Szandor Blestman's Blog

A Slave By Any Other Name Would Still Be Owned

2009-06-30T11:12:00.000-07:00

Do you believe you own yourself? If so, you may come to believe differently by the time you’re done reading this article. If not, do you believe you ought to own yourself? These are fundamental questions that many have pondered over the millennia. They are basic to the principles of liberty.

I happen to believe I own my own body. I happen to believe that my thoughts are mine to contain, conceal, express or disseminate as I see fit. I believe that the knowledge I’ve obtained through my life’s experiences, education and observations is mine to apply in any way that benefits myself or others and that any compensation others may give me for such an application of knowledge is well earned and mine to keep. I believe that the labor capabilities of my body are mine to sell to others as I see fit and that any compensation freely given or previously agreed upon for the products and/or services produced by said labor is also well earned and mine to keep. I believe that anything I pay for in full with compensation that has been well earned is mine to keep and any successful attempt to forcefully or stealthily remove it from my possession should be considered theft. I believe that the concepts outlined above should be considered basic private property rights that all humans should enjoy and everyone should give respect to others in regards to those rights as they would expect others to do for them.

If you happen to believe the above statements as I do, then it will probably come as no surprise that there are many who don’t believe as we do. Indeed, there are many who believe that they own us. There are many who believe they own the things we may consider are rightfully ours. Not only do they feel this way, but they have created a reality that better reflects their point of view than ours. These people are best known as government officials and bureaucrats, but some would argue that there are secret and not so secret moneyed and special interests that will also make the claim of their ownership of humanity. These people will likely do anything to make certain that their belief system is upheld and strengthened and make sure ours is never realized.

It could be and has been argued that these people do, in fact, own you. If you don’t believe that, just try not paying your taxes and see what happens. They will eventually send men with guns to your door and throw you in a prison cell if you try to exert your freedom and make the claim that you have the right to keep the fruits of your own labor. They will prove that they own you. They will claim that you owe them a portion of your labor for services they provide, even if you don’t use their services, even though they hold a monopoly on certain services, and even if you might find some services offered abhorrent. This happens because most people allow it to happen. Most people just grumble as they accept their fate and pay to keep the wolves from the door. They suffer in silence and do nothing because they have the perception that nothing can be done.

Not only do these people own you, they own your progeny. They have taken money they do not have and given it to their elite friends with the promise that future generations will pay with their taxes. They use the promise of easy money to enslave and they use fear of the mindless enforcers and obedient courts to prevent the masses from so much as questioning their legitimacy. They have used the media to build an illusion that they are invulnerable and so the individual’s spirit gives up. They use public schools to indoctrinate the youth so the system perpetuates itself. They own you, and your children, body, mind and soul; lock, stock and barrel.

At one time, perhaps this wasn’t so bad. At one time, perhaps when I was younger, perhaps before I was born, government was at least responsive to the people. We were prospering and so it seemed to many that giving a small portion of our wealth to Washington DC and the rich political elite wasn’t such a bad thing. Oh, there were things going on that people didn’t like, there were protests and the like, but those in charge seemed to pay attention to the people. At least there was still some amount of freedom in this country. At least there was representation of the common folk. At least there were free markets and the government stayed out of our business for the most part. Well, maybe not, but it seems to me that government has gotten a hell of a lot more blatant about the fact that they own you lately and have been turning a deaf ear to the demands of the people more than ever over the past couple of decades.

Now government and their corporate cronies wish to put the final screws to you. Now they want to remove what little semblance of freedom you may perceive you have left. They moved quickly to bailout the banking elite despite more calls and emails from their constituents against such measures than any other bill has ever generated. They moved just as quickly to bailout and in essence take over auto manufacturers over the objections of the tax payers whose money they were spending. They use the excuse that they are trying to save the economy, but the common folk are the economy. They have proven their disdain for the ordinary citizen. They don’t care what you have to say or what you think because they consider you a slave. They are not saving the economy, they are saving their ability to control it, and their positions as masters.

Still, this is not enough for them. Still, the power brokers in congress wish to extend their reach into every man’s life. Last Friday the congress voted to impose a huge cap and trade bill upon the populace of these United States of America despite popular opposition to the bill. This is yet another massive bill that has not been read by the majority of congress members, if indeed it was read in its entirety by any of them. This bill is yet another government intrusion into the free market. It’s just another tax scheme passed under the guise of trying to “save” the environment. It’s funny how congress is forever trying to “save” something by spending our money. It will increase energy prices. It will increase the amount of taxes you pay, albeit in a less obvious way than increasing your income taxes. The common man, as always, will pay for this legislation, not the wealthy elite who can afford to pay off congressional members. Once again, the political elites manage to solidify their positions as masters.

Do not think for a moment that this government apparatus will stop there. For some time now there has been chatter prevalent amongst the political class that will increase the servitude quotient of significant segments of the population. With the new regulations that are being suggested in health care, doctors will quickly become some of the most slavish people in our society. They will not be able to charge (or not charge) for their services as they see fit, but will be paid as mandated by government decree. As a result, the consumer will lose options he currently has. Doctors will not be allowed to offer certain medical services unless those services are okayed by a governmental medical bureaucracy. Doctors will be under the watchful eye of Big Brother and will have to document all procedures carefully and be sure to remain within bureaucratic guidelines or they may lose their ability to legally practice medicine. They will be forced to service even those who may not require medical services and they will be forced to accept whatever compensation the government deems appropriate, not what the law of supply and demand, nor even the individual doctor’s capacity for human compassion, determines is appropriate.

Doctors are already over regulated. They already have too much oversight by the few health insurance companies that remain in business. Many doctors have been retiring early because of these conditions. In many places there is a shortage of doctors and those who remain in business are overworked. Further government regulation will only make the problems worse. Who would want to be a doctor if it means you become enslaved to government mandates?

Those in favor of more government regulation in health care seem to believe they should be able to determine compensation for the application of the doctor’s knowledge. They think they should be able to determine how to apply that knowledge to best benefit others. They seem to believe that they are best able to determine the labor capabilities of doctors. They will argue that everyone has the “right” to health care without realizing that saying such is tantamount to claiming someone has the “right” to force another human to provide services simply because that other human obtained a bit of knowledge. If they can do this to doctors, it won’t be long until they will try to force everyone to provide labor at compensation levels determined by government mandate.

Indeed, further down the road we can see what is being called “national service” coming into vogue. For now such a system is being set up to be voluntary, but one can imagine that making it mandatory is just around the corner. Already there is talk of creating such coercive measures as not allowing children to graduate high school unless they “volunteer.” It has also been suggested that the carrot of money for college be offered to those who take part in this system. It is not volunteering if you are compensated. Mandatory service of any kind, national or otherwise, for any period of time, is just indentured servitude. I would have thought that by the twenty first century mankind would have gotten past such measures.

It is time we started living once again as freemen. It is time we started calling a spade a spade and to stop pretending that we own our bodies, out labor or our knowledge when in fact we don’t. In order to live as freemen, we need to act like freemen. We need to show that we are not afraid of the whip. The political elite in this country has shown that they don’t care what we think. They have shown they will spend our money as they see fit, so why should we continue to pay taxes and why do we continue to let them print money and keep us indebted? As long as we pay and allow them to print money, they will remain our masters.

Dissidents, Hate Speech, Free Speech and Propaganda

2009-06-27T09:00:00.000-07:00

I saw Glenn Beck the other day talking about the shooting at the holocaust memorial. On this particular program he wasn’t so much reporting the facts of the case as he was regaling us with his opinion. It appears as if this man James von Brunn has set a tempest upon us with his despicable action. One man kills another and mainstream media personalities are suddenly condemning entire groups of people numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not the millions. One crazy, paranoid, violent old man, perhaps suffering from who knows what kind of brain disorder, takes it upon himself to murder someone in cold blood and suddenly he is not responsible, but shadowy groups of hate mongers must have been pulling his strings? One tragic incident and suddenly I’m hearing rumblings that one of humankind’s most cherished birthrights needs to be monitored by those in power, thus tarnishing the memory of thousands who died in defense of such rights.

Mr. Beck made a statement something to the effect that he felt “9/11 truthers” were dangerous, potentially violent people. He’s been saying things like that for some time. James von Brunn is a racist, angry, violent man whose actions may be judged as that of a madman. Mr. Beck used that man’s individual actions as an excuse to condemn many who are nothing more than peaceful activists or those trying to express a point of view that may seem unacceptable to the majority. Any affiliations James von Brunn may have had, be they with the 9/11 truth movement or with some kind of white supremacist organization, are incidental. Just because he went out and decided to initiate violence against others doesn’t mean that everyone else in all the organizations he was affiliated with are going to go out and start doing the same.

Glenn Beck isn’t the only voice raised against so called hate groups after this incident. I’ve read many a commentary calling for laws making hate speech illegal. All these commentators seem to believe that if people spewing forth hateful rhetoric were forced to remain silent by threat of fines, imprisonment and even violence then hate crimes would no longer occur. They seem to want to put the blame not on the individual who carried out a despicable action, but on people he never met who he happens to agree with on certain issues. These people who want to subvert the right to free speech by outlawing hate speech have missed the point on why the right to free speech needs to be honored and preserved no matter how hateful, vile or disgusting that speech may be.

On the surface, hate speech laws might seem like a good idea to many, maybe even to a majority of people. In fact, I would say the vast majority of people don’t want to hear someone spewing hatred and would disagree with what was being said. There are, however, some things many people might not have considered. First, unpopular speech is the very speech that needs protecting, for speech that most people agree with is in no danger of being censored. Second, who is going to decide what constitutes hate speech? I can tell you this, it doubt very much it will be you or me.

People in power would be the ones determining what constitutes hate speech. People in power are people with agendas. People in power are people who have a tendency to want to take care of their own interests and the interests of their friends and supporters first and consider what’s best for the general populace second. There is often found, on close examination, conflicts of interest between legislation being considered and the interests of those who would vote on that legislation. People in power are people who have biases. In short, people in power are fallible human beings who can make mistakes and do the wrong thing, knowingly or unknowingly, just like anybody else. Perhaps more importantly, people in power today may not be in power tomorrow. The best policy, in my humble opinion, would be the policy of I won’t censor what you have to say and you don’t censor what I have to say.

I suspect that if a hate speech law were to go into effect, it would not be long until dissenters would be imprisoned for speaking out against government policy. In fact, it seems to me this is already happening. The recent articles I’ve written about imprisoning journalists are examples of government curtailing free speech. A law prohibiting hate speech, or any kind of speech for that matter, is just another step toward legitimizing the attempts to silence criticism of government, for it is government personnel who would be determining what hate speech was and it is not hard to imagine that they would soon consider legitimate criticism as hate speech.

One does not even have to dig very deep or look very hard to see how easily such a law could be abused. A good example would be the disturbing thoughts and words of Glenn Beck. He has not hidden his hatred for the 9/11 truth movement. He has made accusations against them that in my opinion are unfair and unfounded. He has called them crazy and dangerous and yet I have never heard these groups officially advocate violence, nor have a seen it reported that they have. Perhaps some individuals who claim affiliation with these groups may have made some questionable comments or threats, I don’t know. If so, then those particular individuals should be chastised, exposed and held responsible for their words and actions. I am fairly certain, however, judging from comments he’s made, that if Glenn Beck could have his way he’d throw anyone that questions the official story of 9/11 in prison just for their beliefs.

It seems to me that many of the people involved with the 9/11 truth movement simply want a valid investigation into the incident. I don’t blame them considering the make up of the 9/11 commission that undertook that investigation nearly a year after the incident. They seem to me to simply want unbiased answers to questions that fester to this day. It seems to me that they are only asking for justice concerning a crime for which perhaps the wrong people were punished. It’s too bad that Mr. Beck seems to have developed a personal grudge against this group of people, which includes a large swath of the population, but he should know better than to condemn an entire group because of his perception of a few of them.

Mr. Beck has accused “9/11 truthers,” along with white supremacists, of wanting to destroy the country. He has unfairly equated in a very subtle way people questioning the official 9/11 explanation with racists. This is a card that has been overused and abused by far too many powerful people in the media. In the same breath he condemns people who may want to see certain elements in the government prosecuted for crimes they may have committed with wanting to destroy the country. It seems to me that Mr. Beck is far too caught up in group think to be considered libertarian, as he likes to call himself.

The last thing that perhaps Mr. Beck hasn’t considered is that he himself may be engaging in hate speech, or that at least his words could be construed as hate speech. Other media personalities calling for the enactment of hate speech laws are just as guilty of not considering this. If the “9/11 truthers,” or the white supremacists, or some group sympathetic to them were to gain power, they could conceivably use these same hate speech laws so many are clamoring for against the very people who want them enacted. Can you see how slippery the slope is here? Can you tell how easily laws such as this can be abused? One need look no farther back in history than the last election to see how power changes hands and laws abused by one group of people can be quickly used against that same group when the tables are turned. The real purpose of hate speech laws would not be to stop hate crimes from occurring, it would be to stifle dissent.

Finally, Mr. Beck expressed his fear that he felt there was going to be a witch hunt. I agree with him on that point, but unlike him I don’t think the witch hunters are going to go after Jews and conservatives. Witch hunts are started by people in power with an agenda, not by marginalized individuals spewing hatred. I think that perhaps he is trying to start and spur on a witch hunt of his own against people in the 9/11 truth movement and perhaps other dissenters who may have differing ideas than his of what is truth, how to try to make people aware of their point of view, and how to go about trying to bring change to our broken system. If history is any indication, then if ever a real witch hunt does take place in this nation, it will likely be one launched by the government, it will likely be used to snuff out those trying to expose a truth that some power does not want known, and likely powerful media outlets will help it along by spreading misinformation and propaganda.

Free speech is an ideal that should not be compromised. Do not let those who oppose it fool you into believing that they are trying to produce a more secure society. A government that can imprison people with impunity for one form of speech, can imprison people with impunity for any form of speech.

Journalists, Political Intrigue and Controlling Your Thoughts

2009-06-20T21:52:00.000-07:00

Once again imprisoned journalists have made the news. This time two lovely women have suffered a fate I would not wish upon my worst enemy. I am talking about the two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who were sentenced to twelve years hard labor for the crime of supposedly entering North Korea. It is more than obvious, in my opinion, that these women are simply pawns in a dangerous game of international politics. They were guilty of nothing more than simply doing their job and attempting to provide unbiased, factual information to the masses of humanity. Unfortunately, their jobs brought them just a bit too close to a volatile border and they were quickly caught up in a situation they certainly did not want to create. These women were no spies and I wouldn’t be surprised if their capture was deliberate and it was actually the North Koreans that had encroached upon China’s domain, but to them these women were too much an opportunity for political bargaining leverage to pass up.

It is likely the North Korean government saw what was going on in Iran, the attention that state was getting, and like a jealous child they wanted to gain attention also. Unfortunately, when dealing with such an isolated country and such a psychologically unpredictable leader one never knows what demands will be made. It is difficult to guess exactly what Kim Jong-il is thinking. With the provocative nuclear tests North Korea has engaged in recently and the lives of perhaps millions hanging in the balance, the fate of these two young ladies becomes all the more uncertain. One can only hope that worldwide concern, condemnation and pressure on Kim Jong-il’s regime will secure the release of these two innocent journalists.

Using journalists as pawns is not a new phenomenon. It seems, however, that is has gotten a lot more press recently. People seeking power have always strived to control the thought processes of the masses. They’ve always sought to promote not only their point of view, but their way of thinking, no matter how convoluted. They discovered long ago that one of the best ways to do this is to control journalists and media outlets. Sometimes this can be achieved as easily as a couple of payoffs. Similar methods may include a rich and powerful elite buying up major media outlets and hiring performers instead of principled journalists who will shill for their point of view. Of course in societies ruled by authoritarian regimes, the media is owned by the state and obviously biased toward the leadership of the nation. These practices may appear innocuous, yet they may create a misinformed populace and problems for anyone who tries to inject an objective point of view into the public sphere.

In some areas, however, it becomes quite a bit more complicated. I was recently made aware, for instance, of a tragedy that took place in Nepal in January of this year. This was the sad case of Ms. Uma Singh, a radio journalist who was brutally murdered. According to witnesses she was stabbed to death by ten to fifteen men who barged into her residence. One would be justified in wondering what on Earth could be so frightening about one little woman to warrant having to send so many strong, burly men to see to her demise. Furthermore, one might wonder if this woman posed any threat at all to these men. I suppose it is possible, if this woman was about to expose some truth that these men didn’t want to be known. Truth is often a very frightening thing to some people as they know they’ve done wrong and they are afraid of what might happen should they be discovered. A more likely explanation is that these men were paid killers hired by someone who wanted Ms. Singh silenced and wanted to send a message to other journalists. For those who seek power, often times honest reporting is the last thing they want the people to hear.

Admittedly, I don’t know that much about Nepal or the Nepalese people. I have never traveled there nor have I personally met anyone from there. I do believe, however, that people everywhere are quite similar. People in all corners of the world want to be free to live their own lives as they see fit. They want to be free from intrusive government regulations and restrictions. They want to be free to speak their minds. They want to be informed in an honest, objective fashion. They want to be able to believe with relative certainty that they are being told fact and not being fed propaganda. According to what I’ve read coming out of Nepal, particularly in the Tarai region, the ordinary people there have no faith in their media because journalists there are more or less nothing but mouth pieces for various political parties.

It is my understanding that this region, the Tarai region, is rife with dozens of political parties vying for power and control over not only the people of the region, but its natural resources. As usual, everything revolves around money. As usual, the easiest way to grab the money is through politics. As usual, the common man gets the shaft and is not represented in the halls of power. But in Nepal, as evidenced by Uma Singh’s murder, being honest and expressing one’s true feelings, at least in a public way such as by reporting news over the radio, can be deadly.

The people that killed Ms. Singh, or the ones that ordered her death, are likely under the misconception that they can actually control the way people think by violence and fear. They don’t understand that they don’t control people’s innermost thoughts with such actions, they can only control their outward behavior. Even less, they can only control the public behavior of people when they are in the vicinity. The moment they turn their backs, or that no one feels threatened, people will discuss with each other their true thoughts and feelings. Perhaps they don’t care what people do when they’re not watching or perhaps they do, but in the long run I’m really not sure if that will matter. Sooner or later the resentment will build and those who exercise power will one day have to pay the piper once that resentment becomes too much for ordinary humans to contain.

Ms. Singh’s murderers have to this date not been arrested. No one has been charged. There is not even an ongoing investigation that I am aware of. I am aware that some Nepalese government agency has declared Ms. Singh a martyr and has compensated her family. That seems to me to be woefully inadequate. I know there are cultural differences at work here and I can’t speak for Ms. Singh’s family, but as for myself I would feel angered and perhaps insulted by such an action. I would want justice if my daughter had been killed in such a manner, not compensation, and especially not money from the state which simply steals the money it has from its citizens in the form of taxes. If I were to receive compensation it had better be from the men who carried out such a heinous crime or those who hired them. I would want to be able to rest knowing that these men would no longer be able to cause so much grief to another. It seems to me that when the authorities simply try to pay off the victim’s family and refuse to investigate further and bring the perpetrators to justice, that perhaps they are trying to cover up their own complicity in this convoluted matter.

Incidents like this continue to occur throughout the world. I’m certain there are many occurrences that go unreported, many journalists who are threatened on a daily basis. It is my hope that more light is shed upon these incidents as time goes by, whether caused by governments in power, both large and small, or by some other political force. It is my hope that such happenings spur journalists to dig deeper, investigate more fully, and expose those who engage in such devious activities rather than cause journalists to cower and hide in fear. Only in this way can the people come to understand who is trying to control the way they think and why. Only in this way can the public come to know who should be shunned and who should be praised.

Journalism is a powerful force. It should not be controlled by those with an interest in hiding the truth. Any attempt to hide or obfuscate facts, whether from a political party trying to gain power or from those who already operate the levers of the state, should be exposed and reported on. It is up to those in the media to use the power afforded to them to make certain that anyone trying to manipulate them is exposed for what they are. It is up to them to stick to their principles. Truth is a powerful tool and I believe the vast majority of people can differentiate between truth and propaganda when they see it. The importance of press freedom and the ability for journalists to operate without fear cannot be overemphasized and in my opinion it is prudent to question the motivations of anyone who would feel or state differently.

Talking to Demons, Living With Humans

2009-06-15T09:09:00.000-07:00

Throughout history there have been occasions where one group of humans would demonize another group of humans. This happens most prevalently during times of war. It is, after all, easier for most to kill a foul beast than it is to kill a fellow human being. It is also easier to justify inhumane treatment of people using the same criteria. If a certain group of people are just beasts, or partial beasts, or demons, or some other lower form of life, or are in any way not as “good” or as “human” as the group of people you are affiliated with, it becomes easier for an individual to justify killing, or imprisoning, or torturing, or enslaving, or otherwise denying those people of their freedom and their ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

In order to help gain the support of the common people, the backbone of society, governments throughout the ages have employed propagandists. These men have been only too happy to paint their enemies as demons or monsters in order to line their pockets with a few pieces of gold. They find it easy to obfuscate, misrepresent or even outright lie in order to present the most inhuman face of the enemy possible. They would say things like “those guys eat babies,” or “they enslave their women,” or “they spread disease,” or some other nonsense that may have a grain of truth but is not totally honest. Politicians would then use these propagandists’ statements as talking points to whip the populace into a nationalist frenzy and promote the promulgation of war and the oppression of entire races of people.

