Monthly Archives: January 2015 - Page 2

LIONEL PODCAST: MLK Was the Victim of a Conspiracy and Chris Kyle, Meet Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch

The conspiracy analysis. On December 8, 1999, a jury in Memphis, Tennessee, returned a verdict that found that civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the victim of an assassination conspiracy and did not die at the hands of a lone gunman as history records and the media have repeated. Dr. King was the victim of conspiracy and James Earl Ray was a patsy. Which conspiracy loon said this? Try Coretta Scott King.

After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

In a press statement held the following day in Atlanta, Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict, saying, “There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court’s unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law… My husband once said, “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” To-day, almost 32 years after my husband and the father of my four children was assassinated, I feel that the jury’s verdict clearly affirms this principle. With this faith, we can begin the 21st century and the new millennium with a new spirit of hope and healing.”

Findings of fact. The overwhelming evidence of US government complicity found valid by the jury includes the following:

  • US 111th Military Intelligence Group were at Dr. King’s location during the assassination.
  • 20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day.
  • Usual Memphis Police special body guards were advised they “weren’t needed” on the day of the assassination.
  • Regular and constant police protection for Dr. King was removed from protecting Dr. King an hour before the assassination.
  • Military Intelligence set-up photographers on the roof of a fire station with clear view to Dr. King’s balcony.
  • Dr. King’s room was changed from a secure 1st-floor room to an exposed balcony room.
  • Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper.
  • Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.
  • The rifle Mr. Ray delivered was not matched to the bullet that killed Dr. King, and was not sighted to accurately shoot.

Whither the hero? As to Chris Kyle, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance) Keep that in mind. And remember Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. And also remember Jesse Ventura’s verdict for defamation against Kyle. War is barbaric and necessarily involves the creation of those who kill on orders and on command. The “Manchurian Candidacy” en masse. They are human drones and artillery. They are to have such conditioning taken into consideration. But beware the apotheosis of the centurion at the hands of The Pentagon.

LIONEL PODCAST: My Interview With Pete Barbutti, Tonight Show and Vegas Legend

The days of magic. Pete Barbutti was a regular feature of the The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson
and I loved him when I was a kid. He’s an incredible jazz pianist as well as a multi-instrumented master of the accordion (or “cordine” as he was wont to say) and trumpet. His sense of humor was twisted, off beat, skewed and I howled. In many ways he cemented my skewed view of the world. Thanks to YouTube I can watch him again. And again. He represents to me a time when variety shows ruled, when they were simply glorious. When talent ruled supreme, when unique personality and charm and wit were the reason for the return visit. When people were famous not just for being famous. When comics weren’t deliberately filthy. When coprolalic rants and F-bomb sorties weren’t a substitution for wit. In this podcast Pete Barbutti mentions a great line from Buddy Hackett, who said (and I paraphrase): If it’s funny it’s not dirty and if it’s dirty it’s not funny. Hear! Hear!

The Magic of Vegas. Pete Barbutti recounts the days of Howard Hughes and when the “boys” ran the Vegas. It’s not just a nostalgic reminiscence, it’s the detailing of history. Our history. American history. And Pete Barbutti was and is a critical character in the history and recordation of American variety.

LIONEL Returns to Coast to Coast AM with George Noory

Lionel returns to Coast to Coast AM. What can you possibly say about George Noory that hasn’t already been said? On January 12, 2015 CE, I graced the portals of his blockbuster show and for two hours discussed a panoply of subjects from the hyper-militarization of the police to the Hegelian Dialectic in action to UFOs to conspiracies to . . . name it. Here’s how George saw it.

In the latter half, TV and radio news decoder, legal analyst and renaissance lawyer, Lionel, talked about the increased militarization of the police, and various alternative media topics. He cited the mind control technique known as Problem Reaction Solution, in which a problem is created, a reaction is manufactured, and a solution is proposed, all by the same manipulators. The solution government has presented is hyper-militarized police, he suggested, but in exchange for what seems like more security, we have left the notion of the police as being friendly and there to assist in the dust. What are your views on police militarization?

Lionel also differentiated how he is a conspiracy analyst rather than a theorist, and spoke about his interview with Stanton Friedman, who has called the UFO cover-up a ‘cosmic Watergate.’

LIONEL PODCAST: Hollywood Has Absolutely No Duty to Be “Diverse.” So What?


  • the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.
  • the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization
  • perhaps the most overused term to inartfully and irrationally suggest that the world is considerate, sapient, fair and/or rational. [I added that.]

