Monday, January 31, 2011

The Fear Created by Fractional Reserve

I don't have to tell you that things are bad. You know that things are bad. Unemployment is rampant. The cost of food and energy is skyrocketing. A police state is encroaching across the land. People across the globe are rioting. Wars are never ending. Hunger and starvation are realities for far too many people. Too many houses are in foreclosure. Too many families are living in tents or worse. Currencies worldwide are collapsing. Everything seems to be falling apart and there doesn't seem much anyone can do about it. It seems the best we can do is to keep on keeping on.

Why is this happening? That's a valid question. People have their own opinion on who to blame, but what's at the heart of the matter? I think it's fear. I think we have allowed these things to happen because of fallacious fears that have been forced upon us by those who wish to control the mass of humanity.

We have all been lied to. We have all been deceived. We are lied to by politicians who claim to be looking after our best interests. We are deceived by corporations who claim to be providing us with safe, state of the art products. We are lied to by the establishment scientific community who claim to be providing us with facts to help sustain our future. We are lied to by the medical establishment (especially mega pharmaceutical corporations) who claim to cherish the health of their patients above the desire to profit. We are deceived by the corporate media who claim to be open, honest and objective. We are deceived by the central banking cartel who claim to wish to provide us with economic stability and full employment. In short, we are lied to and deceived by any entity or organization who believe that by doing so they will be able to fleece money and gain power from the common folk.

We have allowed this to happen because of fear. We are afraid of terrorists lurking around every corner and planning on blowing up airplanes, trains, malls, government buildings, our homes, kidnapping our children or any number of nefarious things. We are afraid that our neighbors who own guns will suddenly become raving lunatics who will hunt down the nearest congress critter. We are afraid that Islamic fundamentalists will suddenly take over our governments and force us to obey sharia law. We are afraid of what will happen should currencies collapse. We are afraid of having to face life without a societal "safety net." We are afraid of everyone and everything we are told to be afraid of by those who pull our strings.

It seems to me that the vast majority of us are afraid of the truth. The truth will set us free, so maybe we're afraid of freedom. We are afraid of having to look after ourselves, of having to make our own way in the world, of having to live independent without mommy government there to hold our hands. We demand security without being willing to do the hard work of securing our own selves. We demand protection while forgetting how to protect or most precious principles. What good is surviving as a society when the principles we hold dear do not survive with us? We live in fear, cowering from shadowy enemies, sniveling before the masters, obeying their every command no matter how humiliating, hoping that they'll be done with us quickly and leave us alone to crawl back to our sheltered lives. But they won't leave us alone, they just get more intrusive. We bleat and grumble and moan about the circumstances but find it so difficult to just simply disobey, to simply refuse to go along with their plans, following the flock on the path to who knows where.

We know something's wrong. We can feel it in our guts. There's a creeping malaise out there, sending feelers into every aspect of society. This is the fear. This is the unease in the back of your mind as you go on with your everyday life. You may think to yourself, as I have, that nothing bad can happen to you. You've been a good person all your life. You've worked hard. You've played by the rules. Yet this feeling in the pit of your stomach grows. The uncertainty metastasizes. You find yourself worrying about what the future will bring. You may realize that maybe you're not so invulnerable after all.

This has happened, in my opinion, by design. The fractional reserve system that is in place in the modern world is one designed to funnel wealth to a very few privileged and extremely wealthy elite masters. They are stealing the wealth the common folk create. They offer no tangible production for the betterment of humankind. It seems obvious to me when they are already the super wealthy and yet they can take hundreds of billions or even trillions in so called bailouts that our progeny will be paying back for generations. Those at the top have designed the system. They control all aspects of it. They can manipulate it as they want. When they see that people have figured it out and are starting to advance and compete, they change the rules. They create the fear, threatening even our very congress with martial law, and then they feed off it like parasites.

It doesn't have to be that way. We can refuse to go along with their system. We can insist on auditing their system, discovering the fraud and slowly dismantling their monopoly to allow competition to bring in a more fair system where the common folk actually have a say in where their money goes. We need to stop being afraid to look at reality. We need to admit to ourselves that we've been played and stop being afraid of what they will do when we point out their crimes. We can stop living in the fear they create and start creating a positive future based on love, respect and faith in humanity.

