Police: Man Sold Fruit-Flavored Moonshine

BUNNELL, Fla., (UPI) — A Florida moonshiner has been arrested for luring customers with fruit-flavored booze, investigators say.

Bob Tibbs, 69, was arrested Friday after a two-month undercover investigation, the Orlando Sentinel reported. He was released after posting $5,500 bail.

“Thanks to a tip, this illegal operation was shut down,” Flagler County Sheriff Donald W. Fleming said in a statement. “A lot of people may be surprised that moonshine operations still exists. It does and it is illegal.”

Deputies said they purchased moonshine flavored with apple, blackberry and strawberry as well as the unflavored stuff. Tibbs, who allegedly sold the booze out of his truck on the side of U.S. 1, provided a choice of 130- and 150-proof, they said.

Tibbs also sold fresh fish.

Deputies found a still on his property and broke it up, Fleming said.

What Moms Really Want For Mother’s Day

SAN FRANCISCO, (UPI) — Seventy-five percent of U.S. mothers say they would prefer a handmade card over a necklace from Tiffany & Co., a survey indicates.

Plum District, which provides locally relevant offers targeted for mothers, surveyed its 1 million members to find out what they want for Mother’s Day.

The survey, which involved 19,256 of its members during March, indicated two-thirds would prefer to not pick out their own gift and 54 percent would choose to spend quality time with their own mother.

However, what mothers really want is some sleep. Eight-of-10 mothers said they would choose to sleep in versus a sunrise breakfast with the kids.

One-third of moms said they secretly want the day to themselves, while 52 percent would use an hour to themselves for a massage, while the other 48 percent would go on a bike ride.

“Some of the things we discovered in our survey were pretty surprising to us, like the fact that only 56 percent of husbands/significant others always remember Mother’s Day,” Megan Gardner, chief executive officers of Plum District (plumdistrict.com), said in a statement. “What didn’t surprise us is that at the end of the day, moms might crave some ‘me’ time, but their families will always rank first.”

No margin of error was provided.

Ex-CIA Official Defends Waterboarding

NEW YORK, (UPI) — A former CIA official says he has no regrets about the interrogation techniques once used on suspected high-level al-Qaida members.

In an interview Sunday on the CBS News program “60 Minutes,” Jose Rodriguez said waterboarding and other interrogation methods now banned by the Obama Administration were essential to fighting terrorism after Sept. 11, 2001.

Rodriguez, who retired from the CIA in January 2008, denies claims the harsh methods caused detainees to provide false information.

Rodriguez has written a book, “Hard Measures,” defending the methods he authorized while heading the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center.

“We made some al-Qaida terrorists with American blood on their hands uncomfortable for a few days,” he said. “But we did the right thing for the right reason. And the right reason was to protect the homeland and to protect American lives. So yes, I had no qualms.”

Rodriguez said he developed the interrogation techniques with the assistance of a former military psychologist who had helped train American soldiers on how to resist torture if they were captured. The “enhanced interrogation techniques” were based on methods used by Cold War adversaries.

He said about six interrogators were given a two-week training course under his supervision and that his superiors signed off on the techniques.

Rodriguez said 75 detainees were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, including three who endured waterboarding.

Rodriguez said the information obtained by the techniques helped stop at least 10 major terrorist attacks. He said President Obama’s cancellation of the interrogation program has tied the government’s hands in the war on terror, CBS News reported.

Australian Billionaire To Build Titanic II

BRISBANE, Australia, (UPI) — Australian billionaire Clive Palmer says he plans to build a new Titanic that is guaranteed not to sink.

The mining magnate announced a deal Monday with a Chinese shipyard to build Titanic II, which would sail from England to North America in late 2016.

He said the ship, which would be fitted with the latest navigation and safety systems, will be a near replica of the original Titanic that sank in 1912, 9 News Austria reported

Palmer said design work is already under way.

1 World Trade To Be Tallest NYC Building

NEW YORK, (UPI) — Officials say the new 1 World Trade Center is about to become New York’s tallest building, outstripping the Empire State Building by 21 feet.

Workers will hoist a steel column atop the building’s exoskeleton Monday, after which the building will reach 1,271 feet into the sky, The New York Times reported.

In the next couple of months, the building’s framework will be completed, bringing its height to 1,368 feet. Once the building is completed and an antennae is added next year, its final height will be 1,776 feet — a total of 526 feet higher than the Empire State Building, and 408 feet taller than the original 1 World Trade Center, which was destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2011, terrorist attacks.

Patrick Foye, executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said the fledgling skyscraper, which can now be seen from LaGuardia Airport 8 miles away, is exciting for another reason.

