you'll see. a negro can committe a crime and not concidered racism. But, if a white man even speaks out against the racist in this country, its turned around. What a bunch of hyprocrites.
On April 23rd, during a debate on immigration law, Congressman John Rankin makes the following statement to the House on the subject of the Jews, which is recorded in the Congressional Record, "They whine about about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation...Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslvakia, and many other countries I could name. They have been run out practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Chrisitan people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here."
Don't forget GOD took away the Kingdom from the Jews and made their house desolate (Matt.21:43;23:38). They are still enemies of Jesus Christ, this country and its Christians. The white are systematically pushed out of everything great they have done in this country.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Rutherford Institute Appeals to Virginia Supreme Court on Behalf of 14-Year-Old Honor Student Expelled for Shooting Plastic ‘Spitwads’
Click Here to Read the Press Release
We have these programs because the ACLU and its buddies on the bench have restricted the teacher's ability to use their discretion to deal with kids.
Get the lawyers our of the schools and let the principals do their jobs.
We don't have to get the lawyer's kids out of the public schools because they don't go there.
Give the public school principal the same freedom given to the private school and the problem will disappear.
Alan
We have these programs because the ACLU and its buddies on the bench have restricted the teacher's ability to use their discretion to deal with kids.
Get the lawyers our of the schools and let the principals do their jobs.
We don't have to get the lawyer's kids out of the public schools because they don't go there.
Give the public school principal the same freedom given to the private school and the problem will disappear.
Alan
Friday, August 19, 2011
Setting the Record Straight: Michele Bachmann, Francis Schaeffer and the Christian Right
Click Here to Read the Commentary
Dear John Whitehead,
We’ve never met, but you might recognize my name, because Jayson Whitehead published an interview with me on the Rutherford Institute website in 2005 concerning my book, _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_.
I wanted to tell you that I was delighted to read your article on Bachmann and Schaeffer on your website. I agree heartily with it. I don’t know if you saw my op-ed article on the same topic (published in _Philadelphia Inquirer_, _Ft. Worth Star-Telegram_, _Sacracmento Bee_, _Kansas City Star_, _Modesto Bee_, and elsewhere), but here it is, in case you are interested:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/17/3844430/bachmann-and-dominionism.html
Blessings,
Richard
Dear John Whitehead,
We’ve never met, but you might recognize my name, because Jayson Whitehead published an interview with me on the Rutherford Institute website in 2005 concerning my book, _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_.
I wanted to tell you that I was delighted to read your article on Bachmann and Schaeffer on your website. I agree heartily with it. I don’t know if you saw my op-ed article on the same topic (published in _Philadelphia Inquirer_, _Ft. Worth Star-Telegram_, _Sacracmento Bee_, _Kansas City Star_, _Modesto Bee_, and elsewhere), but here it is, in case you are interested:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/17/3844430/bachmann-and-dominionism.html
Blessings,
Richard
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Death Penalty Is a Miscarriage of Justice: It Should Be Abolished
Click Here to Read the Commentary
I am not a dedicated Baptist. I have not been to church for years. I am
67 years old.
I was raised as a Christian and I believe in God and I believe you can
not go to heaven except by Jesus Christ.
I have seen shows on the death penalty and it concerns me.
When a convicted criminal is sentenced to death and he is seated to be
executed, the State provides a priest or clergy to stand by his side and
do whatever he can to get the KILLER to ask the Lord to forgive his sins.
We all know that Jesus Christ died on the cross to have God forgive ALL
our sins who ask forgiveness, no matter what the sin or crime, and God
will forgive the person and he will go to heaven.
THAT, is where I have a problem. I don't want the killer to go to Heaven.
I want the killer to do life in prison and be dead a long time before a
clergy or priest can get the person to confess his sins and ask God for
forgiveness and he straight to hell.
That is my opinion.
you are speaking truth to wimpiness. not having the death penalty is the true miscarriage of justice. endless appeals and the different levels of murder are also miscarriages of justice. the death penalty is not there for justice. once an injustice has been done there is only retribution, restitution, revenge and righting a wrong. in any crime there is only injustice, justice has already gone out the window. and for the taking of a human life, deliberately or in the act of another crime, society has the not just the right but the obligation to demand the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. you apologists for murderers make me sick. if the founding fathers did not want the death penalty in america they would have specifically included that in the constitution. they knew it was an effective deterrent and the obligation of society to protect its citizens.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
While there may be times when people have been wrongly charged with, even convicted of, a crime, the death penalty is not a miscarriage of justice by any stretch of the imagination. The death penalty was a penalty instituted by God to protect society against those who had become so spiritually corrupt that they had degenerated to the level of murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc. No matter who says otherwise, the death penalty is a perfectly legitimate punishment that actually raises the dignity of human life back to the level where if a person takes a life he pays for it with his own. Period. And those who are the family of the victim should get the first opportunity to throw the switch, pull the lever for the hangman, whatever.