We need to remember that we are the economy, you and I and the rest of the common folk. We are the ones who create real wealth, not those who print portraits of dead presidents, despots and tyrants on pretty paper. We can set up alternative systems like the precious metal systems that are springing up organically across the land as opposed to the fractional reserve system that is intrinsically fraudulent. Copper, silver, gold, palladium, platinum, etc. have intrinsic value. They cannot be created from thin air. It takes labor to mine and process metals, so they are a measure of the value of labor rather than a promise for payment and a measure of indebtedness. This is the type of system needed to keep the greedy from going overboard. This is the type of system that would keep those in check who would create the pyramid type scam we see today.

Things are bad and they are likely going to get worse. But that doesn't mean you should just duck your head and go along to get along. You can no longer afford to ignore the problem. You can no longer to remain apathetic. You need to get involved, to add your voice to the growing chorus demanding freedom. You need to add your voice to the growing masses who understand who the real puppet masters are and wish to see them no longer in charge. You need to stop being afraid to speak up and let those at the top know that you will no longer live as a slave to their system. They want you to live in fear, but they are likely quite afraid of you, for we outnumber them thousands to one. They know that if enough of us realize this fact and reclaim the power we have, that they will have to relent to our demands. One can only hope this can be done in a peaceful and constructive manner.

I don't know how much longer I can keep writing like I have been. I am weeks away from being homeless. I currently don't have the money to pay this month's rent. I have been out of work for over two years now. I have done my best to make a living writing, but it isn't working. The sales of my ebook haven't taken off as I hoped they would. I'm still waiting for publication of another book and it's looking like that may never happen. I've gotten a couple of very generous contributions and I've made some money, but it hasn't been enough to support myself. I haven't been able to find work even at McDonald's or Walmart. Still, I believe in a brighter tomorrow. Still, I have faith in mankind. Still, I realize that the vast majority of people are good and kind. If you have any leads for me, if you know anyone looking for help, please email me so I can look into it. Like so many others, I am willing and able to work, I just need to find someone who is willing and able to let me.

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, January 28, 2011

Video, Courtrooms, Cops and the Illinois Authoritarian Regime

Illinois is quickly becoming the most authoritarian regime in the United States, if it hasn't already. This is evidenced by the Chris Drew case where he was arrested, while in public, for video recording his arrest by police, who are supposed to be public servants and were doing their public job. The law allows for a penalty of fifteen years in prison for this offense. Really? Fifteen years? There are some rapists who don't get fifteen years. Isn't that a bit over the top? Isn't there something written down somewhere about cruel and unusual punishment? Isn't the spirit of that supposed to be something about letting the punishment fit the crime? And in this case, was a crime really committed? If you are a resident of the state of Illinois, as I am, you should really be disturbed by the developments in this case.

Ask yourself if you really want your tax dollars going to pay for keeping people in prison for fifteen years for recording police. Don't you think your money would be better spent elsewhere? The state just raised the income tax sixty six percent. The Illinois government has proven that they are fiscally irresponsible. They are ripping off the hard working people of Illinois to pay for their mistakes. They are chasing or keeping away businesses that would help with the massive unemployment. The prison population is exploding because they keep putting people in jail for victimless crimes. It might not be much, but it seems to me that something like this arrest shows just how they waste money cracking down on ridiculous crimes like this while real crime runs rampant.

The city of Chicago has already taken guns out of law abiding victims' hands so they can't fight back when they're attacked. The police in Chicago have had a bad reputation for decades in terms of brutality. People have accused the police in Chicago time and again of brutality and nothing is ever done about it. Many more are brutalized or have their rights violated and just remain silent due to fear of retaliation. No one is ever punished. No one is ever held accountable. What are the people of Illinois supposed to do? Are we supposed to just bend over and take it? Are we supposed to just lay down and die? It seems to me that's what those at the top of the Illinois politcs want.

Is that why the police are so frightened of being videoed when doing their job? What are they doing that they don't want seen? How is the common man supposed to expose wrong doing by the police if he can't record them doing their job? The courts have done nothing. They protect the police. Everyone seems to take the word of a police officer over the word of an honest, hard working individual in court in almost every case. The police have been trained to lie to entrap, so why would they be honest on the stand? Yet without video showing their wrong doing they get away with it nearly every time. More and more people are getting sick of this.