I got your diversity right here! According to the data collectors at Lee & Low Books who crafted the disturbing but hardly surprising infographic supra, it’s abundantly clear that the Oscars may just be the hoariest, whitest old boys club there is in these parts. But so what? It’s not the government or the military or a public school. We’re not talking juries or electors or School Boards. It’s Hollywood and diversity appears not to be its number one priority. Neither does the NBA, Junior League, Skull and Bones, the Medal of Honor Society, or Who’s Who in Paducah. Private organizations and ensembles and industries have no allegiance to anyone save its own members or shareholders. And while that may royally suck and make absolutely no sense, while you and I might find it reprehensible causing us to boycott and rant and rave, so what? Herein I describe the pitfalls of diversity as a goal in certain cases, and the rudiments of reality.

You Cannot Possibly Be In Favor of Vile and Disgusting Hate But You Can Support Publishing #CharlieHebdo Garbage

The perfect analogy and metaphor for multiple-issue, concomitant subject matter review and critical thinking. Plate spinning. Denmark’s Henrik Bothe, is a contemporary practitioner the style and spirit of Erich Brenn, known worldwide for his appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show, shows the art of balancing multiple plates/ideas simultaneously. Wikipedia incidentally notes that The Guinness World Record for spinning multiple plates is held by David Spathaky, assisted by Debbie Woolley, who spun 108 plates simultaneously in Bangkok, Thailand, on television in 1996. Amazing stuff.

By analogy, America needs a crash course in this method. Multiple ideas, thoughts, issues, facts, data, analyses, some that are consistent with others, some unique and stand-alone — balance all, address all. And the acknowledgement of one idea doesn’t negate or eliminate another as inconsistent merely because it’s different. In other words: You can condemn the cartoon and the murder of the cartoonist simultaneously. Because the ideas are different, dissimilar. They involve different elements, different points.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.” Thus spake Christopher Hitchens. America must be more like Erich Brenn and learn to handle multiple ideas concomitantly especially if they are not necessarily similar. To wit:

