Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Copenhagen, Carbon Emissions and World Government

I was contacted earlier by some readers of my articles and asked for my view on the events scheduled to take place in December in Copenhagen. This was something I had only recently heard about and therefore had little knowledge of. I quickly discovered a speech on climate change given by Lord Monckton which he ends by giving a stern warning to Americans that the United States will lose its national sovereignty should Mr. Obama sign this treaty in Copenhagen in December. It seems there are some who fear such an occurrence. They truly worry that Mr. Obama will turn our country over to a world government. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we lost our national sovereignty long ago. If Mr. Obama were to sign a treaty creating a world government that would supersede the government of the United States it would be doing nothing except finally bring out in the open what's been happening under the table for decades.

The United States government more or less gave up its sovereignty when the Federal Reserve act was signed into law. Sovereignty was reduced to a great extent when legal tender laws were put into place that forced businesses and private citizens, by the coercive nature of federal law, to accept as money a paper note that some perhaps would not have otherwise accepted. At that time, whether it was realized or not, the United States was usurped by a cartel of private international banks whose objective was to rule the world, corral all the wealth for themselves and make the vast majority of humanity into debt slaves. We as a nation lost sovereignty when it was decided corporations have the same rights as individuals and were granted even greater immunity in the eyes of the law, which took responsibility for criminal actions and bad decisions away from individuals running said businesses. We as a people gave up even more of our sovereignty when we allowed multi-national corporations and foreign lobbyists to solicit our congressmen and senators and contribute to their campaigns. Do you think these entities care what is best for the American people? Do you think that perhaps they are more interested in looking out for their own best interests? It has been a long, long time since the federal government has actually been a sovereign entity.

That said, the Copenhagen conference scheduled for this December should prove to be an interesting event. I've only taken a glance at the document the meeting is about, but I can certainly see why many people would be concerned. It does seem as if a world government is being set up. Still, this does not seem to be a treaty. It is a “Framework Convention on Climate Change.” This is, as near as I can tell, just a lot of suggestions about how to go about accomplishing their agenda and implementing taxes and restrictions on people and businesses so that they can maintain control. That's not to say that it couldn't easily be replaced by an actual treaty by this December, I don't know that much about how international treaties come about, but for now perhaps one should not be overly worried. I don't believe this is going to be the “official” treaty that brings about one world government.

That being said, the concept of man made climate change remains a dangerous one to those of us worried about human liberty. The fear mongering that has gone on with this issue is unlike any I've seen in the past. It has been going on for decades now, at least as far back as the seventies when some were insisting that we were heading into a massive global cooling cycle and perhaps another ice age. The insistence by some that global warming is an unarguable “fact” so overwhelmingly supported by scientists as to make debate on the subject intolerable is frightening.

Scientific debate should never be stymied by such dogma as has been put out by these man made climate change zealots who have much to gain by regulating human activity. In my opinion those who continue to insist that climate change is caused by human activity instead of being a natural cycle inherent in the nature of this earth, and indeed the solar system, are either completely fooled, extremely misinformed, deliberately refusing to look at or ignoring evidence that shows otherwise, or propagating what they know to be a lie for their own gain. Those of the latter group would include certain politicians, scientists and businessmen who will benefit financially and politically from levying taxes upon all of mankind and making it difficult to innovate or even exist as a business entity without going through their strict regulatory approval process. Needless to say, anything an entrepreneur might come up with that could seriously compete with their established monopolies would likely be crushed by their system and never allowed to enter the marketplace.

Climate change conferences of the political kind are not about controlling climate change. The politicians couldn't care less about the climate. They couldn't care less about the environment. They couldn't care less about the science. That is why we are hearing stories now about scientists who have been shunned by government entities for remaining honest and principled in their assessments while their brethren who go along with the government line, particularly the UN version, have been given sweetheart deals and continue to prosper. The only thing politicians care about is the best way to rip you off through taxes, especially through hidden taxation, and control. They live privileged lives and they want to make sure it stays that way.