It has been a law in Illinois for a long time now that cameras or recording devices are not allowed in courtrooms. These are public facilities open to the general public that are supposed to be completely transparent. Is that because they're also afraid that corruption in the courts might be exposed? They will cite privacy issues, but this is supposed to be a public venue. If there is a legitimate concern on a specific case than that issue can be dealt with for that case. There is no need for a blanket law keeping recording devices out of the courtrooms. As is often said, if you're not doing anything wrong, there should be nothing to hide. No one's perfect and if there's ever a question about what happened it would be best to have more than eye witness accounts and only one transcript of events. By having laws restricting recording devices in courtrooms it makes it that much easier to get away with official corruption.

This law is not right. At the very least, its spirit is violated by charging Mr. Drew with such an offense. I can see this law used to prevent the police from entrapping innocents, but to use it against someone exposing real crimes or recording public servants in public is at the very least an abuse of the law. I think it's a crime that causes real harm to a real person, and in this case that real person is Mr. Drew. I think the District Attorney in this case has abused his power and should be held accountable for his actions. Photography is not a crime. Video taken in public is not a crime. Recording in public is not a crime.

Chicago has been notorious for its corruption for a long, long time now. It's a city that's famous for being run by gangsters. It's a city that made famous the saying vote early and often. It's a city where the dead rise on election day. It has great influence on the state government. It is no wonder there is so much corruption in Illinois. It is no wonder they would make laws to make it difficult to expose their abuses. It is not going to stop until the people shout "Enough!" and begin to live like free people should rather than letting the bureaucrats do as they please.

There has not been enough outrage expressed in this case. I'd like to see the people of Illinois protest this law. I'd like to see them take to the streets with video cameras and put them in the faces of the police. I'd like to see them let public servants know that we are keeping an eye on them. I'd like to see flyers put on telephone poles demanding an end to laws that allow the corruption to remain hidden. I doubt very much I'm going to see that as the sheeple of Illinois bow their heads and bleat quietly as they go along to get along.

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.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Time now to Step up the Rhetoric

I don't watch the state of the union address, ever. I hear the highlights. I get the Reader's Digest version. But I don't sit there and hang on every word like so many other people do. I know what most politicians are like. I don't worship or admire them. When they're talking, they're lying, when they're silent, they're stealing or plotting to steal. That's especially true, in my opinion, at the highest levels of the federal government. I don't trust them when they're fighting and I trust them even less when they're in agreement. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of being lied to.

I don't know why anyone would want to subject themselves to listening to Barack Obama, or just about any of the so called political leaders in Washington DC these days. All that spews from their mouths are lies and collectivist drivel meant to mollify those who are demanding government reduction and an end to the massive corruption. Sure, Mr. Obama talks a good game. He makes pretty speeches and says all the right things, but his actions speak so much louder than the words his speech writers put together, and he does have damn good speech writers. For all the good intentions he speaks of, his actions have netted less than nothing for the common folk of this nation.

What we have in congress and in the executive branch of the federal government are a bunch of millionaire lawyers working for a a bunch of billionaire corporatists whose strings are pulled by a group of elite trillionaire central banksters who believe they can and should own everything. They tell you how much they are going to do for you, but then they make certain that everything they do profits them. The money is all being funneled to the top while those at the grass roots level are being starved of cash and limited in their options. Do you really think these people give one whit about you?

Pretty words do not make up for up for ugly actions. A man who beats his spouse can tell her he loves her as he blackens her eyes and breaks her will. We all know who Mr. Obama really works for. Ok, maybe not all of us, but I would hope that most of us can tell. He works for the corporate interests, not the interests of the "little" people at the bottom of the food chain. It seems to me that he wants to make sure that hard working people who want to make an honest living are no longer afforded that opportunity and have to depend on big government to survive.

It is difficult, however, to escape the speech last night as so many people are talking about it. There was quite a bit of praise for the speech, but I don't know that it had any substance. It struck me as nothing more than a mesmerizing trick woven by an oratorical magician. It seems to me that it was constructed by someone who understands human psychology and was attempting to bring a warm and fuzzy feeling to a populace that has grown weary of uncertainty and economic turmoil. It was meant to shine a positive light in the darkness of a negative reality, but in my eyes the light is dim as its energy source has been drained. Perhaps that's because I have seen the light of truth.