What has happened in our culture is we have so debased the value of human life that we simply allow crime to happen with minimum punishment. Courts bargain with the lawyers of the criminal while the victim/victim's family has little or no input into that process. That is a travesty! Godly designed justice is always based upon restitution. Under that system, if you steal, you pay back double the value of what you stole. If you cannot, you are sold to indentured servitude until you work off what you owe. If you kill someone, you die, unless the killing was accidental. Then there are even specific consequences and ways of dealing with that situation.
The commandment, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" has been so abused by the God haters because the original intent of the commandment was thou shalt not MURDER, or kill without cause. And, of course, the word "murder" in our current culture has been debased to mean any kind of killing, legitimate or not.
You have some wonderful, thought provocing articles, Mr. Whitehead, but this is one area where you are in error. If, in fact, someone is erroneously put to death - and, frankly, I don't believe it happens as often as some would have us believe - then, we do have a God who will sort out the problems when he sends Christ back and we all go before that judgement seat. Those who lie or otherwise cause the wrongful execution of someone will indeed face their own penalties before God, who is a far better judge than we will ever be. Now, before you go into the usual, "Well, then, why don't we let God judge the murderer?" routine, God laid out the law telling US that it was OUR responsibility to protect ourselves using his rules. WE were to carry out the law and the penalties. If, perchance it is discovered here and now that someone did lie and an innocent person was put to death, THAT person dies. It really is as simple as that.
Keith
I was opposed to the death penalty for many years but now I realize the problem is that it takes WAY TOO LONG to carry out. The "Mumia" killer has been on death row longer than the cop he murdered was alive.
Ergo for Richard Allen Davis here in California, far longer on death row than Polly Klaas was alive.
Blacks here in Oakland are 28% of the population but 80% of the crime, in SF 5% of the population but at least half the crime and the same is true of every major urban area in the US.
The rioters in the UK should have received the instant death penalty. Very few innocent people have been executed.
I agree it should be zero but the great thing about the penalty is that none of these murderers will be killing again, it's a 100% deterrent in the case of the particular killers.
I strongly support Ron Paul but there are some nutcases in the libertarian ranks who are out to lunch.
Rothbard strongly supported the death penalty, Rockefeller's takeback of Attica and the LAPD's whipping
of Rodney King. So your leftist intellectual mush is not any official libertarian position.
I wish to respond to this quote: "There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty--certainly not the way it is implemented in America, and anyone who says otherwise is either deluding themselves or trying to get elected by appearing tough on crime."
God told Noah this: GE 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." The reason that a man should be put to death is because we are made in the image of God. This is a transcendant thing. The reason for doing so isn't disappearing any time soon -- never, in fact.
Interestingly, God allowed David, a murderer, to live. At the same time, God put many to death and used men to carry out these things. Jesus forgave a woman caught in adultery. Thus, it is hard to know how to carry forward the Old Testament commands in that light, really hard.
"RO 13:4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
Some would say, I among them, that it is a further injustice to force the family member of a murdered victim to, through taxes, pay for the murder to be incarcerated and it is made all the worse when they eat better, sleep better, have better health care, better accommodations (libraries and media) than many of the family members of murder victims. If your family member got murdered and you had to pay an extra $20 a month to feed and clothe them the rest of their life, and if that takes away food from the table of your remaining children, how do you square that with justice?
EX 20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses... 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death. 15 "Anyone who attacks* his father or his mother must be put to death. 16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
These are Gods words, not laws made up by man. God is not immoral. These are his standards. I don't see how being opposed to the death penalty itself as immoral can be supported scripturally.
The only challenge for me is to temper judgement with mercy. As James says: "JAS 2:13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
Further, when a police officer guns down a man who is on a shooting rampage, this is a just carrying out of the command to protect people made in the image of God. He is killed because he won't stop any other way. This is moral. This is just. Do we only shoot to stop a murderer in the act, or, as the Bible indicates, is it correct to mete out punishment for it also, after the fact? Consider this: the Cities of Refuge were to hand over people found guilty of intentional murder, to the avenger. What can be more clear than that?