It seems to me that politicians worldwide act very similar to those in the United States of America. They not only don't care about the environment, the climate, or the common man, they don't even care about the citizens of their own countries as long as they can milk them for taxes and keep getting reelected. They most likely couldn't care less about their nation's sovereignty. They only care about their own power, their own wealth and increasing their own status in life. Politicians in the United States in no way have a patent on corruption. Likely it is as easy for the super rich to buy a politician in France or Italy or even China or Russia as it is in the United States. These people, the rich elite pulling the strings of politicians worldwide, have their own agenda and it's quite likely that they don't think or care much about the common folk. They are the ones that populations around the world should pay attention to, and they have put politicians between themselves and the “lower” classes.

I would suggest that people in the United States of America aren't the only ones who need to worry about losing their sovereignty. There are freedom lovers in every nation who worry that the creation of a one world government would further restrict their already overly regulated activities. Do you really think that someone in Poland wants to be governed by someone from Mexico? Or that someone in China wants to be dictated to by someone from Serbia? It's difficult enough to deal with the tyranny coming from your own government, let alone what it would be like having to deal with an overblown centralized world government as I'm sure any global government would become. Such an organization would and should run into massive resistance across the globe. No one wants to be ruled over by someone living half a world away, they didn't like it in Caesar's time and they wouldn't like it now. Perhaps we should be more worried about losing individual sovereignty, which is violated by arrogance at all levels of government when these groups of people threaten violence and imprisonment against those who produce if they don't pay a portion of the money they've earned to the extortionists.

Perhaps that is one reason (of many) why people in other nations are so disappointed and even angry at the American people. Perhaps they expect us, with our history of freedom oriented principles, to once again show the way and become the beacon of liberty they expect us to be. Since I live in the United States and don't trust mainstream media outlets to be anything other than propaganda arms of political factions, it is difficult to gauge the mood of people elsewhere in the world. It seems that in this nation, however, there are some encouraging stirrings. Recent “tea party” protests have proven to be more than just Republican cheer leading sessions (despite the efforts by some to hijack these events) as common folk from around the nation managed to get out the message that individual freedom is popular and smaller government in demand. The recent phenomenon of so many refusing to take government mandated and recommended flu shots shows that many no longer trust a government that has lied to them so often and are finally willing to just say no to dictates coming down from on high. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the growing popularity and the demand by the masses that a complete audit of the Federal Reserve be conducted shows that the people finally wish to hold those responsible for the financial crisis we continue to experience accountable for their actions.

Perhaps America is once again leading the way. Perhaps it is time for peoples of other nations to demand audits be conducted on their central banks. It would be interesting to see how hard the ruling elite would fight such proposals. I can see how hard they're fighting it here. They really don't want it done and they're pulling out all stops, employing all political tricks and using the most powerful bought and paid for politicians at their disposal to make sure it doesn't happen. It makes one wonder what, exactly, they're trying to hide. Chances are if the Federal Reserve is that worried about an audit, the other central banks around the world would be just as worried and have just as much to hide.

Bringing world government out to the forefront of consciousness and getting people to worry about national sovereignty may be just a rouse to get people to take their eye off the ball, so to speak. Certainly it is something we should be concerned with, but it is not something that can be easily implemented by any entity. As individuals, we should be more concerned with our own personal sovereignty. It is up to us to refuse to simply go along with what the elite want should they decide to try to establish a world government. Furthermore, it is up to us to pull back the curtain and take a close look at the men pulling the levers behind the effort to create such an incredible power structure. It is time to see where all the wealth we common folk have created has gone. The fraud and dirty dealings that are likely to be uncovered may well surprise even the most ardent world government advocate. When this happens, then those who would “save” the world from the scourge of carbon dioxide by taxing it will likely be too worried about saving their own butts to impose a world government or a carbon tax.

Friday, October 23, 2009

A Fair Warning to the Establishment Upper Echelon

It seems the political establishment in this country continues to ignore their constitutional roots. They decided long ago to do away with this document and head down their own path regardless of the consequences to the American people and the ideals upon which this nation was built. By doing this they have, in essence, decided to disregard the law of the land. They have made themselves criminals. Now, if they were confronted with this accusation, one would expect them to hem and haw and try to deny, excuse, justify, equivocate or otherwise rationalize their behavior in an attempt to dismiss the accuser and seek support of others who might wish to see the state continue to abuse its monopoly use of force. They look to the general populace to get permission to continue their criminal behavior, but enablers from those ranks are becoming harder for them to find.