There were a few things about the speech last night that bothered me. The first troublesome aspect happened before the speech even began. The corporate media decided to make a big deal of the seating arrangements. They focused on a decision to seat Republicans and Democrats next to each other rather than in separate sections as if that was a big deal. I suppose they wanted to show solidarity of the two parties to work together. That is only good if they work to reduce their own power, which I doubt they will. Please. If there's anything that would help it would be to have the two parties so opposed to each other so that no new laws are passed and government stagnates. I think many of us have known and I have said all along that we really only have one party with two faces, not two parties with different principles. If they actually split the congress into groups that mattered the vast majority of our congress critters would be sitting on the collectivist, globalist side of the aisle while maybe a couple dozen would be sitting on the individualist, constitutionalist side.

Another thing that bothered me a little was when Mr. Obama started talking about high speed rail. First off, he said he was going to give it to us. Really? Is he going to pay for it out of his own pocket? Using his very own money? Is he going to then let us ride it for free? I had no idea he was so wealthy. I realize that the Rothschilds or the Rockefellers or some other central banking family might be able to afford such a venture, but I didn't think the Obamas could. How very generous.

I doubt very much that's what he meant. He meant he was going to take your money, taxpayer money, and sink it into a rail system that a very few well connected people will profit from but won't have to risk their own money building. Those people will then take that money out of the system and will likely not have to pay taxes because, as we all know, the truly wealthy, like royalty, know how to game the system and bribe bureaucrats so that they don't have to pay taxes. I didn't even know there was such a demand for rail travel. I thought the already subsidized rail systems in this country were in financial trouble because no one wants to use them. Wouldn't the marketplace have already provided this service if there was enough of a demand for it to make a profit?

Oh, but apparently there will be a demand because people aren't flying anymore to escape the pat downs at the airports. Ha ha. That was a big joke to the privileged sitting in the audience who likely don't have to go through such invasive measures when they fly. But isn't that just like a government solution to a problem? Rather than cutting government, getting rid of the TSA and letting the private airlines take care of security issues, the government decides it needs to spend billions building high speed rail systems. Not to mention they will likely have to have the TSA provide security later at the rail stations because, well, those terrorists are everywhere, you know, and everyone would rather be secure than free.

The other theme that caught my attention was that we need to come together and agree. We need to tone down our rhetoric. We need to stop complaining and just let government do its job. That's because they're building a better future. It's a vision they can see, but many of us can't.

Those who don't agree need to just shut up and let those who know best lead the way. That's because angry political rhetoric can make crazy people pick up guns and shoot others. Just look at what happened in Tucson. It couldn't have been just some drugged out nut who didn't know what he was doing, it had to be someone who was angry because of the political rhetoric he was hearing. It is extremely troubling that the political class is even thinking about restricting first amendment rights because of this incident. We've seen such restrictions before in history and it never turns out well. In fact, this is one of the most horrifying possibilities to American sensibilities (even though presidents such as Lincoln and Wilson have engaged in such activities) and rulers of other countries have been demonized for arresting and jailing political dissidents.

I disagree completely with Obama's collectivist, globalist vision for America. I don't believe that growing government is a solution. I will go as far as to claim that as government has grown and freedom has shrunk over the past few decades, the quality of life has diminished in the United States of America. In my life I have seen a drastic reduction in the middle class and prosperity in this nation. As government has grown so has corporate influence. This has failed to grow or even maintain the prosperity the common man once enjoyed in this nation. This has led to the "too big to fail" meme, further empowerment of the government and corporations, and declining wealth creation worldwide.

It's time to step up the rhetoric, not tone it down. The types of collectivist solutions Mr. Obama and his ilk offer have been tried and have failed. His collectivist solutions are the same solutions that have been applied and have helped societies decline in the past. His collectivist solutions have helped cause the collapse of nations. It is not about Republican versus Democrats, it is about collectivism versus individualism. It is not about the left versus the right, it is about tyranny versus freedom.

We need to frame the issues in those terms and stop letting the corporate media use the conservative/liberal paradigm to divide and confuse. We need to point out their fallacies loudly and peacefully. We need to continue to exercise our freedom to speak our minds no matter the obstacles they throw up. Most of all, we need to do so peacefully and let them initiate any aggression. We might have to take a few lumps, but we are already winning hearts and minds. When they start swinging and show their true tyrannical colors and intent, I believe the revulsion of the common man will be powerful and public opposition to such tactics will be strong. I hope it never comes to that, but while Mr. Obama continues to charm and deceive with his words while turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to public opinion with his actions, peaceful evolution remains elusive.

