Sunday, September 26, 2010

Pledge to America or a Plague Upon Her?

"There's nothing in the streets, looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight..,
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss."
From "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who

Politics in the United States of America has degraded into nothing more than a circus. It has become a cancer on our society that will not stop growing until we cut it out by its roots. This is partially a result of the two party duopoly that has been established by the rich elite who continue to pay for it, and partially a result of decades of popular apathy, ignorance and indoctrination that has led to acceptance of that system. It has become obvious that, with a few, but a growing number of exceptions, the worst possible humans are the ones that have decided to run for political office. That is because, I believe, positions of power attract control freaks who wish to exercise force over people and all their dealings.

The Republicans have managed to reach a new level when it comes to insulting my intelligence. They have drug out an old political has-been named Newt Gingrich in an attempt to placate the politically astute and herd those embracing the changing views on politics back into the two party, big government Republican versus big government Democrat box. In order to do this, he and his fellow Republicrats have come up with a not so original "Pledge to America" where they offer a similitude of so called solutions to the problems they believe are creating anger in America. They are merely trying to tap that anger to levy more power for themselves and implement their own big government agenda as opposed to actually shrinking government, lessening the burden and allowing free markets to once again bring prosperity to our nation.

Does Mr. Gingrich think we've forgotten his "Contract With America?" Does he think we've forgotten what a dismal failure that was? Does he believe we'd forgot how they managed to break that contract? Does he believe we'd forget that while the Republicans were in charge they still managed to grow government? Has he forgotten that it was the Republican policies of undeclared war and empire building that led us to this moment? That is what they are pledging, more of the same like we had back then, not more liberty, or less government, or even more autonomy at the more accountable state and local levels. Well, apparently, he thinks we've forgotten and that they can just pull the wool over our eyes and do as they want once they get in power.

Just look at the pledge, it doesn't even say much. They will try to repeal parts of Obama's healthcare bill. Parts of it. A step in the right direction? Maybe. But the whole bill is unconstitutional. It all needs to go, including the parts the Republicans say they like. Let the free market decide what services insurance companies want to offer, not bureaucrats. The federal government has no business mandating any kind of health care perestroika, period. I don't care what loopholes they find or legalese they use to argue otherwise. Those kind of decisions were to be left to the states to handle, or to the individuals, at least according to the tenth amendment to the Constitution.

They pledge to implement sanctions against Iran. Huh? What happened to no nation building? What happened to no empire building? There's a reason George Washington believed we should have commerce with all nations but entangling alliances with none. Sanctions are an act of war. It has been estimated that the sanctions imposed against Iraq caused millions of deaths, mostly children. Wars are expensive. They have nearly bankrupted this country both morally and financially. Can we really afford another war?

They pledge no more TARP funds. Ok, fine. How about pledging to arrest those who perpetrated that fraud on the United States in the first place? How about pledging to prosecute those who threatened our congressmen with images of martial law, economic collapse and rioting in the streets? I'm certain they could find something in all their RICO and terrorism laws to charge them with. Hey, better yet, how about getting all that money back? How about allowing those big companies to fail as they should have, get back the taxpayer money that was used to prop them up, and allowing smaller, more agile, more financially savvy companies to succeed where the large, cumbersome, bureaucratic, inept companies couldn't?

Does Newt Gingrich and his political cronies really think they can fool us again? Sadly, many will likely fall into that trap as they continue to hope that principle will trump money and power. This simply won't happen unless and until the outcry is so great that the political elite quake at the thought of being caught in a compromising position. It won't happen until there is some teeth put into the laws governing how the federal government is run. It won't happen until there is a real danger of politicians who stray from the principles set down in the Bill of Rights being held accountable for their actions.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Barack Obama or his administration. I don't like what he's trying to turn our country into. But I didn't like George W. Bush either. I didn't like the direction he was taking America. I also didn't like being lied to back in the 90s when Newt Gingrich and his ilk introduced their "Contract With America." Perhaps if they had kept their word back then I might look differently upon them now, but that's not what happened. I can't trust them anymore. Perhaps Republican socialism is slightly better than Democrat socialism, but it is long past time for these types of comparisons to stop and for issues to be looked at separately instead of grouped together in party platforms. It is time to frame them in terms of freedom versus tyranny rather than in terms of big government Democrat versus big government Republican.

