Quotes of the day

To determine the authenticity of a document, it must be compared to all other sources.

The “rant” attributed to Joe Stack does not have documented sourcing for comparison against other correspondences and writings known to be Stack’s own.

Joe Stack’s adult daughter has stated that this “rant” does not resemble her father’s mannerisms in style and content.

Yes, Stack’s first wife said that he had a “hang-up” over the IRS.

Just as relevant is the fact that Joe Stack’s clients included interests involved in the Department of Homeland Security, national defense and the federal intelligence community.

The only information broadcasted regarding the airplane flown into the Austin IRS bldg. is being released by the IRS.

Stack’s second wife refuses to speak. Her neighbor assuming the role as her personal spokesman is an IRS agent whom she never had a friendship with until the day of the collision. She is being sued by the second wife of the IRS victim, the second wife also being an IRS employee. The law suit was announced as having “nothing to do about the money” but as a “requirement” in order to prevent any release of autopsies from the scene. (BTW, why was the day shift IRS employee on break at 9 a.m.?) Eye witness states that the pilot looked comatose, leaned back in static position. Remote control of aircraft is part and parcel of today’s technology.

Every single person who knew Joe Stack has only complimentary recollections regarding his personality and their associations. No one who knew Joe Stack has stepped forward to substantiate anything derogatory about his political views, stipulating instead that Mr. Stack had never brought up or discussed politics with friends.

So when arguing over “Stack’s” manifesto, realize the assumption being made based from the single source of information, the IRS that had all the evidence prepared for immediate release after a collision that conveniently occurred when all emergency vehicles and personnel were across the street from the scene.

YES, Joe Stack may have done this according to the story. He may well have been set up to do this, whether drugged or not, whether alive or not when the plane collided. And “this” terrorism is a horrendous crime against Americans.

Studying the complete scenario would be the responsible objective of investigative reporters.

Projecting propaganda as the complete body of evidence is irresponsible. Information from a single source, particularly from a source with 100% vested interest in the case, is only that. No more.

Where is the physical evidence proving the IRS story? Handwriting experts including those for the defense? Fingerprints? Phraseology (already discredited)? No transparency permitted, all victims DNA and autopsy evidence is prohibited from being released. Now THAT is a story to discuss.

maverick muse on February 25, 2010 at 8:29 AM

We wonder if somehow what was and is a wonderful and populist free-market uprising is in danger of becoming allied with high-profile conservative proponents of the American military industrial complex. We wonder how one can support the gigantic government infrastructure necessary for a pax Americana and still somehow be in favor of lower taxes, less government and a shut down of the Federal Reserve that in large part funds the overseas Anglo-American empire. Check your premises, Ayn Rand famously wrote.

Sarah Palin is the keynote speaker for the upcoming Tea Party Convention. Palin is so far as we can tell, a firm supporter of the war on terror with most if not all of its domestic security excrescences. Scott Brown (a Tea Party favorite), who was just elected in Massachusetts, was apparently a military man for 30 years and notes his service in virtually every other interview. Neither Palin nor Brown can be considered Jeffersonian republicans, even if one was willing to stretch the definition. They seem more likely to promote American adventurism. They want small government at home, but big government adventurism abroad. They are domestic constitutionalists and (in a sense) global imperialists.

Regarding the Washingtonian take on the Tea Party movement and members as the “Tea Party of Nope?”

If the august reporters and editors of the Post think that what is occurring now is simply a time of negativism, we would like to make the case that the reality is exactly the reverse. Today is a time of renewed freedom, of economic literacy, of the acceptance of human action over the bogus blandishments of the Nanny state. Today is the beginning of the era of “yup.”

maverick muse on February 25, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Unconstitutional Statist interests (within and outside of the Republican Party) recognize the Tea Party populist protest against government corruption as a threat, hence demonizing the Tea Party as anti-American, terrorists, even as ignorant rubes.