The last couple of years, in my opinion, have seen a great awakening in the people. The left/right paradigm has crumbled in the minds of most as first the Republicans and then the Democrats have shown that they are not interested in principle or in any way helping the common folk, but are just worried about their own power and stabilizing and increasing their control. Both parties have shown that they are filled with warmongers who care nothing about ending conflict. Both parties have shown that they are filled with anti-freedom, spy mongering advocates of the nanny state, tattletale society. Anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of history understands that these types of societies have failed time and time again. Perhaps that is why the politicians taking their orders from the special interests, lobbyists and elites have suddenly come up against such a wall of opposition. The people they are supposed to serve can see what's coming and they don't like the path we're on.

This comes down to a struggle of ideology. I have referred to it on several occasions as individualism versus collectivism. I can still think of it in those terms, yet I think it goes much deeper than that. This is a struggle that has likely been going on since perhaps before mankind even walked the Earth. It is a struggle of moral practices versus immoral practices. In many ways, it is a struggle of good versus evil, for the outcome may determine whether mankind will be ruled over by a class of super rich elites for some undetermined amount of time, or whether the common man will be able to determine his own fate and either reach his fullest potential or fail from his own foibles without interference from those who would consider themselves his betters. It is a struggle to determine whether we will achieve a truly free society, or whether we are perhaps destined to forever be subjected to the whims of a ruling class who apparently seek to not only run our lives for us, but to make certain we are kept as poor and destitute as possible so that they may enjoy all the wealth we have created and keep it for themselves.

Personally, I would not underestimate humanity. Certainly, as a group we have our weaknesses and can at times be manipulated, yet we are also quite clever and can figure things out better than some might think. As a species, we may perhaps have our moments where we are awed by dazzling lights and spectacle, but we will easily turn away from such diversion when we discover our wallets have been lifted. We can at times perhaps become lazy and complacent in our creature comforts, but most will work hard and even exhaust themselves when critical situations arise. As I have personally discovered in my own experiences, many people will come to your aid in times of great need even if you are a perfect stranger to them. Certainly most will come to the aid of their neighbor. It seems to me that human capacity to do good and be constructive outweighs their capacity to do evil and be destructive, and even when evil is done, it is usually accomplished by convincing individuals that some sort of good will come from it.

I've heard a sort of conspiracy theory that the ruling elitists employ a super computer, probably owned by the US military and housed in the Pentagon or some deep, dark, secret facility, to run through different catastrophic scenarios in order to determine the likelihood of people reacting in certain ways so that they know how to control such situations and keep the populace in line. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve such accusations, but the truth wouldn't surprise me either way. I wouldn't be surprised to find that our tax dollars were wasted in such a manner nor would I be surprised to find that such reports are just propaganda meant to frighten a certain segment of the population. Either truth doesn't matter, for there is a variable it seems they have forgotten when constructing their equations. It is, in my opinion, a variable that is unquantifiable and unqualifiable anyway, so even if they do manage to include it in such a counter productive project it couldn't possibly help their efforts. I am talking about the human spirit.

The human spirit is a remarkable thing. The human animal can be studied, somewhat trained, and physically controlled, but the spirit inside the animal is incredibly resilient and has the ability to carry the individual through extremely difficult situations, conditions and times. It has the ability to change the animal into something amazing, unpredictable, and completely unexpected. This is the variable that is uncontrollable. This is the variable that anyone would be a fool to ignore or to try to predict, contain, or control. The spirit is the spark that ignites the unstoppable fire. It is not something to be toyed with.