To follow God is to be both stern and merciful, to order the execution of some and to stay the execution of others. I have to confess it would be a sober thing to actually have to mete out such a sentence. We who are forgiven much do indeed want to be merciful.
I have even considered what I would do if being attacked by someone who can only be stopped from killing me by killing them first. Should I, as a Christian, give up my physical life to give them a bit more time that God may reach them?
What about my family? Do I owe it to them to preserve myself? While I have no zero trouble killing to protect others, yet I struggle about protecting myself if it means killing another?
Do I let a person kill me and take away my children's father and source of support, do I keep me alive for them? Do I instead trust them to God? How do I decide.
If I am to base my beliefs on Scripture, npunishment that includes putting to death a murderer is both just and moral, but it is not to be exclusive of mercy. God himself exemplifies this. It is with intrepidation and prayer that we should carry out our God's standards. We should not apply them with human vengeance, but out of worship and respect for God's laws, his authority and his standards, trusting to him the results. Not for spite. Not to avenge. But to apply justice, in a just way, always mindful of his mercy, yet not to the exclusion of his justice. This is so difficult.
Bill
Yes, this is just another instance -- abolition of the death penalty -- when Left Libertarians and Right Libertarians may agree whole-heartedly with one another. Why, then, do they not combine to "put the screws" to candidates for office, at every level, who stand opposed to the factual, moral, legal, and philosophical reasonableness of abolishing this blemish on the face of our country? Because they are not commonly financed by corporations? Because they do not commonly support a return to the gold standard? Because they are not subsumed by the unthinking/unaccountable tribalism of partisan politics? As you so carefully and cogently point out, there isn't reason or anything else substantial standing in the way of immediately abolishing the death penalty. (Nor, is there anything reasonable standing in the way of a complete reconstitution of our entire penal system.) If like-minded citizens would stand together, the abomination of capital punishment would be gone over night. The profiteers and others who reap benefits from this injustice would be defeated. Do you see a chance that that might happen any time soon? If there is the slimmest chance, it will be because of people like you who continue to beat the drum for sanity and real justice. Thank you.
John Whitehead:
I heard your interview in WVTF this evening.
It sounds as though you have been hanging out with your apostate buddy Franky Schaeffer.
You may make denigrating comments about Christianity, but you know very well the law of God requires the death penalty for capital crimes.
Please take Samuel Rutherford's name off your organization. You'd be better served by becoming a branch office of the ACLU.
Sincerely,
David
You're right. I couldn't agree with you more. The death penalty, as we do it now, is a miscarriage of justice and should be abolished. Lethal injection is just so tacky and tasteless.
The Japanese had the right idea. Instead of forcible execution, we need to bring back mandatory seppuku!
What utter rubbish. So this system must be perfect or eliminated? Will this metric then be used for the entire legal system? The entire welfare system? ad naseum. Has it not been recognized by you we live is and imperfect world? A world in rebellion to its' maker. He had a plan, rejected in the old testament then rejected in the new. Perfection is longed for by all creation so if it's not here and now it will best best to remove evil from the camp once and for all and the ways to determine the evidence, means of judgement and penalties are quite clear in Deuteronomy. Take a peek and then comment on what the Judge of all the earth has missed. cruft
John,
I make an effort to read all your pieces on LRC; I appreciate your work.
Your argument against the death penalty is certainly provocative. The fact that it doesn’t seem to deter the act of murder would seem to lean more toward the fact of the grind of the system, and possibly to the lack of public executions for capital offenses.
However, since God’s word is the final authority, should we reconsider? I’m thinking that your argument could be applied to any civil crime as justice is rarely carried out, much less to biblical standards should one be convicted of rape, theft, fraud, etc.
Do you recall Rushdoony commenting on the plight of the wrongly convicted?
Regards,
Curt
I think the real injustice about the death penalty is discrimination by gender. A man is MUCH more likely to be executed for a crime than a woman who does the exact same thing. Why doesn't this ever get mentioned? If women were the victim of "disparate impact", we'd hear this over and over and over again. But it almost never gets mentioned.
Men are the Rodney Dangerfield of American society. We get no respect.
"It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not."
Thomas
Actually I believe it was George Ryan of Illinois who suspended executions in Illinois. His successor may have signed the legislation.