I can't tell you how angry it makes me that Newt Gingrich and the Republican establishment think I'm so stupid that I'll fall for their lies again. I can't tell you how angered I am that they have usurped a popular movement like the tea party, a movement that promised to bring freedom back to our nation and reinstate the power of the individual, a movement that wanted to once again make America a place where one's rights are respected and they are expected to take responsibility for their own lives and the decisions they make.

The tea party movement shouldn't be about Republican or Democrat, it should be about principle and honor. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have been a plague upon our nation. Both parties are, for the most part, without honor and without principle. Both parties have sold out the common folk for the thirty pieces of silver the corporate establishment has thrown at them.

I have an idea, Newt. How about you make a simple pledge. How about you pledge to stick to the Constitution? How about you pledge to limit government power to the powers enumerated in it? How about you repeal all unconstitutional laws, not just those passed by the Obama administration? How about repealing the Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, and other such unconstitutional, intrusive, freedom killing legislation brought on by the Bush administration?

How about pledging to audit the Federal Reserve? Oh, did you think your little ruse would make us forget about that little bit of legislation? Did you think that by focusing on the most recent bit of criminal activity and pledging to reverse those injustices we'd forget about that issue? Did you think we'd get angry enough to turn our heads away and just let them continue their unaccountable ways as they march us to economic ruin? How about we see if our gold is still where it's supposed to be? Let's not forget that those who control the supply of money control everything.

Of course, even if you made such a pledge, how could I trust you? How could anyone? You have deceived us before. You will continue to try to deceive. It's just in your nature. It's in the nature of almost every politician, almost everyone who seeks to exercise power over people. The problem is in the system. The system needs to be made more accountable. It needs to be made more voluntary. Until we can decide to stop paying for it, until we have the ability to withhold our taxes with impunity, it will remain unaccountable and inhabited by the worst, the most corruptible and the most power grubbing that humanity has to offer.

It seems to me that all that needs to be done is for government to get off the backs of the common folk. It seems that if it just lets the common folk be that we will all prosper. That is how our nation operated a hundred years ago when we were more prosperous than any of the socialist countries in the world. In fact, we were so prosperous that it held us together to this very day despite the anti free market sentiment of the power elite. We can no longer expect that prosperity to grow if we stay on the socialistic track we adopted in the thirties. Get the government off our backs and we will do well, as we have in the past.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Cut Taxes, Cut Spending, Shrink Government

So, I heard part of Barack Obama's speech yesterday. He held some sort of televised "town hall meeting" on CNBC which was entitled "Investing in America Forum." This on the heels of the declaration by The National Bureau of Economic Research that the "recession" ended in June of 2009. I definitely didn't get that memo. Well, one thing I can say for sure, these guys don't give up on the rhetoric. They don't lighten up on the propaganda. Barack loves to pretend that he cares and the elitists on top love to pretend that they can fool everyone just by saying everything's okay and the economy is hunky dory.

I don't know about the rest of you, but for me the recession is anything but over. In fact, it seems to me to be a depression. Anyone who believes otherwise must have a view of reality akin to tripping on acid. I hate to think of the distortions that are going on in the minds of those at The National Bureau of Economic Research who made such a declaration, but then again it might not be hard to declare an end to the recession when you're employed with a nice, cushy, well paying government job with all kinds of benefits paid for by the suffering, lowly tax payers and small businessmen. Let's see how they feel if their obviously worthless tax feeding positions in the propaganda ministry are downsized as they should be.

But Barack Obama calls this good news. He seems to believe it, that the recession is over and has been for some time. But he knows that some of us are still struggling. Boy, that's a relief. I mean, at least he knows, right? The economy simply isn't growing as fast as he'd like it to grow. Not to worry, soon everything is going to be better, unemployment will be a thing of the past, but right now we need to impose more taxes on the citizenry to pay for it all. We all just need to invest in America, and that means giving government more of your hard earned money.