You don't need to believe in a super computer to realize the ruling elite is trying to control the masses, you just need to look at the unconstitutional legislation their politicians have passed in the last few years and the legislative proposals they continue to try to pass today. You can see their bullies cracking down on dissidents when they come into a town to conduct their meetings as they did recently in Pittsburgh. The police needn't beat the heads of innocents and disperse peaceful crowds when a few in those crowds decide to cause trouble. They should first try to arrest the individuals making trouble. At least give those who are peacefully protesting a chance to allow the authorities the opportunity to remove obviously undesirable and destructive elements from their ranks. One can only speculate as to why in these modern times the police would use such heavy handed tactics. Even more concerning are the reports and evidence of agent provocateurs in the ranks of peaceful protesters. Are these agents of the state being ordered to behave so poorly in an effort to determine how the masses will react to such situations and unjustified crackdowns? Perhaps they're just trying to see how far and how hard they can push us common folk.

It's been said by some that these elites believe the world is way overpopulated and that they'd like to depopulate it to some extent. Indeed, the overpopulation fear mongering has been going on for centuries. One is reminded of Scrooge's famous quip (in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol) about letting the poor die and ridding the world of the surplus population. I don't know if it's true that they're trying to implement a plan to cause a population reduction, but it seems to me that some very powerful people have an attitude that humanity is like a disease upon the face of the earth and that a depopulation event would not be a bad thing. Apparently, there are some who seem to think that nature would benefit from mankind's demise.

There are some in this world who evidently need to be reminded that humanity is part of nature. In fact, in my humble opinion, humanity is the pinnacle of nature's creation. Just look at what mankind has accomplished. Look at the arts, the architecture, the science and the good things we've created. We have combined our brains and our hands to create some of the most magnificent marvels this world has ever seen. Should one decide to meddle with such a creation, should one decide to somehow try to alter its evolution and stifle its potential, well let's just say I'd hate to be the one standing in front of nature's creator and trying to explain why I did such a thing.

But that's all just speculation. In the physical world we live in there appears to be an awakening of the masses. There are many more people now who are taking a peek behind the curtain and getting a glimpse of the powers that try to remain hidden than there were just a few years ago. Those of us who are paying attention realize those powers are trying to grab all the cookies, that the ruling elite are trying to wipe out the last vestiges of freedom so that they can achieve total control over all humanity. This simply will not work. It is important to remember that all that is built on illusion and fraud is destined to collapse sooner or later.

A revolution is occurring. It may not be large now, but it is larger than before and growing fast. It is peaceful so far, and hopefully it will stay that way. There is a growing demand for freedom in this world, and and it seems to me that as the elite in control tighten their grip on power more of the populace slip through their fingers. Humanity deserves to be free. Free human beings deserve the opportunities that come with the ability to vote with their dollar, control their own monetary system and determine their own destiny. They deserve to be able to make their own mistakes, learn life's hard lessons, and develop to their full potential. I believe history will show that this is the time mankind began to truly evolve into what nature intended him to be. It will show that individuals either tried to help this evolution, or tried to hinder it. One may need to consider carefully which side he wishes to be on. I almost pity those who choose to try to stymie the inevitable. I don't think I'd like to suffer the fate of those who choose the wrong side.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Ron Paul's Principles Should Hijack Both Parties

I used to consider myself a Republican. That was long ago and far away. It began with the presidential candidacy of a man named Ronald Reagan. He said some pretty profound things like “Government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem” and “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'” Unfortunately, only a few months into his presidency he was shot in an assassination attempt. I don't know what went on in the time he was in the hospital recovering nor what was going through his mind, but when he reasserted his control of the federal government he grew it rather than shrinking and limiting it as his rhetoric suggested would happen. He, like our current president, talked a good game but when it came down to brass tacks did not deliver. He did not stick to his principles nor the principles of liberty upon which our nation was founded. As a result, I felt the Republican party had left me.

In the years following, I explored many different avenues in an attempt to find political sanity in an insane system of big government worship. I felt like so many Americans that neither political party reflected my world view or espoused the principles I grew up believing in. I felt that the Democrats and Republicans liked to bicker over little, insignificant issues, but they were in agreement on the truly important, larger issues of growing federal government control. The only difference seemed to be the pace at which to grow government. Third parties seemed too small to be effective and the laws regulating and restricting their growth and access to the public too draconian and entrenched to overcome. They had effectively isolated me, shut me down, shut me up and shut me out of the political process. In the country famous for its freedom I felt I had no voice. I felt impotent and resigned to insignificance. So I, like so many others, became apathetic and simply watched as the ship of state drifted in a sea of socialism under the guidance of collectivist captains and crews.