John.
with DNA evidence catching and trying the criminal is more precise. I'm for the death penalty if it's a 100% air tight case proven with dna and other witness/police evidence. If someone killed a family member or close friend, I'd personally want to see the perp dead and out of society for good, and so would most, except the liberals of course.
-- L. A.
"There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty – certainly not the way it is implemented in America"
Mr. Whitehead, I quit reading your column at this point. No need to read further to know that we are in complete agreement. A quick scan told me that I am familiar with the anecdotal support for your position.
I have long been a believer that the death penalty--justly applied--is morally tenable in a Christian ethos. Jesus, on the cross, did not tell either thief that he was getting a raw deal. (As for His unjust punishment, well, that is utterly unique and beyond this interlocution.)
The late John Paul II (even as a Catholic, I refuse to call him "blessed," for reasons that are another discussion) left the door open the merest crack for the just application of a death penalty. However, his general disparagement of the modern death penalty was technologically-based: suggesting that the state of the art of penology was such that society could be sufficiently protected from the lethal depredations of convicted "stone" killers. Unfortunately, that logic offered no protection whatsoever to fellow prisoners or to prison staff--who are, after all, members of "society."
(Was Jeffrey Dahmer saved? We'll never know, in this life. However, he might have been saved, had he had to face the executioner. And the fact that his fellow-convict murderer faced no lethal consequences for the murder is immensely problematic.)
Anyhow, there is no question at all that our American system of "justice" is light-years from achieving even the general intention to mete out true justice. For that reason, I years ago abandoned my stubborn--albeit qualified--defense of the death penalty in this country.
I admire your work and your writings. Thanks for reading my thoughts.
--
Mark
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I am a college freshman at UCLA and trying to get my blog (bunburydave.tumblr) going and trying to get into nationally syndicated journalism. I came across your article after being referred to lewrockwell to read about Ron Paul being under appreciated by the press-which he is.
I just wanted to point out this particular line from your article: "...there are 1,371 blacks on death row (42% of the total death row population) despite the fact that blacks only make up 12% of the U.S. population."
It was very misleading to include that blacks make up 12% of the population when the pertinent statistic would have been what percentage of criminals in the United States are black, because only criminals are eligible to be committed to death row. Also, you did not acknowledge any counter argument. Just a little constructive criticism.
Josh
John:
You know I love you and your work.
But on the issue of abolishing the death penalty I believe you are wrong.
First the death penalty is Biblical. You know that. Second, nations and societies that fail to execute capital punishment incur God's wrath, 'blood guiltiness'.
That said, I realize the state - US government is screwed up big time and has executed people wrongly. However, that is not to negate the clear Biblical and historical precedent for capital punishment.
The Bible clearly states that those who fail to administer capital punishment properly at then subject to that punishment. Go back and read Rushdoony's the Institutes of Biblical law on this.
Rather than abolish the death penalty, we should demand it be carried out properly, and if it is not those involved in injustice should be subject to it. That's the proper solution.
When you can make a Biblical and historical argument against the death penalty, I'll listen, but to say because the EU has abolished the death penalty so we should too is a poor argument (and you know it).
To think that Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dalmer, Charles Manson and others don't deserve the death penalty is not only unBiblical but irresponsible.
I greatly respect you and your share with you your fear of the state using its increasing power against its citizens. The answer is to correct this over reach, which its a root cause.
Once again, I greatly respect you and your work. I think you are seriously wrong on this issue and that such a position hurts the institute and damages it's standing for truth and righteousness in the Christain community.
Love you and the Institute.
Gary
In a recent article on Lew Rockwell's web site you write, "Even if most of those condemned to die prove to be guilty, if just one innocent person is wrongly executed, that is still one too many."
I think by this logic one could never justify a death penalty, which is clearly a result at odds with the scriptures.
God seems to equate wrongfully letting the guilty live (which you support, with regrets) with putting to death the innocent (which you think is utterly intolerable to the point of prohibiting the death penalty). Both should be avoided, of course, but mistakes will be made, as God (of course) knows. Your balance would seem to be that one innocent death outweighs letting dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of guilty people live. That is a very common standard among decent and godly men but one I feel is unbiblical and humanistic.
For a good articulation of what I'm referring to, consider listening to the following:
Casey Anthony: Soulless Murderer by Phil Elmore
http://kgov.com/bel/20110707
Thanks for giving this some thought. Enjoy your writing and have for years.