One comment I heard Barack make was that his detractors call for cutting government spending, but they haven't gone into enough detail as to what government programs would be cut. Not enough detail, huh? This coming from a man who campaigned on "change" and "hope." Those concepts aren't nebulous at all. Those words provide us with detail galore. Why, I knew exactly all along what Barack Obama meant when he talked about those things. Unfortunately, too many people didn't.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw a few ideas out there at Barack. Let's start with the empire we're trying to maintain. We can start by closing down the military bases we have open all over the world. We can declare victory and end the conflicts in the middle east. We can bring our military home and park them in our own borders. We can come home from Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, France, England, etc., etc., etc. That would save us trillions.

We can shut down the Department of Education. No, really. When I was a kid, public schools were paid for by the states and by the communities they served. Back then, American public schools were rated amongst the best in the world. It was only after the federal government became involved with the educational system that the ratings began to fall. It was only after federal mandates took effect that the students more likely to excel had to sit back and let the more mediocre catch up. There's an old saying, if it isn't broke don't fix it. I think there's nothing wrong with going back to something proven to work if something is working and breaks when one attempts to fix it.

Then there's the IRS. How many billions is spent on that organization? Get rid of the income tax and you can get rid of the IRS. I'm sure all those accountants would be able to find work in the private sector if that organization was shut down. Companies are always looking for good CPAs. I'm sure the enforcers who threaten and arrest so many of my fellow citizens for refusing to pay, questioning the validity of the income tax, or simply making a mistake on a tax form can find jobs investigating, arresting, and protecting us all from criminals who actually harm and steal from others. This would greatly shrink the government and reduce the tax burden.

I'm not suggesting that these things be done all at once or across the board. It can be done gradually to reduce the shock. But government isn't moving in this direction at all. It's moving in the opposite direction. Mr. Obama strives to increase the burden of big government, not lessen it. He and his party refuses to listen to the cries of the common folk who wish the freedom to tackle these problems on their own. The big government Republicans aren't much better as they simply wish to grow government in a different manner. Too few politicians are discussing true free market reform and so those of us with such ideas are ignored even though these concepts have been proven in the past and were codified in America's founding documents.

Barack Obama claims no one has gone into detail as to what can be cut because Barack Obama has chosen not to listen. He either believes his administration's own propaganda despite the evidence against it or purposely continues to deceive for his own personal agenda. His policies and the policies of his predecessors need to be reversed if we are to live up to the promise of freedom our founding fathers tried to bestow upon us. That is what the ground swell of popular indignation needs to focus on, a return to the principles that made us a prosperous nation.

It is time to cast off the yoke of big government and once again declare independence. We can no longer afford to be fooled by the propaganda. We can no longer continue to believe the rhetoric while reality delivers a different message. It is time to stop accepting politics and to start addressing issues. It is time to once again have an America where the individual accepts personal responsibility and individual liberty is respected. This can be done by doing exactly the opposite of what's being done now and hopefully the politicians will get that message before it's too late.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Taxing the Poor; Creating Victims and Criminals

There's a big, public debate going on right now about whether or not to keep the "Bush era" tax cuts. The Democrats are claiming that anyone making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year should be taxed more to close the national deficit and the Republicans are claiming that these are the very people who need the money to create jobs and kick start our economy. By the way, they've been trying to kick start the economy for a couple of years now, even after they spent hundreds of billions or even trillions bailing out the mega banks and corporations.

As you may have guessed, I believe we should do more than just keep the "Bush era" tax cuts. I think tax cuts should be expanded. In fact, I think the income tax should be completely eliminated. It can be shown by looking through history that more government causes greater economic stress. It can be shown that fiat money systems inevitably collapse. That's because they are nothing but ponzi schemes. All the money flows to the top of the pyramid, the people who set it up. When it collapses, those at the bottom get hurt, those at the top still have all the money.

Before 1913, there was no income tax in the United States of America. It was, however, necessary to implement one in order for the Federal Reserve to be created. The Constitution of the United States of America had to be changed in order for this to happen. Back then, it appears, people still cared about what the Constitution had to say and about the protections it codified for the individuals residing in this nation. Some have made the case that the change made (the 16th amendment for those who don't know) was made illegally and was never properly ratified. Whether or not this is true I'm not entirely certain due to the obfuscation of the English language by the injection of Legalese into our lexicon, but in my opinion the confusion surrounding it should make the article null and void. There was certainly no meeting of the minds when this change was foisted upon the American people. It was fraudulent from its very inception.

