Radical hater of Islam edits web page to hide evidence.

Some years ago I stumbled across a web page entitled Atlas Shrugs. Being a fan of Ayn's and friendly with many friends of Ayn's, I went to the page to see what it had to offer. I was thoroughly disgusted by the rabid, irrational, hateful tone that permeated the material that I read at the time. I have had no reason to assume the site got better and never returned to it, considering it a smear on Rand. Admittedly Ayn sometimes got things wrong, but this web site was so consistently wrong, and so consistently nasty, that I saw it as a haven for deranged minds, not for reasoned debate.

We know the voice behind this fake Atlas site is a radical named Pam Geller. And we know that the killer in Oslo, the cultural conservative with a gun and a tendency to kill young people to destory "Maxist multiculturalism" and stand up to "political correctness," was an extremist named Anders Behring Breivik. Breivik was a fan of Geller's—reading his 1500 "manifesto" makes that clear.

And, there is good reason to believe that Geller actually published an email from Breivik, one that actually warned of possible violent intentions. Here is a page of an "Email from Norway" that Geller published, at least this is how the page reads today. Read it and see if you can find the warning about intended violence. Click on the image to englarge it for easier reading.

Notice anything? Of course you didn't. Since the actual armed attack. it appears that Geller has removed material from the original post she published, which quite clearly indicated violent intentions by her corespondent. Here is the same page from her site BEFORE she selectively hid material from public view.

You will note a sentence that I have highlighted in blue. This is a screencapture from Google web cache. It is currently on line here. But that will disappear at some point, which is why I did a screencapture, to preserve the image forever. Notice that the Norwegian correspondent told Geller: "We are stockpiling and caching weapons and equipment. This is going to happen fast." It is possible that Geller actually knew the identity of the man who wrote the letter indicating he was preparing for armed conflict. Please notice this from the comment section, which, as of today, Geller has forgotten to scrub clean of evidence.

Again, you can click on it to enlarge it. But commenter "turn" refers to the email from Norway as "A very nice letter to you, Pam, from a Norwegian Atlasite (Atlasonian?). Unfortunately, he or she could be prosecuted under hate-speech laws for writing or posting in Norway what you have passed on to us." Geller response says: "yes, turn, which is why I ran it anonymously." Get that? She doesn't say she didn't know the identity of the author, she implies she actually knew the identity and made the decision to run the piece anonymously so as to protect his identity.

Especially appalling to me is that while seeking to protect the identity of the author she found nothing wrong about originally publishing his comments about stockpiling weapons and equipment to prepare for the onslaught. Even after the writer implied he might well be prepared to go on some sort of assault, Geller intentionally hide his identity to protect him.

And now, that Breivik has gone on an armed attack, killing dozens of innocent, mostly young people, Geller goes on to edit out information from her own web site that may have bearing on the murders. Certainly if I were the Norwegian police I would be having a long talk with Ms. Geller and would take over her website to search for the identity of the author of that email. I would check to see if he wrote other comments to Geller and try to determine how much Geller knew and when she knew it. If she denied any knowledge or suspicion that her Norwegian correspondent was Breivik I would ask her for the author's identity, which she seems to acknowledge knowing. He could be dangerous as well.

I would want to know why she didn't pass on that information, which with minimal follow up may have prevented the terrorists attack by this cultural conservative. Right-wing web sites are defending Geller and she, loud-mouthed as normal, is shrilly insisting that just because Breivik was a regular reader of her site doesn't mean she has any responsibility for his actions.

True, she doesn't, not for that. She insists that "she has not met or communicated with Breivik at all. Not ever. 'No dealings, mo emails, no nothing,' Geller said."

Here is the problem I have with this. She did get an email from Norway, from someone whose identity she seems to have known and which she choose to list as anonymous. That email referred to preparing for some sort of armed attack of one kind or another. After the Breivik incident Geller careful removes the reference to the armed attack, perhaps assuming no one would notice that one sentence difference from the original.