Frederick
Mr. Whitehead,
You make a pragmatic case for the abeyance of death penalty executions. However, unless God is in error himself in having governments do them, the idea remains that if one man sheds another man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man made. Further, if such punishment is swift, it brings terror to evil doers said Solomon. The way our appeals processes go, it makes the "swift" part practically non-existent, and thus renders the penalty (if it ever comes) not the deterent it would be. The Bible is clear that justice, if swift, is a deterrent. There is no arguing that. It makes clear the standard that those who murder deserve the death penalty, as the Cities of Refuge give up those who are not found innocent to the avenger of blood. But we do see mercy for David who ordered a murder, for God did not order David's death, the God who declared the standard. Jesus did not stone a woman caught in adultery to death. Those two things, together with your pragmatic considerations leave much room for viewpoints on this. Include the fact that God did not carry out the death of Adam and Eve swiftly but over time, givng them time to repent and call upon God. Perhaps in your conversations, you might speak to the ideal, and the Biblical truths, even while we acknowledge the pragmatic current limitations. I must not be so idealistic that people die needlessly for it. Yet we must not be so pragmatic that we let go of a standard that is fitting. We ought hold both. That's the best I see it. Thank you for explaning your viewpoint more thoroughly.
Bill
Best if all the very bad people are given the opportunity to commit
suicide. Start with the guy in Norway. At the end - God will judge us
all so if there is any doubt; then
the sentence should be a life term
I am not a dedicated Baptist. I have not been to church for years. I am
67 years old.
I was raised as a Christian and I believe in God and I believe you can
not go to heaven except by Jesus Christ.
I have seen shows on the death penalty and it concerns me.
When a convicted criminal is sentenced to death and he is seated to be
executed, the State provides a priest or clergy to stand by his side and
do whatever he can to get the KILLER to ask the Lord to forgive his sins.
We all know that Jesus Christ died on the cross to have God forgive ALL
our sins who ask forgiveness, no matter what the sin or crime, and God
will forgive the person and he will go to heaven.
THAT, is where I have a problem. I don't want the killer to go to Heaven.
I want the killer to do life in prison and be dead a long time before a
clergy or priest can get the person to confess his sins and ask God for
forgiveness and he straight to hell.
That is my opinion.
you are speaking truth to wimpiness. not having the death penalty is the true miscarriage of justice. endless appeals and the different levels of murder are also miscarriages of justice. the death penalty is not there for justice. once an injustice has been done there is only retribution, restitution, revenge and righting a wrong. in any crime there is only injustice, justice has already gone out the window. and for the taking of a human life, deliberately or in the act of another crime, society has the not just the right but the obligation to demand the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. you apologists for murderers make me sick. if the founding fathers did not want the death penalty in america they would have specifically included that in the constitution. they knew it was an effective deterrent and the obligation of society to protect its citizens.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
While there may be times when people have been wrongly charged with, even convicted of, a crime, the death penalty is not a miscarriage of justice by any stretch of the imagination. The death penalty was a penalty instituted by God to protect society against those who had become so spiritually corrupt that they had degenerated to the level of murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc. No matter who says otherwise, the death penalty is a perfectly legitimate punishment that actually raises the dignity of human life back to the level where if a person takes a life he pays for it with his own. Period. And those who are the family of the victim should get the first opportunity to throw the switch, pull the lever for the hangman, whatever.
What has happened in our culture is we have so debased the value of human life that we simply allow crime to happen with minimum punishment. Courts bargain with the lawyers of the criminal while the victim/victim's family has little or no input into that process. That is a travesty! Godly designed justice is always based upon restitution. Under that system, if you steal, you pay back double the value of what you stole. If you cannot, you are sold to indentured servitude until you work off what you owe. If you kill someone, you die, unless the killing was accidental. Then there are even specific consequences and ways of dealing with that situation.
The commandment, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" has been so abused by the God haters because the original intent of the commandment was thou shalt not MURDER, or kill without cause. And, of course, the word "murder" in our current culture has been debased to mean any kind of killing, legitimate or not.