“You’ve got floor-to-ceiling views in every direction,” he said. “If you strain your neck and look carefully enough, to the west you can see Alaska.”

Student Accuses Bar Of Discrimination

IOWA CITY, Iowa, (UPI) — A college student is accusing a bar in Iowa City, Iowa, of discriminating against her by not letting her dance in a conspicuous spot because of her weight.

Jordan Ramos, a 21-year-old University of Iowa student from West Liberty, told the Iowa City Press-Citizen her last two visits to the Union Bar in recent months left her embarrassed and furious because security guards would not allow her to dance on a platform overlooking the dance floor. She said the security guards told her she was “obviously pregnant” and “not pretty enough.” However, her friends were allowed onto the platform.

Ramos said she heard from other people who had similarly experiences at the bar because of their weight or appearance. She tried to contact the establishment’s management more than a month ago, but had yet to hear back. She is considering filing a complaint with the Iowa City Human Rights Commission.

“It made me start questioning myself and thinking. ‘Are my friends so much better than me?’ I know they’re thinner, but those bouncers made them seem more valuable,” she said.

The newspaper said Union Bar owner George Wittgraf said he wasn’t familiar with the situation but wouldn’t condone such behavior by his workers.

U.S. Wary Of Al-Qaida Attack On Aviation

WASHINGTON,(UPI) — A top U.S. counter-terrorism official said Sunday al-Qaida apparently still is open to a plot to attack commercial aviation as it did on Sept. 11, 2001.

John Brennan, chief counter-terrorism adviser to President Obama, said Sunday while al-Qaida has been significantly weakened, a high state of vigilance is still needed in the air-travel industry.

“Aviation has been a traditional target of al-Qaida and they continue to do that,” Brennan said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Brennan agreed the slaying of Osama bin Laden a year ago was a major development in what he said was the overall degradation of al-Qaida capabilities.

Brennan said the reputed new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, does not have the same charisma and “institutional support” within al-Qaida that Bin Laden enjoyed. But at the same time, al-Qaida’s operations in Yemen remain a particular concern.

“They have demonstrated both the intent, as well as the capability to try to carry out an attack,” he said.

Does The Republican Establishment Want To Lose?

The Republican Party establishment has employed all types of shenanigans and underhanded tactics to ensure its candidate to oppose President Barack Obama is Mitt Romney and not a true conservative.

Most of the Republican voters find Romney less than slightly palatable. Whereas 2008 nominee John McCain was truly a bitter pill, Romney is a bitter pill with a thin honey coating. If you swallow it fast enough, maybe the bitterness won’t make you retch.

Conservatives recognize that Romney is not one of them. They see through the veneer the elites have pasted over him. He’s trying to sound conservative, but it’s not working. Americans know a phony when they see one.

But the message being pounded home by the elites through the mainstream media is that Romney is now the nominee; and more specifically, that he’s the Republicans’ best hope to beat Obama in November. Republican talking heads continuously take to the airwaves to push this meme.

But in the back rooms they don’t really believe it. According to POLITICO, if you give the “Republican professionals” a truth serum, they’ll tell you they think Romney will lose.

The article reads:

But under the table, there is pervasive pessimism among Republicans about Romney’s prospects this fall. It’s apparent in rampant discussions about which Republicans will run in 2016—talk that obviously presupposes a loss in November—and it’s downright glaring in private conversations with GOP officials on Capitol Hill and in consulting shops across Washington.

And the skepticism about Romney isn’t just a Beltway phenomenon. Rank-and-file Republican voters are also uncertain he can win, though it’s the chattering class that is most bearish.

What’s going on here? Are Republicans (I mean the elites and string pullers, not Joe and Jane Republican Voter) trying to lose?

Robert Ringer recently asked a similar question when writing about a GOP gathering in Arizona. He wrote:

What is it that causes the mushy masochism that drives Republicans to seek out disaster year after year, decade after decade?  It wasn’t enough that the Republican Party stubbornly picked yet another RINO automaton, apparently believing that the 2008 election disaster was just an aberration.  No sir, it had to taunt conservatives by bringing McMush back from the dead and pushing him on stage, front and center, with MittMan… And, of course, Romney had his moderate mode on cruise control, once again being careful to say nice things about Der Fuhrbama.  He said he liked him as a man, but felt his decisions were disappointing.  Aw … shucks, Mitt.  You brought a tingle to my leg.

It seems clear that the Republican establishment — or at least the behind-the-scenes party apparatchik — is once again trying to lose, which brings us to the question of why. What is to be gained by a Republican loss? I posited one theory last fall. But now I believe there is a better answer. But before I get to it, a short history lesson is in order.