You would think that by the first decade of the twenty first century, mankind would have learned to ignore this kind of propaganda. You would think that by this point in our evolution we would have come to the understanding that people are people and that within every group there are good people, there are bad people, and that there are mostly average people. Perhaps inside most of us do realize this, yet we are loath to admit it. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising. There is a perception issue here, and the perception is usually that if the group doing the oppressing doesn’t continue to oppress than bad things will happen to them. The perception is that the “demons” will be unleashed upon the world. The perception is that the very fabric of society will be shredded and woe be unto those who were the oppressors. It usually proves out, however, that reality is quite a bit different than perception.

Now, I’ve never personally met a demon that I know of, but I have read about them and I believe I have a basic understanding of their psychology and what they are all about. It seems to me that demons are all about control. They covet human souls. Apparently, by capturing the human soul, they gain power. Often times they appear to be purely human. They use charm and promises to achieve their goals and their victims don’t realize they are dealing with an unspeakable evil until it is too late. Often times the victim of a demon will come to the frightening understanding that he has been ensnared in a web of deceit only when there is absolutely nothing that can be done to escape. Sometimes, however, an intelligent victim is able to discover the demon’s weakness or a loophole and free himself from the demon’s grasp.

Politicians are usually charming. They use promises to get votes. They have a tendency to promise things they cannot deliver. They promise to give people entitlements that were not earned. They use other people’s money to buy the allegiance of the souls who end up voting for them. They deceive many into believing they will be represented and then they represent no one save themselves and those special interests and lobbyists who provide more money to buy the allegiance of more souls. These men and women seeking power and positions in government may not exactly be demons, but they certainly seem to have learned from demons. They seem to employ the same methods to gain power. And so it is that these power lusting zealots manage to impose themselves upon a people, call themselves government, and authorize themselves to speak to other power lusting zealots in the name of large swaths of ordinary human beings and claim to represent them all or their interests. It’s as if one group of demons were talking to another group of demons.

These men and women, acting in the way many demons do, often times make decisions that, like it or not, we all have to live with. They may even make some outrageous decisions, depending on their wants and needs or those of their friends, like the decision to start killing others in an aggressive war or to try to oppress others simply because they live on a plot of land coveted but not controlled by those seeking power. They force, coerce or seek to convince those who they already exercise power over to go along with the plan. Those who believe they will profit or benefit in some way from such a venture will agree to go along even if they see the inherent wrong of such an action.

I believe that the vast majority of people just want to be left alone to live their lives as best they can. Most people are quite satisfied living a peaceful life. Most simply want the ability to work for themselves and their family and to trade with others on a voluntary basis without government bureaucrats, agencies and regulations getting in the way. I would venture a guess that most people understand that most regulations are put in place just to create revenue, a sort of legalized extortion to support the privileged political class and keep them in power. Still, most remain silent on such issues simply because most people don’t want to create waves. They are peaceful and so they are willing to go along to get along. They are willing to tolerate such theft in order to keep the men with guns from coming to their door, arresting them, dragging them in front of an imposing man in black robes, and perhaps imprisoning them or worse. Yet these peaceful, ordinary people have shown that they are willing to pick up a gun, go to a foreign land and kill people they have never met if these same extortionists tell them that those people are different, that they are demons in human guise.

I would hope that the time has come for ordinary, average people would begin to think about such things. I would like to think that more and more people are beginning to see through the propaganda. I would like to believe that the common folk of this world have become smart enough to realize that in order to live with each other we need to stop believing that whole groups of people are demons and start recognizing each individual’s humanity and respecting it. We may have to deal with the demons in government on occasion, but I would have hoped that by now we would have stopped believing in all their lies. It seems as if, worldwide, too many of the common folk still accept the prejudice they were indoctrinated with and the propaganda they hear as fact. It seems that perhaps too many people believe the powerful elite and will still march off to war against a much weaker foe who poses less of a threat than their leaders would have them believe. Or, just perhaps, many of the common folk do know better and simply keep quiet out of fear of ostracism and retribution.

The time has come to speak up. Silence will no longer protect anyone. In fact, I would venture a guess that the silence of so many has contributed to the state of affairs the world finds itself in. Those in power, the same ones using the tactics of demons to enrich themselves and their friends, depend on your silence. To them, your silence is equivalent to passive acceptance of their rule. The political elite everywhere will continue to represent the rich and powerful until enough of the common folk raise their voices and demand the freedom they deserve. Let those in power know we no longer simply accept the premises they use to launch wars of aggression, pass laws creating victimless crimes and trample upon the natural rights we are born with. Let them know we wish to live together in peace and prosperity, not struggle together in war and poverty. To borrow and paraphrase an often misquoted statement attributed to Edmund Burke, all it takes for the demons to triumph is for good people to remain silent.

It doesn’t matter who one is dealing with or what opinion one may have of a certain group of people, the moment the doors of communication close disaster is inevitable. Talking leads to understanding. Understanding leads to solutions. If we are to ever realize a world where peace and prosperity is the norm, then it will be necessary to talk to the perceived demons of our minds and to understand that in reality we are living only with other genuine humans not much different than you and I.

Obama, Torture, Ron Paul and the DC Warmongers

2009-06-07T16:43:00.000-07:00

A while back I started hearing about Barack Obama’s decision to maintain Bush era military tribunals. There was some speculation that some people of a certain political persuasion may have a problem with this decision. Certain people that may have supported and voted for Mr. Obama in November’s election may feel a bit let down by his actions. Personally, this decision did not surprise me at all. I really wonder what people expect of their politicians. Did anyone honestly expect this man to keep his campaign promises and actually enact any of the positive changes as he intimated he would? Politicians lie and equivocate in order to get elected. It’s just what they do. Only the very naive and those so inculcated in political dogma as to be effectively blinded to political reality should have expected any kind of change from Mr. Obama that would result in relinquishing the power of the executive branch. Mr. Bush, building on the work of many of his predecessors, effectively usurped much of the power from the legislative and judicial branches of government. Mr. Obama is not about to do anything to restore the balance of power and hence lose it for himself.

The fact is, Mr. Obama is going to continue to try to garner even more power to the executive branch. We can see this in his policies to bailout just about anyone who asks to be bailed out. In this way, the companies accepting money from the federal government have effectively handed over control of the company to the federal government. What better way to become a communist nation than to get companies to “voluntarily” become state controlled entities. Mr. Obama may promise that it is only temporary and that one day control will be turned over to a private entity, but how can we trust him when he has already broken so many promises? He, like his predecessor, wants to be dictator, or the decider, or emperor, or whatever title you want to put on the authoritarian in charge. The sad part is how little is being done to prevent this. Sadder still is how so few are speaking out against it and many who do are just as untrustworthy as Mr. Obama.

The American people had a chance to stop this downward spiral toward socialism during the last election cycle. They had a chance to elect Ron Paul. They had the chance to at least vote him in as the Republican candidate. They had a chance to see a real debate between ideologies instead of the normal high schoolish popularity contest held every four years to see who will lead the mightiest nation on earth. If the mainstream mass media had any intellectual honesty they’d have reported accurately about Ron Paul’s positions and philosophies rather than trying to portray him as “crazy,” “unelectable,” or “out of touch” with mainstream Republicans. They’d have reported accurately about his grass root supporters being average American Joes rather than portraying them as “fringe” and “extremists.” Instead they did their best to prevent the only candidate capable of providing real, meaningful change from being heard.

But enough dwelling on the past. What’s done is done and now we have Mr. Obama continuing Mr. Bush’s policies when it suits him and increasing his own power when he can. There will be no prosecutions because it would expose Mr. Obama’s complicity (and the complicity of the Democrats in general) to the crimes against humanity that were taking place. There will be no repealing of unconstitutional laws because that would result in less power for the executive branch and make it harder for them to frighten and silence dissenters and critics. The change that Mr. Obama is now proposing is a better defined decriminalization and justification of torture and a reshuffling of combat troops from one war torn country into another rather than ending our involvement in others’ conflicts and bringing our troops back home. I am not surprised. I saw it coming when he kept changing his promises and timelines while he was campaigning. I saw it coming by looking at his past voting records and listening to his ambiguous answers to difficult questions. Mr. Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than a typical politician answering to the moneyed interests and only feigning interest in the common folk.

The cheerleaders for Mr. Obama have a tendency to be the critics of Mr. Bush and the Republicans and his critics happen to be for the most part former supporters of Bush and the Republicans. This only serves to help make the phony schism between Republicans and Democrats seem real. They are, with a few exceptions, all good friends joining the same clubs and attending the same social functions. Just look at how friendly the Bushes and Clintons have become lately. They rub elbows with the rich and powerful, not the common folk. I am fairly certain that when they get together they talk about what they want, not what you or I want, and how they can best maintain and improve their strangle hold on the world economy and increase their own fortunes and economic empires. This is the reality of politics and all the name calling, accusations of racism and divisiveness are just diversions to keep the public off balance. War is what they want, for it is good for their businesses. Torture is an important component in their propaganda machine as they try to justify and spin the morality of an immoral war.

Torture is wrong. There are no excuses. As a society we have recognized this for ages and yet we allow our politicians and certain media personalities to use fear and prejudice to try to convince us otherwise. Torture does not work to get accurate information. The most likely application is to get false confessions that will be later used as justifications for actions that should have never been taken in the first place. These practices should no longer be tolerated anywhere in the world, least of all in the United States of America or anywhere that claims to adhere to civilized Western principles. Excusing its past use and continuing secrecy only proves that politicians and the government sycophants who support these programs are less than civilized. They are nothing more than control freak bullies who will eventually ply their trade on peaceful protesters and anyone else who may disagree with them or their philosophy.

The legislators in the US Congress have done nothing to try to stop the executive branch from seizing more power, nor have they done much to help end the occupations the US military has found itself involved in. The Democrat controlled congress could have stopped funding these unnecessary, empire building military adventures and could have demanded that all military personnel return home. Instead they began a program of propaganda and nationalism to try to make is seem as if there was public support for war and that anyone who was against it was “un-American” or “unpatriotic.” Nothing could be further from the truth. This country was built on the principles of independence by dissenters of a democratic system gone amuck (albeit a democratic system with a monarch leading it), dissenters who faced hostilities on many fronts, not by a bunch wimpy yes men depending on government for handouts, or to keep them safe from boogiemen, or bowing down to the dictates of a tyrannical governing body to ensure security. Nothing could be more American than dissenting. Nothing could be more American than holding public servants accountable for their actions. Nothing could be more American than pointing out and saying no to tyranny wherever it rears its ugly head, even if it is in one’s own backyard.

There are many in our modern world who realize that something is wrong but they can’t quite put their finger on what. Perhaps they see the evil being done in their name but believe nothing can be done to stop it. Perhaps, if they have put any thought into it, they understand that others now control every aspect of their lives but they simply accept their fate and refuse to stand up for their rights. Whatever the reason, a feeling of helplessness seems to pervade our society. Perhaps this is what those in power want. Perhaps in this way they believe they can maintain their control over the populace. After all, congress was sent a message in no uncertain terms that a continuation of foreign occupations, torture, bailouts, etc. were not acceptable or what the majority of people wanted, and yet they continue to allow these practices to take place. Mr. Obama was elected in part because of the hope that he would end the warmongering and illegal detentions and yet he also allows them to continue. If these powerful entities will not listen to the people and bend to their will, then what can be done?

It should by now be obvious that it is the moneyed interests of this world who wield the power. It is the moneyed interests that need to be corralled and controlled. Specifically, those who print the money need to be answerable to the people of the nation. Ron Paul has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to audit the Federal Reserve Bank. This will help make monetary policy transparent. It is gaining popularity even with the representatives and now as I write this there are 189 cosponsors for the bill. Yet even a bill that has gained as much popularity as this one can come under fire. Senator Grassley of Iowa seeks to make Ron Paul’s simple bill impotent by introducing his own more complicated version to the senate and making sure it has no teeth. Where Ron Paul’s bill will audit all financial dealings of the Fed and provide complete transparency, Senator Grassley’s bill only allows some of the financial dealings to be audited and allows secrecy to remain in other areas of finance.

This is taxpayer money we are talking about. The taxpayers ought to know where their money is going. Political tricks and disingenuous ploys of the type Senator Grassley is trying to employ should no longer be tolerated by the American public, particularly in this age of the Internet where such slight of hand is easily exposed.

In addition to auditing the Fed, Ron Paul has introduced an honest money bill. This bill would allow competition in the area of money creation and would make it possible to allow competing forms of money to circulate in the US. This would allow individual consumers the opportunity to decide for themselves what type of money they wanted to use and accept, be it value based or debt based. This would rid America of an unholy monopoly and allow for unprecedented prosperity.

It has become obvious in a few short months that neither the Democrat controlled Congress nor Mr. Obama are going to stop the unpopular practices and foreign policies started by the Bush administration. It is obvious they are not going to curb the growth of government and reign in spending. In fact, it is obvious that the opposite is true and they plan on nationalizing businesses that should never have been considered anything other than private businesses and most definitely should never be part of the federal government. Since our elected officials have refused to act, the only way to stop this foolishness is to take away the purse strings. The people must gain back control of the power to coin money as guaranteed them in the Constitution. This is particularly true for those who want to see the end of foreign wars and excursions and torture, for if you take away the power to print money from nothing, then the expense of such ventures becomes transparent and immediate and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will not have to pay for our adventurism. It is not so much foreign policy and its unsavory consequences that need to be challenged and changed, but fiscal and monetary policies that need to be brought under the heel of common sense. When this is done then it won’t take long before we figure out just how badly some policies are needed and whether or not they should be funded.

The Most Frightening Monster Ever

2009-05-28T15:19:00.000-07:00

As an author of horror novels, I have a fascination with evil creatures that force their ways into the lives of innocents for nefarious purposes. I think classical monsters are the best. They can all fall into certain categories. Dracula, or vampire type monsters, lull and mesmerize their victims into thinking they’re dealing with some nice, charming type of being and then become parasites, sucking the life essence from their victim. Frankenstein, or zombie type monsters are mindless, usually wondering aimlessly about killing and committing violence for no apparent reason (other than occasionally feasting on brains). Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type fiends are particularly interesting and dangerous because you never know which one you’ll encounter when meeting this bipolar psychopath. Wolfman type monstrosities are kind of a combination of zombie and Dr. Jekyll types, only with the killing and mayhem taking place because of the feral side of human nature rather than because of pure mindlessness. Lastly we have perhaps the most heinous of all, the demon type creature. This would include Satan. These intelligent and thoughtful tricksters will make you believe they are your friends and helping you when in fact they are concerned only with their own evil schemes, their power and acquiring the souls that make them powerful.

Which is the best monster? Which is the evilest? Which is the most frightening? I’ve always thought the ultimate monster would be the one that combines the evilest attributes and intentions of all of the above. I have personally tried to incorporate as many of these characteristics as possible into the evil villains I write about in my novels. The purpose is to keep readers in suspense and hopefully provide a twist when they discover the truth. I’ve been told I do a pretty good job of that, but there is something to the saying that truth is stranger than fiction. There is, in this world, a real monster that combines all the evils of those mentioned above and perhaps some that I have yet to mention.

One might wonder what real life monster would be more frightening than those infamous fictional creations mentioned above. Is it some mass murderer? Is it some sicko who has committed unspeakable crimes against his fellow humans? Is it some mutant who has cast away the last vestiges of his humanity and decided to take vengeance on all those who have ostracized and castigated him? Actually, the monster I’m talking about is not an individual, it is an institution. The most frightening monster in my opinion is the Federal Reserve Bank.

Now, the Federal Reserve is really just a type of a creature known as a “central bank” which control the currencies of many nations in this world. They have been around for some centuries now. The founders of our nation were certainly aware of the existence of these evil institutions as there was much debate between different factions within the original US colonies as to whether or not to allow one in this nation. In the end the founders who favored a central bank managed to get their way, but the debate went on and the first Bank of the United States became defunct in 1811. The Second Bank of the United States was imposed on the people of this nation in 1816 and again lasted only twenty years or so when it was in effect shut down by Andrew Jackson. After the failures of those two institutions the populous in the United States did not have to worry about a central bank and the corruption inherent in such a monopolistic monetary device until 1913 when a few powerful, moneyed, elite individuals who had been manipulating and conniving for the establishment of such a bank saw their plans come to fruition. In effect, the Federal Reserve was US central bank part 3 and would prove to be more diabolical than its predecessors.

The Federal Reserve is so much like the classical monsters I mentioned at the beginning of this article the comparisons are frightening. They are like vampires in that they had to be invited into the country in order to enter. Once inside, they mesmerized their victims with promises impossible to keep. They then proceeded to suck the lifeblood from the economy, enriching themselves while depriving their victim of their rightful earnings through inflation.

Like the wolfman and his ilk, they attacked viciously by insisting congress levy a burdensome income tax on the American people, a tax that was necessary to bring the Federal Reserve into existence. In order to achieve this they actually had to amend the constitution of the United States of America, something that should be quite difficult to do. They accomplished this feat through a great deal of guile and stealth worthy of the most cunning predator. To this day the whole episode remains controversial, but there is no doubt that after 1913 with the passing of the 16th amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve the wholesale taxation of the American populace began.

Like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, one never knows what kind of personality is going to be exhibited by the Federal Reserve. An examination of what’s been happening over the last few years is a good example. One day the economy is chugging along just fine and Fed spokesmen are telling us there’s nothing to worry about, the next day there’s a credit crisis, the housing market (bubble) is collapsing and hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars needed to be created in order to keep the wealthiest of the elite in business. The bailouts alone perhaps murdered (or at least greatly hindered) the opportunities that would have been created for hundreds of small firms to grow as they filled the vacuum that would have been created by the collapse of the larger institutions.

While I don’t know that I’d say that the Federal Reserve is like a zombie, I would say that it behaves in an even more destructive manner by helping to create a population of economic zombies. With the rise of the Federal Reserve in the United States of America came the rise of overly complicated economic theories that dealt not with real economics, but with justifications to allow indebtedness and credit to be the driving factors behind the engines of economics. These theories tried to replace the organic realities of trading real goods and services for money that had already been earned and was defined by tangible substances such as precious metals with the manmade construct of trading goods and services for future earnings using paper debt notes backed only by a promise to pay and the force of government created legal tender laws.

The complications and twists of logic necessary to impose such an institution upon a population cause the minds of many ordinary folks to shut down when it comes to economics. Most people don’t want to think so hard about functions that are otherwise intuitive even to the youngest minds. The basic principle of “I have something you want and you have something I want so let’s trade” is very simple and intuitive. The concept of using precious metals for coins as a basis for trading amongst a large set of people to simplify otherwise complicated bartering deals is also relatively straight forward. The concept of creating money from nothing, on demand by virtue that someone wants to borrow it, is so foreign and incomprehensible to most people that they simply stop trying to grasp the concept. They accept that the Fed is a necessary institution because other people who understand “economics” better than they do say it is, hence they have become mindless in money matters preferring to keep a system that makes no sense because of the perception that it makes their life easier when in fact it is the engine that is making their financial life more difficult.

Another concept that the Federal Reserve has harpooned in its effort to create a population of monetary zombies is the concept of supply and demand. This relatively simple concept that prices rise and fall as supply rises or falls against demand is also simple and straight forward. The same concept should be applied to interest rates. It is applied to the money supply in that as more money is created it becomes less valuable. Inflation is the increase in the money supply. The money supply has become inflated. People don’t seem to want to think about that. This zombie effect has led us all down a path into perpetual debt.

Satan himself would have a hard time competing with the schemers that came up with the Federal Reserve. They used financial disasters likely caused by manipulations and mechanisms employed by the very moneyed elite that wanted to set up the Fed in the first place to instill fear and doubt in the developing American middle class. They sweet talked their way into the hearts of the general populace with promises of economic growth and monetary stability. They then proceeded to infect the body politic with their enticing propaganda to make such an institution seem indispensable to the American people. They did this to trick the people into believing the system of free enterprise was responsible for the nation’s economic woes and into supporting their cause. They did this to capture the economic soul of the United States. It worked. They now hold most of the money, gold, power and control.

The Federal Reserve might be the most perfect monster ever created by mankind, but it can be defeated. Certain promises were made at its conception and those promises have not been kept. The Fed was supposed to provide an engine to prosperity and stability. Instead we got inflation and debt notes that have lost 95% of their value since they were first printed. Instead we got boom and bust cycles that leave the middle and lower classes reeling while the wealthy elite acquire more and more with each downturn. Instead we got a warfare/welfare state that could not have been financed with honest money. Instead of becoming and maintaining the prosperous, freedom loving society that America was destined to be, we have built a world empire that we can no longer afford and a debt burden we may never be able to pay back, all thanks to the financial and accounting voodoo of the Federal Reserve.