You have some wonderful, thought provocing articles, Mr. Whitehead, but this is one area where you are in error. If, in fact, someone is erroneously put to death - and, frankly, I don't believe it happens as often as some would have us believe - then, we do have a God who will sort out the problems when he sends Christ back and we all go before that judgement seat. Those who lie or otherwise cause the wrongful execution of someone will indeed face their own penalties before God, who is a far better judge than we will ever be. Now, before you go into the usual, "Well, then, why don't we let God judge the murderer?" routine, God laid out the law telling US that it was OUR responsibility to protect ourselves using his rules. WE were to carry out the law and the penalties. If, perchance it is discovered here and now that someone did lie and an innocent person was put to death, THAT person dies. It really is as simple as that.
Keith
I was opposed to the death penalty for many years but now I realize the problem is that it takes WAY TOO LONG to carry out. The "Mumia" killer has been on death row longer than the cop he murdered was alive.
Ergo for Richard Allen Davis here in California, far longer on death row than Polly Klaas was alive.
Blacks here in Oakland are 28% of the population but 80% of the crime, in SF 5% of the population but at least half the crime and the same is true of every major urban area in the US.
The rioters in the UK should have received the instant death penalty. Very few innocent people have been executed.
I agree it should be zero but the great thing about the penalty is that none of these murderers will be killing again, it's a 100% deterrent in the case of the particular killers.
I strongly support Ron Paul but there are some nutcases in the libertarian ranks who are out to lunch.
Rothbard strongly supported the death penalty, Rockefeller's takeback of Attica and the LAPD's whipping
of Rodney King. So your leftist intellectual mush is not any official libertarian position.
I wish to respond to this quote: "There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty--certainly not the way it is implemented in America, and anyone who says otherwise is either deluding themselves or trying to get elected by appearing tough on crime."
God told Noah this: GE 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." The reason that a man should be put to death is because we are made in the image of God. This is a transcendant thing. The reason for doing so isn't disappearing any time soon -- never, in fact.
Interestingly, God allowed David, a murderer, to live. At the same time, God put many to death and used men to carry out these things. Jesus forgave a woman caught in adultery. Thus, it is hard to know how to carry forward the Old Testament commands in that light, really hard.
"RO 13:4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
Some would say, I among them, that it is a further injustice to force the family member of a murdered victim to, through taxes, pay for the murder to be incarcerated and it is made all the worse when they eat better, sleep better, have better health care, better accommodations (libraries and media) than many of the family members of murder victims. If your family member got murdered and you had to pay an extra $20 a month to feed and clothe them the rest of their life, and if that takes away food from the table of your remaining children, how do you square that with justice?
EX 20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses... 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death. 15 "Anyone who attacks* his father or his mother must be put to death. 16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
These are Gods words, not laws made up by man. God is not immoral. These are his standards. I don't see how being opposed to the death penalty itself as immoral can be supported scripturally.
The only challenge for me is to temper judgement with mercy. As James says: "JAS 2:13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
Further, when a police officer guns down a man who is on a shooting rampage, this is a just carrying out of the command to protect people made in the image of God. He is killed because he won't stop any other way. This is moral. This is just. Do we only shoot to stop a murderer in the act, or, as the Bible indicates, is it correct to mete out punishment for it also, after the fact? Consider this: the Cities of Refuge were to hand over people found guilty of intentional murder, to the avenger. What can be more clear than that?
To follow God is to be both stern and merciful, to order the execution of some and to stay the execution of others. I have to confess it would be a sober thing to actually have to mete out such a sentence. We who are forgiven much do indeed want to be merciful.
I have even considered what I would do if being attacked by someone who can only be stopped from killing me by killing them first. Should I, as a Christian, give up my physical life to give them a bit more time that God may reach them?
What about my family? Do I owe it to them to preserve myself? While I have no zero trouble killing to protect others, yet I struggle about protecting myself if it means killing another?
Do I let a person kill me and take away my children's father and source of support, do I keep me alive for them? Do I instead trust them to God? How do I decide.
If I am to base my beliefs on Scripture, npunishment that includes putting to death a murderer is both just and moral, but it is not to be exclusive of mercy. God himself exemplifies this. It is with intrepidation and prayer that we should carry out our God's standards. We should not apply them with human vengeance, but out of worship and respect for God's laws, his authority and his standards, trusting to him the results. Not for spite. Not to avenge. But to apply justice, in a just way, always mindful of his mercy, yet not to the exclusion of his justice. This is so difficult.