If the email correspondent was NOT Breivik there is little need to edit out the statement, except perhaps to hide evidence that she was in correspondence with another potentially violent Norwegian. I suspect that when she learned of the attack, she remembered the email and feared that it could, or knew that it was, Breivik. So she went and selectively edited the email to remove the reference to potential armed conflict. She could have written a clarification if she KNEW it was not Breivik. For instance, she could have said:

"Dear Readers: Since this was published the tragic shooting in Oslo took place. The author of the email made a reference to stockpiling weapons, which I feel may be misinterpreted in light of current events. I did not see the remarks then, as they might be interpreted now, and have removed them. The author's identity is known to me and this author is the not man arrested in Oslo."

If she was honestly unaware of the identity, which her own comment below the article makes unlikely, she should say: "I am not sure of the identity of this article. In light of current events I have turned it over to the Norwegian authorities for further investigation and will cooperate where I can to help see to it that justice is done."

Neither is how Geller choose to act. Instead she scurried about to delete and hide evidence from her own website. And if there is any reason to suspect she knows more than she is admitting it is precisely her actions to hide evidence that give those suspicious credibility.

A bit of Objectivist History

Destruction (Andy Moore) from Sean Locke on Vimeo.

Here is a video from 1972 which shows the last stages of the demolition of the Richard Neutra House at 10000 Tampa Ave, Chatsworth, CA. The home was built in 1935 by architect Neutra. Ayn Rand purchased the home when she returned to Hollywood to do screen writing. She later sold the home after moving back to New York City. Below are some photos of the home.

Consuming hate: the imperialist passion

A man, with apparently little qualms, walked through a crowded youth camp randomly killing dozens of kids, the death count appears to be reaching around 90. He is consumed with hatred for Muslims, yet it is not Muslims that he kills. His victims are young Norwegians.

Do not get confused. I am not saying it would have been better had he killed some Muslims instead. I am just pointing out how his hatred became so displaced that he ended up snuffing out the lives of young people who previously he wanted to save from the so-called evils of multiculturalism.

Anders Behring Breivik has been described by police as "Right-wing Christian fundamentalist." I wish I could be surprised but my journey among fundamentalists tells me they are hateful people. They are people obsessed with hatred. They constantly look for the "evil" in others to damn it, condemn it, and punish it.

But often, as much as they hate gays, Muslims, feminists, and others, the people they are most likely to harm are those closest to themselves.

People tell me that being consumed by hatred can be good, if you hate the right people. But the more I see hatred in action the less I am convinced by such advice. Instead I see people consumed with hatred becoming less and less able to distinguish between potential victims.

I think of a radical "libertarian" group that prided itself on being the guardians of purity. Lead by an impish little "intellectual" this organization would go around chanting "smash the state." But they never smashed the state. They became consumed by the desire to smash and, like their guru, spent most their time smashing other libertarians. They were, and are, impotent when it comes to smashing the state. So their desire to smash something gets twisted into an attack on people most like themselves.

Yes, hatred can be a powerful motive. But I see people often so given over to the hatred that they cease to discriminate about where they focus their rage. And, too often, the desire to destroy becomes so powerful that they don't give a damn anymore as to who is their victim.

I have trouble finding the positive in hate. I see hatred turning into rage and rage turning in violence. Through that metamorphosis it becomes less and less discriminating until it simply turns into a hatred for everything or everyone.

Rarely does hate pinpoint its targets. It tends to broaden them beyond any justification in fact or history. For instance, a man who is the victim of a crime by someone of another race may easily learn to hate the entire race, not just hate the person who victimized him. Hatred isn't a laser beam capable of focusing on minute, specific targets. It tends to be cluster bombs destroying anything and everything within a relatively large area. Previously I wrote:

Hatred is an imperialistic motive, it always seeks to conquer new territory, and it seeks to expand in a person’s life. There is a reason that you find bigotry against one group often accompanied by bigotry against multiple groups. The typical Jew-hater I’ve met also hates black people and gay people. The fundamentalist who despises gay rights is often equally opposed to Mormons, Jews, Catholics, and others.

People inspired by hatred easily become violent. And violence is inherently destructive. That is precisely why a libertarian opposes institutional violence or coercion. Violence breeds more violence, it takes a society on a downward spiral. Martin Luther King wisely said: “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.” Action inspired by hatred teeters constantly on the edge of violence.

And that is contrary to the basic principles of peaceful cooperation that is at the heart of libertarianism. Hatred fuels hatred and evils multiply. Our first priority as libertarians is the defense of the rights of the individual, not opposition to some policy or government. Policies change, governments change, but individual rights are a constant.