Ron Paul's presidential campaign changed all that. After years of voting for third party candidates with excellent ideas relegated to the back pages of newspapers and shut out like myself by the political and media establishment, there came to the fore someone who spoke the truth, understood the principles of liberty and was in one of the two parties controlling the nation's political duopoly. Despite the fact that the mainstream media and the establishment politicos tried to minimize his significance by labeling him and his followers kooky, unelectable, quaint, out of touch, etc., he developed quite a following. Thanks to modern developments a core of passionate, vocal, active, ordinary people were able to disseminate his message to the masses. Finally the message of freedom was being exposed to large numbers of people. I was pleasantly surprised that it was so well received by so many.

Now one Senator Lindsey Graham wants to complain about Ron Paul supporters? Now he wants to make the claim that the Republican party is being hijacked? Now he claims that the Republicans are not going to be the Ron Paul party? Now he's worried because he has to answer to constituents in his own party who understand the principles honored by free society and wish for him to adhere to such principles? Now he insinuates that only angry white men want a free society? Maybe he should more closely examine the message he so readily rails against.

Is Mr. Graham against peace? Is he so in love with perpetual war that he will continue to sacrifice the principles we supposedly hold so dear? Ron Paul does not support interventionist policies. While some would claim that his is an isolationist position, he has often cited the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson when advocating commerce with all nations and alliances with none. It is not an isolationist policy to want to trade instead of fight with other nations. It is more a policy of minding our own business and not putting our nose into the internal affairs of other nations. There's nothing wrong with that. It certainly would mean we would no longer be spilling the blood of innocents. It certainly would mean we would no longer be spending our treasure and the lives of our children for the sake of the international bankers and multi-national corporations.

Is Mr. Graham against following the Constitution? Dr. Paul supports the constitution. He is practically the only congress person that follows it. While other lawmakers treat our founding documents as if they don't exist, Dr. Paul continuously points out the unconstitutional nature of most laws as a reason to vote against them. While many power grabbing control freaks try to convince everyone that the Constitution is an antiquated, “living” document open to interpretation and not applicable in the modern world, Dr. Paul is quick to point out that there are prescribed methods and remedies provided in that very document for cases when some point of contention may arise. Most lawmakers like Mr. Graham seem to prefer to try to circumvent the Constitution in order to achieve more control rather than go about the arduous task of changing it as should be done so that they remain within the bounds of what is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. If one is not willing to abide by such a document, one should not swear an oath to uphold it.

Is Mr. Graham opposed to freedom and liberty for individuals trying to apply their own solutions and assume personal responsibility for their own lives? Such concepts are at least partially what the individualist philosophy is about and what some of the founding fathers were expressing in their writings as they struggled with the notions of what a freedom loving society should be. By enshrining these concepts in the first ten amendments of the Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights, our founding fathers thought they had guaranteed that powerful individuals in government would be unable to trample the rights of the not so powerfully connected common man working hard and doing his best to improve his lot in life. It is Dr. Paul who supports the principles which would allow individuals to once again determine what is best for their selves and how to best control their destinies without government interference or taxation. Looking at Mr. Graham's voting record makes one wonder just how much he feels government should be involved in the individual's life.

These are just a few of the principles Dr. Paul espouses. They are the bulwarks upon which American society was designed and helped create perhaps the most prosperous society the world has ever seen. American politicians should not be shunning these principles, no matter their party. They shouldn't be chastising those who are frustrated with watching them and their collectivist philosophies drag us into economic destruction. They should instead be listening to their concerns and ideas on how to best get out nation and everyone in it back on the road to prosperity. It is their big government intervention that has led us down the path we find ourselves on, not free market philosophies or constitutional obedience as they would have you believe. We have not had a true free market or seen the Constitution obeyed in well over a hundred years, and perhaps never.