  • Whither mirth? #CharlieHebdo was as funny as a Klan rally or root canal. And the term cartoon does not necessarily impart humor or pleasant witticisms. It’s a part of the French-language tradition of Bandes dessinées (“drawn strips”), some of which are, ahem, provocative to a degree rarely seen in mainstream English-speaking media, even in the most piquant of satirical outlets. History has shown us some of the vilest examples of racism and antisemitism by way of the scartoons. But no one deserves to die over any opinion or expression of thought. That’s the axiomatic, pedestrian retort that must always follow the obvious. It’s similar to when a criminal is shot by police, you must always say, “It’s a tragedy, every life is worth something.” Yes, thanks for the proviso and condition. But as to Charlie Hebdo, it ain’t the Onion or Daily Show or National Lampoon. Somehow the term cartoon has been conflated and coopted to suggest a euphemistic revision of what Charlie Hebdo is and has been. Before it was Charlie Hebdo, France’s most controversial magazine even by French standards was known as L’Hebdo Hara-Kiri. Hara-Kiri had one mission only: to be as “dumb and nasty” as possible (their words). Pay particular attention to that, all you cartoon fans. The motive and intent and direction and plan were to abrade and sting and piss off. Mission accomplished, mes amis. And why this is critical is to understand that our piquant and raucous humor, by our timid standards, knows no comparison to Charlie Hebdo. Remember, we’re the epicenter of political correctness. At least, selective PC. How many folks know that one cartoon portrayed France’s black Justice Minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey? Oh, that would play just great here. Right.
  • #SorryCharlie. It’s possible to disagree with its message and allow and permit and countenance its right to be offensive. Let me repeat: You can condemn the cartoon and the murder of the cartoonist simultaneously. In my perfect world, nothing should ever be prohibited from expression except for the obvious. But, no, I find Charlie Hebdo offensive, crass, crude, hateful and worse, not funny in the least. And that’s where Americans can relate. There’s almost a sense of mandatory acceptance of the message whole cloth with no room for reservation or disagreement. America thrives on being offended for everything and everywhere. If some celeb drops an F-bomb, Janet Jackson suffers a wardrobe malfunction and flashes an armored areola or mammilla that requires the visual acuity of a fighter pilot to even notice, if Michael Richards goes off on a racist rant, name it, we call for their heads. The same folks who march in solidarity today would be calling for the prosecution and incarceration of the foregoing subjects yesterday. So we have inconsistent allegiances and fealty, and I submit again, most of those who are publicly ardent in support of Charlie Hebdo would have cursed its subject matter had it been published here.
  • Beware the hate crime. There’s an irony here. The professional and prototypical American left loves the hate crime, which stands to date as the quintessentially and fundamentally unconstitutional embarrassment since the neck tattoo. The idea is that speech that is deemed hateful and criminal thereby as to the message, especially when accompanying an already crime already cognizable at law, should subject the actor and declaration of the errant message to a higher level of prosecution and charge. Yet, and pay close attention, many of these folks are now calling for acceptance and tolerance and understanding as to Charlie Hebdo’s racist and hateful content. Again, we’re all in agreement that murder over objection to a message is never justified or warranted.
  • This isn’t the first time for France. Recent history shows that events like this aren’t new. In what’s referred to as the Toulouse and Montauban shootings, Mohammed Merah on March 11, 2012, shot a French Muslim soldier in the head at close range after telling him, “You kill my brothers, so I am killing you.” The Washington Post captioned the story “Mohammed Merah, face of the new terrorism.” Then the 2013 La Défense attack was believed to have followed “a threat from the North African wing of al-Qaeda, related to the country’s military intervention in Mali.” At that time attempts by the media and government to extrapolate and conflate were not seen as they are today. Beware attempts to invoke the Hegelian dialectic to rouse action and retaliation against the amorphous face of “terrorism.” We’ve seen that movie before.
  • Hollande’s unprecedented pronouncement. This was a fascinating event in France’s current events that many international commentators are noting with particularity. It seems that French President Francois Hollande said on January 5, two days before the attacks, that Western sanctions against Russia should be lifted if progress were made in resolving the Ukraine crisis. The unprecedented two-hour interview with France Inter radio was aimed at championing a host of economic reforms with the goal of reversing Hollande’s record-low approval ratings. It also him a chance to state his views on a range of foreign policy issues especially as to Putin and Russian sanctions. “What he wants is to remain influential. What he wants is for Ukraine not to fall into the NATO camp,” Hollande said. This is by no means presented as causal, but it’s critical to note the political climate that surrounds any event  and when it comes to world geopolitical issues in general, our media are known for their less-than-thorough coverage.
  • They are not Charlie. Not everyone sides with Charlie Hebdo while still denouncing the murders. This again refers to the ability to handle two issues or plates simultaneously. “Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,” wrote Al Jazeera English editor and executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr in a staff-wide e-mail. David Brooks of the New York Times wrote that anyone who thinks they could publish a Charlie Hebdo style “cartoon” on American campuses would be shuttered in a heartbeat. “Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech . . . [t]he administration would have cut financing and shut them down.” The Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page wrote, “But even as I defend the heroism of Charlie Hebdo, I would be remiss if I failed to condemn its racism — as well as its sexism, its anti-theism and other attacks against targets that were in much less privileged positions to defend themselves.” Catholic League President Bill Donohue in a statement entitled “MUSLIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ANGRY” wrote, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.” He even goes so far in his unbridled audacity to quote James Madison from Federalist, no. 63, 422-29: “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.” For a marvelous interview with Mr. Donohue on this very subject, join me here for my give and take with my great friend.
  • #CanAMovementExistAnymoreWithoutAHashtag? After protestors were convoked to address the death of Eric Garner #ICantBreathe became the rallying cry. When attempts were made later to correct some possible misunderstandings as to the factual bases of Mr. Garner’s death, when they proved inconsistent with the meme and hashtag they were discarded. When facts of Mr. Garnet’s arrest and arrest record were posited they likewise were found to be discordant with the message and meme. When the cases of Tamir Rice and Akai Gurley were offered as substitutes for focus as better examples of police brutality and/or excess it was though by some that inasmuch as they didn’t enjoy the same hashtag or meme pithiness and imaging, protestors would stick to #ICantBreathe. We live in a hashtag and meme-centered communications world.When the world became aware of Ahmed Merabet, the first police officer at the scene of the Charlie Hebdo attack who was shot dead in cold blood and was Muslim, attempts were made to redirect a new meme of #IAmAhmed or #JeSuisAhmed. Memes that are cemented are hard to change. The message, the facts, the truth and the background will not counter the message that enjoys a social media momentum. This can be most problematic. And is.
  • The numbers don’t add up. And finally, when attempts are made to extrapolate the Paris horrors with the Muslim world or Islam, the sheer enormity of the Muslim world population destroys any attempt to paint the issue with a broad brush. Yes, the assassins were Muslim and espoused what we call radical Islamist Jihadist rhetoric, admittedly used incorrectly as I’m told by Islamic scholars. Yes, they cited blasphemy as the reason for the killings. When the certifiable and thankfully-late coot Fred Phelps cited the Bible and Christianity as bases for protesting military funerals and spouting hateful rhetoric, we were correctly swift to dismiss his thoughts as extreme and not representative. But when I attempt that same argument as to Islam, I’m reminded by many “scholars” that the gravamen of the Muslim message is Sharia, misogyny, intolerance, hate and violence. With a world population of 1.6B Muslims, if a mere 10% were of this murdering mindset, this raucous and rampaging ilk would by definition result in over 160M crazed, maniacal and homicidal lunatics wreaking havoc in the world. But we don’t see that, now do we? As I mentioned and explained on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, ‘neath the horror there’s some good news.