What distinguishes libertarians from the anti-government crowd is not that we oppose many government policies but that we support the rights of the individual. Ours is an agenda inspired by positive values, by the love of human freedom, by our belief in the sanctity of the thinking mind, not by hatred for a president, or an administration, or any government.

Obama still in trouble, but so is the country.

Once again, we are approaching a sad presidential election, plagued by pathetic choices, phony rhetoric, theocratic pandering and more sleaze than you can shake a stick at.

The most recent Gallup survey indicates that voters would flock to a Republican over Obama, this when no Republican is specifically mentioned. The most recent poll shows Obama has the support of 39% of the public, a generic Republican would win 47% and 15% aren't thrilled with that selection at all.

This blogger has long contended that the independent voters in America are mostly voting against whoever holds power at the time. And they swing the elections. As go the independents so goes the nation. Independents are the more libertarian voters in their outlooks. They are not going to get hardons because Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann smear and slander gay people—that fetish only appeals to the shrinking religious right. Nor do independents much care for Obamacare, the wars, spending deficits or taxes. The least libertarian voters tend to be Republicans and Democrats, both brainlessly wedded to their own narrow ideologies, incapable of thinking outside the box, and doing their best to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them.

So, while this poll gives the GOP some cause for hope, they should remember that generic Republicans are not offensive, but real Republicans are. Come on, think about it: someone like Santorum or Bachmann is almost entirely offensive. Palin would send half the voters in fits of hysterical laughter. The independents are not likely to go for a theocrat. Befuddled old conservatives are not really that hot, and Ron Paul really doesn't intend to run for president anyway—just fund raise so he has a hefty fund to "donate" to his own 501(c)3. Sadly Paul would actively be undercutting the libertarian Gary Johnson.

Johnson, in my opinion, is someone that independent voters could take a liking to, which means someone that will offend the god addicts in the GOP. Johnson is libertarian across the board. He's good on civil liberties, a major failing for Paul; he's good on economic issues, and he's anti-war. He is the candidate I always wished Ron Paul would be but wasn't. Better yet, you don't get any paranoid theorizing about international banking elites, the "Amero," "North American Union," the CFR, Bilderbergers, the kind of loony things that Paul has spouted for decades. But, between the Ron Paul "campaign" and the religious right, Governor Johnson will have a difficult time. If he gets through, you can bet I'd actually register and vote for him.

Obama, however, is in trouble. He ignored public opinion regarding his health-care meddling and support for his plan remains low. Most Americans still want his proposal repealed. But I suspect if they count on the Republicans to do it, they will be disappointed.

A little anti-Semitism to go with your nonsense?

There is a right-wing web site called Big Hollywood, which is primarily conservatives lamenting the state of the culture and entertainment. Gee, as if that's news. They've been lamenting the state of the culture since slavery was abolished. So there is nothing new there. The nature of the conservative is to whine and bitch because life evolves and they don't believe in evolution. They believe the best is always behind us and cling tenaciously to the past.

Now what does it take to be a columnist on Hollywood for Big Hollywood? David Swindle, one of their writers, lists his credentials as having written for various right-wing websites, doing film reviews for an Indiana TV station and living near Hollywood "awith (sic) his wife and their Siberian Husky puppy." Okay, in other words, he doesn't have any credibility, just the politically correct (in right-wing circles) views. His own comments seem to limit his knowledge of Hollywood to "doing political, ideological readings of films."

Swindle, with his huge credentials in the entertainment business—sarcasm alert for conservatives who wouldn't know better—sings the praises of the smarmy, oily whiner named Ben Shapiro. Shapiro is a right-wing media whore who makes a pretty penny telling conservatives what they most want to hear. He got his leg up, so too speak, by bragging to conservatives that he was a virgin. Apparently his lack of experience in the field gave him all the credentials to talk about sex that conservatives thought he needed.

Now Shapiro is out to attack evil Hollywood. What I found rather interesting is that Swindle was quick to pay the "Jew card" in this promotion piece for Shapiro's smear book. Here is how he describes it: "Shapiro wore his Harvard Law baseball cap and interviewed some of Hollywood's most influential television creators. Assuming from his alma mater and last name that he was one of them, the Hollywood insiders were too honest for their own good."