So taxes were sold to the American people as a propaganda maneuver to sell them a system they wouldn't have bought into had they known the truth about it. They were told it was necessary to stabilize the economy. They were told it was necessary to keep the depressions of the past from recurring. They were told it was necessary to keep the specter of high unemployment from rearing its ugly head. They were told that only a small percentage of the richest Americans would be required to pay any income tax whatsoever. They were even told that the very people who wrote the Federal Reserve Act were against passing it, creating the illusion that an elite group the American public inherently distrusted would be adversely affected by the legislation. They were lied to. It is their progeny that now pays for their error.

The Federal Reserve has not done what it was set up to do. It did not stabilize the economy. In fact, in certain ways it made the economy less stable. Since its creation in 1913 the dollar has lost more than 95% of its value. Before that, from the mid 1700s to 1913, the dollar had actually increased in value. In other words, anyone who had saved a dollar prior to 1913, even if they had simply put the money away in a home safe, could buy more with that money after, say, 10 years, than they could when they first put it away. A retirement plan could have been as simple as a savings plan. After 1913, a dollar saved today was worth less tomorrow. Suddenly, retirement plans had to take inflation into account and it was necessary to find investments that grew or what seemed like a nice nest egg at the time might not be enough in the future. Investments also involve risks and can cost the investor a significant portion of the money they thought they'd have to retire on. Not to mention, many times that money is taxed once the investment matures, where the pre 1913 savings plan was tax free.

But I have digressed. The point is that neither income taxes nor the Federal Reserve which caused them to be created have done what they were originally supposed to do. Why do we continue to support failure? Is it any wonder our prosperity has been squandered when one considers the amount of failed institutions that have been propped up by our taxes? Why do we continue to pay?

Taxes are immoral. One can talk about laws, obedience, services that may or may not be rendered, contributing to society, etc. all one wants, but when push comes to shove taxes are theft. More accurately, they are the form of theft known as extortion. Face it, most all people would not pay their taxes if they had a choice. If there wasn't the threat of force, if there wasn't the specter of arrest and jail hanging over one's head, then most people wouldn't give their money to the government. There is, in my opinion, no difference between the government saying "Gee, I'd hate to see you have to go to jail for not paying your taxes" and some mafia thug saying "Gee, it's a nice business you have here. I'd hate to see something happen to it." The only difference might be that the mafia thug is a little bit more overt about his threat and does not try to pretend that he is something he is not.

If the services government offers are so necessary to society, why do we need such a threat to get people to pay for them? Wouldn't people who wanted such services be willing to pay for them? If they are doing such a good job, why do they have to force people to pay? Why won't they allow everyone to vote with their dollars? Perhaps it's because the services they offer aren't so necessary, or because they aren't doing a good job providing them, or because they have a monopoly on such services, they know they have a monopoly, and they don't want to relinquish that monopoly because they know their competitors would do a better job and they wouldn't be able to stay in the business of providing those services when their competitors would take their market share from them by providing better service at a lower cost.

Taxes also punish success. Who wants to make more when it just means the government will take more? Who wants to produce when more than half of what's produced is taken away by the faceless bureaucratic institutions that rule over our lives? The more successful you are, the more you have to pay, the more you have to carry the rest of society, the more you have to bear the burden of big government. It just makes no sense. It would be a much fairer system to not tax anyone and let everyone decide for themselves which goods and services they want to pay for, what they can and can't afford, and what charities deserve any extra money they may have.

There is no doubt that taxes help some people, but I don't believe taxation is the most efficient way of doing that, and I certainly don't think that government bureaucrats are the best people to determine where the money should go. One can and should question the wisdom of trying to redistribute wealth, of taxing the rich to help the poor. As the income tax was originally supposed to tax only the wealthiest one percent of Americans, it has morphed into a burden on all of us, even the poorest and least able to pay. My personal experience is evidence of this.

I have been without a job for some time now, and looking for work. While I have made a little money here and there, I have been mostly surviving off of unemployment insurance and what was left of my 401K plan when I was laid off. Little did I know that I would have to pay taxes on these money sources. When I filled out my 2009 tax returns like a good slave, I was surprised to see that I owed several hundred dollars to the feds and a couple of hundred to the state of Illinois.