LIONEL PODCAST: My Interview With The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue Who Inflames and Abrades His Critics By Daring to Suggest a Causation Without Justification Argument as to #CharlieHebdo

Bill Donohue quotes James Madison: “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty, as well as by the abuses of power.” The nerve of this man citing our Constitutional forebears!

The lovable lug. If you’ve lived under a rock or have been in a coma for most of recent times, this is Bill Donohue. I have known him for over two decades and am proud to call him my friend. As with those who participate in the audacious practice of advocacy, controversy is not an alien concept to Sir William.

His style is loud and combative and confrontational, so whenever he’s involved in any controversy (which is not the rarity), the mainstreamers pay particular attention and note to his words because (a) he’s good copy and (b) he’s great with a quip and quote. Here’s Bill’s curriculum vitae.

The gravamen. It’s being suggested that Donohue is somehow excusing the murders. That Charbonnier and others should have known better. WRONG! He never said that, meant that, intimated or insinuated that. Not even close.

Prolegomenon. No stranger to controversy and full-throated advocacy, Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, an organization that “monitors the culture, acting as a watchdog agency and defender of the civil rights of all Catholics,” issued a statement titled “MUSLIMS ARE RIGHT TO BE ANGRY.”And, as you can imagine, the reaction was loud and constant. Per usual.

In it, Donohue criticized Charlie Hebdo’s history of offending the world’s religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier “didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death,” the statement reads. He further notes in this quote that the media have interestingly omitted, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.” As you can imagine, this confounds many for the usual and obvious reasons.

The points to be addressed. In the event you, like most of the Western world, have no critical thinking skills to speak of and react viscerally and via Pavlovian, patellar reflexes, let me give you this unsolicited advice on how to review this issue and what points you should attend to.

  • Read exactly the word of the person you’re commenting on and anent.
  • “Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated,” says Donohue. “But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”
  • The media and various commentators have no problem in suggesting that mayors and civil rights leaders “caused” and promoted violence upon police officers, thereby establishing a justification and causality argument.
  • If the media can suggest that mayors and protestors “caused” police to be assassinated by lunatics and have blood on their hands, they should have no problem in understanding that “cartoonists” likewise can incite violence.
  • If no cartoon is subject to limitation and if they should be aired freely why are so many networks refusing to run that which they embrace as free speech?
  • Geopolitical terrorism is the issue that has escaped many as they focus on the immediate.
  • To understand a crime doesn’t mean you agree with or countenance it.
  • When a group has repeatedly reacted violently in the past, notwithstanding having no basis in fact or law or justification to do so, to that which they have repeatedly suggested is blasphemous and which they vowed retaliation over, can anyone actually claim surprise. Remember: This is not an excuse for the event.
  • Charlie Hebdo defends its “right to blasphemy,” in the words (and drawings) of Bernard Velhac, known as Tignous, one of the cartoonists killed in the shootings today. “We publish caricatures every week, but people only describe them as declarations of war when it’s about the person of the Prophet or radical Islam,” cartoonist Stéphane Charbonnier, known as Charb, told Der Spiegel in 2012. He was also killed in the shootings today. []

The horse’s mouth. So, let’s hear what he really said and meant from Mr. Donohue himself, shall we?

LIONEL PODCAST: A Discussion With the Inimitable and Ineffable Historian and Activist Webster Griffin Tarpley

Henry C. Carey (1793-1879) – American economist and sociologist, often called the founder of the American school of economics. His greatest apostle is the subject of this podcast.

Proud to be an American (Schooler). For those who’ve finally mastered the tissue-thin liberal-conservative world of simplistic philosophical and ideological dualism, let me commend to you the American School and both its founder and prolific student and proponent, Messrs. Carey and Tarpley respectively.