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.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Interpreting the Constitution and Maintaining Common Liberty

A discussion came up recently where it was pointed out that I was just a mere blogger whose opinion didn't matter when it comes to the Constitution of the United States of America. This has actually come up quite often over the course of the last few years as I often use that document when I'm trying to make a point in one of my articles. In this particular case someone took offense at my use of the term unconstitutional law. He wanted to know who I was to be interpreting whether a law was unconstitutional or not, and said that I likely had never even read the document I so admired as most people using such terms had not. After all, I'm just a lowly blogger with no real influence in the real world. The conversation then degenerated into a discussion of whose job it was to interpret the Constitution with the Supreme Court being the most prominent organization over other branches of government.

First off, let me say that I did graduate from the University of Illinois with a BA in Rhetoric, so I do have a little more understanding of the English language than some, not that that matters. I've also read the Constitution several times, not that that matters. I've had an interest in law and if things had gone differently in my younger days I might have attended law school, which I was accepted to, but things did not work out that way. But again, that really doesn't matter. Laws are meant to be understood by all and anyone who speaks the language should be able to understand the law. In fact, it occurs to me that perhaps the laws have become so convoluted in an attempt to frustrate the common folk and create a privileged class who have certain advantages over hard working people because they possess knowledge that others don't. This is, in my humble opinion, exactly the kind of situation some of the founders of this nation were trying to prevent when they wrote the founding documents. They wanted all men from all socio-economic strata to have equal opportunity to better their lives.

Who am I to interpret the Constitution? I'm a sovereign individual. What does that mean? That means I believe I should be making decisions on how to live my life, not government. That means I own myself, the state does not own me nor the product of my labor. It means I owe fealty to no one except myself and my family. It can be a hard concept to wrap one's mind around after being indoctrinated in state schools, but I believe this nation was created to give us all a chance to become sovereign individuals.

There are two things to consider, in my opinion, when interpreting law. The first is the letter of the law and the second is the spirit of the law. It is the latter that is more important, if you ask me. The letter of the law can be misinterpreted, warped and unjustly applied. The spirit of the law, when considered, is usually a purer form of how the law was meant to be applied. I would say the vast majority of people want justice and would not purposefully create laws meant to harm others. When harm is done because of law, that law is unjust and its spirit needs to be reconsidered.

Why shouldn't I interpret the Constitution? Why shouldn't you? Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. Indeed, there are many cases in our nation's illustrious history where the Supreme Court got it wrong. I think there are many who would agree with me. Cases before the civil war involving slaves and black people are good examples. The court certainly didn't seem capable of peacefully arbitrating that situation. We are all only human, after all, including Supreme Court justices.

More atrocious still is the multitude of laws that never make it to the Supreme Court. Lysander Spooner never got a chance to fully litigate his grievances with the government regarding his postal company because of lack of funds. As a result, we as a nation lost what may have been a vital resource when it comes to competition in the field of postal delivery. Something like the seatbelt law will never be challenged at the Supreme Court level because it is cost prohibitive. I personally think that seatbelt laws take away one's right to determine for one's self what level of risk taking one wishes to engage in. Such a case will never be taken to such a level because who wants to spend tens of thousands of dollars or more challenging a law when a fifty to a hundred dollar extortion fee paid to the state will get one off the hook?

This is why the common man should be interpreting the Constitution. How is one to find justice in a system controlled by the rich and powerful if one counts on those very same rich and powerful to interpret the very documents that control the justice system? There is a remedy for this conundrum. It's called jury nullification. It is the duty, in my opinion, of every person who serves on a jury to judge the validity and fairness of a law as well as whether or not the person on trial broke the law, contrary to what many judges (who are usually pretty well to do in their community) will instruct them. It is the juror's job to interpret the Constitution and determine if the individual rights of the person on trial were violated. It is therefore your job and my job, as we are all potential jurors.

If one challenges the power the common man has, one only has to remember that it was this power, the power of the jury box as opposed to the ballot box or the bullet box, that was largely responsible for bringing an end to alcohol prohibition. Juries across the nation were finding their friends and neighbors innocent of violating liquor bans despite being caught red handed consuming alcohol. They used this power to repeal a constitutional amendment! The Constitution itself had prohibited alcohol with the passage of the 18th amendment, yet the common folk managed to declare such a prohibition unconstitutional and get the amendment repealed without the help of the Supreme Court. Such power could be used now to help end other prohibitions if only more people were better educated about such matters and more freedom oriented people were willing to become active in applying such remedies to our modern day society.