We don’t have to allow this creation of the monetary elite to continue. We can arrest its incessant advances into our economic freedoms and take back our future. We can call on the owners and those in charge of this institution to account for their failures. We can insist on a long overdue audit of the Federal Reserve and support all those in congress who are making the effort to do just that. Once the American people see just how corrupt this organization is, once they come to a full understanding of just how monstrous this creation of the European central banks and the moneyed elite is, then we can abolish it and make sure no institution is ever again able to gain so much control of our economy by allowing monetary competition and only honest money to circulate instead of debt notes. Maybe then we can all sleep better and not have to worry about a monster under the bed.

Iran, Less Tyrannical Than New Hampshire?

2009-05-20T15:04:00.000-07:00

I have this problem. I like to express my opinions in commentaries such as the one you’re reading now. I’ve been doing so for a little over three years now and have yet to make a penny from it. I’ve noticed that some people seem to appreciate my opinion more than others. I do my best to remain polite and respectful to all, even those who may not completely agree with the points I am trying to make. Up to this point I’ve had no agenda, no pressure to give other than my honest opinion of the state of our current reality and my honest view of current events as opposed to the propaganda that mainstream media outlets inundate us with. I have no reason to fear loss of income should I say something one of my sponsors might find objectionable and no reason to fear loss of access should I say something some politician or bureaucrat finds displeasing. I wish these things would change a bit as I am looking for employment at the moment, but until they do I remain uncompromised.

Lately, I have been writing quite a bit about a couple of journalists who have been in the custody of different statist regimes. One, Roxana Saberi, was being held in Iran and the other, Sam Dodson, is currently being held in the United States of America in the state of New Hampshire. In one article I compared the two jailed journalists and their plights. The points I wished to make were how hypocritical governments can be when they castigate another government for something that they themselves engage in and how media coverage of similar incidents can be quite selective.

After not having Internet access for about ten days due to a move and AT&T’s inability to quickly and efficiently fix a problem with my connection and provide excellent costumer service, I went online to catch up with my email and to see how much attention my latest article had gotten. I found one blogger who had made an interesting observation about my article. His contention was that Sam could be set free anytime he wanted simply by cooperating with the authorities. He stated that it was too bad Roxana Saberi did not have this convenience.

It is interesting to note that at the time of this writing Roxana Saberi has been set free while Sam Dodson still languishes in jail. While Mr. Dodson has yet to state his name for the record as requested by the court (not required by statute), Ms. Saberi cooperated fully with her captors (likely under a great deal of duress and in fear of the fate that awaited her) and is now on her way home. This prompted me to ask the question which is the title of this piece as well as a few others.

Is Iran less tyrannical than New Hampshire? I highly doubt it. I am fairly certain that the laws and regulations in Iran are far more restrictive and the punishments likely more severe than those in New Hampshire. When comparing the Saberi and the Dodson cases, however, I could be wrong in this assumption. While I would admit that if Ms. Saberi hadn’t received all the media attention and support she did her case might have turned out differently, I have to say that when push came to shove the Iranian government showed that it could be flexible in its judgments and even somewhat admit that it was wrong. Upon review the appeals court decided that Ms. Saberi’s original sentence was too harsh and suspended a two year sentence hence allowing for her immediate release. While they did not absolve her of all wrong doing, they at least showed compassion, leniency and an ability to see reason beyond their own dogma. Public international pressure likely had much to do with this decision.

My opinion is not that Iran is less tyrannical than New Hampshire, but that it is a less powerful nation than the United States of America. They are, in my humble opinion, more likely to succumb to international pressure because they are by necessity more concerned with their image and standing in the world than is any state belonging to the most powerful nation on earth. This coupled by the fact that Mr. Dodson’s case has yet to garner much if any mainstream media attention makes his continued imprisonment likely.

The continued attitude expressed by the above mentioned blogger, that Mr. Dodson could get out if he simply cooperated, is a prevalent attitude, however, and it therefore seems that perhaps many will continue to say “so what?” to Mr. Dodson’s plight. I would like to address this concern.

It is true that Mr. Dodson could get out if he would simply tell his captors what they want to know. It is true that his fate lies in his own hands and all he has to do is verbally admit that his name is Sam Dodson to the “authorities” and he will be set free. All he has to do is be a good slave and submit to the masters and his nightmare will end. All he has to do is lick the boots of his oppressors and he can get back to his normal life. All he has to do is relinquish his rights and give up his battle to make government officials abide by their own dictates and respect individual rights as they are supposed to and we can all get on with business as usual, with government officials in their proper place oppressing the masses and demanding obedience without question, or else.

Mr. Dodson isn’t in jail because he wants to be there, he’s in jail because he’s fighting for us all. He’s fighting for government recognition of our rights just as the founders of this nation were, albeit in a much more subtle and peaceful manner. The local New Hampshire courts have shown their total disregard not only to the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, but its own state’s constitution as well. Local officials have shown nothing but total disregard for the rule of law as set down in their own statutes. They have shown nothing but a desire for blind obedience much like third world dictators would expect from their populations. It is up to brave souls like Sam Dodson and other civilly disobedient activists to show them that their coercive and potentially violent actions will no longer be tolerated by a free people.

It is my understanding that a writ of habeas corpus has been submitted to the New Hampshire Supreme Court on Mr. Dodson’s behalf and could be ruled on as early as today. We shall soon see if our rights are still respected by government or whether we truly have devolved into a complete police state where human rights are suspended and we are all expected to submit to the demands of civil authorities and bureaucrats without question or face prison terms of indefinite duration. I wish Sam, and by extension the rest of us, the best of luck.

Of Rights and Privileges

2009-05-19T20:03:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it becomes necessary to better define words and terms in order to get a clearer understanding of concepts that are often times nebulous at best and misrepresented at worst. This is especially true of words in the English language which have more than one meaning. Often times these same words are converted into a language known as “Legalese” where they are further distorted and perhaps even purposely obfuscated to fool the common folk into believing a paradigm that isn’t necessarily true. The word right is one such word that comes to mind, particularly when talking about natural, individual or human rights or a specific right. An examination of history and a discussion about the nature of the human animal might be in order to clarify exactly what a right is and how it differs from a privilege.

The examination can begin at the dawn of time when humans hadn’t yet risen far above the wild animals that cohabitate our world. At this time, I suppose we were truly free. Although I don’t know what it was like living back then, I can imagine. Even though back then the individual may have been able to do whatever he wanted, or whatever he could get away with in a might makes right type of situation, I would hesitate to say that the individual had the “right” to do some things. This is because it has always been wrong to engage in certain activities. I would conjecture that mankind was aware of this even when he was in a very primitive state of being. In any case, humans can and will defend themselves as best they can when attacked and this can always lead to harm for any party involved in a fray.

Nature provides our beings with certain attributes that are simply natural for us to use. Among these are the abilities to observe and think for ourselves. Humans are inquisitive creatures for the most part and we naturally wish to gather knowledge and gain a better understanding of the world we live in. We are also endowed with the abilities to move about, gather together and communicate with others for our mutual benefit and to help form our own opinions. In addition, human beings have a natural aptitude to create which we have used throughout the millennia to better our circumstances. These facets of human nature are the foundations on which the concepts of natural rights are built.

As time passed man evolved. Agriculture provided the impetus for forming societies based on cultivation and land ownership. Different types of societal systems were tried as mankind discovered that the Earth itself could be tamed and provide for human needs in a more predictable and secure manner. People came together and built cities and great civilizations and gave birth to collectivist ideas. Civilizations mutated into empires as mankind formed factions who fought each other for control of resources to be used for their own collectives. Those who were elevated to high status in these collectives due to some service provided that the populace felt they could not do without were privileged to live in such a manner. It was not their right to live so opulently regardless of what they thought or which family they were born into.

Empires crumbled and emperors died, but the common folk plodded along. The dark ages, as they were called, saw the rise of the feudal system. These were understandably frightening times. It was during these times that kings and other sovereigns laid claim to the lands. They claimed and controlled nearly all the lands of Europe and passed ownership on to their progeny. The people that lived on the lands became known as peasants or serfs and pledged their allegiance to the sovereigns that owned the lands. They surrendered their freedoms in favor of communal security. This was partially because back then there were bands of marauders wandering the countryside making life miserable for everyone. The serfs, who hardly had time to do anything except work the land, would be able to hide behind the king’s thick castle walls when such murderous bands would come round to kill, rape, pillage and burn. They depended on men who trained in the use of swords and other weapons to protect them. In exchange for all this, they provided the soldiers and royalty with food and other products of their labor. This was an arrangement that worked for hundreds of years at a time when life was short and cheap.

It was during these dark times when the common man came to know intimately not only the enemy outside the walls, but the enemy within. Perhaps even way back in those medieval times the controlling elite had learned the value of fear and propaganda when it came to keeping the ordinary working folk in line. Fear of bands of warriors roaming far and wide kept the commoners near the castle walls, fear of the dungeon kept them paying their tribute to the sovereigns that were their masters. It is likely that many who decided to strike out on their own to claim their own land were quickly killed, as likely by soldiers just following a sovereign’s orders to prevent other serfs from getting any ideas as from foreign invaders or local bandits looking to rape, pillage and burn. While ordinary working folk had the right to strike out on their own and seek self sufficiency, the elite had the privilege of being able to violate those rights without fear of retribution.

Despite all this, despite the wars, the diseases, the forced servitude and the entrenchment of a powerful elite, mankind survived the darkest of times and still managed to keep the desire for freedom flickering in its spirit. Humans, after the fall of civilizations, somehow managed to muddle through and maintain a semblance of the technologies of earlier times, thus keeping a better lifestyle than our wild ancestors at the dawn of time. Slowly our numbers began to grow, cities were repopulated, and mankind once again flourished on the earth. Even as the population grew, accepted a harsh reality for what it was and tried to rebuild what had been lost, the spirit of man sought a better way than the oppression suffered under authoritarian systems.

The Renaissance saw a rebirth of free thinking. The powerful elite tried to keep a lid on knowledge which would eventually elevate the ordinary man’s lot in life, but truth is hard to mask, liberty is a powerful idea and tyranny can only be tolerated for so long. From these thinkers European society continued moving toward more freedom and a diversity of ideas as the old establishment found it more difficult to corral and control the common folk who wished nothing more than the ability to determine their own destiny in this world. All this eventually led to the period known as “The Enlightenment” and the creation of a new nation at least partially based on the ideas of natural rights and protection of the individual. For quite some time these ideas worked and helped to create an extremely prosperous nation. Unfortunately the powerful, privileged elite did not simply bow out gracefully and let the common folk continue to prosper, but have consistently tried to find ways to undermine the liberties they were supposed to respect and regain control over the lives and fortunes of the masses. For decades now, mostly via propaganda and indoctrination, we have been moving backward when it comes to the freedom of the individual and his ability to determine his own destiny.

As a child in government school I was taught, as I’m sure many of my peers were, that we lived in the greatest nation in the world because our constitution granted us certain rights. I was taught that the freedoms we enjoyed while other nations languished in tyranny was achieved because of the deeds of a few great men and authoritarian leaders. As I have aged I have come to the conclusion that these stories and historical interpretations are fallacies and half truths.

Governments cannot give or take rights. Constitutions cannot give or take rights. The individuals working within governmental systems can only decide whether or not to honor the rights inherent in human nature. The founders of the United States of America tried to protect the individual from the power of centralized government by codifying the concepts of natural rights in the Bill of Rights. They tried to minimize the likelihood of a tyrannical, authoritarian system taking hold by contriving a system of checks and balances that were supposed to preserve their own separate powers at odds with each other so that too much power could not be concentrated in one branch. In essence, they tried to tame a wild beast by placing a cage of words around it and those words have proven to be a woefully inadequate deterrent to government growth and intrusion. The elite in control of the mechanisms of state continue to ignore the rules codified in the document known as the Constitution of the United States of America using fear, national security and a constant state of emergency as excuses to do so.

But these rights aren’t simply words written on a piece of paper, they are based upon the natural inclinations of the human animal. The first amendment is based on the knowledge that all humans are able to think for themselves and to form their own opinion. It recognizes that human beings have the ability to try to convince other humans that their ideas and opinions have merit. It understands that humans gather together at times simply for the purpose of expressing and exchanging such ideas and opinions. The basic concept that “no law shall be passed abridging the right” is the concept that we should all be respectful of another’s opinion even if that opinion is abhorrent to us. No one should be forced to keep quiet about his ideas or opinions, nor should he be forced to accept someone else’s opinion as truth. Indeed, while vocal and written opposition can be squelched by certain laws being passed and the heavy handed tactics of the police state being enacted, the thoughts, ideas and opinions inside the heads of some people will remain unchanged. It was recognized long ago that those in power will try to silence opposition to their agenda by jailing and even executing dissenters and that is the true reason for any law or regulation against expressing any kind of idea or opinion no matter how unpopular, hateful, or abhorrent.

That a human being will defend itself when threatened is another natural condition. That is the spirit behind the second amendment. Mankind has developed firearms as a means of defense as well as a means to threaten and coerce. Those who seek power over others would love to be in control of all the guns. A populace who is disarmed is also defenseless should those in power decide they wish to abuse their power, or to round up a certain segment of the population, or to just wantonly brutalize for no particular reason. The right to keep and bare arms was recognized as a way to allow the people this check against government abuse and intrusiveness without them having to fear retribution for the simple act of self defense.

Private property rights stem from the natural creativity of the human creature. These rights are addressed in some form or another over the rest of the Bill of Rights. It begins with the acknowledgement that one owns one’s own body. In the natural state of things, a human being is not owned by anyone else, but will work for and with others and will interact with others on a voluntary basis, usually for their mutual benefit. Since one owns one’s self, then one should also own what one has labored to create. What he decides to do with his property, keep it, sell it, throw it away, etc., should be his own business and of that any of those he may choose to involve. Those who wish power over others have no right involving themselves in the business of others when they have not been invited to do so and when no harm is being done to another.

These and other individual rights that were enshrined in the United States Constitution long ago in an effort to keep the government in check are in danger of no longer being honored by that same government. These rights are inherent in all human beings at the time of their birth, not granted by a political elite claiming authority over a certain population. We see more and more often people everywhere who try to exercise these rights are denied that ability by the forces who wish to maintain their power. Even in the United States of America where freedom and liberty are supposed to be the status quo we have seen the growth of the police state and the brazen subordination of the individual to the state and its authorities. Governments do not want people exercising their rights, they want people to obey so that those in power can exercise their privileges just as the feudal kings of old did. They wish the people to remain ignorant and afraid so that they will beg for help and security. It is up to the common man to show that he will not simply sit back and let his rights be violated by those who seek power over him. Only when these natural rights are once again honored and the laws and regulations violating them repealed will we be able to move forward and once again allow everyone to prosper.

A Tale of Two Journalists; Roxana Saberi and Sam Dodson

2009-05-05T08:50:00.000-07:00

I have recently written separate commentaries on two jailed journalists. One, Roxana Saberi, has received a great deal of attention from the mainstream media and her case has been widely reported on and disseminated across the globe. The other case is that of Sam Dodson. His case has gotten virtually no attention from the mainstream media. As he languishes in a jail cell refusing to eat his plight has only been discussed on few liberty oriented blogs. I begin to wonder why this should be and thought an examination of the differences between the two cases might shed some light on this phenomenon.

It was interesting to note, as I researched these cases, that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that last year there were 125 journalists jailed worldwide as of their census of Dec. 1st, 2008. Yet one must wonder exactly how accurate their count is in these times when the Internet provides a means for anyone to become a journalist. The CPJ itself makes an interesting statement on its website that the United States will hold journalists in jail for a few days without charge and then release them. These journalists apparently are not counted in the census, so the true scope of the problem is clearly unknown and severely under reported. I suppose Roxana Saberi and Sam Dodson could count themselves lucky to be getting any attention considering how much attention the other 123 journalists are getting.

That said, why is it that Roxana Saberi gets so much attention while Sam Dodson’s case seems to be followed by only a few – shall we say – lesser known news outlets? Well, perhaps it’s because Ms. Saberi’s case is taking place in Iran whereas Mr. Dodson’s case is playing out in these United States of America, in New Hampshire to be exact. It is always easier to point out the imperfections in one’s neighbor than it is to see the same faults in one’s self. In the same manner, I suppose it’s always easier to see the tyranny and injustice in another’s government than it is to see the same in one’s own.

Roxana Saberi’s case is unusual on many facets. For one thing, she is a dual citizen, so even though she was born in America, the Iranians may feel that perhaps they have more jurisdiction over her since she’s been living there for six years now. Why someone would want to subject themselves to the dictates of two such different arcane and arbitrary sets of law is anyone’s guess, but I imagine Ms. Sebari felt it would help her better perform her work. In any case, her citizenship status has helped to spark international attention. Still, one might wonder, would such attention have been given to her had the United States of America arrested her? Before you claim that such a thing could not possibly happen in this nation keep in mind that many huge laws have been passed since Sept. 11th, 2001, such as The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act, which empower the executive branch of our government to ignore human rights and do exactly what is being done to Ms. Saberi. In fact, the last I heard, as of January 2009, a journalist named Ibrahim Jassam is still being held without charges by the US military.

Even the Iranians seem able to do better than that. Ms. Saberi was charged with espionage and tried in an Iranian court of law. This is exciting stuff, the kind of story novels are written about. Granted, the trial was held behind closed doors and in secret, for national security reasons we are told. Of course, the US is not to be outdone by Iran and has created provisions so that the same thing may be done here simply by the executive branch of our illustrious government accusing someone of being an enemy combatant in the war on terror. But at least Ms. Saberi was charged, tried and sentenced which is more than the US has done in several cases when imprisoning journalists, recently holding one without trial for six years.

Please don’t get me wrong, I think what is happening with Ms. Saberi is a terrible, criminal act and that the Iranian authorities should be held accountable for their actions. I’m just trying to put a little perspective on it. It seems to me there is far too much hypocrisy in this world. Ms. Saberi was arrested on unrelated charges constituting a victimless crime and is now sentenced to have eight years of her life stolen from her. Indeed, her life could be forfeit for she has gone on a hunger strike in support of her claim that she is innocent. There is much outrage and support expressed for her.

I am glad to see that the plight of jailed journalists is finally getting coverage, yet the same type of thing can and has happened under US auspices and I continue to wonder just how much attention this matter would have been given if the US was holding Ms. Saberi. Would we see the same level of outrage and support had she been arrested for a seatbelt violation and was then accused of being a spy, handed over to federal authorities, labeled an enemy combatant, held for a time without charges, possibly tortured, tried in a secret military proceeding and finally sentenced? Such a thing is a possibility because government personnel are not held accountable when they ignore their own rules that were supposed to protect individuals from exactly this type of tyranny.

The case of Sam Dodson is a good example. His case may not be as glamorous as Ms. Sebari’s. He may not have been accused of spying for a foreign government or tried for espionage, but the implications of his case are far more important, in my opinion. His case is one based on the power of civil disobedience in an attempt to expose the inherent violence in the system. He has purposely decided to take a principled stance to hold the authorities accountable for following their own rules and regulations.

Mr. Dodson was arrested for refusing to remove a video camera from an area in a building supposedly owned by the public. He did this because he felt the order was unlawful due to the fact that not only was it unconstitutional, but the written order posted on the wall of the building was unsigned. Mr. Dodson was quickly and harshly subdued and arrested for trying to assert his individual rights and for asking the policing authorities involved to do their correct job by enforcing the law as written in the constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

Mr. Dodson is still being held in jail because he refuses to give up his rights. He refuses to help his jailors any more than he is required to. He refuses to give them his correct name because it is not required of him. The judge in the case admitted as much in a recent decision when he wrote Sam would not reveal information “as expected” of suspects, not “as required.” He has already graciously cooperated by allowing his person to be fingerprinted and his picture to be taken, as required by law. The authorities know who he is, where he lives, what he does, etc. and yet they continue to hold him simply because he has decided to exercise his right to remain silent, simply because they can’t coerce him into confirming their suspicions with his own voice, hence waiving his fifth amendment rights.

The judge in this case has declared that Mr. Dodson will be held indefinitely until such a time as he provides his name as “expected” of him. His sixth amendment rights have been violated because he refuses to obey a request that doesn’t have to be obeyed. He will continue to languish in jail until he succumbs to the dictates of the authoritarian judge or until a higher court rules on a writ of habeas corpus that has been filed. He was arrested for a victimless crime and continues to be held for trying to hold the individuals who support the system accountable for their actions. He has effectively been given a life sentence for refusing to do something that is not required of him. Indeed, he feels so strongly about seeing to it the authorities respect the rights of the individual that he has engaged in a hunger strike to protest his continued imprisonment. If things continue as they are and in the worst case scenario, Mr. Dodson’s life could be forfeit in an attempt to preserve the respect for individual rights as codified in the Constitution that government officials claim to regard so highly and take an oath to uphold.