Bill
Yes, this is just another instance -- abolition of the death penalty -- when Left Libertarians and Right Libertarians may agree whole-heartedly with one another. Why, then, do they not combine to "put the screws" to candidates for office, at every level, who stand opposed to the factual, moral, legal, and philosophical reasonableness of abolishing this blemish on the face of our country? Because they are not commonly financed by corporations? Because they do not commonly support a return to the gold standard? Because they are not subsumed by the unthinking/unaccountable tribalism of partisan politics? As you so carefully and cogently point out, there isn't reason or anything else substantial standing in the way of immediately abolishing the death penalty. (Nor, is there anything reasonable standing in the way of a complete reconstitution of our entire penal system.) If like-minded citizens would stand together, the abomination of capital punishment would be gone over night. The profiteers and others who reap benefits from this injustice would be defeated. Do you see a chance that that might happen any time soon? If there is the slimmest chance, it will be because of people like you who continue to beat the drum for sanity and real justice. Thank you.
John Whitehead:
I heard your interview in WVTF this evening.
It sounds as though you have been hanging out with your apostate buddy Franky Schaeffer.
You may make denigrating comments about Christianity, but you know very well the law of God requires the death penalty for capital crimes.
Please take Samuel Rutherford's name off your organization. You'd be better served by becoming a branch office of the ACLU.
Sincerely,
David
You're right. I couldn't agree with you more. The death penalty, as we do it now, is a miscarriage of justice and should be abolished. Lethal injection is just so tacky and tasteless.
The Japanese had the right idea. Instead of forcible execution, we need to bring back mandatory seppuku!
What utter rubbish. So this system must be perfect or eliminated? Will this metric then be used for the entire legal system? The entire welfare system? ad naseum. Has it not been recognized by you we live is and imperfect world? A world in rebellion to its' maker. He had a plan, rejected in the old testament then rejected in the new. Perfection is longed for by all creation so if it's not here and now it will best best to remove evil from the camp once and for all and the ways to determine the evidence, means of judgement and penalties are quite clear in Deuteronomy. Take a peek and then comment on what the Judge of all the earth has missed. cruft
John,
I make an effort to read all your pieces on LRC; I appreciate your work.
Your argument against the death penalty is certainly provocative. The fact that it doesn’t seem to deter the act of murder would seem to lean more toward the fact of the grind of the system, and possibly to the lack of public executions for capital offenses.
However, since God’s word is the final authority, should we reconsider? I’m thinking that your argument could be applied to any civil crime as justice is rarely carried out, much less to biblical standards should one be convicted of rape, theft, fraud, etc.
Do you recall Rushdoony commenting on the plight of the wrongly convicted?
Regards,
Curt
I think the real injustice about the death penalty is discrimination by gender. A man is MUCH more likely to be executed for a crime than a woman who does the exact same thing. Why doesn't this ever get mentioned? If women were the victim of "disparate impact", we'd hear this over and over and over again. But it almost never gets mentioned.
Men are the Rodney Dangerfield of American society. We get no respect.
"It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not."
Thomas
Actually I believe it was George Ryan of Illinois who suspended executions in Illinois. His successor may have signed the legislation.
John.
with DNA evidence catching and trying the criminal is more precise. I'm for the death penalty if it's a 100% air tight case proven with dna and other witness/police evidence. If someone killed a family member or close friend, I'd personally want to see the perp dead and out of society for good, and so would most, except the liberals of course.
-- L. A.
"There is nothing moral or just about the death penalty – certainly not the way it is implemented in America"
Mr. Whitehead, I quit reading your column at this point. No need to read further to know that we are in complete agreement. A quick scan told me that I am familiar with the anecdotal support for your position.
I have long been a believer that the death penalty--justly applied--is morally tenable in a Christian ethos. Jesus, on the cross, did not tell either thief that he was getting a raw deal. (As for His unjust punishment, well, that is utterly unique and beyond this interlocution.)
The late John Paul II (even as a Catholic, I refuse to call him "blessed," for reasons that are another discussion) left the door open the merest crack for the just application of a death penalty. However, his general disparagement of the modern death penalty was technologically-based: suggesting that the state of the art of penology was such that society could be sufficiently protected from the lethal depredations of convicted "stone" killers. Unfortunately, that logic offered no protection whatsoever to fellow prisoners or to prison staff--who are, after all, members of "society."
(Was Jeffrey Dahmer saved? We'll never know, in this life. However, he might have been saved, had he had to face the executioner. And the fact that his fellow-convict murderer faced no lethal consequences for the murder is immensely problematic.)