The Democrats and Republicans should not be arguing over which big government program to enact or what's the best way to enact it, they should be arguing over the best way to make certain our individual freedoms are preserved so that we the people can best determine amongst ourselves how to best solve our problems rather than having a one size fits all solution being handed down from some elite group who in many cases may be thousands of miles away. The politicians in charge have had their chance. Most of them have been involved with government for far too long. They failed time and time again. In my opinion it is time to try something different. The principles espoused by Ron Paul and other freedom advocates have been shown to work in the past and deserve another chance.

Ron Paul supporters may or may not outnumber Lindsey Graham supporters, but that should not matter. The principles that are supposed to guide this nation protect the rights of every individual, not just those in the majority. Everyone is supposed to have a voice. Dr. Paul helped me to find mine. I refuse to ever again be silent, sit back and watch while big government advocates, be they collectivist Democrats or collectivist Republicans, take our society down a path leading to an authoritarian police state, fiscal and moral bankruptcy, and perhaps an even darker and more nefarious agenda. It is time to once again let freedom ring across this great land. Mr. Graham should welcome those who espouse such American ideals into his party and be proud to be associated with such American values instead of denying their voices and embracing the same big government, collectivist ideals tried by systems that have failed. Unfortunately, Senator Graham is unlikely to change. He is unlikely to listen to me or anyone else speaking out about the virtues of freedom unless he feels it is necessary in order to get re-elected and that probably won't happen until it's too late for him.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

The Ignoble Nobel Peace Prize

I have lost all respect for the Nobel Peace Prize. Not that they've had that great of a track record when it comes to who gets this award, but by giving it to Barack Obama they have done away with all pretense of actually caring about peace in the world. Perhaps a better name for this award would be the Nobel Rest in Peace Prize. Certainly there are only millions of others who are more deserving of a peace prize than Mr. Obama, myself included. Anyone who hasn't actively participated in the effort to continue the maintenance of a statist empire, especially by means of military occupation, deserves this prize more than Mr. Obama.

One would think that the Nobel Peace Prize committee would be interested in giving such a prize to someone who has worked against the establishment that fosters the conditions that cause war, violence and conflict in the world. One would think that they'd be interested in giving the award to a worthy, little known or under rated figure who could use the money, notoriety and prestige to further the cause of peace. Instead, this lazy, elitist group insult the intelligence of the common man by giving the award to someone who has shown the world that he can only read eloquently from a teleprompter and he is willing to promise everything and deliver nothing for the support and accolades of the few devotees who refuse to see through his deception. Mr. Obama continues to dangle promises in front of the needy while advancing the agenda of the rich and powerful elite. More and more people are beginning to realize just what a scam artist this man really is. The attempt by the Nobel Peace Prize committee to legitimize him should only serve to anger those of us who pay attention to actions instead of words.

But perhaps I'm being too harsh. Perhaps I should try to be a little more understanding. I suppose there is a possibility that the Nobel Peace Prize committee, being of Norwegian origin, simply do not understand the intricacies of the English language and American politics. Perhaps they take politicians at their word and believe they never misrepresent themselves. Maybe that's what politicians are like in Norway. I very much doubt it, but I'm willing to give the committee the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps there is no real planned attempt to propagandize the prize and they just need to be a little better informed. If that's the case, I have a few suggestions.

My first suggestion at who should have won the prize would be Ron Paul. He did, of course, make an even more complete promise than Barack Obama did when he said about the Iraq conflict “We just marched in, we can just march out.” His Campaign for Liberty endorses peaceful change to help rid us of intrusive government laws and their use of force that is the source of so much violence in this world. Using the same criteria as used by the Nobel Peace Prize committee, I personally would have more hope for a nuclear free world with Ron Paul as president than I do with Barack “Iran has a secret nuclear program” Obama. In fact, where they see hope, I fear for lack of sanity.

Some who read this may write me off as nothing but a sycophant for Dr. Paul. Perhaps they're right and I do carry too much admiration for him, but if the members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee can be sycophants for Mr. Obama, why shouldn't I do the same for Dr. Paul? My admiration for Dr. Paul may not be as profitable for him as the committee's admiration of Mr. Obama is to the president, but you can rest assured that it is likely quite a bit more sincere.

