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.
Monday, November 28, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)