Ironically, Mr. Dodson was originally arrested for an activity which if allowed in Iran may have prevented Ms. Saberi’s incarceration. There is no reason judicial proceedings should be secret. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed and that there are victims or intended victims involved then that evidence should be presented for all to see. Allowing independent press agents to video record in public courtrooms ensures that actions taken against any defendant, not just journalists, are justifiable and in accordance with the rules set forth by the system itself. In fact, the very insistence of secrecy should in and of itself make one suspicious of the activity undertaken.

In the US constitution, the idea behind the judicial branch of government was to ensure the protection of individuals against unwarranted and intrusive authoritarian government. It was supposed to serve the populace. Unfortunately, it is not succeeding in fulfilling its role. The decisions being made on a daily basis show that the courts are now more concerned with maintaining the façade of government legitimacy than they are with protecting individual rights. We see this as judges refuse to explain to juries that it is their duty to judge the law as well as the defendant. We see this as judges continue to uphold victimless crimes and collect fines for the state. We see this as judges in courts everywhere consistently change the rules as they see fit and as is convenient for the state. Courts worldwide have become nothing more than tools of government to elicit obedience from the populace rather than a protection for the individual against a much more powerful state apparatus. It’s a shame that it takes such events to shine a light on the corruption of the system. It’s a pity that more judges and officials aren’t principled enough to prevent such occurrences in the first place.

The Road to Freedom is Paved With Disobedience

2009-04-23T08:55:00.000-07:00

You have most likely broken the law. As you sit there right now, reading this, you are probably doing or have done something recently that has transgressed some statute, some rule of government. You haven’t done anything to harm another, you haven’t stolen or damaged the property of another, and yet it is likely that those who rule over you have written some words down on a piece of paper somewhere, called it a law, and now they expect you to know this and obey its dictates. The absurdity of this system is clear for all to see, and yet you are at the mercy of those who call themselves “servants” of the people but then act as if they are the masters. They are a frightening group of people and if they set their sites on you, for whatever reason, you will end up being punished in some way.

If you have somehow violated some “code” (a very appropriate word for small details to a larger law or set of laws since normal English speaking people can’t understand much of what is written and only those well versed in the arcane language known as “legalese” have any idea of the “code’s” true meaning) then perhaps you have only to pay a small fine and the mean, nasty government people will leave you alone. Most of us ordinary folks simply pay these fines without question, even though we resent them, for a couple of reasons. First off, most of us realize that if we try to fight such a fine it will end up costing us more in time and money than if we just pay it, and then we might have to pay the original fine in addition anyway. Secondly, most of us realize that if we try to ignore the fine that eventually the government gang will catch up to you, perhaps kidnap and throw you in a confined space known as a jail cell, and make you stand before some guy in a black robe (who is paid by and owes his allegiance to the state) and explain to him why you were so rude and ignored their requests for money.

Should you find yourself in the grasp of government agents or in one of their courtrooms pleading with one of their judges don’t try to use the excuse that you didn’t know you were breaking a law. They don’t care. Of course you didn’t know you were breaking a law, how could you possibly know all the laws that have been written? It is a human impossibility. No one could possibly know what all the laws not only because so many have been written, but they are in a constant state of flux. What’s legal one day can be illegal the next and vice versa. Yet these people, when you stand before them, will tell you that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That may have worked when the law was simple and only involved other human beings as victims, but when it only involves state entities as the complaining parties then it should not only be an excuse, it should be understandable and expected.

Another thing that one might consider is why one should believe that any given politician wouldn’t use his power to try to punish someone he didn’t like, or try to force someone with a divergent viewpoint to change his behavior. Perhaps one used to think the justice system could be used to keep such power crazed politicians in check, and perhaps at one time long ago when supposedly many judges were principled one would be right. But judges are fallible humans also. They can not only tell who butters their bread, they can also be bought and sold when necessary. While I’m certain that principled judges do exist, I’d just as soon they didn’t have to depend upon government to earn their paychecks when their job entails having to mediate a case that might have some impact upon that very paycheck. Until and unless viable free market arbitration and dispute resolution systems evolve, we need some form of check to see that the courts remain fair and unbiased.

One such check was supposed to be the press. Media outlets and journalists were supposed to have free rein to report on the happenings in the public sphere. This, in my humble opinion, is necessary to help ensure that corruption in the system is kept to a minimum, that the populace is informed as to the actions of their public servants, that those working with the public trust are held accountable for their actions, and that individuals’ rights are respected at all levels of government. Denying access of modern reporting technology such as video cameras and recording devices into public venues only serves to impede this necessary check to power.

In Illinois, a state more socialist than others, even still cameras are not allowed into the public buildings which house the courtrooms, let alone the courtrooms themselves. If one tries to enter a court building with so much as a camera phone that person is denied entrance and usually has to go back to their car to put it safely away. Such restrictions only make it more difficult for the ordinary person to make an accurate appraisal of how well the justice system is working. In Illinois, we are forced to depend on artists’ renditions of the participants and the accuracy of reporters’ memories and notes as twenty first century technology is not allowed to record the public events taking place inside these sacred venues and so the nuances of voice inflection and facial expression are lost to the common man’s interpretation of the event.

In New Hampshire this is not so. In New Hampshire not only are cameras and recording devices allowed in the courtrooms, it is a right supposedly protected by their state constitution. It should be protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution, in my opinion. “Congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of the press,” it says in effect. In Keene, New Hampshire, however, a judge tried to abridge this right by writing a proclamation that video recording would not be allowed in the building. Unlike the state of Illinois where the people seem willing to obey any dictate without question, some New Hampshire residents seem to have more backbone. One resident, a Mr. SamIam, decided to challenge the dictate posted, unsigned, in the Keene courthouse. He decided to disobey the orders which he felt were unlawful and was promptly arrested along with five others who quickly showed up to support his efforts.

As I write this, SamIam still sits in a jail cell to the best of my knowledge. He was busted for disobeying a judge and trying to exercise his first amendment rights. Now he’s exercising his fifth amendment right to remain silent and has been told he will remain in jail indefinitely until he decides to cooperate with his jailors and recognize their authority over him. This violates his sixth amendment right to a speedy and public trial. His disobedience continues. Unfortunately, it seems to me that government folks believe disobedience is the worst crime possible. Apparently it is punishable by life in prison. How dare anyone disobey? How dare anyone question their authority? How dare a man claim he has rights that need to be respected by government AND try to exercise those rights? This befuddles and angers the government authorities and the only way they can figure out how to deal with it is through violence and imprisonment.

Throughout history it has been shown that peaceful disobedience is a valid way of gaining more freedom. We were shown this by such historical figures as Mahatma Gandhi, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. In the 1960s during the civil rights movement tens or hundreds of thousands of activists with a little more melanin in their skin bravely disobeyed laws in the face of violent opposition from just as many angry persons of less melanin. Those common folks of darker skin peacefully sat at lunch counters and marched through streets as the lighter skinned folks screamed nasty epithets and even at times physically attacked them. These brave folks for the most part grit their teeth and did not retaliate. This led to the recognition that these folks were in fact human and entitled to the same respect for their rights as any other human, which overturned many laws that had been enacted by certain states at that time.

More Americans need to follow the examples these brave folks have shown us. We need to disobey and question unjust laws. We need to exercise our rights at every opportunity, otherwise they may atrophy like an unused muscle in the body politic. By simply obeying without question the populace becomes sheep like and allows those who would rule to stop respecting the rights of individuals and become tyrannical. As the police state grows those who would obey simply shrug their shoulders and go along to get along. How different would history and the world be if a few more Germans in the 1930s had been disobedient? We have tried electing different groups of people into government and it doesn’t seem to make a difference. We have tried working within the system and it seems no one is listening. The time has come to stop simply grumbling and complaining about injustices and to do something about it. The time has come to stop funding bad policies. The time has come to once again practice some peaceful civil disobedience to reclaim our freedoms, or at least to support those who are brave enough to do so.

Media Complicity and the Bravery of the Independent Journalist

2009-04-20T13:28:00.000-07:00

Many have now heard about the plight of Roxana Saberi and her recent espionage conviction handed down by the contemptible Iranian authorities. To sum things up for those who may not know, Ms. Saberi is a person of dual citizenship, born and raised in Fargo, North Dakota but also a citizen of Iran. She is an independent reporter who has worked for several news organizations and has been living in Iran for the last six years. In January 2009 she was arrested on charges having nothing to do with espionage and in April 2009 she was convicted of spying for the United States of America and then sentenced to 8 years in prison. All this was done behind closed doors, in secret proceedings, with no one except government approved persons there to witness exactly how this determination was made. The entire episode is very questionable and suspicious indeed.

Ms. Saberi is just the latest in a long line of brave journalists to be jailed worldwide. Their stories are inspiring and harrowing as they attempt to bring information to the masses from places where the powerful keep a tight control on information and determine what is allowed to be released to the public and what is not. More frightening still are the members of the press who have been killed or attacked throughout the years. These are men and women who are simply trying to inform the public as to the reality of world events. While some are victims of the very events they are covering, becoming casualties of the chaos which is the nature of some of the conflicts they may be reporting on, others die under mysterious or coincidental circumstances that make one wonder.

There is not, in my opinion, enough media coverage of these journalists who have been unjustly imprisoned either by their own governments or by powerful groups that might be at odds with authorities currently recognized as the ruling faction in a geopolitical area. It seems to me that anyone who would jail a journalist would do so only because they have something to hide, something they don’t want reported. It is not hard to imagine that every government is corrupt at some level, even (or especially) those governments who claim to be ordained by God and implementing his divine law. It is also not hard to imagine that any group desiring to rule over others are equally corruptible. The morality of forcing people to live by your set of rules and values is dubious at best and oft times despicable. The ordinary people of the world, those who do their best to survive and produce and try to achieve a better life, deserve to be informed and to have their voices heard. That is the job of the principled journalist.

It seems to me that when a journalist is jailed or murdered the rest of the media should be not only reporting on the event, but should start digging deep into the stories that reporter was working on and try to determine if they had a lead into something that could precipitate a dangerous reaction from the powerful or if they had recently angered some powerful official. I realize that individual journalists may be hesitant to investigate for fear of retribution, but fear is something we must overcome if we are to expose the hidden truths that drive events. This fear could be easily alleviated if the giant media corporations which provide public access to most of the world’s information would fund and encourage such investigations, but that does not seem to happen. Perhaps this is because the most powerful mainstream media operations work hand in hand with corporate governments worldwide and do not want the sources of their power exposed. This makes being a principled independent journalist a very dangerous career indeed, for not only do you have to worry about possible retribution from some very powerful entity, but without any powerful or politically connected organization to back you up there is little hope for salvation should accusations be made against you by public officials. Is it any wonder so much corruption remains so hidden in all governments?

Those in power will often use “national security reasons” as an excuse to keep information from public scrutiny. This is, of course, a catchall excuse as those in power actually get to decide what constitutes a breach of national security. In other words, if a leader decides that an op/ed writer criticizing his foreign policy constitutes a breach of national security that op/ed writer can be arrested, imprisoned and then secretly tried and convicted and the general public will only know that this particular writer was considered a threat to national security. This control can only be broken when the truth is found and disseminated to the populace. Until and unless secret trials are stopped all over the world (including in my country, the United States of America), we will be dependent upon brave independent journalists who are willing to risk their freedoms and their very lives to reveal the depths of corruption in political systems everywhere.

Ms. Saberi was convicted of espionage and I wonder what story she was working on or who she may have angered that made such a conviction necessary. I wonder what information she might have that could embarrass the powers that be in Iran. I have no resources to find this out for myself and so I must depend on the work of the mainstream media or another independent outlet for that information. If such discoveries were often made and if those in power had reason to believe they would be held accountable for their actions, then maybe such unjust activities would cease.

Of course, it could be that she actually was spying, in which case why didn’t the Iranian authorities try her in open court so that we could all evaluate their evidence and judge for ourselves whether or not the Iranian authorities were justified in their actions? I understand that certain information such as troop deployment, numbers and movements and weapons capability need to be kept secret because lives could be put at risk, but in a trial this information could remain under wraps while still revealing the type of information she was supposedly uncovering for the American authorities. But I don’t believe for a second that Ms. Saberi is a spy. I believe something far more nefarious remains hidden in this case and that the Iranian authorities want to be certain it is never revealed, or if it is than it is not to be believed.

It is a shame governments, the United States of America included, continue to justify the jailing of journalists whatever the reason. It seems to me that the journalists are the victims here and those in power are the criminals. But then, it seems that this thing known as political power attracts corruptible, murderous criminal types no matter what part of the globe one resides in. A free and independent press would do wonders to keep these types in check and to make sure they behaved themselves. It’s a shame that the independent journalists of the world cannot work without fear of reprisal and it’s a bigger shame that the corporate media has sold out to political interests and can no longer be trusted to do meaningful investigative work. One can only hope that the independent journalists of the world continue their work and continue to grow more significant as time passes. One can only hope that one day we live in a world where open societies are the norm and all information is presented to each and every individual so that everyone can make fully informed judgments.

President Obama, Slick Salesman For Banksters?

2009-04-16T20:23:00.001-07:00

I watched another one of Mr. Obama’s speech a couple of days ago on television. I couldn’t help but feel I was being sold a bill of goods. I couldn’t help but feel I was being asked to buy something I knew I couldn’t afford and was likely not going to use. I felt as if I had answered the door and let a slick talking vacuum cleaner salesman into my home because he seemed like such a charming person. He proceeds to try to sell me some vacuum cleaner/radio/mp3player/toaster/juicer all in one for several thousand dollars on easy terms when I know I can go out and get all these things separately for a few hundred. Like most good salesmen, his aim is to make the insensible seem sensible, to make the product sound indispensable and to make the price sound fair and equitable. I’m not buying. I simply can’t afford it today.

What sticks out in my mind most about Mr. Obama’s speech is the word “credit.” He kept talking about how much we needed the flow of credit. He kept talking about how much we need credit to get out of this mess which was created because of too much debt that could not be paid. It just made no sense to me. This got me to thinking, who benefits from credit? Who is likely to profit and who is likely to pay? Admittedly this is not always such a simple question, but it seems to me that in today’s United States of America, it is the banks who are profiting and the taxpayers who are footing the bill.

Credit is like gambling, at least when one is the creditor. One is taking a chance that the money loaned out will not be paid back. I am reminded of a time some “friends” came in from Minnesota and needed fifty dollars for gas to get back home. I “loaned” them the money with the complete understanding (in my own head, I didn’t express this thought to them) that I most likely would not be paid back. Had they needed more, they would have been out of luck. If one is going to extend credit to another then they should make sure they only loan money they can afford to lose. It seems to me that modern banks don’t have to worry about that since they don’t have to worry about losing anything. Such is the nature of fractional reserve banking and government guarantees. And it has now been shown to us that when they get into trouble they can simply threaten the cowardly politicians of this nation with financial meltdown and societal upheaval and a bailout will be forthcoming.

Yes, it is true that sometimes a loan will help out all parties involved, more often than not it is the lender who truly profits. If one uses credit to pay for a product, likely one will end up paying more for that product than one should. This extra cost doesn’t go to the manufacturer, but to the bank that loaned the money. It seems to me that the consumer would have been better off had he waited to purchase the product until such a time as he could put aside enough to afford it. I realize and I will be the first to admit that this is not always feasible and that there are situations when credit becomes a necessity, but it seems to me that perhaps our society has over extended its credit system not by buying necessities, but a lavish lifestyle.

So, American families and businesses have been cutting back. They have decided not to spend their money on certain things anymore. Perhaps some have decided to keep their old cars for another year or two rather than buying new. Perhaps others have decided to delay purchasing an insurance policy. Some companies may have decided to lay off some of their employees. Others may have cut back on costs by lowering their inventory levels or by applying modern technology more efficiently. Still others might have decided to pay off as much debt as possible to get out from under the burden of paying interest on loans. Mr. Obama’s speech yesterday made it clear that he didn’t think this was a good idea. Since the private sector has stopped spending, he’s going to make certain the government sector makes up for that lack of spending. He’s going to make certain the debt continues to grow. There’s a huge problem with this. Government money is stolen from the private sector in the form of taxes. Government is spending money in ways private citizens and businesses chose not to spend. Government is spending money the private sector would like to save and the only ones who will profit from this are the banksters, the same ones that demanded hundreds of billions in bailouts from the American tax payers.

The constant contradictions that I heard spilling from Mr. Obama’s mouth confounded me. In one sentence he would talk about how right the ordinary people were in the way they handled their own finances, then he would turn around and talk about how this doesn’t apply to government. As reasons to increase government spending and justify a continuation of bailouts, Mr. Obama cited debatable lessons in history from a viewpoint that many historians might find distorted or a misrepresentation of historical events. He cited the views of economists on “both” sides of the political spectrum who feel that a reduction in spending is the last thing government should do in a recession. It is clear to me that Mr. Obama is refusing to consider differing variations of economic thought. Perhaps it is because he actually believes more government meddling, more borrowing and less freedom for people to conduct their business as they see fit will somehow help the economy, but I get the impression that someone behind the scenes is using him to sell the public a product that most of us realize is poorly designed and too expensive. The Federal Reserve system has never done what it claimed it would do and has cost this country far too much real wealth already.

Let me mention here that when Mr. Obama speaks of history and states that it has provided lessons for us which shows that more government intervention is the way to go, he forgets the lessons of the economic downturn after World War I. With Harding and later Coolidge as presidents we saw little government intervention in the economy and ushered in the roaring 20s, a time of prosperity. After the stock market crash of 1929, when first Hoover and later Roosevelt bullied the United States congress into intervening to try to prevent an economic calamity, we ushered in a time of government interference in the private sector and experienced a long and drawn out depression which only ended with the occurrence of a sad and destructive war.

As for Mr. Obama’s reference to economists on the “right” and the “left” side of the political aisle agreeing on spending, I would politely remind Mr. Obama that there are more than two schools of political thought in the world and to pigeon hole every issue into two arguments, whether referred to as left or right, liberal or conservative, or whatever label you would put on them, is an over simplification and a disservice to mankind. Furthermore, I would remind him that economists are human beings and can be wrong even when they agree. More importantly, they can be trained or paid to present ideas in such a way as to support a particular political philosophy or agenda. In this case it seems that agenda is control of our economy by the unholy marriage of bankers and their political puppets. This is the same game that has been being played for hundreds of years and the public still doesn’t seem to catch on. The rich and powerful stay rich and powerful and ordinary people continue to get screwed.

I will not buy Mr. Obama’s sales pitch. I do not believe that increased government spending and more government intervention into our economy is the way to bring prosperity back to the nation. This is the same old argument that has been used time and again, from Wilson to Bush Jr., to keep increasing the size and intrusiveness of government. There are several other avenues we have yet to travel down. We have always had the option to explore these various economic philosophies, but have never been brave enough to cast off the chains that bind us to the old ways and implement meaningful change that will result in equitable opportunity and prosperity for all who would participate.

Yesterday there were many, many tea party events held across the country to protest taxes. I hope the protests do not stop there. I hope that tax protests are not co-opted by any political party in an effort to further an agenda that maintains the status quo and the power of the banksters. It is time to demand accountability in and from the system. It is time to demand an audit of the Fed, something that has never been done. It seems the Fed is above the law and beyond oversight. If Mr. Obama is truly the champion of change as he says he is, then perhaps he will lead the charge to see that this happens. Audit the Fed, expose its corrupt nature, and perhaps the American people can begin to recover the trillions of dollars that haven’t been accounted for in recent years. Perhaps after it has been audited and those who own it held accountable for their actions, the Fed can be ended and their notes replaced with honest money. It might be nice to see the words “US Treasury Note” instead of “Federal Reserve Note” on a dollar bill again. It might be nice to carry around and circulate genuine gold and silver coins once again. At the very least, that would be a good start.

Ron Paul, Right About the Economy, Right About Freedom

2009-04-11T07:22:00.000-07:00

Last year at this time, a presidential campaign captured the interest of many in the nation. Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of voters like me supported the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul, a long time Republican congressman from Texas. Those of us who are interested in liberty and personal independence put quite a bit of our hope for a better tomorrow into his candidacy, and in my opinion, rightfully so. Dr. Paul has a long standing record of voting in a pro liberty manner on many of the important issues of our day. Many may have been disappointed by the events that took place, but perhaps they should not be surprised. Even though Dr. Paul did not become president, or even the Republican presidential nominee, his campaign has opened the eyes of a great many people and his message continues to reverberate in the American consciousness, and indeed around the world. The freedom message is powerful and popular worldwide, not just in America.

It became evident quite early on in Ron Paul’s campaign that the establishment was not going to give into him easily, no matter his popularity. The establishment media did their best to marginalize him and his supporters and minimize the impact he had on the political discourse. They did their jobs well, as far as that went, and managed to prevent huge numbers of common folk from discovering the only candidate that could really be trusted to make a difference. But since Ron Paul was a Republican, they couldn’t keep him out of the debates like they do so many other worthy candidates with a freedom message. Unfortunately, it may have been too little, too late against an establishment that was simply too powerful.