Aside from the words of peace Ron Paul has uttered, he has actually taken real action to effect a transition to a more peaceful world. He has gone right to the source of violence and is taking on those who enable war and create the incentives to kill and destroy. His audit the Fed initiative would delve into the dealings of the very people who finance these inhumane ventures. The very system of fiat money and the central banks with their monopolies on its creation makes it possible to finance military adventurism and pass on the costs to the progeny of the populace. How much more peaceful would this world be if we had to directly pay for our wars by the taxing and taking of our own treasure? It wouldn't surprise me to find that war would quickly become unaffordable in such a case, as well it should be. Of course the mere fact that Dr. Paul is taking on the establishment likely precludes him from receiving any award given out by the establishment which both Mr. Obama and the Nobel Prize Peace committee are part of.

There are so many others more deserving of the peace prize it would be impossible to name them all. I'd like to point out a few. Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury risks his life by publishing his newspaper The Weekly Blitz in Bangladesh, regularly shining a light on the violence and injustices taking place in central Asia and advocating for peaceful conflict resolution. Punita Lohani and others at the Women News Network have been struggling to expose the violence against women prevalent in Nepal and bring about peaceful co-existence and understanding in that part of the world. Buddhist monks in Thailand put their lives on the line to try to bring about a peaceful change and a freer society to that country. Certainly any of those named above would are far more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Mr. Obama who sits confidently upon his presidential throne and risks absolutely nothing of consequence as he talks a good game but delivers no goods, and I'm sure there are many, many others more deserving that I don't know about.

I was thinking about using this space to toot my own horn, to write about how my own writings advocating peace qualify me for such an award, but I've changed my mind. I'm just a lowly blogger who can do nothing more than express my opinions for others to read. As much as I'd like to be lighthearted about this subject, it's too serious to take it so lightly. There are far too many people around this world dying, being tortured, and being oppressed by governments, agents of the state, or groups with ties to those with governmental powers. These people are not laughing about such matters, nor are they interested in such foolishness as they suffer. My heart goes out to them.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize should be taken seriously. Such an award could be well used by agencies that would apply it in a much more positive and appropriate way than any sitting president ever could. It's a shame that others who can do little more than write about it have to put so much more thought into who should receive such an award than did those who were entrusted with the task.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Why I Won't Be Taking Any Flu Shot This Year (Even if it's Free)

I took the flu shot one year. It was offered at work and paid for by my employer. Most of us employees lined up happily, filled out the forms, answered the questions the nurses asked, rolled up our sleeves and took the shot. A few days later, I was sick as a dog. I'd never been so sick in my life. I was a young, healthy man and felt like I had aged fifty years and been run over by a truck all on the same day. I don't say that the shot gave me the flu, but I did find it odd that I'd never had much of a problem with the flu and when I take the shot I get it so bad that I'm bedridden for three days. I haven't taken a flu shot since and have not had a flu give me more than a low level fever, stuffy nose and some aches and pains in the years following.

So, I had a bad experience and now I don't trust the shots. I'm older, but I'm still quite healthy and really not worried about the flu. I do worry a bit, however, on some of the things I've been hearing and reading about these so called vaccines. The implications that these shots contain ingredients such as thermisol (mercury), squalene and other dangerous additives is a little disturbing. I was around in 1976 and still remember the hubbub and the questionable events surrounding the flu vaccines that were given out back then. Is it worth the risk if one of the side effects is the possibility of contracting Gillian-Barre? Why should I take a chance with these shots now? It seems that the lessons of the past have not been learned. It seems to me that perhaps in this case the cure is worse than the disease.

Another very disturbing development is the talk of mandatory vaccinations and in the case of Massachusetts laws being passed to forcefully vaccinate citizens that refuse to take the shots. If these shots are so great, why should you have to force people to take them? If there was a true pandemic sweeping across the world, wouldn't we be seeing deaths by the thousands of those who hadn't been vaccinated? Wouldn't these illnesses and deaths be occurring before the vaccinations and not after they've started? Wouldn't it, in fact, be more prudent to isolate one's self in the case of a pandemic and avoid contact with such an illness rather than exposing one's self to it?