Sui generis. Webster Griffin Tarpley is simply without peer as one of the most and vocal incisive critics of Anglo-American hegemony and predatory imperialism, an analyst, historian, author, name it. His lectures, books, presentations, speeches, radio work are like none other. He’s magnificent. And I don’t use that form of praise lightly. If for no other reason — and that’s an absurd notion in and of itself — to listen to the words of the good Doctor, his history lessons and disquisitions especially anent Venetian intelligence cabals alone are worth the price of virtual admission. His politics fits not simply into any category, which already wins me over. He’s quick to slam the left as he is the right. His books are equal-opportunity indictments whose gravamens target Bushes 41 and 43, Obama and Wall Street mercilessly. A peerless polyglot, Tarpley is that professor you wish you had. In a world of warmed over pseudo-intellects and pathetic autodidacts, Dr. Tarpley has no equal.

On tap for this confab. The subject matter is voluminous, plenary and considerable.

  • The American School of Economics explained in detail.
  • Let’s hear it for Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List and Henry Charles Carey!
  • Advocating the nationalization of the Fed, from central bank to national bank.
  • Greece’s Alexis Tsipras and SYRIZA and what that means to you. Or should mean.
  • The Wall Street Sales Tax and why it makes complete sense.
  • Derivatives and toxic instruments.
  • The Tarpley Plan
  • The horror(s) of Libertarian economics, the Austrian School and genocidal austerity.
  • Paul Krugman’s almost got it. Sorta.
  • Keynesian Schmeynesian.
  • The poisonous myth of “free trade.”
  • UKIP and Farage.
  • Unafraid of the IMF and Federal Reserve, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko defends his country and currency with war dirigism.

Please take notes. There will be a test.

LIONEL PODCAST: A Discussion With the Consummate Jurist Sol Wachtler

A distinguished career in the law. Sol Wachtler is the Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Touro Law Center. I’ve had the privilege and honor of addressing his constitutional law class and saw firsthand the excitement he has for explicating and limning the intricacies of those matters juridical and the referenced.

A trusted public and judicial servant. He began his government career in 1963, when he was elected supervisor of the Town of North Hempstead. He was appointed to the New York State Supreme Court in 1968 and elected to the New York State Court of Appeals in 1972. In 1985, he was appointed Chief Judge of the State of New York and the Court of Appeals, positions in which he served until 1993. He was also the founder and first chair of New York’s State Federal Judicial Council as well as the National State Federal Judicial Council. And I’m proud to call him my friend. And I mean that.

He’s what you would expect a judge to be. Television has given us the clown and oaf as TV judge, Wapner notwithstanding. (And he’s alive at 95!) Judge Judy is a harridan of the first order, an embarrassment. To think people actually think (now there’s a statement) that she’s the norm. That scolding, fire-breathing, rude and discourteous judges exist. Well, a few do, to be honest. Anyhoo, Judge Wachtler is the crème de la crème. The anti-Judy. Bespoke and urbane, eloquent and stentorian. He’s central casting for the learned judge. Well-spoken, measured, possessed with the decorum and affect and attitude of the quintessential jurist.

Précis. In the years I’ve know him, I’ve cherished the hours that we’ve chatted anent the law and jurisprudence. In this full-bodied conversation, Judge Wachtler and I discuss inter alia:

  • The gubernatorial and political legacy of New York Governor Mario Cuomo, whom Judge Wachtler knew intimately and remembers fondly.
  • The “unique” logic and juridical philosophy of New York City Mayor Ed Koch who saw his gubernatorial chances vanish afer referring ti upstate New Yorkers as chuffs, churls and boors. In effect.
  • The fraud that is SCOTUS denizen Antonin Scalia and the imaginary machinations of originalism that provide for a tissue thin synthetic legal philosophy that justifies any result and decision as a product of a post hoc rationalization.
  • The historical antecedents to torture and the rather “novel” excuses and bases attempting to justify such.
  • The inexplicable inability to address the issues of mental health in our criminal justice system.
  • The ofttimes embarrassing realities of legal history. Can you say “Dred Scott”?
  • Juridical historicity and the role of relativistic perspective in deciding cases.
  • The challenges that law and jurisprudence will face when dealing with advances in technology and the like.
  • Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), and knowing it when you see it à la Potter Stewart.
  • The mind-boggling impunity that Reverend Al Sharpton seems to enjoy and how his words have meaning, had meaning and seem to be forgotten.
  • The future (good and bad) of American judicature.

Let me be very clear. I love Sol Wachtler and cherish his friendship.