Still, Ron Paul managed to awaken a multitude who may have otherwise remained apathetic and feeling helpless against the rising tide of political disenfranchisement that continues to pervade not just the United States of America, but the entire world. Despite the fact that he was given less time than other candidates at the debates, despite the fact that he was asked more insignificant questions having nothing to do with the main issues of the day than the other candidates, despite the media’s efforts to make him and his supporters look crazy and/or radical, he managed to deliver a liberty message that resonated in the fibers of the American people. He managed to deliver a message of smaller, more transparent government that most freedom loving individuals can agree with. Ron Paul’s candidacy was a success in so many ways simply because the establishment and their media cronies did not want the common folk exposed to such ideas and they could do nothing to stop it. The idea of freedom has always been dangerous to those in power.

Yet Ron Paul did more than just deliver the message of freedom to the masses. He was able to make some predictions about the direction this country was taking. More surprisingly, he showed that the American people are interested in economics and how money works, particularly young Americans. After all, it is the younger generations who are going to have to pay for the follies the government engages in today. What do people think debt is anyway? What do people expect from a system where money creation is based on debt? Like the old fairy tale of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, debts are to be paid as promised else likely the children will suffer the consequences. Perhaps the people of this nation understand more than the establishment gives them credit for and that is why there was such an outcry against the recent bailouts.

It is only now, after we have seen many of Ron Paul’s economic predictions come to pass, that he is given credibility by those who interview him in the mainstream media. It is only after an election has been held and establishment supported politicians have remained firmly in place that the mainstream media begins to give any credence to the free market proponents who had been warning all along of the impending crisis. Even now, as Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and others warn of a deepening economic crisis, the politicians continue a policy of increasing the debt burden and trying to maintain an unworkable, credit driven monetary system. Even though thoughtful, common sense solutions have been proffered by such gentlemen and reported on in establishment media these men are ignored by the political and banking elite as their solutions would curtail the power and control the establishment maintains over our lives and so no real change will take place despite the apparent prophetic nature of past predictions.

It’s not just the economy that Ron Paul made dire predictions about, however. He also made predictions and continues to warn about the likelihood that our freedoms will be lost. As it stands, the United States government still honors a few of the freedoms we used to take for granted, but even those freedoms are tenuously honored at best as the elite who control the mechanisms of state would love to stifle all dissent and silence all who would dare protest. Civil liberties which were supposed to be protected by the rules of governance that were outlined in the Bill of Rights which were eviscerated by the Bush administration have not been restored. It seems to me likely that those who broke the law by violating those rights which they had sworn an oath to uphold will never be brought to justice. Worse still, the burdensome tomes legislators and their friends create and then refer to as laws are not being repealed. In fact, I am certain more cryptic laws are being crafted as you read this to create larger bureaucracies with less transparency and more power than ever.

There are remedies available for these problems also. Dr. Ron Paul understands what these remedies entail and gave us his recommendations during the debates. On top of my list is to bring all our troops home from all around the world. As a nation the United States has over extended its budget and its authority by trying to administer an empire it should never have built in the first place. It is time to give the rest of the world the freedom to police their own nations and to keep our troops here to defend ours. It is time to deal with other nations fairly on a private business level, letting them sell their resources for what open markets will determine is a fair price, rather than trying to force them to bow to the will of our corporations. If this causes higher energy prices, then so be it. Perhaps if that were the case we would develop better alternative renewable energy sources. We should have fair trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

It is long past time we ended our wars of aggression. Too much life and treasure has already been lost on an activity which by its very nature can only destroy. Wars of any kind only serve to generate an atmosphere of fear and animosity that darkens the future for all mankind. This kind of paranoia only serves to stifle the overall productivity of the world. Rather than concentrate on producing products and services to improve the lives of others, products and services that destroy are emphasized. Rather than concentrate on products that bring joy and value to one’s life, mechanisms and policies that bring about misery to others are pursued.

Fear is the biggest threat our society faces. It is this unreasonable, irrational emotion that has eroded the American way of life faster than any enemy ever could. Because of its grip, we have allowed the protection of our freedoms to be undermined by an unscrupulous few with their own agenda. Because of its continuing presence we can expect more restrictions on the exercising of our rights.

On more than one occasion last year, Dr. Paul referenced the United States Constitution as part of his answer to a question. As far as I could tell, he was the only candidate to do so. He is, in fact, a self proclaimed defender of the Constitution. Enshrined within the body of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments which are meant to restrict government’s activities and protect an individual whose natural rights might otherwise be violated by a far more powerful and possibly tyrannical entity. While the Constitution may not be a perfect document as evidenced by its past and present inability to prevent government abuses of civil liberties from taking place, it is a document those who have been unjustly persecuted can point to in their defense when making such claims. It is, at the very least, a good outline of how a just government ought to treat individuals under its auspices.

Many have come to believe that the Constitution is the document that grants American citizens their rights. This is not so. To suggest this would be to suggest that government can take rights and freedoms from its people. These rights and freedoms aren’t granted by government, but are a natural part of the human spirit. This is the case worldwide, not just in America. It is a condition that has been known to philosophers and hidden by tyrants for millennia. The question is not whether or not humans have rights that can be given and taken, the question is whether or not one can openly exercise his individual rights without fear of retribution from those who hold stations of power. This is a measure of the amount of freedom one has in a given society, and in today’s United States of America many have become afraid to exercise their rights due to the flagrant disregard the federal government shows for its own rules as outlined in the Constitution.

Last year in the debates Ron Paul was right about the direction the economy was taking. He was right about the federal government disregarding freedoms. He remains right about establishing a new, sound monetary system based on something other than debt. He remains right about curtailing government abuses by adhering to the Constitution, the highest law of the land. Just following those two simple steps would do so much to begin to bring fiscal sanity back to our economy and peace of mind back to our society. If the government continues to ignore such sound advice, perhaps it is time that common men begin to ignore government dictates and implement their own free market institutions based upon these principles which most politicians no longer care to uphold.

Dreaming Evolution in the Twenty First Century

2009-04-02T12:48:00.001-07:00

I had a discussion a while back with one of my daughters in which I was accused of being an idealist. I asked her what she was if not an idealist and she said she was a realist. Upon reflection, the situation strikes me as being just a little bit odd. Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around? Aren’t the young people supposed to be the idealists, the ones who are going to make the world a better place, and older folk such as myself supposed to be the realists, the ones who just accept what is and have given up trying to change the system for the better? Perhaps I’ve mischaracterized the exchange or boiled it down too much and over simplified it, but in my opinion this needs to be done at times when dissecting such conversations in order to get a better perspective on things.

We were talking politics. More specifically, we were talking about the individualist philosophy of freedom and liberty versus the collectivist philosophy of socialism. My daughter and I agree that people should be allowed to make their own decisions in their personal lives without government interference, but she disagrees with me on allowing people to make their own decisions when it comes to their business affairs. She is of the mindset that government should regulate business activities and force people to conform to certain rigid standards if they are to be allowed to operate a business. She is also of the opinion that people should be forced to give a portion of their income to the less fortunate in society. I am of the opinion that people should be allowed to open a business without government interference and that consumers should determine whether that business succeeds or fails. I am also of the opinion that no one should be forced to give a portion of their income up to anyone for any reason and that only voluntary contributions to the less fortunate has any true meaning, at least in a spiritual sense.

Again, perhaps I over simplified things, but I expect that you get the general gist of the discussion. As so often happens in discussions such as these, the points that were being made fell on deaf ears, frustration mounted and the conversation ended before it was concluded. My daughter has a good heart and means well. She wants to help people. What the conversation boiled down to, in my opinion, was the way we look at the nature of the human animal. It seems to me that she sees people as basically evil, self centered beings willing to plot against and take advantage of others for their own gain. I see people as basically good, empathetic beings who care about their fellow humans and for the most part want to do right by them. She believes that, unregulated and left to their own devices, people in a free market would steal from others whenever possible and without remorse, and so she claims to be a realist. I would trust that in a free and open market people would deal with each other cordially and with respect and not try to rip each other off, and so in her eyes I am an idealist.

If believing in the goodness of humans makes me an idealist, then so be it, I am an idealist. But I also believe I am a realist. I see things as they are and realize we have a long way to go before mankind achieves a truly free society based on mutual trust and respect. I realize it will take some time before we can live in a society where all our interactions are voluntary and we are not forced or coerced into doing business with organizations we don’t want to do business with, organizations such as many government agencies have become in modern times. I’m not even entirely certain such a society is possible. While such a vision may sound like a utopian society to some, I would be the first to admit that such a society would not be perfect. Perfection in an imperfect world is extremely unlikely. I’m simply looking for the fairest, most just system and it seems to me that letting every individual take personal responsibility for their selves and make their own decisions for their own lives is such a system. It seems that one should be able to keep all the wealth one earns through their own labor or other honest mechanisms and spend it as they see fit. One should not be forced or coerced into “donating” a portion of their income to any organization, no matter how well meaning.

I also realize that such a society isn’t going to just spring up overnight. Such a society is not something that can be forced upon the populace. It is something that should evolve naturally and so become the norm. This is most likely to happen at a slow and steady pace. So I am a dreamer. I dream we can evolve into an ideal society. I dream that common folk will come to this realization, not some leader or an elite political class, and I dream it can and will happen peacefully as a matter of course as each and every one of us begins to understand that it is up to each individual to respect their neighbors’ choices and one would expect their neighbor to reciprocate.

Socialists also dream of an ideal society. Their society revolves around equity. They seem to believe that everyone should have equal access to all wealth regardless of how hard one works, how much in demand their services are, or how much supply for such services and labor exist. They seem to have forgotten that wealth is something created by mankind and is unlimited, not something which occurs as a force of nature and is finite. Wealth itself is not the thing that makes one man equal to another, but it is the opportunity to create wealth that makes men equal in nature. Socialism, wealth redistribution schemes and taxation in general work to destroy this natural equality. These systems reward the lazy and unproductive by giving them unearned wealth and punish the hard working and productive by stealing their earnings from them. This will inevitably break the spirits of those individuals who produce and indeed make them less productive as they begin to feel that they are being used, abused and/or exploited. As a result, the whole society produces less and its economy falters or fails. Hence the socialist’s ideal society discounts the reality of mankind’s nature.

The difference between an individualist’s ideology and that of a collectivist is mostly in the use of force or coercion, even if that force is very subtle. The difference between the idealist vision of an individualist and the idealist vision of a collectivist is one of control. The collectivist would exert authoritarian control using the mechanisms of power that the state provides to frighten individuals into conforming. The individualist would exert market and social pressures on others to show them the benefits of behaving in certain ways and to gently persuade them to pursue acceptable courses of action.

So I am both and idealist and a realist. I also remain ever the optimist. I dream of an evolution occurring in the twenty first century, and hopefully from that evolution will spring a voluntary society, a society free from any elite group that would try to control the population through the force of restrictive laws and regulations. I dream of a society where one’s imagination and innovativeness will be welcomed into the open marketplace. I dream of a society where regulations that stifle competition and limit consumer choice will be a quaint memory like the fading images of a nightmare exposed to the light of day. I dream of a time when each individual will determine for their self what path to take in life and their choices will be honored regardless of how others perceive the merits of those choices. Such a society starts to form as principled individuals continue to remain true to their principles of non aggression, personal responsibility and respecting the choices of others. Such a society grows when principled individuals remind others of the merits of these principles through example. Such a society grows from the bottom up, not the top down.

I continue to do what I can to help my dream come to fruition. It is often times difficult to get those in control to relinquish their power and let others make decisions on their own. It is therefore necessary to remind those in power that such policies are good for everyone, including those in the highest offices of government who have a tendency to try to micromanage even the day to day lives of the common folk. Reversing the tendency toward collectivism our society has shown might not be easy, but it is a worthy effort. There is strength in numbers and our numbers seem to be growing. It is my hope that those of a freedom mindset continue to speak out against authoritarian, collectivist policies of government and that their voices grow louder and more insistent. It is my hope that many more hearts and minds will be won over as they hear the freedom message. It is my hope that many others share my dream of evolution and improving not only the common man’s lot in life, but the human spirit as well.

Lost Souls in the Cult of State Worship

2009-03-22T18:11:00.001-07:00

I have a couple of friends who are true believers. They are older gentlemen, otherwise very intelligent and quite capable of making their own decisions and running their own lives, but for some reason they have chosen to put their faith in a place where perhaps it doesn’t belong.

As good cult members should, they will at times try to convince me of their beliefs. They want me to join them in their delusional ways so we can have nice, quiet conversations about how great their belief system is. Of course when this happens I usually shoot back at them with a couple of obvious truths about the corruption of the entire system. I happen to know they agree with me on these truths and that usually ends the discussion. It seems they don’t want to question and shake up their belief system too much for fear that it might crumble to dust. This would, of course, mean they’d have to build new temples in their minds in which to place their faith.

Their cult has recently installed a new charismatic leader who is well versed in the art of recruiting people and convincing them of the righteousness of his cause. He presents to his followers simplified solutions to daunting problems that may alleviate some of the symptoms, but makes sure the disease remains. Perhaps he does this to maintain the illusion that his institution cares for people and is needed, or perhaps he does it for his own personal glorification, I really don’t know. I do believe, however, that the solutions he espouses will only exacerbate the problems, much like the doctors of old who would try to put leaches on or bleed a man who had already lost too much blood.

I have no idea how many people are like my friends, no idea how many cult members there are in the world today, but I believe there are too many to count. I believe they number in the tens of millions. I hear them talking on a daily basis, discussing how this leader or that leader is better equipped for, or not so good at, handling specific problems. They all believe that this institution will somehow lead the masses of humanity to a better life. Yet during my entire existence in this physical realm I’ve only observed this institution fail. I’ve only seen it bring mayhem and destruction to some and mishandle the affairs of others. I’ve only seen it create problems and yet some still worship it as if it was the only solution and ask that it solve the problems it created.

I am talking, of course, about the cult of state. I am talking about those people who worship government and turn to it and its innate use of force when confronted with a problem they don’t understand or refuse to get personally involved in. These cult members continue to give the illusion of legitimacy to government as they ask those in control of the mechanisms of the state to solve problems for them rather than looking to themselves for the answers they seek. They support the system by using it and don’t care who the system hurts, even when it hurts the very people using it. Like a hamster in a wheel, one wonders if the cult members even realize that they are going nowhere.

I believe there is a basic moral reason why government can’t solve the problems of society and therefore why it continues to degrade the humanity of its worshippers. Anyone with the slightest bit of empathy for their fellow human realizes that stealing is wrong. Societal problems can’t be solved by stealing (taxing) from one class of people to give to another class. Likewise, economic problems can’t be solved by forced redistribution of wealth. But the priests of this cult of government, the ones known as congressmen and senators, presidents and prime ministers, Democrats and Republicans, they espouse the virtues of such immorality to their doe eyed cult members. Indeed, they have gone so far as to claim that each individual has a duty to surrender a portion of his labor to this cult, whether they believe in it or not, and that refusing to do so somehow makes one a bad person. The cult members cry “foul” whenever a brave soul decides to stand up and declare that he doesn’t want to be a slave to the system anymore and refuses to pay his tribute. Such is the power these occult priests have to mesmerize their followers.

This cult worship could become more dangerous yet as it morphs from a cult that worships a failed, immoral system to a cult of personality. It is no longer suitable to the priests of state that the followers of this cult simply submit to their demands without question. They are now seeking the allegiance of the masses to an installed figurehead. They are now attempting to put a smiling, happy face on the hand that controls the mechanisms of power and sell the populace on the idea that a “change” to a new style of socialism can bring “hope” for our future. But it seems to me that the smile is false, the hope is futile and the change is back to an old failed model on a larger scale in twenty first century packaging.

Yet the members of this cult are its enablers. Those that put their faith completely in this system help maintain its veneer of legitimacy. Without these followers the federal government in particular, which is responsible for the central planning schemes that have led us to this juncture, would soon lose its popular support and be forced to turn over the services it attempts to provide to other agencies more adept at handling such functions. These lost souls continue to wander in the illusionary political forest of right and left, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, and can’t see that the trees which block their view were planted there to keep them from finding true freedom. They can’t see that these collectivist ideologies are all basically the same and that the ideology of individual rights, individual responsibility and self governance has been crowded out of the American political garden and left to die due to lack of sunshine.

To bring these lost souls back we must help them to realize the harm they are causing simply by using the current system. By promoting federally founded government programs and regulations one helps stifle innovation and remove choices that private individuals and organizations would otherwise bring to the marketplace. By praising those who promote centralized control, socialism, and government involvement through bailouts one helps keep an elite ruling class in power and helps stagnate the growth of small entrepreneurs who would otherwise step in and succeed where others have failed by offering the legitimate services the marketplace demands.

State worship is something we as a society can tolerate no longer. Our empire has grown too large to afford and needs to be cut back. Our individual, natural rights are no longer respected by those who hold the reins of power. Our economy is in shambles due to the monopolistic policies that are only possible with government involvement. It is the federal bureaucracy which created these problems, and it is not they who we should turn to for a fix. It is time to stop worshipping at the altar of the state. It is time to evolve past this over bloated centralized federal government, shrink it to a reasonable size and function, and return the power to the community level and to the individual. Then perhaps we can achieve true freedom. Then perhaps we can begin to build a world where respect for others is honored. Then perhaps we will see a society where no man can be shielded by his power when he decides to bring harm to another.

Constitutionalists, Ron Paul Supporters and Real Terrorists

2009-03-21T20:20:00.000-07:00

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on March 19th, 2009

By now many of you have probably heard about the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report that labeled constitutionalists, Ron Paul supporters and others as possible domestic terrorists. When I first heard about it my first thought was something like, "Oh no, here we go again. The government propaganda machine is at work again. They are trying to equate ordinary folk and peace loving activists with violent extremists." Indeed, from my point of view this seems correct.

But, alas, I am a man who can´t just scratch the surface of an issue and leave it at that. I must try to dig deeper into the heart of the matter and try to sort through the implications. This is not to say that my initial gut reaction wasn´t correct. Indeed, often times it is. Yet there is often more to such reports than meets the eye and words are often misused or misinterpreted. I began to wonder why such a report would even be considered warranted. It seems clear to me that the language being used in the report was chosen to discourage dissent and incite violence rather than protect officers.

To begin with, we can examine the word terrorist. The word invokes images of hate filled, spiteful people plotting in a secretive fashion to plant bombs in public areas meant to kill and maim as many innocents as possible. Yet that is not what a terrorist is in the strictest sense of the word. A terrorist is one who terrorizes. A terrorist simply creates an atmosphere of fear. One could make the argument that I am a terrorist based on the fact that I write horror novels designed to make the reader feel the tingle of fright run down his spine. To label me as such would be an attempt to misinform and mis-associate in my opinion and the same can be said for the MIAC report. It wouldn´t, however, be totally false as the label was based on a plausible truth.

Or I could simply be looking at this from the wrong point of view. Perhaps from the point of view of those in politics and law enforcement, people in the freedom movement really are terrorists. After all, they have a tendency to not simply submit because someone claiming to have authority over them tells them to. They have a tendency to know their rights and to exercise them. They have a tendency to expect the police officers and government personnel to operate within the bounds of the law written down and codified in the Constitution. What could be more terrifying to a bully on a power trip who insists on being obeyed without question? What could be more frightening to a bureaucrat than someone who insists on the freedom and ability to run his own life rather than depending on the system?

Those of us who have awakened and wish to move forward with a liberty agenda confound the sensibilities of those who insist on regulating every aspect of our lives. We in the freedom movement see ourselves and everyone else as individuals while those with a collectivist point of view have a tendency to lump people together into groups. It could therefore be very logical for those with a collectivist mindset (as many in the government seem to have) to conclude that if one individual involved in the freedom movement becomes violent while defending his rights, all of them are potentially violent. Many of us who are liberty oriented believe that individuals should be punished individually for any harm they may cause to another individual. Those with a collectivist mindset, which is apparently the mindset of the people involved with writing the MIAC report, believe it is ok to punish a group for the actions of an individual, or worse yet to prevent some imaginary incident from possibly happening. It doesn´t matter to them how many innocent people will be hurt or implicated, nor does it matter what principles of human dignity are ignored, it only matters that they are obeyed and that their power, their control and their point of view are all maintained, by force if necessary.

It appears to me as if those currently in control of the mechanisms of power in this nation are, indeed, afraid and perhaps even terrified of those involved with the freedom movement. But I doubt very much that has anything to do with the people involved. The ideas of freedom and liberty are powerful. These ideas make wonderful allies when you side with them and frightening adversaries to fight against. They are ideas that most everyone understands and that just make good sense. Indeed, they seem to be ideas that have been interwoven into the fabric of the human spirit. So as those in control of the mechanisms of power see more and more people begin to question their authority they lash out at those who spread the message. As more ordinary people begin to demand accountability and insist on personal responsibility for the decisions that impact their lives, those who wish to remain in power may find themselves turning to even more tyrannical and devious methods to maintain control.