Although it may not sound like it, I'm actually a great believer in immunization and have used the process to relieve the allergies I used to suffer. Yet there's something amiss with trying to immunize against the flu, more so this year than in the past. First off, the timing seems to be questionable. It seems to me that more and more often I hear about increasing deaths and flu cases after the shots are made available. This makes one wonder about cause and effect. Yet the medical establishment and the mainstream media insist on hyping the vaccines, insist that they are necessary and healthy. I find it harder and harder to believe these people the longer I pay attention to what they say versus the reality I perceive.

Fear mongering has become more of an epidemic than the disease. The establishment makes horrifying claims as to the possible number of deaths from the swine flu and compare the number to a flu that happened at the beginning of last century and should be extinct, and yet they somehow have a vaccine for it despite that flues are constantly mutating and vaccines should take months to make after the fact if they are to be effective. In fact, I've read reports where flu vaccines for last year's flu are given and doctors say it will not be effective against this year's mutated variety. So a flu will break out, the establishment drug dealers will hype it to scare the populace, people will flock to get an ineffective immunization and the makers of these vaccines will go to the bank. We as a population need to stop being driven by fear and start thinking through our actions.

It comes down to a matter of trust. Unfortunately, I believe, most Americans still trust people they should not. The establishment medical community, the AMA et al., the establishment politicians and the establishment media are all proven liars. I know there are many people who disagree with me on this point, I know there are many people who refuse to admit that they've been lied to, that they've been fooled, but these apologists will not convince me that this establishment is even a little bit well intentioned, at least not at the very top. I simply don't trust these establishment people anymore. If you want to keep trusting them, if you want to remain in denial and believe they only want what's best for you, far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise. I don't like being lied to. I don't like this establishment treating me like I'm stupid. There was a time I trusted them, but I can only be fooled for so long and I cannot trust them any longer. I can see with my own eyes, I can think with my own mind, I have a long memory and I don't appreciate those who wish to lead constantly lying and trying to pull the wool over our collective proverbial eyes for their own profit and secretive agenda. I don't need them telling me what to think, what to believe or what's good for me. I can figure it out for myself, thank you.

Despite all that, there is an even more powerful reason to refuse flu vaccinations. It is a reason that goes to the heart of so much of the corruption that is prevalent in so much of our society. There is no accountability. If I were to decide to get vaccinated and something were to go wrong, if I were to die, or come down with Gillian-Barre syndrome, or my body reacted in some other nasty way, I could hold no one else accountable even if they knew of the possibility or the probability of such a reaction. No one is held accountable if these vaccinations are failures, or if they cause disease. As in politics or government or any other public sector endeavor, all one has to do is claim good intentions and any bad consequences, whether intended or not, will be forgiven without those responsible being held accountable. Until this changes, I can't understand how anyone can trust the establishment.

Personally, I'd rather take my chances with nature than with man made promises, particularly when those promises involve potentially millions in profits for uncaring drug companies enjoying government monopoly privileges. I once again assert that my body is mine and I should be able to decide what to do with it, what to put in it and what not to put in it. If I don't want to take a shot, for whatever reason, I should not be forced to take one even if someone else feels it's for my own good. Neither should anyone else. If I take my chances with the flu and catch it, and die from it, then at least I know it was a natural occurrence and the will of a higher power and not because of some other human being's negligence or nefarious agenda.

I won't be taking a flu shot this year, not one for the regular flu, not one for the swine flu. I urge all my loved ones to refrain from taking any flu shots. I urge everyone reading this to refrain from taking any flu vaccinations, though I would not dream of forcing anyone from taking such a shot if that is their wish. I urge everyone to look into natural preventions and healthy habits that can not only help your immune system fight off the flu and other infections, but can also help your all around general health. I won't be taking any vaccinations until the establishment has once again earned my trust by being honest and proving beyond any doubt that their science is more beneficial than what nature provides to help us avoid and overcome such ailments. I have the feeling that will be a long time coming.