Get that? They assumed based on Shapiro's "last name" that "he was one of them." One of who? A Hollywood television producer? Nope. A Jew! Sorry folks, but when conservatives start pulling out the Jew card and pointing to "Jews" as being behind the destruction of American values, I get nervous. Normally they hide anti-Semitism a bit more than that. The anti-gay shit they spew, well that's just fund-raising heaven for them, from their bigoted base. But referring to someone as "one of them," because he has a Jewish name, is scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Though I do have to say that the picture of Swindle does look like someone who would hang out at white power rallies, right down to the "working man" baseball cap and, what appears to be, a vein attempt to grow a mustache—but it could just be dirt.

Swindle says that little Ben "documents the subversion of the cop and legal dramas from the early day of righteous cops and prosecutors to the nihilism of Hill Street Blues and Picket Fences." Wow! This clearly shows how out of touch with reality that Swindle and Shapiro happen to be. Yes, the early fiction on television portrayed cops and prosecutors as righteous. It was pure, unadulterated bullshit. Reality was never that way. And any unbiased reading of history shows that police and prosecutors frequently were corrupt and dishonest. They still are!

It doesn't take much to document the violent tendencies of cops and how they will frequently lie in court and invent evidence to convict people wrongly, and exonerate themselves from any wrong doing. Any accurate portrayal of these two groups will show this happening—just as the news reports show on a daily basis. Right now Corey Maye is seeing freedom again. Cops wrongly raided his home, breaking down his doors in the middle of the night in a no-knock raid. Maye defended himself from violent attackers and killed one of them. He was sentenced to death based on dicey evidence. He was defending his home, as he had the right to do, and there was no valid search warrant for his house. The cop who died was white, Maye was black and it was the deep South. The cop went along on the raid for the fun of it. He was on a joy ride basically. Maye sat in prison for years based on a police screw up. Should we portray those officers as "righteous?"

Sorry, but Swindle lives in a fairytale if he thinks cops and prosecutors are always "righteous." They aren't. This love for authority betrays the "freedom" slogans that conservatives chant. In the end, they abandon freedom every time and cling to the lash of the police state because it makes them safe. That's important to Swindle who once wrote that living on "Chetamon court," as a child, made him feel safe, and gave him "a sense of security." That is what Swindle wants, security, to feel safe—and freedom is just so damn risky. Bad things might happen. So, in the end freedom loses out.

Now let's also be clear that Shapiro can easily bias his book by selecting, in advance, precisely who he will or won't interview. It's that simple. And you can then crow that everyone you talked to was a Leftist. Just don't talk to the libertarians like Clint Eastwood, Trey Parker, Matt Stone, John Larroquette, Drew Carey, Kurt Russell, Raquel Welch, Orson Bean, Penn and Teller, Jason Reitman, Tom Selleck, Wil Wheaton, Marc Cherry, Tracy Torme, Dennis Leary and others.

Conservatism has various branches, from the Ron Paul paleoconservatives to the neoCons, to the Religious Right, to Buckleyite Catholics, for instance. I could do an expose of the "Conservative Movement" and then only interview the real loons like Pat Robertson, Bryan Fischer, Michelle Bachmann, Gary North and other theocratic authoritarians. Such a book would be dishonest. And I suspect some on the Left would lap it up as indicative of the conservative movement. It wouldn't be accurate but it might be popular.

Shapiro can easily do the same thing simply by ignoring all people in the entertainment world who are not openly left-wing. Here is what I suspect happened. Shapiro decides to make money pimping to the Right again. He can't sell the virgin story again, he's too old and too married to make that fly. And, since the Right loves books bashing someone, he decides to bash Hollywood, a favorite target of the Right for decades. (Contrary to their love fest with the 1950s, the conservatives of the 50s didn't like Hollywood then either, which just illustrates the conservative tendency to consistently like whatever is old, even if they didn't like it when it was new.)

Shapiro then sits down and makes a list of the people he already knows are Left-wing and goes out of his way to interview them. The end result proves what he set out to prove. Which, of course, is precisely what you would expect.