The Republican Party grew out of the ashes of the Whig Party. The Whig Party was a single-minded proponent of what party leader Henry Clay called the American System: protectionism, government control of the money supply through a central bank and government subsidies for railroads, shipping and other favored industry. It was a corporatist or fascist system based on British mercantilism.

As economist Murray N. Rothbard wrote in The Logic of Action II, it was “a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.”[i]

Edgar Lee Masters described the Whig Party thusly:

Clay was the champion of that political system which doles favors to the strong in order to win and to keep their adherence to the government. His system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises… He was the beloved son [figuratively speaking] of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his superstitions concerning the advantage of a public debt, and a people taxed to make profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone. His example and his doctrines led to the creation of a party that had no platform to announce, because its principals were plunder and nothing else.[ii]

Or as U.S. Senator John Taylor of Virginia (1753-1824) put it in his book Tyranny Unmasked, it was a system that benefited a “monied aristocracy.”

Abraham Lincoln was a Whig who idolized Clay. He served as a Presidential elector for the Whigs in 1840 and 1844. When the Whig Party imploded in the 1850s, Lincoln switched to the Republican Party but assured Illinois constituents there was no difference between the two parties.[iii] He brought the American System along with him, and it has formed the basis for the actions of the Republican Party ever since, years of vacuous rhetoric from Republicans as being the Party of small government and a foil to Democrat nanny-state big government policies notwithstanding.

For years, the monied aristocracy used the Republican Party and its statism (or corporatism or fascism, whichever is your favored word) to benefit its friends and partners. Now the monied aristocracy has a new use for the Republican Party.

They — the monied aristocracy — believe the time is ripe to end the faux two-party system, remove all pretenses that the United States is a republican government and usher in the age of direct democracy. Another loss by the Republican Party because of an unpalatable, unelectable candidate may well do this.

The elites have been laying the groundwork for this for some time. All of the elites in government — both Rs and Ds — and in the media tell us each day that the United States is a democracy. This has been going on for years. It was no accident that they have used this word. They have used it for so long now that it is rarely challenged.

Knowing the disaffected American voter will need some place to turn, the monied aristocracy has created what it calls a new system. It’s a place for the voter to go with the belief that there is an alternative system that is better because it sets aside party labels. It’s called Americans Elect, and it purports to allow an opportunity to pick a President, not a party. It calls itself the first nonpartisan Presidential nomination and its listed “declared” candidates are Buddy Roemer, Rocky Anderson, Laurence Kotlikoff and a host of others. “Drafted” candidates include Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg, a couple of clowns and a few others.

On the surface it sounds fine and dandy. But we always look beneath the surface, and things are not as they seem.

In The Huffington Post, Lynn Forester de Rothschild writes:

The message is clear: as politicians become more partisan and less effective at governing, the electorate is ready for a radical restructure of our election system itself. Voters are refusing to be held hostage to the self-interests of either party. Thankfully, in true American fashion, our civic society has built the tools to meet the challenge; for the first time in our history, the means exist to level the electoral playing field for an independent candidate.

While a small minority may indeed be saying this, it is not the message I’ve heard from the electorate. However, it’s one the elites, advocating a New World Order, would love to see come about. They have combined Europe under one umbrella (though the union is seemingly coming apart at the seams), but they have not been able to bring about a combined North America. The United States remains too factionalized, too States’ rights-oriented, and the two-party system and Electoral College only serve to perpetuate it. Voters are no longer under the thumb of the corporate mainstream media.

But who is this Lynn Forester de Rothschild? She’s married to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, the head of the richest family in the world (NM Rothschild & Sons, the Rothschild bank and former head of De Beers). She is also on the leadership board (read chief funder of) Americans Elect.

And she states the crux of her goal: “Simply, both the political environment and the tools are in place for a total disintermediation of our political duopoly.” And a move to what?

According to The Daily Bell it’s a move to direct democracy.

The governor (sic) of New York, Michael Bloomberg – an elitist worker-bee if there ever was one – is a big supporter of an element of direct democracy, which includes the elimination of the two-party system.

But what is it REALLY? Well … it is basically a full implementation of the USSR’s communist system that died 20 years ago! The idea is that a technocracy of the elite can present candidates who are the most “competent” at administration. The corollary to this, of course, is that one must accept EVERY FACET of the CURRENT system to accept that one is voting purely for competence.