And so I am also afraid. I am terrified of that the men dressed in blue, or more often black these day, will one day kick down my door, drag me away and lock me in some cold prison cell simply because I choose to embrace the ideals that make men truly free as they go about their day to day lives. I am afraid that one day I will be accused of being a terrorist despite the fact that I abhor violence and do not advocate it, and that I will be forced to defend myself in front of a state owned court more concerned with its own self interests than with truth, justice or preserving the rights of the individual. I´m afraid that such a proceeding could cost me dearly in terms of time and wealth regardless of its outcome. I am afraid because the real terrorists have done their job well and given those who would dissent reason to be afraid. Yet I refuse to let fear silence me and will continue to support Ron Paul, The Campaign for Liberty, The Free State Project, tax protestors, constitutionalists and any other peaceful, freedom advocate I might come across. The more of us that feel this way and speak out about it, the better off we´ll all be.

If you want to know who the real terrorists are, type police brutality into a youtube search and watch the videos. If you want to know how real terrorism works, you only need to watch video of otherwise peaceful protests turned violent not by the protestors, but by those men dressed in black with riot gear and helmets who were supposedly there to keep the peace. Government forces have a history of violence that is far more insidious than any action any private organization has ever taken. Yet despite that they are still so afraid of some peaceful activists that they feel the need to label them and put out propaganda against certain organizations. They know what they are doing is wrong, but they cling to their delusions that it is for the greater good. Freedom and liberty are the ideals that will lead to greater societal good. Those in government would do well to realize and embrace these ideals before popular opinion forces them into an awkward and uncomfortable position they will have trouble defending.

When Horse Theft is State Sanctioned

2009-03-21T20:04:00.000-07:00

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on March 15th, 2009

The day after the Liberty Forum ended, as I was still driving home from that magnificent event, I heard the news that Brian Travis´ property in Candia, New Hampshire had been raided by area police, a couple of veterinarians and a representative of the SPCA. The alleged purpose of this raid was for the protection of the horses on the property. The authorities had accused the property owner of neglect. I was both saddened and shocked by the news and proceeded to find out as much as I could about the event.

For the record, I admit that I am a little biased toward Mr. Travis. Though I have never met the man personally, I have listened to him on several occasions speak of his adventures on the radio program "Free Talk Live" as he traveled across the country from Colorado to New Hampshire in search of a better life more closely akin to the principles we hold dear, those of non initiation of force and that in order to live in liberty you must allow others to do the same. He came across as an honest, caring, principled individual with a genuine concern for all mankind, not just those close to him. I find it hard to believe that such a man could or would neglect animals he was obliged to care for, especially valuable animals such as those that were kidna--, errr, confiscated from him.

Still, I feel a certain obligation to remain as objective as possible when writing about events and concerns such as this. This can be quite difficult to do at times. I felt the need to distance myself and try to remain objective in this case and so I began reading articles, blogs and the comments of those biased toward Brian Travis and those biased toward the agencies and people involved in the raid. I have to say that it was a real eye opener to read through some of these posts. An occurrence such as this can really bring out the raw emotion in some people. Some comments become very vitriolic and spiteful. There seems to be some real hatred out there against Free State Project members and this issue apparently brought it out. There appears to be at least a few natives of New Hampshire who harbor and nourish a likely unhealthy resentment toward those who believe that the answers to today´s societal and economic ills lay in less government regulation and more individual and personal responsibility. This aspect was a little unnerving in the middle of what could otherwise be a challenging and useful debate.

Much of the expressed concern, however, was for the welfare of the horses. This is understandable. As humans, we have a basic understanding that it is wrong to steal someone else´s property, but we can justify doing so if we feel the reasons for our actions are honorable. People who love animals in general and horses in particular in this case can certainly justify emancipating a helpless equine from the clutches of a cruel, uncaring owner. For this reason, for a moment or so as I was reading through some blog posts, I was a bit torn. It seems that many people in the area where this event occurred believe that the horses were, in fact, neglected. They reasoned that the SPCA and the veterinarians wouldn´t raid the man´s farm unless this was true. For a fleeting moment, I found myself wondering about this point.

Indeed, we as a society wish to believe the best in people. We want to believe that anyone in which the public places its trust has only the best intentions at heart. We´d especially like to believe this coming from people entrusted with the protection of animals who have no voice and cannot directly speak to us and report their own abuse. I would like to believe this too. I would like to believe that there are only good, honorable and trustworthy people working for organizations like the SPCA. So for a moment I was inclined to wonder if perhaps my perceptions of the people involved were wrong and these horses were indeed in danger. After all, I am only looking at this situation from afar and have not had direct contact with any of the players involved with this drama.

Then I saw something that changed my perception entirely. It was this documentary posted on Youtube from ABC´s 20/20 which exposed the abuse perpetrated by some in charge of local SPCAs. It points out that some people will allow their positions of power to go to their heads. The second half in particular shows just how corrupt one man can become when granted such all encompassing power, how he either knowingly lies and cheats for personal and professional profit, or he is so delusional and self righteous that he thinks himself some sort of messiah to the animals who can make no mistakes and do no wrong. My guess is the former.

Those who believe that the welfare of animals is important should consider that likely animals who are not in reality abused have established some sort of rapport with their owners. For them to be taken away from the environment they have grown accustomed to will likely cause undo emotional stress. Who will be held accountable if that is indeed the case? In this particular case, no one, as all those involved have immunity in the eyes of the law. It is sad to think that such criminal activity can be sanctioned by those entrusted to adjudicate and no one will ever answer to the victims of such crimes.

There are some deeper issues of principle at stake here as well. One of those issues is a basic principle of our culture, that a man is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is a rule of law that at one time we as a society took great pride in promoting. It is also a rule of law that seems to have become a quaint memory in recent decades. More and more often I see and hear of people who find themselves fighting to prove their innocence. More and more often I see and hear of injustices perpetrated onto the citizenry because of the presumption of guilt by the very system that is supposed to protect the individual from such actions. It is more than simply tragic, it is an abomination to a society that is supposed to cherish and honor the concepts of freedom and liberty.

Brian Travis now finds himself in the awkward position of having to hire a lawyer and fight to regain possession of his pets utilizing the very system that allowed them to be stolen from him in the first place. Can there be more of a conflict of interest? It is as inherent in the system that it should try to protect itself as it is in nature that an organism would engage in self defense when threatened or attacked. Even if he eventually proves that he is innocent of neglecting his animals and shows that not producing the proper paperwork was an honest mistake and oversight on his part, he will have been punished. He will have spent thousands of dollars in fees and precious hours of his time battling an injustice. If actions such as these are to be taken in a free society, if we are to allow people like Steve Sprowl and Dave Garcia (from the 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners") carte blanche to raid people´s farms and businesses, then those people and anyone who helps them should be held personally responsible when mistakes are made and accusations are disproved. This should also be done within a system that minimizes conflicts of interest that could arise between any of the parties involved. In this way, we can be more certain that political considerations or the promise of financial gain are less likely to be at the heart of such actions. In this way, we can be more certain that men wielding power will not attempt such actions as a result of a vendetta against another individual.

I have no reason to doubt Brian Travis when he states he believes this action was taken as a result of an incident that happened on his property and involved Steve Sprowl in November of 2008. I have no reason to doubt that this action occurred because Mr. Travis and his family refused to submit to the demands of a man who is perhaps corrupted by the heady influence of power. In fact, due to the secretive nature of the government position as events continue to unfold, I have reason to suspect that it is Mr. Travis who speaks truthfully and the government bureaucrats who are being less than honest.

Ironically, Mr. Travis moved to New Hampshire to help fight against the very injustices he now finds himself experiencing. He believes there is a better way for society to accomplish its aims rather than simply appointing such people to positions of power and hoping they always do the right thing. Likely it is, at least in part, his libertarian philosophy – that one should never initiate force against another and that in order to live as a free human being one must grant others the same dignity – that helped create the situation he now finds himself in.

It is the people who still believe in the cult of the state who help maintain the illusion of legitimacy these tyrants hold over the populace. It is the people who believe that those in power are just in their actions, or at least their intentions are just, who prop these petty tyrants up and help prevent innovative, real, transparent solutions from being enacted. Until and unless we can hold these individuals responsible for unjust actions and demand they personally compensate those they´ve wronged we will find abuses of power taking place. Until and unless we honor the principles of individual freedoms and liberties upon which our western culture is based we will continue our downward slide toward an authoritarian, collectivist system of society that destroys the human spirit of all those involved with it.

Here are the links to the 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners:"
Part 1 of 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners."
Part 2 of 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners."

It is my hope you will take the time to watch both parts.

My Liberty Forum Report

2009-03-13T09:11:00.000-07:00

This article was originally posted on March 11th, 2009 at americanchronicle.com

I had the good fortune to be able to spend the weekend of March 5th – March 8th of 2009 attending the Liberty Forum in Nashua, New Hampshire which was put on by The Free State Project. To say I was energized and excited by the happenings there would be an understatement. Words can not begin to describe the feelings I had as the weekend progressed. I felt welcomed, accepted and embraced by all those in attendance. Never before in my life have I experienced so many people that felt the same way about freedom as I do all gathered together in the same place.

I drove from the Chicago area to Nashua to attend this event. The total drive time was a little over 17 hours one way. I would have flown, but I didn´t want to put up with the TSA and all their dictates. Sorry, but I want to be able to keep my shoes on and drink bottled water when I travel. I could have taken a train, but I didn´t. I wanted to drive. It had been a long time since I´ve taken a road trip. The forum made it worth the trip.

I could talk about the liberty luminaries that gave their speeches. I could talk about how great it was to hear these personalities in person. I could talk about the individual speeches by people like Adam Kokesh from Iraq Veterans Against the War and how great and emotional his presentation was. I could talk about how awed I was to be in the presence of Mary Ruwart (one of my personal heroes) and how exciting it was to be able to speak to her one on one even if it was just for ten minutes. I could talk about how inspiring it was to listen to Will Buchanan tell of his adventures on his Walk for Liberty across America and to discuss freedom with him and his lovely wife Brooke at a round table luncheon.

There are many things about the speakers I could mention. I could talk about how interesting and educating it was to hear Glenn Jacobs from the WWE give a speech on the economy. Glenn Jacobs is a huge man and a powerful presence, but to me it was his intelligence that was the most impressive thing about him. I could mention how entertaining it was to hear John Taylor Gatto speak about education despite his age and the fact that he can´t be as animated as I´m sure he was in the past. I could talk about how fun it was to watch Stefan Molyneux instruct a roomful of libertarian minded people on how to win any political debate in two minutes or less.

I could talk about these things and I guess I just did a little, but I won´t go into any more details because, although these luminaries and their presentations gave this gathering substance and form, it was not they who made the forum so exciting for me to attend. Although these famous and inspiring people gave presentations worthy of the standing ovations they received and never seemed to have enough time to answer all the questions audience members wanted to pose, it was not they who impressed me the most. It was, in fact, the legions of ordinary people who had gathered together in one place to listen to these people who delighted me. It was they who created the positive and exciting atmosphere which permeated the hotel. It is they who make the Free State Project the beacon of hope that it has become in the liberty movement.

One of the first things one notices about this movement is the diversity of those involved. People from all backgrounds, cultures, races and religions attended. That is a testament to the power of freedom. It appeals to most everyone regardless of their upbringing or social status. The other thing I noticed is how friendly everyone was. There was no prejudicial judging going on in this group. There was a tendency I found to introduce one´s self and then to begin conversing with one another as if you´ve known each other for years. The non initiation of aggression principle and the idea that in order to live in liberty you must grant that liberty to all others is ingrained in our psyches, for the most part. That connection alone is a powerful catalyst for tolerance and friendliness in our interactions. Those ideals were personified by just about everyone at the forum.

It is these individuals who make society work. It is they who provide the labor, the products and the services that make day to day living in the modern world possible. The people attending were the teachers, the technicians, the software programmers, the mechanics, the entrepreneurs, the businessmen, the doctors, the clerical workers, etc. who want to see government reduced in size and scope. These are professionals and laborers from a variety of industries, both private and public, who are tired of the overbearing, intrusive nature of our government and simply want back the ability to be able to make decisions for their selves and their businesses and succeed or fail based on their own merits. They came to the forum to get ideas on how to achieve liberty in our lifetime and discuss those same ideas. It was these discussions we had amongst ourselves that made the liberty forum such an exciting place to be.

By the end of the Liberty Forum my head was so full of new information and ideas that it was spinning. I don´t know if it would have been possible to squeeze anymore nuggets into my skull, and yet I didn´t want the weekend to end. I had found a time and a place I would have liked to have stretched into eternity had it been in my power. I now have more hope than ever before that ordinary folks can create the change necessary to return our society back into the type of freedom loving, independent thinking society our founders must have imagined. The ordinary people attending this forum gave me more hope than any politician possibly could. They are the promise of real change, lasting change, change from the bottom up. For me, this is what made the Liberty Forum a rousing success.

Stimulus, Bailouts and Feeding the Sharks

2009-02-24T12:53:00.000-08:00

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Feb. 21st, 2009

Recently I´ve been hearing stories in the news of congressmen and senators complaining about the salaries and bonuses of certain CEOs in certain businesses. Now, I´m no fan of high paid CEOs and I doubt very much that any of them actually deserve to be rewarded with the obscene amounts they get paid. In fact, with the performances of so many companies down and judging from the fact that many of the companies they´re talking about should have gone bankrupt, these people hardly deserve to be paid at all. I have the feeling that none of them would be truly hurting if they were to lose their jobs. I think that such statements from these congress critters are diversionary tactics. I don´t blame the CEOs one bit for rewarding themselves; I blame those in congress who gave them the chance to do so.

I liken this situation to a fishing boat tossing chum overboard and then blaming the sharks for eating it. You can´t throw billions of dollars at banking institutions and the like and expect the CEOs to leave those funds untouched. They're not going to let all that fresh green ink just slowly settle to the bottom of the fiscal ocean without first getting their fill. Of course they´re going to gorge themselves. That´s what CEOs do. It´s simply in their nature. If you don´t want the sharks to eat the chum, then don´t dump it in the ocean in the first place.

A few months ago, when congress first began considering bailout bills, they received thousands of letters from their constituents asking them to vote against such bills. I remember some congress critters complaining about the flood of emails they were getting urging them to vote against such bills. They reportedly received so many emails that many congressional offices temporarily closed down their email services so they wouldn´t have to be aware of the clamor. I remember one congressman claiming he had received emails at the ratio of 300 to 1 against the bailout bill. I remember Nancy Pelosi coming out and saying her constituents were uninformed and that´s why they were so against the bill. It was reminiscent of a queen declaring her subjects ignorant as to matters of state and ignoring their cries for an end to injustice.

I can hardly believe someone like Queen Pelosi was re-elected to office after showing so publicly her disdain for the common folk of her district, and yet there she is still firmly in control. It makes one wonder about the validity of the electoral process we as a nation seem to take so much pride in. In fact, before the election of 2008 it was reported that congress had an approval rating of only twelve percent or so and yet something in the neighborhood of eighty four percent of incumbents were re-elected to their posts.

This was a congress dominated by Democrats who were put in power in 2006 to bring about change and stymie the administration of Mr. Bush. The people didn´t like his policies and they didn´t like the Republicans supporting him, so they thought a protest vote and a change of the party in control of the legislative branch would be enough to pressure the administration into stopping the war, bringing home the troops, and controlling the hemorrhaging of green ink that was occurring as a result of such bad policies. This didn´t happen. Why? Perhaps most congress critters simply don´t care what the commoners think, they care about what their major contributors think.

The Democrats kept approving military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than cutting our losses and forcing the administration to bring the troops home. The Republicans didn´t help as they supported W´s administration without question, despite their losses in 2006. It was business as usual. Despite warnings, congress allowed hundreds of billions and maybe trillions of dollars to disappear into the black hole of empire. The corporate friends and associates of those in power, the sharks, continued to circle Washington DC in a feeding frenzy and gorge themselves on emergency funds courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Then the credit bubble burst. Mr. Bush´s administration requested help from congress for the banking industry. Did congress tell him no? Did they chastise him for his mismanagement? Did they indict him for criminal behavior? Did they attempt to impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors? No. Two years earlier they had taken impeachment off the table, most likely because an indictment of him would have highlighted their complicity in his crimes.

At first congress showed their displeasure by rejecting a four page bailout package which held up the appearance that they were catching on and cared about their constituency, but a little while later they passed an even more massive bailout package, at least a hundred times bigger than the original. This package was laden with pork for their districts, giving the sharks even more to gorge upon.

Did this action cause the masses to stand up and demand accountability? Did the common man stage mass protests to pressure these "public servants" to repeal their folly? No. The congress critters of this nation, shaken as they were, somehow managed to dodge the political bullet. Many of them deflected blame by claiming they had been tricked by threats of civil unrest, violence and mayhem in the streets, and the implementation of martial law if they refused to pass the bailout. Apparently many of their constituents believed their claims and forgave them for their naïve actions since so many were re-elected. For those exercising power and control over others, it was business as usual.

So more sharks came to congress. We listened to auto manufacturers begging for help. We heard their claims of job losses and bankruptcies and economic catastrophe if billions of taxpayer dollars were not infused into their companies. "Throw us more chum!" they seemed to be demanding. And our congress critters, myopic as they are, could only find fault with the fact that the CEOs had used private jets to fly to Washington DC. They couldn´t find fault in their own actions of stirring up the fiscal waters with the bank bailout in the first place. They couldn´t even realize that at least when the auto manufacturers used private jets they created jobs for the maintenance workers, pilots, airport personnel, etc. with those jets.

Last election cycle brought with it more propaganda, flag waving, and promises that were made to be broken. The new administration is set up to take credit for anything good that happens in the economy and to blame anything bad that happens on the previous administration. It´s a vicious cycle that´s been played out again and again over the decades. It´s business as usual for congress. No one ever admits to being at fault. Government keeps growing and there´s always someone else to blame. The buck hasn´t stopped being passed around since the Truman administration.

Now at last the money has come to the little fish. A stimulus package was passed last week despite major opposition to it. It was passed despite the fact that it was so big no one could possibly know everything it entails. It was passed despite the fact that no congress critter could have possibly read the whole bill. Again congress decided to ignore the wishes of many of their constituents and threw more chum into the financial ocean, this time hoping the sharks have had their fill and the little fish will be able to gorge. There´s a bit of a problem when the little fish go after the chum, however. There are still sharks in the water. Sharks have a tendency to gobble up the little fish along with the chum.

I don´t blame the CEOs for looking out for themselves. I blame the congress for throwing the chum in the water. More than that, I blame those who keep voting for incumbents despite the fact that they have proven they couldn´t care less about their constituents. I blame all those who still believe there´s a difference between Democrats and Republicans when it´s been shown they are all big government statists who for the most part only take care of their big money contributors. They will continue to feed the sharks until they are held accountable for their activities, and it is up to the common folk of this nation to hold them accountable.

The Dark Side of the Law of Attraction

2009-02-24T12:49:00.000-08:00

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Feb. 19th, 2009

Many people might find it hard to fathom that the Law of Attraction has a dark side. It seems such a fine, positive, happy law that it seems impossible that something could actually be dangerous about it. And yet, in my mind, there is a growing shadow, a creeping suspicion that somewhere in the universe an evil presence is wringing its hands in glee and anticipation as more and more people subscribe to this notion that everything that happens in this world can be controlled by mere thought and that the thought process is what attracts good and bad events into one´s life. Perhaps this evil presence somehow feeds on the notions it creates, perhaps it enjoys polarizing people, or perhaps it´s simply trying to prevent those who can engage in critical thinking from doing so. I really don´t know. I can just sense this presence lurking, waiting for its chance to pounce on the unsuspecting and maximize the chaos and mayhem it plans on unleashing upon the universe. I shudder just thinking about it.

"Why should this be?" I might lay awake at night and ask myself. "What could possibly be so dangerous about a quirky little quasi-religious new age belief?"

Well, if you will indulge me, the answers might become quite clear. You see, and as many of you who regularly read my column probably know, I am an author of fiction novels. But I don´t write your everyday true to life fiction, I specialize in the horror, fantasy and science fiction genres. Should this law prove itself out, I may be in a world of hurt. You see, my imagination runs wild and sometimes the evilest and most terrifying of imagery races through my head and begs to be set to paper. If any of this ever creeps into the material world we now inhabit, well, I´d hate to think that I had a hand in bringing it upon us. I don´t wish to be responsible for the world´s first zombie attack.

But wait, perhaps there is good news. Perhaps the positive action of my putting to words these images for the purpose of entertaining the masses has counteracted this vile plague that was set to spring forth into the world and it will not come to pass. At least, not through me. What a relief. I do, however, still harbor a frightening thought. What if there´s someone with an imagination like mine, only he doesn´t have the wordsmithing talent I have. He may not be able to channel his thoughts into such positive activities and then we´re all in trouble. Vile creatures will spring forth from this person´s head and then we´re all done for. Oh, the humanity! This evil presence I feel has only to find this person and infect him or her and that will be it for mankind.