Hollywood is far better than conservatives admit. It is often promoting freedom precisely in those areas where conservatives are enamored with Big Government. While conservatives were still supporting Jim Crow laws, white Southern racism, and "keeping those people in their place," Hollywood was depicting the drama of what happens when you allow racism to dominate politics. Hollywood, not conservatives, was on the side of freedom in that battle. While conservatives were engaging in their "polite" anti-Semitism, while ignoring the more vile kinds that would break out in Right-wing circles, it was Hollywood exposing this sordid bigotry in films like Gentleman's Agreement (1947). Again conservatives were supporting the violation of individual rights while Hollywood took the right side of the battle. Today, slimy toadies of the Right, like Shapiro, are beating the anti-gay drum for what it is worth. Hollywood first portrayed gay people as normal human beings, something that horrified the Right. Hollywood was correct, the Right was wrong, again!

I don't think weasels like Ben Shapiro have a leg to stand on. They are big government advocates themselves, just as long as it's big moralistic, Bible-wielding, intolerant government. For them to chastise Hollywood is ludicrous since their own track record promoting individual rights is so damn pathetic.

And, in closing, Hollywood is market driven. The TV shows that conservatives love to hate tend to be popular and that drives the Right nuts. Glee makes money but conservatives see it as imposition on them, a violation of their rights to control what other people watch. Ditto for the various shows they hate. Yes, now and then, they hate a show that bombs and then they crow this proves they were right. But Hollywood continues to make billions year after year because, more often than not, they sell what the public wants to see. Hate the culture if you want, but don't ignore that it is markets at work, the very markets conservative pretend to support.

Another senseless death by over-policing

I am an adamant opponent of tasers. Tasers regularly kill people, in spite of the bogus claims by the "industry" that they are safer. Well, compared to trigger happy joyboy cops, a taser is safer. Better yet stop the joyboys from getting their rocks off with their adrenaline kicks. That is even safer. These cops, because tasers are allegedly seen as safer, are quicker to resort to them.

In this case please note that eyewitnesses said the main in question did not act violently or do anything to warrant the taser attack. The police claim he didn't fully stop at a stop sign. Cops love that one because there are almost never cameras to prove them wrong. It is an easy accusation to make to justify any stop.

Next they say the man did NOT stop until he pulled into a parking lot. I have driven the area in question. This is a very mountainous region of California with roads that wind in every direction, with little space to pull over. I have been to the Valero station in question, after getting lost on this roads once.

Any driver would find it difficult to impossible to immediately pull over unless they luck out and are in just the right spot at the right time. I know that I got hopelessly lost for awhile in the area and just trying to find a place to turn around would sometimes mean driving for a mile or two extra. Allen Kephart pulled over and stopped in a safe place, as opposed to unsafely doing so on a curving road with little to no shoulder. He did the sane thing, as opposed to the insane power junkies that attacked him.

They pulled him out of his car and threw him violently to the ground. That is assault. They then tasered him to death. That is murder. What happens to the thugs? They are still in their jobs probably having a good laugh about how they taught those yokels to respect their authority.

Also note that eyewitnesses said that people who video taped the incident had their telephones confiscated by the police. Once again the police are routinely destroying evidence that could be used against them. It ought to be a crime for any police officer to confiscate a taped recording of his actions. Every cop should be under video surveillance because that is what you do with dangerous people, you keep an eye on them. That they confiscate such video recordings itself is indicative that they KNOW they are acting like a violent gang. They know it, so they destroy the evidence that proves it.

TSA: bunglers and fondlers

The Transportation Security Administration is a collection of blundering, fondlers. We all know how diligent they are at fondling kids, stripping old ladies, taking nudie "scanner" photos and giggling over them. But we are told it's all for airline security.

So how did they do with a real live situation where there was a breach of airline security?

Olajida Noibi, originally from Nigeria, wanted some free flights. He had phony boarding passes and one lost, expired boarding pass. He used the lost pass, dated for June 23rd, to enter the airport on June 24th. Apparently no TSA agent who inspects boarding passes had a clue what day it was. They let him in. For ID he showed a police report claiming his passport was stolen and ID from the University of Michigan. One TSA was suspicious and called a supervisor. But apparently neither didn't notice that the name on the boarding pass didn't match the ID.

So, we have the wrong date, no one at TSA notices. We have the ID not matching the ticket, and no one notices. Noibi then walks to the gate and boards the plane. But the gate ticket alarm went off saying the pass was invalid. He is allowed to board anyway.