Anyhow, there is no question at all that our American system of "justice" is light-years from achieving even the general intention to mete out true justice. For that reason, I years ago abandoned my stubborn--albeit qualified--defense of the death penalty in this country.
I admire your work and your writings. Thanks for reading my thoughts.
--
Mark
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I am a college freshman at UCLA and trying to get my blog (bunburydave.tumblr) going and trying to get into nationally syndicated journalism. I came across your article after being referred to lewrockwell to read about Ron Paul being under appreciated by the press-which he is.
I just wanted to point out this particular line from your article: "...there are 1,371 blacks on death row (42% of the total death row population) despite the fact that blacks only make up 12% of the U.S. population."
It was very misleading to include that blacks make up 12% of the population when the pertinent statistic would have been what percentage of criminals in the United States are black, because only criminals are eligible to be committed to death row. Also, you did not acknowledge any counter argument. Just a little constructive criticism.
Josh
John:
You know I love you and your work.
But on the issue of abolishing the death penalty I believe you are wrong.
First the death penalty is Biblical. You know that. Second, nations and societies that fail to execute capital punishment incur God's wrath, 'blood guiltiness'.
That said, I realize the state - US government is screwed up big time and has executed people wrongly. However, that is not to negate the clear Biblical and historical precedent for capital punishment.
The Bible clearly states that those who fail to administer capital punishment properly at then subject to that punishment. Go back and read Rushdoony's the Institutes of Biblical law on this.
Rather than abolish the death penalty, we should demand it be carried out properly, and if it is not those involved in injustice should be subject to it. That's the proper solution.
When you can make a Biblical and historical argument against the death penalty, I'll listen, but to say because the EU has abolished the death penalty so we should too is a poor argument (and you know it).
To think that Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dalmer, Charles Manson and others don't deserve the death penalty is not only unBiblical but irresponsible.
I greatly respect you and your share with you your fear of the state using its increasing power against its citizens. The answer is to correct this over reach, which its a root cause.
Once again, I greatly respect you and your work. I think you are seriously wrong on this issue and that such a position hurts the institute and damages it's standing for truth and righteousness in the Christain community.
Love you and the Institute.
Gary
In a recent article on Lew Rockwell's web site you write, "Even if most of those condemned to die prove to be guilty, if just one innocent person is wrongly executed, that is still one too many."
I think by this logic one could never justify a death penalty, which is clearly a result at odds with the scriptures.
God seems to equate wrongfully letting the guilty live (which you support, with regrets) with putting to death the innocent (which you think is utterly intolerable to the point of prohibiting the death penalty). Both should be avoided, of course, but mistakes will be made, as God (of course) knows. Your balance would seem to be that one innocent death outweighs letting dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of guilty people live. That is a very common standard among decent and godly men but one I feel is unbiblical and humanistic.
For a good articulation of what I'm referring to, consider listening to the following:
Casey Anthony: Soulless Murderer by Phil Elmore
http://kgov.com/bel/20110707
Thanks for giving this some thought. Enjoy your writing and have for years.
Frederick
Mr. Whitehead,
You make a pragmatic case for the abeyance of death penalty executions. However, unless God is in error himself in having governments do them, the idea remains that if one man sheds another man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man made. Further, if such punishment is swift, it brings terror to evil doers said Solomon. The way our appeals processes go, it makes the "swift" part practically non-existent, and thus renders the penalty (if it ever comes) not the deterent it would be. The Bible is clear that justice, if swift, is a deterrent. There is no arguing that. It makes clear the standard that those who murder deserve the death penalty, as the Cities of Refuge give up those who are not found innocent to the avenger of blood. But we do see mercy for David who ordered a murder, for God did not order David's death, the God who declared the standard. Jesus did not stone a woman caught in adultery to death. Those two things, together with your pragmatic considerations leave much room for viewpoints on this. Include the fact that God did not carry out the death of Adam and Eve swiftly but over time, givng them time to repent and call upon God. Perhaps in your conversations, you might speak to the ideal, and the Biblical truths, even while we acknowledge the pragmatic current limitations. I must not be so idealistic that people die needlessly for it. Yet we must not be so pragmatic that we let go of a standard that is fitting. We ought hold both. That's the best I see it. Thank you for explaning your viewpoint more thoroughly.
Bill
Best if all the very bad people are given the opportunity to commit
suicide. Start with the guy in Norway. At the end - God will judge us
all so if there is any doubt; then
the sentence should be a life term
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)