Or, now that I think about, perhaps this shadow I sense is far more subtle. After all, haven´t some science fiction writers already developed such stories? Star Wars comes to mind. Darth Vader killed a couple of dudes in that movie merely by thinking them to death. He and Luke Skywalker battled not only physically, but psychically as well, testing each other´s wills and the other´s ability to control "The Force," George Lucus´ scifi version of the "Law of Attraction." In his movie, there were all sorts of minor heroes who were affected by The Force, some who lived and some who died, but only Luke and Darth had truly mastered the art of using the Law of Att.., err, I mean "The Force."

In that movie it was all about control. So it is also, one might argue, with the Law of Attraction. For, if this "law" is a universal truth as its proponents believe, then it follows that since we all wield influence over each other, and yet at the same time we all control our destiny by focusing our thought, then at some point divergent viewpoints are going to be seeking conflicting outcomes and it only makes sense to me that he who has better mastered and learned how to manipulate this law will come out on top. Will it be Luke, or Darth?

Let´s pause for a moment to consider reality. In the real world, certain people most definitely wield power and influence over all our lives, even though they may not know us personally. These people are known as politicians. They are called presidents, prime ministers, senators, congressmen, etc. at higher levels and mayors, community leaders, state representatives, bureaucrats, etc. at lower levels. A reasonable question for those who adhere to this Law of Attraction might be, "Did these people attain their power by using the Law of Attraction?" If so, a good follow up question might be "Did they do so knowingly or unwittingly?" Finally one might ask "Are they using this power for their own advantage or to help give each and every individual the best chance of obtaining wealth and bettering their own lives?" In other words, is he using this power for good, or for evil?

The last question is a tricky one. In many cases it might seem like these politicians are trying to do good, they are trying to think positive and attract prosperity for all, but in reality they are only attracting more control and power for themselves and more dependency on government for everyone else. In this way, the political class is able to essentially create many people´s reality while the common man is prevented from becoming independent and self reliant.

This is the dark side of the Law of Attraction and the evil it can produce, and it appears to be winning at the moment. The world seems to be spiraling toward a future where there will be only government owned enterprises and its bureaucratic hierarchy and government approved and licensed monopolies. This over bloated creation we call government is regulating and restricting the free market out of existence and innovation and competition into the realm of criminal activity. This they do under the guise of good intentions, bail outs and stimulus packages.

But what if the Law of Attraction isn´t so powerful and all encompassing? What if these people aren´t always able to envision and bring a world into existence where they command all and the common folk are grateful for what they receive and give praise to the political classes for their "help" and "guidance?" Perhaps it´s not the envisioning at all that brings these things into being and makes these people so powerful. Perhaps it´s a directed effort on their part. After all, they make and pass the laws that dictate to you and to me how we should live our lives and conduct our business. Judging from the quality of the laws coming out of Washington DC lately, that doesn´t take too much thought or effort on their part. And we as a society just accept these dictates without question and abide by these laws no matter how bad, no matter how poorly written, no matter how ill considered.

Perhaps it´s time we exercise a little bit of directed effort on our part. Perhaps it´s time for the common folk of this country to stop thinking wistfully that those in power will help solve problems they´ve created with bigger government. It´s long past time for the common man to begin directing his efforts toward solving these problems himself. To accomplish this, those in power need to be directed to step out of the way. To accomplish this, the monstrosity known as centralized federal government needs to shrink, to cut its spending, and to release its grip on the mechanisms of power that led us to this point in the first place. Individuals should direct their efforts toward helping those in power realize this.

It is up to each and every individual as to the method by which he expends effort toward this goal. Some methods will prove more effective than others. One thing is certain, being apathetic and doing nothing except hoping for change and wishing for better times will accomplish nothing. Voting for one corrupt official over another corrupt official, or for some propagandistic, nebulous ideal which is never precisely defined will change only the guard. Volunteering for a corrupt organization will only help to prop up and maintain the illusion of legitimacy behind the corruption.

The time has come for the common man to show his dissatisfaction of the establishment by directing his efforts toward that goal. Show your dissatisfaction by being civilly disobedient, or support someone who has decided to stand up to the establishment. Start finding people not guilty for breaking laws that have no real victim. Demand that lawmakers read and understand the laws they pass. Discuss these things among your friends and take a contrary, individualist stance when one of them praises collectivist thought or policies. Let the people in government know that it is no longer ok for them to ignore our voices and our grievances. Get angry. Do something.

If it takes positive thinking to motivate you to take action, fine, think those positive thoughts and attract positive things to you. If it takes negative thinking for you to take action, that is also fine, then do so. The point is, take some form of action. Stand up and be counted. Let them know how you feel, for if you don´t then no one will do so for you.

If, however, you wish to just do nothing, to remain apathetic and to only release positive thoughts into the universe and hope that things change, then the dark side has already won.

Here is a list of a few organizations that can help you peacefully do something. There are others if you care to seek them out:

DownsizeDC.org
The Free State Project
Ron Paul´s Campaign for Liberty

It´s no Secret, the Theory of Directed Effort

2009-02-11T10:34:00.000-08:00

Recently I was involved in a discussion about what has become known as "The Law of Attraction." It became rather heated. It seems to me that some proponents of this "law" have a tendency to become rather fervent in its defense when its premises are questioned. As so often happens during a verbal interaction, the discussion took directions I never wanted it to go in and logical arguments gave way to emotional examples and anecdotal evidence. Of course, anecdotal evidence presented contrary to "The Law of Attraction" was quickly spun about to fit into the paradigm created by those who worship at the altar of this would be "law."

Before I go on I wish to make something clear. I have quite a few beliefs which some others might consider strange. I am very interested in mysticism and I enjoy studying the occult and the practices of witchcraft. I´ve been known to practice the art of interpreting an astrological chart. I´ve taken part in pagan rituals and prayer. I enjoy meditation. Basically I am open to all kinds of ancient spiritual beliefs and curious as to their origins and their inner workings.

If it becomes obvious that I am no expert on this "Law of Attraction," and if my understanding is incorrect, keep in mind that I am basing these thoughts and opinions on statements made by adherents to this belief system during a heated debate. If I make a statement that seems like misinformation or is not what the belief system is about, then perhaps the adherents to this system are mis-educated or misguided in their beliefs.

So one might ask why someone like myself who so likes to dabble in unorthodox spirituality would be adverse to "The Law of Attraction." Let me say first of all that there are many facets of this "law" that I do agree with, but there are many claims certain adherents make that I find disturbing. Secondly, the semantics involved are highly questionable. Calling something a "law" implies that it is something operating all the time on everyone, such as the law of gravity, and that it is absolute truth. In the realm of spirituality and the metaphysical, I personally find it hard to accept any concept that claims to be the absolute truth simply because there is so much about this realm we do not know or understand.

Let´s take for example the basic tenet behind "The Law of Attraction," that we all attract everything that ever happens to us in our lives, good or bad, simply by thinking about it. In essence, in my opinion, it states that things happen on account of wishful thinking or because of unguarded thought. It seems to me that this doesn´t take into account all the other forces that are interacting with each and every one of us in this physical realm. It takes power away from all the other factors, natural or manmade, and gives it to you. In essence, you become God, or at the very least godlike. The question then becomes, do you have complete control of your thoughts, or are they willy-nilly and you´re going around causing mayhem with the unregulated thoughts swirling about in your head. Perhaps that´s oversimplified, but it´s my understanding of how this "law" works.

Now these adherents might complain upon hearing this that it is simply not true, that there are certain laws of physics one must operate within the parameters of. They will admit in part that there are certain facets of reality that can´t be overcome, and then in the same breath they will make a statement such as you are in complete control of your reality one hundred percent of the time. They will then create an anecdotal argument such as a man envisioning himself in flight can´t simply take off and fly, yet he can create a flying machine. Never mind that men have envisioned themselves taking flight for millennia and that it has only been recently that technology has been able to bring us to a point in time where making such dreams reality was possible. Never mind all those men who may have died or been severally injured in attempts to take flight in poorly designed flying machines. Don´t bring up such anecdotal evidence to these believers. These adherents would argue that those men simply did not envision their goals correctly, or that they must have at some point or another envisioned themselves falling, or some such thing. They will spin any observation in an effort to make their paradigm unchallengeable.

One of the fellows I was debating followed up an anecdotal example with the statement that the universe always answers "yes" to any thought one may envision. He further went on to explain that if you are focused on something like wanting money, for example, than the universe will make certain that you continue to want money or some such nonsense. Now if you want to believe that´s true, it´s okay with me, but I find it quite presumptuous that anyone would claim to know first off that the universe has a consciousness and secondly that he knows how it thinks and how it will react. It is also a little troubling to think that the universe´s consciousness can´t tell the difference between the literal wording of a thought and the true meaning one is attempting to convey. Most humans could, why does the universe have such problems? Is the universe thought dyslexic? Personally, I don´t know if the universe has a consciousness, but if it does I´m sure it would answer requests yes, no or maybe like any other conscious entity. It might even depend on how it was feeling on the day you asked it.

There was a news story I read long ago of a man who was riding his bike in Colorado on a bright sunny day when he was suddenly struck down by lightning. The nearest storm was ten miles away when this happened. While it is true that the lightning was attracted to him for some unknown reason, I doubt very much it was because he was thinking about being hit by lightning. Unfortunately he died, so we can´t say for sure, but even if he was I would guess that there was a more scientific explanation to the event. I certainly don´t think he wished it upon himself and I don´t believe he was in control of the circumstances. He simply had wanted to go on a bike ride on a nice sunny day, was enjoying himself and then was suddenly struck down.

These adherents might say he had thought about getting hit by lightning in the past, or perhaps he was focused on it, but that wouldn´t explain all the people who go through their entire lives without getting hit by lightning, the vast majority of us. Most of us have likely thought about getting hit by lightning and even focused on it at some time. I know I have. Usually when this happens I make every effort to get off the golf course as soon as possible. The likelihood that I will get hit by lightning is slightly higher than the average person´s because I play golf, but not so much higher that I will curtail that activity. So, if I live to be 150 and don´t ever get hit by lightning, how does the law of attraction explain that? I´m not certain it can.

But enough about my misgivings with this "law." I can sum them up by saying I don´t like absolutes. I didn´t like them when President Bush would use them (as in you´re either with us, or you´re with the terrorists) and I don´t like them when they´re ensconced in spiritual dogma that can be neither proven nor disproven. But there are certain aspects about "The Law of Attraction" which I find intriguing and I´d like to examine them a little closer.

I think people are quick to believe that the universe works in this fashion because quite often it seems that we do attract things into our lives by our thoughts. Often times when one thinks positive thoughts positive things happen and when one thinks negative thoughts negative things happen. We used to call this the power of positive thinking. But the reasons for this likely vary, and it isn´t necessarily always true. There are billions of people in the world and billions of experiences and still the possible explanations and variations are not exhausted. In my experience there have been times when I´ve had a positive attitude and negative outcomes have occurred and visa-versa. Likewise, there have been times when I´ve envisioned positive outcomes that haven´t come to pass and visa-versa. Still, many people hold a firm belief that this attraction thing is the secret to their success. There are times when I believe there might be a little something to this attraction thing, and I believe I know why.

I like to think of it as a theory, since I don´t believe in spiritual absolutes which some would call laws. I call it the Theory of Directed Effort. I theorize that if one wants to achieve something in his life then one has to make an effort to do so. He can´t just sit about wishing it to be so and expect it to happen. Furthermore, if one thinks positively about the outcome of his efforts, it becomes easier for one to expend the energy to make the effort. It is definitely easier for me to sit and make the effort to write a book if I believe it´s going to be a best seller and make me lots of money than it would be if I were to think it was going to suck and no one was going to publish it, let alone buy it, so there is value in positive thinking. I would imagine this is true in many cases, but I would also imagine that it´s not the thinking that makes the project a success so much as the effort that goes into it.

These are but two of the variables that go into any venture, however. Talent is another factor that will help decide whether one is a success or not. If one is talented at something, it is also easier to direct one´s effort into a project which utilizes said talent. If one is not talented or unskilled but still interested in accomplishing some goal, than one might want to direct his efforts into honing said talents or skills before attempting to achieve said goal. Another factor is the reality of the circumstances one finds himself surrounded by. Is the timing right? Does the necessary technology exist? Is the world ready for your project? These are factors one does not have control over and should one find that something is simply not right or some critical component is missing, perhaps one would be better off directing his effort to another area.

When everything comes together one has a tendency to be successful. That doesn´t mean, however, that one has attracted success via one´s thoughts. In fact, the other day I was asked to fix my ex´s computer. I went to her house and looked at it, but something quite strange was wrong and I was very confounded. I was ready to give up and felt I´d have to restore the operating system, something I didn´t want to do because it would mean she´d likely lose all her data. I decided that I would try a little trick I knew not because I thought it would work, in fact I believed it wouldn´t work, but it wouldn´t take long and I thought "what the hey." To my surprise it worked and the computer was fixed. I was successful not because I envisioned a successful outcome, or because I asked the universe to give me an idea to help me with my task, but because I directed an effort toward finding a solution and it happened to work. All the thinking and envisioning in the world would have done nothing if I didn´t direct my effort properly. And should one of those adherents twist that around and suggest that I somehow did envision or think of a positive outcome, that tells me that now they believe they know my mind better than I do.

Truth be told, I believe that life is a mix of free will and fate. I believe that it is a mix of effort and circumstance. I believe it is a mix of luck and doing the best you can if dealt a bad hand. I don´t believe there is one all encompassing secret that will lead to success. Trying to maintain a positive attitude will likely make things more pleasant for you as you go through life, but I don´t think it will guarantee you will be a success, though it may make that outcome more likely. On the other side of the coin I don´t believe that one´s failures are always one´s own fault. Though negative thinking may contribute, sometimes more and sometimes less, I think there are other forces working in this world that one cannot always control. It seems to me that there are grains of truth to all dogma, and some people like to try to fit the whole universe inside one of those little grains. I prefer to explore possibilities, keep an open mind, and collect as many of those grains as I can.

Mr. Obama´s Magical Oratorical Stimulus

2009-02-11T10:23:00.000-08:00

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Feb. 7th, 2009

A couple of days ago, Mr. Obama addressed his fellow Democrats. He gave a speech which some in the media characterized as partisan and derisive to the Republicans who have opposed his stimulus plan all along. I have to admit, Mr. Obama is a good public speaker. Most politicians are. It´s tough to obtain high office as an elected official if you´re not. I listened to some of Mr. Obama´s speech and I must say that he said a number of things that I agree with him about. There is a problem, however. Like most politicians, Mr. Obama has become very adept at the art of doublespeak. He says one thing while meaning the complete opposite. Since those in the mainstream media who sleep with the politicos and depend on them for their jobs are loathe to point this out, it becomes necessary for an outsider to state what should be obvious and challenge conventional wisdom.

In his speech the president claimed that Americans are not looking for Democratic or Republican solutions, they are looking for American solutions. While I do not claim to speak for all Americans, I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of that statement. It was eloquently stated and sounds very patriotic and politically correct. Its purpose, in my humble opinion, was to try to make it sound like Republicans who are against the stimulus package that is being proposed are somehow un-American. But perhaps we should take a closer look at this statement and try to convince our president that he should follow through on it and propose some new policies and strategies to make it so.

A legitimate question would be "What exactly is an American solution?" Well, the nation of The United States of America was predicated in part on the premise that free individuals know best how to conduct their own business. Hence the Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution as an attempt, some would say a failed attempt, to limit the size and scope of our federal government and keep them out of our relationships be they private or business. So, in my humble opinion, an American solution would be one that honors those principles by allowing American citizens to exercise their inherent rights and their innovativeness without fear that these rights will be violated by government agents because they´ve failed to follow some draconian restriction or regulation. An American solution would be one that allows Americans to take personal responsibility for their own wealth creation and financial success.

On the other hand, one might ask "What is not an American solution?" Well, I certainly do not believe that wealth redistribution schemes are. I don´t believe for a moment that giving money to people who didn´t earn it is in any way uniquely American. In fact, it sounds to me like it is decidedly European. Worse still, when coupled with the fact that our government has already in effect nationalized the banks and some of the largest businesses operating in our country, it sounds like something right out of the old Soviet Union. While these programs may have good intentions and may be charitable, and while being charitable is a quality a great many Americans possess, forcing one to be charitable by stealing their money through taxation is not truly charity at all. In fact I´ve heard that Americans have historically been one of the most generous and charitable of people of all time. Perhaps President Obama and the Democrats don´t believe this to be true.

Mr. Obama went on in his speech to claim that the American people voted for him and the Democrat majority in congress because they wanted change, they were tired of the status quo. I agree, to an extent. I believe the American people do want change, but not the kind of change Mr. Obama proposes. I don´t believe the American people want their country more socialized. I don´t believe the American people want to be told by the government how they should and shouldn´t behave, how they should and shouldn´t go about their business. I don´t believe the American people want to be brainwashed by government propaganda and politicians who offer nothing but empty rhetoric and tired, old socialistic programs that have failed so miserably in other countries. That is not the change Americans seek. Unfortunately, most Americans were only exposed to Mr. Obama´s or Mr. McCain´s point of view during last year´s presidential campaign and felt those were the only choices they had. Unfortunately, because of media bias and the complete societal saturation of the political duopoly, most Americans didn´t realize that both former candidates were nothing more than different facets of the same status quo.

I, for one, didn´t vote for you, Mr. Obama. I voted for no Democrat. I voted for no Republican, with the exception of Ron Paul, and I voted for him not because of his party, but because he has consistently demonstrated that he is a man of principle who votes in accordance to those principles and honors his oath to the constitution. I can make that claim about very few politicians, if any, besides him. Otherwise, when it comes to congress, I voted for third party candidates because I am sick and tired of the corruption and the nepotism and the flowery rhetoric spewing out of Washington DC that never translates into the changes I want to see. Where is my representation, Mr. Obama? I don´t know about everyone else, but I am tired of constantly being ignored. In my opinion, Mr. Obama, you are the status quo.

So, Mr. Obama, did it ever occur to you that maybe these Republicans, and some of the Democrats who voted with them, voted against your "stimulus" bill because they were pressured to do so by their constituents and not because they were being partisan? Did it ever occur to you that maybe they were trying to represent the wishes of the majority of the people in their districts or their state? I doubt it. I doubt it because you never once listened to my pleas or my opinions when you were my senator from my state supposedly representing me. You ignored me and anyone else who may have agreed with me and consistently voted contrary to my principles. I ask again, where is my representation? Perhaps I wasn´t in the majority at times, and perhaps I was at other times. It´s difficult to say. But don´t I deserve some form of representation? Don´t all those who agree with my point of view? Don´t these shared opinions merit some consideration? I don´t believe you think they do.

Mr. Obama then went on in his speech to claim that the old ideas instituted by the Republicans haven´t worked. He claimed that tax cuts alone have not worked. He claimed that it is time for new ideas to be tried. I agree. Let´s try some new ideas, Mr. Obama. Tax cuts alone will not work. Tax cuts coupled with slashing government spending just might. Or how about totally eliminating at least the income tax and ridding this nation of the blight upon it known as the IRS. This might not be a new idea, but it certainly is one that has not been tried, at least since the creation of the IRS.

Bringing our occupation forces home from wherever they are stationed and stopping the administration of an empire we can no longer afford combined with tax cuts is another idea that might work. Again, this is perhaps not the newest idea, but one that was never implemented. How about eliminating some of the unnecessary departments of the federal government, departments the federal government was never supposed to have jurisdiction over anyway? Remember, the Republicans were put into power because they promised smaller, more efficient government and instead grew it. They also did not listen to their constituents and you have not even promised smaller government. Let´s give these ideas a shot and see if they work, or are your words just empty rhetoric and you´re really not willing to give new ideas (ideas which have never been tried) a chance?

Hey, here´s another idea that´s never been tried, let´s try abolishing the Fed. It´s been around since 1913 and has proved itself to be a dreadful failure. It was supposedly created to prevent the current financial mess and to stabilize the boom and bust cycles, which some claim are only created because of government interference in the free market, a school of thought I happen to agree with. In any case, the Federal Reserve certainly has not done what it claimed to be able to do upon its conception. In the ninety six years since it was created we´ve had the boom of the twenties, the great depression, the war years, the boom of the fifties and sixties, the stagnation of the seventies, the market crash of ´87, the boom of the nineties and the current looming depression. That´s not a very good track record. I´d say the Federal Reserve had its chances and failed. It´s time to give something else a try.