Having no money to spare, I wrote to both the feds and the state, explained my situation and asked for a payment plan. The feds sent me a payment plan so I wouldn't take a big hit in a month and charged me a little bit of interest. The state of Illinois, on the other hand, demanded their money in one lump sum and fined me for not paying my taxes on time. There's your compassion. There's how much the state "cares" about the poor. They talk about taxing just the rich, but one way or another taxes are eventually paid for by even the poorest amongst us. The only real solution is to completely eliminate taxes and fund government services in a voluntary manner.

Taxes create victims by robbing the taxpayer. They will tax the rich until the rich are poor and not bat an eye. They create criminals by making it illegal to withhold payment when one feels that the services rendered are less than satisfactory. This monopolistic system is antithetical to the principles upon which this nation was built. Income taxes are exceptionally abhorrent since their enforcement intimates that government owns a portion of your labor. It's not enough to simply keep the "Bush era" tax cuts, the time has come expand income tax cuts and end the extortion.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Why Ron Paul Should Run for President in 2012

In an essay written in July of 2007 I posed the question "Can Ron Paul Cure America's Apathy?" A little more than three years later I have to say the answer is no, but I do believe he helped quite a bit. I think he helped open a lot of eyes and educate many. You see, before then I had nearly given up hope. I imagine that was true for many others who think like I do. I had thought that almost everyone in the world had fallen victim to the collectivist, statist disease that has infected our planet. I felt that too many people were counting on government to provide answers to all societal problems. It was as if everyone was worshipping government and praying to it to cure all of mankind's ills. Too few were looking inward and trying to exercise their own initiative to help become the answers.

Ron Paul's campaign excited me. Here was a presidential candidate discussing issues as they should be discussed. Here was a man getting on national television and distilling issues to their basics. Instead of arguing from a left versus right paradigm, he would argue from a freedom versus tyranny stance. Instead of pandering to an audience, telling lies and making promises that would be impossible to keep in order to garner as many votes as possible, he voiced his principles and explained how they worked in order to educate the electorate so they could make an informed decision. He was an honest man in a field where cheats and liars excel.

But there was a problem with this approach. The corporate media wasn't behind him. He was a threat to their masters' interests. They minimized his efforts by calling him things like "radical" and "unelectable" despite his popularity and the active nature of his supporters. Whenever possible they would ignore him. Most of all, they tried to make his ideas sound like unobtainable pipe dreams, like he didn't know what he was talking about and like they couldn't possibly work in the real world. But Dr. Ron Paul stuck to his guns and kept delivering the message of freedom, confining government to its constitutional limits and maintaining a non interventionist foreign policy. In the end, after they felt he was no longer a political threat to the establishment, the media actually sought him out and welcomed his appearances and his opinions, particularly about the economy.

Suddenly, after he was no longer running for president, Dr. Ron Paul seemed like a pretty smart guy. He is no longer a lovable kook spouting idealistic rhetoric, but someone whose opinions should be listened to and respected. He has written two best selling books, "The Revolution, a Manifesto" and "End the Fed" and has shown he has a better grasp on how an economy runs than most politicians. He has shown that he has a better grasp on morality than most other politicians. He has pointed us in a better direction than most other politicians in this country. He is now speaking out in more corporate media venues than ever before and helping to expose more people than ever to the message of liberty. These ideas are becoming more popular with each day.

It would be interesting to see how the corporate media would reconcile these facts. It would be interesting to see if the talking heads and political pundits would once again try to tell us Dr. Paul was unelectable and his libertarian ideas were unacceptable to the public if he once again ran for president. If that was the case, why have they been asking him to appear on their programs for so long now? With all the exposure he's been getting since his presidential run, if they decide to pull their old tricks and attempt to minimize his campaign, perhaps that would help more people understand the true nature of the corporate media and how they manipulate and falsely frame political discourse. Perhaps that would help show how corporate media is no longer acting as a public watchdog to keep politicians honest and principled, but works instead to politically weed out those individuals who exemplify such traits.

Ron Paul's honesty and principled stances puts him a cut above any other politician holding federal office, in my opinion. He did not get his millions by taking advantage of the power of his office. He does not get millions in campaign donations from corporate interests like most of his fellow congress critters, he got them from ordinary, grass roots folks. He doesn't play the polarizing two party game, but addresses issues head on. He gives honest answers to what problems the federal government should and shouldn't even address. He sticks up for the Constitution of the United States of America and sticks by it and his oath to uphold it. In short, he is the kind of person who should be leading this nation, not one of the bought and sold politicians who hold their corporate backers and globalist buddies above their own nation, their fellow citizens, the principles upon which our nation was built, and even above the laws they pledge to uphold.