In other words, if people do not like the current corporatist/authoritarian/totalitarian/militarized state that is being constructed around them, they’re simply plumb out of luck. That’s because the candidates on this “best of all worlds” won’t be running on how to CHANGE what’s going on – only on how to administer it BETTER.

Just take a look at how Bloomberg, a supposed nonpartisan independent who is in fact a big government nanny-stater, is governing New York City. He’s pushed through myriad laws to restrict peoples’ diets, choices and activities, and monitors every street corner with Orwellian “telescreen” cameras. But remember, he’s looking out for the best interests of New Yorkers, as all nanny-staters do — or claim they do.

Direct democracy — as Bloomberg illustrates — is just another form of tyranny. John Adams warned: “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

The U.S. Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government. Don’t fall prey to wiles of the monied aristocracy. Don’t reach for their version of hope and change again.

[i] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln, p. 56.

[ii] Ibid, pp. 58-59.

[iii] Ibid, pp. 55-56.

What About Mitt Romney?

Dear Mr. Livingston:

At a crucial point in the presidential campaign, I find it appalling that you will distribute a newsletter urging the financial support of a Congressional candidate from Arizona, which follows a newsletter some months ago, encouraging support for Rick Santorum in his presidential campaign. Other organizations have sent out similar newsletters urging support for Newt Gingrich.

However, not once has Personal Liberty Alerts or any other religious and/or non-profit organization sent out a newsletter on behalf of Mitt Romney who has been the frontrunner of Republican Party for many months; and after winning five large primary elections last night it is obvious that he will be the nominee.

If you truly believe it is “Time to Shock Obama Campaign Back to Reality,” shouldn’t you FIRST utilize your efforts to promote Mitt Romney in his campaign to win over Obama in the upcoming presidential campaign?  

While Congressional positions are also important to our Party, it is time for every Republican to urge people to support Mitt Romney in his uphill battle to challenge and unseat Barack Obama as President of the U. S., who reportedly said, “They will destroy Mitt Romney.”

As clarification, I am not an employee or a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign.  However, as a concerned citizen for the critical condition of our beloved country, I believe Mitt Romney is the best candidate with the leadership ability to turn our country around.  It is indeed puzzling as to why your organization and others are not utilizing your efforts to influence and encourage people on your mailing list to support and vote for Mr. Romney as President of the U. S., which is the most important election of most of our life time?

Concerned for my country,


Dear Constance,

The “newsletter” you are referring to is a paid advertisement. Candidates and corporations pay us to run their advertisements and donation solicitations to our email list. Our running those ads does not necessarily imply endorsement of a candidate any more than political advertisements running in newspapers or on television stations imply an endorsement. In the past we ran ads for Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain and others. At no time have we endorsed Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann or Cain.

You write: “However, not once has Personal Liberty Alerts or any other religious and/or non-profit organization sent out a newsletter on behalf of Mitt Romney who has been the frontrunner of Republican Party for many months; and after winning five large primary elections last night it is obvious that he will be the nominee.” First, we are not a religious or a non-profit organization. We are a for-profit private business, we receive no funding from government or foundations, and we must make a profit to survive. I’m sure you understand that concept. As for “other religious and/or non-profit organization(s),” I do not control what they do.

Second, the Mitt Romney campaign has been offered the opportunity to run a paid advertisement to our email list just as the other candidates were. Apparently, Romney’s campaign does not believe it would be a good investment. As he has tens of millions of dollars in his campaign chest from the big banksters, I can understand why.

You write: “If you truly believe it is ‘Time to Shock Obama Campaign Back to Reality,’ shouldn’t you FIRST utilize your efforts to promote Mitt Romney in his campaign to win over Obama in the upcoming presidential campaign?” It is not our mission to promote Mitt Romney or any other candidate, especially one who campaigns on issues we disagree with. We have long endorsed Ron Paul and will continue to do so as long as he’s in the race since we align with his views on the economy, the police state, the military state and most other issues.

You write: “As clarification, I am not an employee or a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. However, as a concerned citizen for the critical condition of our beloved country, I believe Mitt Romney is the best candidate with the leadership ability to turn our country around.” You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and your decision on whom you should support is certainly yours to make. I just don’t happen to agree with your assessment.

You write: “It is indeed puzzling as to why your organization and others are not utilizing your efforts to influence and encourage people on your mailing list to support and vote for Mr. Romney as President of the U. S., which is the most important election of most of our life time?” It is Mr. Romney’s job to earn our support. He has yet to do so. If he were to change his position on important issues, we might get behind his election. As it stands, I don’t see that happening. However, he is free to purchase advertising space on our site or for a chance to advertise to our email list if he desires.

Best wishes,