Mr. Obama´s oratory re-initiated not only the debate about the stimulus package, but the debate about congressional bipartisanship. He has magically bullied the Republicans with his well crafted words in a speech designed to frighten them into ignoring the people they´re supposed to represent. It´s like the bail out package all over again, the one that is already so questionable and has already cost us too much of our future earnings. These politicians have ignored people who share similar opinions to mine time and again, and they continue to ignore us. Mr. Obama is no different than the rest of them, and though he claims he is about change, so far he seems able to only present ideas that will lead to bigger, more controlling and intrusive government. Perhaps he should try the opposite of what he´s been doing, decentralize, and allow the people of this great nation to prove they can provide for their selves.

Government Propagandists and Tax Cheats

2009-02-05T09:05:00.000-08:00

I heard an interesting bit of propaganda the other day. According to CBS news, an IRS survey showed that ninety percent of Americans feel it´s wrong to cheat on their income taxes. Ninety percent! That´s a huge percentage. This got me to thinking, "Who are these people?" Certainly if ninety percent of the people believe this, I should know one of them. And yet nearly everyone I know cheats or has cheated on their taxes in some form or another. In fact, the laws regarding taxes are so onerous and so numerous one would think it would be impossible to not cheat on your taxes. People are probably cheating on their taxes and don´t even know it. I had to wonder how this question was phrased or what kind of survey taking trickery or chicanery was used to get such overwhelmingly pro tax numbers from a populace who is decidedly anti-tax.

So I ask again, who are these people? Who did the people taking this survey ask? Did they ask the waiters and waitresses, the bartenders, the hairstylists, the taxi drivers, the pizza delivery people of the world? I´m certain that those who mainly make a living off tips report each and every penny they earn in tips to the IRS. Did they ask the tradesmen, the carpenters, the roofers, the plumbers, the electricians? I´ll bet they´ve reported all the money they´ve received from every side job they´ve done for friends, family and acquaintances where they were paid in cash. Did they ask the small businessmen of the country? I doubt very much that any of these people would ever fudge a little on their office expenses. Someone like that would never claim a personal computer for their children or a new car for themselves as a business expense. Did they ask salespeople? I wouldn´t think any of those people would ever claim anything on their taxes that wasn´t an actual allowable deduction. After all, when it comes to taxes, isn´t everyone suddenly just the most honest person in the world? Ninety percent seem to think so.

More likely this poll was given only to those who work for the IRS. Or perhaps it was given only to those who benefit from taxes, those who receive more than they pay. Perhaps it was given only to the very old who were indoctrinated into believing that not reporting all wages earned and paying taxes on them was the same as stealing. I did hear on the same radio broadcast that an overwhelming number of people also believed that paying taxes is one´s civic duty. Now that´s indoctrination. A group of people calling themselves government has convinced all these people not only that it´s ok for government to extort their hard earned money from them, the money they´ve received by being a productive member of society, but they´ve also convinced them it´s their duty to do so! Amazing.

Perhaps I´m wrong. Perhaps ninety percent of the populace really does believe that it is wrong for people to cheat on their taxes. Or perhaps ninety percent believe that it´s wrong for other people to cheat on their taxes. Perhaps these people are simply trying to express their perception that only the very wealthy can cheat on their taxes, or that corporations seem to get more tax breaks and deductions than the average citizen. Perhaps a better question would have been, "Would you pay taxes if it was strictly voluntary and you didn´t have to worry about being punished or penalized for not paying?" Be honest now. Perhaps an honest poll question like this would show how people feel about the true worth of the services government provides. Perhaps a question like this, if answered by average, honest people in an honest manner, would show how Americans truly feel about exercising one´s "civic duty" in the form of paying taxes. If the IRS survey is accurate and the average American feels this way, they should have no problem making taxes voluntary.

There is one thing for certain, most people try to keep as much money as they can. Most people take whatever deductions they are entitled to take. And when the tax return adds up to more than they´ve actually paid into their withholding, as per the earned income credit, I doubt very much that anyone´s going to actually give the extra money back to the IRS. No one wants to pay taxes.

Historically, taxes have always been abhorrent to the American people. The Revolutionary War was fought in part because of taxes. Income taxes were particularly egregious and specifically prohibited by the constitution. Our founding fathers realized just how abusive such a tax could become and how much power it would give those who administered it. It took a constitutional amendment, the 16th amendment, passed under questionable circumstances, to allow the government to "legally" level such a tax against its citizenry. Doing so allowed for the establishment of a central bank (a privately owned, quasi-governmental organization) and the unchecked growth of centralized government. It basically made it legal for the government to do what would be illegal for any other organization to attempt. The tax cheats aren´t the individuals that should be scrutinized, but the system itself which is the real criminal enterprise.

Now the federal government wants to saddle the common folk of this country and their progeny with a huge debt. We are the ones who will end up paying for their ill considered bail outs and "stimulus" packages. Our children and grandchildren and beyond are the ones who will suffer as their wages are garnished by an ever growing, ever more entrenched, ever more tyrannical bureaucracy. If we are to release our progeny from this burden, then we need to relentlessly demand smaller government and more responsibilities for ourselves. We need to make the government listen to our grievances and answer them, something they have refused to do in the past.

Government agencies want you to believe that the people of this country are docile. They want you to believe that the people accept their fate and are willingly paying huge chunks of their paychecks for less than stellar government services. The more people that can see through this charade, the better. The more people that speak out against it, the louder the shouts on Capital Hill, the better off we´ll all be. When the politicians finally realize that we are serious about getting them out of our lives and living as free men, then perhaps they will abandon their quest for ultimate power over all our lives and let us go about our business utilizing the freedom and liberty the founders of this country meant for us to have. At that point we will be able to grow wealth for ourselves and stop giving away the wealth we´ve earned to an elitist political class.

The Futility of Hope (or Hoping For Change)

2009-02-05T09:04:00.000-08:00

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Feb. 2nd, 2009

"Be the change that you want to see in the world."
Mohandas Ghandi

I was discussing recent events with my mom the other day and she told me not to worry about my unemployment situation, that 2009 was going to be a year of "change." Now, I love my mother dearly, but the problems with that statement are just too numerous to count. The word change and the concept of change are so nebulous, so ambiguous, that every English speaking individual in this world likely carries with him a different interpretation of the word. When these words were uttered by my mom, however, one thing became instantly obvious to me. She had fallen for the propagandistic rhetoric of last season´s political campaigns like so many other Americans.

So, why shouldn´t I worry about change? Change can be good or bad and I do worry when I lose my job and have to start depending on the state for my income, especially when that income is half or what I´m used to. That does not seem to me to be good change. Now had I been offered a higher paying position or had I been given a raise, that would have been change I could live with. Anyway, I do my best to try not to worry and to have faith that everything happens for the best, but it can be difficult at times. Sometimes it just seems natural to worry, especially when there´s little else that can be done. I hope and pray that despite the economy something comes along and someone wants to hire me to do something. I hope to get a callback from one of the applications I have filled out.

But I digress. It is easy to think of such things after a conversation has taken place. At the time I was speaking to my mother, I said something like "Everything´s always changing. That´s the nature of the world. Change is the one constant." Something like that. That´s how I am. During a conversation, I don´t always give full weight and credence to the meaning and purpose behind the statement the other has made. I tend to focus on some word or aspect of that statement instead and take the conversation in a direction the other never meant it to go. It is a tendency I think I share with many other people. In any case, the whole "change" thing has bothered me for a long time now because of its amorphous nature and the fact that change is inevitable no matter what is happening or who is in office. Change is something that, unless it is clearly defined, can be extremely uplifting, or horrifyingly catastrophic.

So my mother went on and said something like "That´s not what I meant. This time it´s going to be different. It´s going to get better." Or something like that. Now, I realize my mother was just being hopeful. I understand that she just wanted to help relieve my worry and doubt as to my situation. I also understand that she desires to see the world in a better place where abundance is prevalent. I do too. Most everyone does. But at the same time one has to take stock of the current reality. Things look pretty bleak. The economy´s tanking, the nation´s indebtedness is unfathomable, and the police state seems to grow more intrusive and ominous with each passing day. The only change I see happening is more people growing more dependent on government handouts and less dependent on their selves. It´s a tough cycle to break free of.

So I told my mother something like "It sounds to me like you´ve been listening to the political hype everyone´s been spouting lately."

Now my mom is getting up there in years. She grew up during the depression. She is a member of what some people might call "the greatest generation." She, and my father, have been through a lot in their lifetimes as have many of their contemporaries. But, despite that, they are perhaps also the most indoctrinated generation. They never really learned to question authority as should be done, perhaps because outside fascist and dictatorial threats were so great and so real that it seemed obedience to the state was the only course of action that could keep the wolves from the door, so to speak. Perhaps this helped blind them to the threats they had already allowed into the home.

She answered me by referencing our current president. She pointed out to me that he was already changing things for the better, that he was planning on closing down the prison at Guantanamo Bay and that he was planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq. While I admitted that these things were steps toward the right direction, I explained to her that Barack Obama was a politician and therefore very good at obfuscating his real agenda and making himself look and sound good to the average person who only pays attention to the surface and doesn´t care to look beneath the glimmering waves. I neglected to tell her that the mainstream media, where she gets most of her information from, hasn´t really done its job in terms of exposing breaches of public trust for decades.

I pointed out that, for instance, in his recent interview with George Stephanopoulos he claims he will make certain that our military will not engage in torture, but he did not specify that he would order the CIA to stop torturing suspects. Torture is, after all, mostly the purview of the CIA and not the military. I also pointed out that while Mr. Obama plans on drawing down the troops in Iraq, he also plans on moving those troops into Afghanistan. Furthermore, he plans on keeping troops in Iraq as a permanent occupation force, I´ve heard as many as 40,000. He´s also expressed a willingness to go into Pakistan if he feels it´s necessary, and he hasn´t been too specific on what constitutes "necessary." He seems to wish to continue to build an ever bigger empire and ever bigger government.

I wanted to go on and tell my mom that Mr. Obama´s proposed economic changes and social engineering programs were steps in the wrong direction. I wanted to explain to her that the nation was already very deep in debt and going deeper into debt was no way to improve the economy. We would do better as a nation to start cutting expenditures. We would do better if the government would shrink and allow free and open markets to operate on honest footing. We would do better if competition was allowed to exist where government monopolies have taken over and to allow people to choose which services they want to pay for rather than being forced to pay in the form of taxes for government services they won´t necessarily use. I wanted to say these things, but I never got the chance.

"Szandor, stop," my mother said. "I don´t want to hear it. I want to think that things are going to change for the better."

So, the truth came out. My mother wasn´t interested in reality. Reality was a little rough around the edges and she wants to hope that the edges will soon be smoothed out. She wants to hope that this one man, this new "leader" of ours, is more than just a good orator and has some knowledge of how to fix the economy, some magic bullet that will make everything about our financial system, our foreign entanglements and the infringement on our civil liberties right again. I´d like to hope so too. It would make life so much easier for all of us if suddenly government was to stop being so intrusive and start staying out of our way. I just honestly don´t think that´s going to happen. I don´t think Mr. Obama´s policy changes that he plans on instituting have any substance. I hope I´m wrong, but that´s only hope.

I think most of us have high hopes for the current administration, especially considering the blatant abuses of power the past administration engaged in. But hope is a funny thing, it is different for many people. Some people hope for a market recovery. Some people hope for more federal aid. Others hope for further bailouts. Still others, like me, hope for the establishment of freedom in this nation and an end to the restrictive environments created by federal regulation in both the business world and in the private lives of the citizenry. But hope in and of itself is futile. While you are standing by idly hoping for a particular outcome, there is a good chance someone is actively seeking to enact legislation contrary to your hopes. Hope all you want, there´s a better chance those taking action will get the outcome they want.

The time to sit back like couch potato school children watching their favorite cartoons has ended. Merely hoping for the type of change you want to see occur will do nothing to create that change. Action is required. The form that action takes is up to the individual. Protest. Write blogs. Boycott products that support things you disagree with. Film cops abusing their power. Join groups that agree with your point of view. Do something to get involved. Let your voice be heard in some fashion. Let those in power know you expect them to enact the change you want, that you are going to see to it they keep their word and that their campaign rhetoric was not just empty promises. That is how one becomes the change. Your silence is the complicity those in power seek, for with it they do as they please and often dash your hopes in the process.

The Folly of the Illinois Air Team Part 2: Creating Economic Stress Through Government

2009-02-02T13:00:00.000-08:00

This article was originally published on Jan. 25th, 2009 at americanchronicle.com

I am not a rich man. Those of you who read my column likely know this. It seems I have struggled my entire adult life to make ends meet. Although I have always worked hard and have always been able to hold down a job and do it well, it seems I´ve never been able to get ahead. I haven´t lived a bad life. I´ve always been able to provide for my family and we´ve lived an average middle class existence, but I built a pile of debt and I just never seemed to be able to climb out of it. I´ve been behind most of my adult life. Something always seemed to happen to demand more of my money when things started to turn around. I guess I was in actuality living beyond my means and just couldn´t figure it out, often being blinded by what I thought my kids needed or my family wanted.

There were, however, certain things I had to do without. A new car was one of them. I would buy used and keep what I had running for as long as I could. Since I had a big family, I quite often felt I needed a minivan. These were a little more expensive so what I bought usually had a few more miles on them then I would have liked and I still had to borrow to afford them.

Years ago, when I was first starting out and my family wasn´t so big, I could fix my own cars. Even as recently as the early 90s I was able to do many repairs on my cars and keep costs down. This is no longer so true. Due to the restrictive environment the United States federal government has put on automobile manufacturers in this country, there are several gadgets and devices on vehicles these days which must be operating to make the car "legal" and I have no idea what all of them are or how to fix them should they fail, so if they do go bad I am more or less forced to take it to a repair shop.

So it was a while back when I got pulled over by the police one night. I knew why I was being pulled over, but I wasn´t going to tell the officer that when he asked me. My plates had expired. Paying $85.00 for a new yearly sticker simply had not been in my budget. I figured I´d see how long I could go without paying. I had made it six months. I told the officer I had no idea why he had pulled me over and he informed me my plates had expired. He asked for proof of insurance and all I had was my old insurance card which had also expired a couple of months back. He wrote me a warning for the plates and told me to take care of that. He also wrote me a ticket for driving without insurance which I had to go to court on and show proof to the judge that I had insurance.

The court date on the ticket was set for two weeks from the night of the stop. I would have to take a day off work to go to court. Fortunately, I had a sick day left, so I wouldn´t lose a day´s pay. Since the courthouse wasn´t far from a Department of Motor Vehicles facility, I decided I would take care of the insurance ticket and then go get my plates renewed.

Getting proof of insurance was no problem, just a bit of a pain. I had to call my insurance agent and have him email me a copy, then snail mail me one just in case. The emailed copy worked just fine and I received the snail mail copy in plenty of time before I had to go to court. I went into court, showed the document to the prosecutor when my name was called, and the case was dropped. No blood, no foul. It was the other part that proved to be difficult.

I walked into the DMV expecting no problems. I had my checkbook ready and was quite willing to pay the $85.00 to renew my license rather than take the chance of having my driving rights violated. They say driving is a "privilege" in the state of Illinois, but I say we all have the right to travel and in these modern times driving is essential, but that´s a matter for another day. As I handed the nice lady at the DMV my check and expected to get a sticker for my license plate in return, I found out that there was a problem. She handed me back my check and told me she could not accept it because my vehicle had not passed the emissions test. I hadn´t even taken it to get its emissions tested as I had no idea it was due for such a test. I was speechless. The lady gave me a ten day temporary pass and told me to get my emissions tested and come back.

And so the journey began. Being that I live on the edge of nowhere the nearest testing station was miles away. In fact, had I lived about two miles more to the west, I would not have been required to have my vehicle tested at all. But, anyway, my hopes of being able to rest and relax for the rest of the day were dashed. A nice day where I had called in sick to work was going to be thrown away running around for the state. I heaved a sigh and headed back to my vehicle, hoping to get the whole thing over with as soon as possible.

When I got to the testing station, I was the only one there. I was taken care of immediately. I thought this was going to be a breeze. They hooked my car up to their computer and started the test. It only took a couple of minutes. My car failed. The man sent me to the front office with a code to decipher what was wrong with my vehicle. Now I was starting to get upset. This was going to take quite a while longer than I thought it would. In fact, I now realized this was going to be far more than a one day project.

The man in the front office had a code that told me exactly what sensor was bad. He gave me a list of local dealers that could check out my car and tell me whether it needed a new sensor or whether something else was wrong. Naturally, the test itself was going to cost money. Depending on what was wrong the fix was going to cost even more. This was money I simply did not have. I asked the man what happens to those people who have bad credit and don´t have the money and simply can´t afford to take care of these problems. He had no answers for me. I began to contemplate my options.

I´ll make a long story short. The car I was driving had 120,000 miles on it. I was planning on getting a new used car soon anyway. I decided to take it to a dealer to see what was available. As it was, the dealer had a 2004 Hyundai Santa Fe with 35,000 miles on it for $10,000 which was a pretty good deal. Gas was running about four dollars a gallon when this happened. I asked the dealer to see what he could do for me.

This is what happened next. My credit was so bad that I would have had to pay an exorbitant interest rate to get a loan and the payments would have been more than I could handle. But, I had the option of getting a cosigner for the loan and bringing the payment way down. This is what I did. In addition, the dealer let me know he couldn´t give me enough for a trade in on my old car to cover what I owed on the loan. It was worth less than I owed. He suggested I call the bank and voluntarily turn it over to them. My credit would take a hit, but it was already so bad (it was below 500) that this would hardly affect it any more. He told me to then just walk away from the loan, and that that´s what many homeowners were doing. I felt I had little choice, so I took his advice.

So, because of an $85.00 licensing fee, I ended up with another car and the bank ended up taking a loss. This whole matter revolves around the government´s tendency to be run by control freaks. It revolves around government´s desire to micromanage every aspect of our lives. It happened because the government makes laws, however well intentioned, that have no victims and creates criminals out of people who have harmed no one and damaged no property. It also insulates those who work for the government from taking responsibility for the harm they may do to an individual when enforcing these laws. And to top things off, these laws harm the poorest of our society, those who can least afford to pay the price.

I´m not proud of what I did, but I feel I had little choice. The old car I had was running fine and I probably would have kept it quite a bit longer if the state hadn´t gotten involved. To begin with, if the state didn´t require a renewal of plates once a year and instead only charged when the plate was transferred to a new vehicle, I wouldn´t have had to worry about a thing. If they hadn´t passed laws requiring auto manufacturers to adhere to their strict regulations, then cars would likely be cheaper now and consumer demand and competition would likely have made them more environmentally friendly and efficient. My car was likely operating within the polluting requirements set down by the state, yet the state even regulated how such requirements were to be monitored which also set the events into motion. If they simply took measurements and had let the manufacturers worry about any new anti pollution devices, even that small change might have meant that I would still be driving my old vehicle, the bank would still be receiving payments from me, and I wouldn´t have had to go through the hassles I went through.

All this makes me wonder how many people have been driven homeless because of the state. If I hadn´t been so lucky to have family to help me out, would I have ended up on the street? What if I had decided not to go along with the program and driven my car without a new sticker and without it being approved by the Illinois Air Team, those bureaucrats who check to make sure cars conform to their pollution standards? Would I have eventually been pulled over and arrested, my car impounded? Would I have been thrown in jail? Would I have lost my job, my livelihood, perhaps simply because I didn´t have the means to conform? Would I have lost my home, perhaps my family, because there was no one willing or able to help me? These are certainly possible scenarios if the law is taken to its logical conclusion. One can even wonder if there is a homeless person out there with such a tale to tell.

These victimless laws only serve to put financial stress on everyone, but especially on those already the most financially stressed. The state doesn´t care. The state is a thoughtless, emotionless entity that just grinds away at the life and fortunes of individuals. Sometimes I think that those operating the apparatus of the state don´t really care all that much about the money, after all the money isn´t theirs. They only seem to care that the state is obeyed, that their power is maintained, no matter how unfair the law and no matter the circumstances revolving around the individual in violation of said law. The state is only interested in increasing its power over the collective.

We as a society, as a nation, and as a collection of states, should begin to take more seriously the founding documents of those who founded this nation and fought a war to break from the tyranny of a monarchy. We would do well to ponder the spirit of those documents and the words written upon them. For far too long lawyers and politicians have twisted, perverted and interpreted those words to afford themselves, their friends and their contributors more power and advantage over those who would compete with them in a free market. The government of this country, of these great United States of America, was never meant to create such onerous regulations, and neither were the governments of the separate states. The founders instead intended our government to be quite limited in scope. It was meant to protect the freedoms and liberties of the individual, pure and simple. Today, it has become a monstrosity that is the main driving force behind the disrespect for and violations of civil liberties that we experience everyday.

It is about time we as a society started demanding such victimless laws be repealed. It is about time we started demanding of our government that it scale back. It is about time we started demanding government to get out and stay out of our personal lives and let us take personal responsibility for ourselves. It is, after all, we who should own our own lives, not the government. Until and unless this happens, the government will continue to grow until it reaches such proportions that it can no longer support its own weight, at which time it may collapse with such a resounding crash that the universe itself takes note. Such is the fate of all self aggrandizing entities, however well intentioned.