Those are the reasons I believe Dr. Ron Paul should hold the highest office in the land, but I hold no illusions as to whether or not he ever will actually hold it. I don't believe for a second that the establishment will ever welcome him with open arms. In fact, if he ever did get elected, I think the establishment would fight it kicking and screaming all the way. Worse, I think that the establishment would do everything in its power not only to prevent that from happening, but to create what disasters it could and to be as uncooperative as possible should it happen. The corporate media would lie and deceive, as it does now. The electoral process would be as fixed and corrupt and hackable as they can get away with, as it is now. The established moneyed elite and their cronies would continue to buy what politicians they can and try to become as powerful and influential as possible, as they do now. The likelihood of a populist candidate like Ron Paul actually becoming president is slim at best.

But winning is not the real importance of a Ron Paul candidacy. Though it would be nice to see a principled individual acting as president of these United States, one man can not undo over a hundred years of creeping statism that has inflicted this nation. It is more important to educate the masses as to their place in a free society. It is more important to start discussions about freedom issues and get people thinking about the meaning of liberty. It is more important to shake the misconceptions from those who have been completely indoctrinated by the system. There are still far too many people who still believe in the left/right paradigm and that there is a difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

If nothing else, a Ron Paul presidential candidacy will keep people thinking. If nothing else it will enlighten more people and draw them into the freedom movement. If nothing else it will reinvigorate those who might become frustrated and want to give up. If nothing else it will help shed some light onto real issues and bring fresh ideas of how to solve problems to the forefront. Ron Paul needs to run for president so that he can continue to bring the message of liberty to the common folk who have not been exposed to it, a message that makes sense and resonates with the vast majority.

Dr. Ron Paul cannot solve America's apathy by himself. We all need to get involved. Other voices need to be raised not only in support of his candidacy, but in support of the principles he represents. The discussion needs to be changed from that of what big government can do for us to that of what we can do to help ourselves. The conversation needs to be changed from that of what should change about big government, to how we can start dismantling big government and return power to the common man. A Ron Paul candidacy would help stimulate such conversations and help spur the change we need to become. The sooner this discussion begins, in my opinion, the better.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Friday, September 3, 2010

Will You Hide a Muslim in Your Attic?

There's some scary stuff happening in this nation right now. It has to do with Muslims. No, I am not afraid of Muslims. No, I do not believe that they are out to destroy our way of life. No, I do not believe that they are inherently violent people who see Christians and Jews as demons that need to be wiped from the face of the Earth. No, I do not believe they are the new boogie man hiding around every corner with a belt of explosives waiting to duck into some nightclub to kill himself and as many other innocent people as he can in a blaze of glory. It is not the Muslims that scare me. It is the people who are trying to make me so paranoid of the Muslims that I will forsake my principles and turn against my fellow human beings because their ways are different than mine that scare me. It is those who believe that people should be treated differently simply because of their religion that scare me.

Didn't we already go through this? How often does this deja vu have to happen before we get it? It wasn't that long ago when a national socialist country decided it wanted to restrict and regulate people due to their religion. The German Nazis were quick to label Jews as evil. They were the reason for all of mankind's woes. They were the spawn of the devil. They were racially inferior and needed to be controlled. Oh, it started off in a seemingly harmless enough fashion, with registrations and the like so that the government could keep an eye on them and make sure they were on the up and up and doing all their business by the rules, but it quickly devolved into something much worse. It quickly became one of the darkest chapters in human history.

Now we Americans are labeling the Muslims as evil. Now I'm hearing talk of forcing Muslims to register with government officials in some sort of bureaucratic registry scheme meant to track them. I've even heard some control freak individuals suggest that the Muslims be put into camps separate from the rest of the population. That is what is scary to me, that these ideas could even be proffered in a supposedly enlightened society.