I have found that The Daily Bell (“A Daily Compendium of Free-Market Thinking” — an independent non-commercial site) expounds Constitutional modern application of the political and economic ideologies taught by Jefferson and Barzun. Staff Reports expose a Dominant Social Theme explicated through a Free-Market Analysis.

The Daily Bell is extremely illuminating reference material for those who appreciate scholarly research written for the public audience.

The Tea Party movement could be factionalizing. Many on the libertarian side may not like Scott Brown’s politics and feel he used the movement as way to build momentum without actually subscribing to its values. They might take the position that Brown, with his high profile and success, represents larger forces trying to turn the Tea Party movement into an adjunct of organized politics – and that this effort has been going on for a while.

This is not to say that the Tea Party movement has not already had a greatly positive impact on America’s electoral psyche. Or that it is in any sense a spent force (it’s likely still growing and will have continued, important impacts). We think it is a significant movement and there is plenty of life left in it. Yes, we think it has accomplished great things and will, in a sense, accomplish much more. We think many of those involved are most sincere and passionate. But certainly for organizers and dedicated participants, life could become more difficult for the Tea Party movement as it becomes less amorphous. Political organizers will move in order to take advantage of the money and enthusiasm of its members.

Think of the Tea Party as a kind of political equivalent of the 1960′s countercultural movement – just post Woodstock. That was when it ceased to be a kind of generational expression and became instead a vehicle that could support all sorts of commercialization. There was lots of money to be made. It could be the Tea Party is approaching that point now – a point of exploitation by the powers-that-be. The Tea Party movement is the first big populist movement of the 21st century, and populist movements, being popular, tend to sprawl across the board, meaning different things to different people. Eventually they are ripe for exploitation.

You know, we could tell this past year that something was happening. We sensed that the Tea Party movement was becoming at least partially co-opted because the high profile names suddenly seemed to change from people we’d never heard of to people we had. And we noted that pro-military establishment commentators like Sean Hannity were styling themselves as Tea Party supporters and saw how mainstream political strategists were suddenly proclaiming their fealty to the movement and we began to wonder if a schism was in the offing.

We wrote we didn’t “get it.” We didn’t see how you could support America’s military-industrial complex and be pro-freedom and smaller government at the same time. We wrote about these views several times in order to unpack what was and remains a confusing situation because we think the Tea Party now falls into at least three camps. There are those political organizers and commentators who are manipulating the Tea Party movement in order to reap benefits for the Republican party. Then there is the libertarian group that believes in what they perceive as the foundational profile of the Tea Party movement as an anti-tax, pro-freedom movement. Finally, there are likely millions of Tea Party supporters who have a “big tent” approach to the Tea Party’s goal and are perhaps satisfied with its anti-government flavor (as it pertains especially to domestic programs) and “give ‘em hell” mentality. Whether “conservative” or not, they may make up the biggest group of all – and are no less sincere or motivated than any others.

Because of this latter group, we are not willing to say that Scott Brown’s victory had no larger import – or was not in some sense a triumph. We think there are lots of Tea Party people out there who simply see Brown’s victory as proof of a resurgent movement of resentment and irritation unleashed on the full political spectrum. That’s why we wrote that in a sense Scott Brown’s importance was perhaps more symbolic than realistic. Because so far as we can tell, realism may dictate something approaching business-as-usual. He certainly doesn’t have the hallmarks of a radical “change agent.” His patron seems to be Mitt Romney.

…But you know what – in the long run it may hardly matter … The MOVEMENT that cast up Scott Brown is only going to get bigger and more powerful. In fact to call it a movement is doing it a disservice. It is a process, sparked by the Internet and fanned by the winds of economic and social discontent.

Perhaps those libertarians who seem upset over what they see as the ongoing hijacking of the Tea Party movement could take a step back. Consider, please: This technology of mass communication – the Internet – is just beginning to bite. History shows us that movements of mass communication like this one can roll forward for decades and even centuries like Tsunamis, leveling social controls and creating more and more space for freer societies.

“Brown’s Tea Party Schism”

maverick muse on February 25, 2010 at 11:12 AM