Passengers complained that Noibi smelled very bad and the air crew started investigating and determined he was in an unsold seat. They alerted authorities. At Los Angeles International Noibi is meet by the LAPD, the TSA and the FBI. He is questioned for four hours and then released. People have been treated worse than this for the crime of taking a bottle of baby formula on the plane, or a tube of toothpaste.

Still don't think cops are dangerous to good people?

Jesse Kersey, 17, is mentally challenged. And like many with this problem he has a speech impediment. He was outside his house riding his bike when a gang member, also called the police, stopped him to question him, apparently for no reason at all. Perhaps the thug in blue just wanted to throw his weight around. The criminal, by the way, goes by the name of Officer Willie Hooper. Willie? Really? What is he, 10-years-old?

Well, Officer Willie couldn't understand what Jesse was saying and said that made it disrespectful. By the way, you are not required to respect the police by law, that includes clownish buffoons named Officer Willie. Office Willie's little, tiny, immature ego (you didn't think I was going to the other place) was bruised. The poor baby was devastated and lost his temper and started screaming at this retarded boy. The boy, given his disability, didn't understand what was going on. But then with mental cases like Officer Willie even fully mature, totally rational people, would have trouble understanding what was going on. Officer Willie need a rubber, well, a rubber room and some medications to sedate him. After that he needs a nice warm jail cell.

A neighbor witnessing the insane police officer throwing his toys out of the cot tried to tell him that the boy is retarded and can't speak properly and didn't understand what was happening. Well, adrenaline junky Officer Willie was already high on his own exaggerated powers, threatened to arrest the neighbor and ordered him to go back into his house. This is man who is clearly unstable emotionally and impervious to reason. He needs a straightjacket not a badge and a gun.

Jesse did what most kids, especially those with developmental issues, would do. He ran to his mother for help. His mother, Pamela Ford, opened the door of her home to see what was going on. She then witnessed the maddened Officer Willie, and his partner in crime, Officer John Howard, fire tasers into the frightened boy. Tasers are deadly weapons and routinely kill people.

Jesse did not commit a crime. He was not a suspect in a crime. He was being questioned by a power-hungry thug. He is a minor, who, if questioned has a right to have a parent present. He is mentally challenged and doesn't understand what is going on. He doesn't know that cops are dangerous to all peaceful people. He doesn't understand that many of them, like Officer Willie, are mental cases who get their rocks off by hurting people and ordering them around.

By now the thugs were in a feeding frenzy. Ford and a family friend, Christopher Peyton, kept telling the officers that Jesse was retarded and handicapped and had no idea what was going on. But who would when facing an enraged, irrational, wild animal?

The officers responded to this information by using pepper spray on the boy and punching him multiple times. Of course, the fuckwads called for back-up so 20 of their fellow brother thugs descended on the house. Numerous people continued to plead with the officers and tell them they were beating up a retarded kid! They didn't care.

They handcuffed the boy and tossed him into a police car and then went in their Newspeak mode. The boy, who was a victim of a violent assault, was charged with assaulting a "peace officer." This is not a peace officer by any means. And Jesse didn't assault the police, they assaulted him. Typical of how cops twist things to mean their opposite. He was charged with resisting arrest. That means running to his mother for help. And he was charged with "obstructing official business." These are catch-all accusations that police routinely throw at someone when the police are in the wrong.

Jesse is taken to court and the judge says he's mentally incompetent to stand trial and dismisses the charges. If the boy was mentally incompetent to defend himself in court, then he was mentally incompetent to be subjected to an illegal police interrogation. Dayton and little Willie are being sued, as should be the case. But Officer Willie and Co., should be removed from duty, without pay. Criminal charges should be laid against them and, if convicted, they should be sent to jail. In addition, Willie and friends should individually be required to make financial restitution to the boy they assaulted

Here are the facts as described in the legal suit brought against Willie and the City of Dayton. The police of chief in Dayton seems to hide his email address. I urge you to send an email to Mayor Gary Leitzell instead. His email is gary.leitzell@daytonohio.gov. As always be respectful to the mayor but demand the removal of Hooper and Howard from the Dayton police force as threats to public safety.