Ask yourself, how would you feel if a group you could be identified with was being demonized in such a fashion? If they began to register people and then to round them up to put them into camps, would you fight back or would you cower and go along to get along? If you were to fight back, do you think they'd use that as propaganda to justify them rounding up even more of your people? Even if you were simply exercising your right to self defense, people would likely see you as being the aggressor once the media got a hold of the story and distorted it as they often do. Would you like this kind of treatment?

There was a great religious figure from the past who once said something like "Treat people as you want to be treated," or some such thing. It seems to me that is a philosophy that has fallen from favor these days.

This has all come to a head recently because some Muslims want to build a mosque close to where the World Trade Center in New York city once stood. They have been accused of all sorts of evil things, from wanting to build it there as a symbol of victory, to getting their money from terrorist organizations, to wanting to use sharia law to subjugate us all. It seems that when rumors like this abound the general public gets their panties in a wad and jumps on the protest band wagon before they check out the story and get all the facts. Until I knew better, I had heard that the mosque was being built on the same property where the twin towers stood, not some two blocks away.

The fact is that this is someone's private property. If that someone doesn't mind a mosque being built there, then it should be allowed. If those who don't want it built there are so concerned, they should at least try to raise the money to buy the property so that they can build a church or whatever else they want there. Another mosque in a city as large and diverse as New York is not going to suddenly radicalize all the Muslims in New York and create a war zone. They are not going to suddenly become blood thirsty, rabid savages intent on killing all that moves no matter the cost. They will likely continue to live their lives as peacefully and productively as they can and leave you alone to go about yours. They will likely keep to themselves to practice their religion and leave you alone to practice yours, so long as you leave them alone. That is how human nature works for those of us who are not paranoid busy bodies.

So what if it is decided to use government force to prevent these people from building the mosque? What if the worse case scenario happens and Muslims are forced to register so that government "officials" can keep an eye on them? What if it is decided Muslims need to report to camps until the "war on terrorism" is concluded? What then? If you don't think such things can happen here, I suggest you reconsider. Worse things have happened in other so called "enlightened" societies. More barbaric and brutal episodes of human subjugation have gone on even in modern times. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that such an episode could happen here. After all, the government has not followed its own rules as outlined in the Constitution in well over a hundred years.

What if you found out these camps were cruel and brutal to the Muslim people? What if you found out many were dying at these camps? What if you had a Muslim family living next door to you that you knew was peaceful and had harmed no one? Would you hide them in your attic? Or your garage? Or wherever you could? Would you keep them safe from the government wolves? Would you risk your own life in order to help fellow human beings?

That was the story of Anne Frank who was hidden by neighbors from the Nazis in World War II. That was a story of the light of the human soul in dark times. It was an heroic tale that showed the depths of caring that humans are capable of. I would like to think that I would be such a brave soul, able to hide fellow human beings from those who would cause them harm in their time of need. I can't be sure I would, however, and I hope I never have to find out. I would certainly hate to find out what fate would await those who were caught helping the Muslims if such a scenario were to play out.

But such dark times need not descend upon our nation. We should never have to discover if we are so brave to be able to help our neighbors in such a way. We have established the concept of individual rights in this nation and have outlined behaviors government officials are legally obliged to adhere to. They are supposedly not allowed to violate those individual rights, including the rights to engage in peaceful religious activity and to freely associate with others of a like mind. There are also individual rights regarding private property and one's use of it. The government does not own you, nor does it own your property, even though they think and act like they do. Government officials can only get away with what the populous will let them get away with. It scares me that so many might be willing to let them get away with not only dictating what can be done with someone's private property, but perhaps going even further and violating the individual rights to life, liberty and property because of one's faith.

Don't be fooled into believing that all people of any religion or race are inherently violent, or stupid, or any other stereotype. People are people and for the most part wish to live their lives as best they can, and as peacefully as they can. They wish, for the most part, to be left alone, especially when it comes to government intrusion. The vast majority find violence and conflict abhorrent and will engage in it only when they feel threatened or cornered. Those who commit violence against their fellow humans should be caught and punished on an individual level. It is simply wrong to punish a group because a few in that group have committed atrocities. Group punishment is a practice that has historically been found to disgust our sensitivities because of its inherent unfairness. That is even more the case the more brutal the punishment becomes. It is my hope that humans as a race have evolved beyond such practices and that we will not let fear and paranoia bring us back to that dark place in our souls.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.