The Constitution, in my opinion, was not meant as a document to control the actions of ordinary people living in the landmass known as the United States of America, it was drawn up as a document meant to control politicians who would try to become tyrants over the inhabitants of the same United States. If it has failed, it is only because the masses have become lazy or apathetic in their dealings with the federal government. They have allowed themselves to become slavish. They have allowed those in power to push them around. They have unquestioningly allowed others to rule over them. They have allowed those "in authority" to interpret the Constitution and accepted such interpretations rather than standing up and shouting "No! I disagree." This has gone on for so long that it may seem the muscles of disobedience have atrophied, but if a few of us just start exercising those muscles once again, we may find that they are, indeed, still usable. This may help on the road to peacefully taking back the freedoms that we have so carelessly allowed government to abuse.

The spirit of the Constitution is one of freedom and liberty. When laws violate that spirit they are, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional. When laws are written that have no victim they are, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional. When laws are written that steal hard earned money from honest, hard working people they are, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional. When laws are written that intrude upon the private lives of common folk without warrant they are, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional. When laws are written that censor opinion, political or any other kind, they are, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional. When laws are written that attempt to restrict thought, such as thought crime laws, they are, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional. I am speaking out and saying so and you are free to agree or disagree.

In short, we should all interpret the Constitution. We should not allow those in power to do the interpreting for us. We should not depend on them to safeguard and protect the liberty of the common folk, for they have already shown they are not willing to do so. They will sacrifice your liberty for their power. They will sacrifice principle for greed. It is up to you to maintain your own individual rights and freedoms, and you do so by protecting the rights of freedoms of others whenever and wherever you can. The powers that be seem frightened of this concept. They don't seem to want to be your servants, but they do want to be your masters. I will continue to call laws unconstitutional as I see fit. I question anyone who accepts another's interpretation of such laws as constitutional simply on the grounds that he was appointed by another fallible human being to sit on the Supreme Court. Until and unless we declare our own thoughts and feelings, we will be at the mercy of the power elite who interpret that which we will not.

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.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

The Violence of the Wings

I don't like to argue using the left/right paradigm. That is something, in my opinion, that the elite have created to divide us and divert our attention away from real issues. Recent events, however, warrant mention of the nature of these two divisive sides. There is at least a perception that the violence is escalating. There is talk that one side or the other is the cause. Whether you call it left/right, conservative/liberal, or Democrat/Republican really doesn't matter. The source of the violence is the collectivist mindset of both sides. The authoritarian statist is far more violent than the individualist. Even the political leanings of lone nutcases is evidence of that.

I have noticed that when an event occurs where an individual has decided to violently act against the system, that individual has a tendency to lean to the left side of the political spectrum. From Lee Harvey Oswald to Jared Loughner, assassins, would be assassins and violent protestors have had communist and decidedly socialist leanings. Some are angry because they don't think they're getting what they deserve and others seem to believe that they are doing something to help the "little guy." Often these people are suicidal, either that or they haven't completely thought their actions through. What would cause someone to pick up arms and engage in violent activity that is certain to lead to their death or arrest? How is it they justify their violence?

Perhaps they can justify their violence because the institution they so admire, big government, is based on violence. They see the government getting what they want by trampling the rights of the individual, by threatening them with imprisonment or worse if they don't bow down and pay their taxes, by keeping them from traveling if they don't submit to humiliating naked body scans or sexually intrusive pat downs, by making them pay for permits or licenses to do business, by making free humans ask permission to engage in any number of everyday human activities, etc. Perhaps they see such behaviors working for government and so they figure what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Of course they are bound to fail because they are usually a single individual while government is an institutionalized multi faceted hierarchy with many branches to entangle the masses and propaganda arms to justify its existence and demonize those who would oppose it.

Isn't it interesting that those leaning to the left have this tendency to call for victim disarming gun control laws? They want to take guns from law abiding people who are responsible and would use them exclusively for defending themselves because a few nut jobs have decided to go on the offensive. It is understandable that we as human beings feel for the victims, can imagine how frightening such an experience would be and want to prevent such tragedy from happening again. But trampling individual rights is not the answer to such events. Tragedies are going to happen. Government crack downs and new laws will likely only lead to different kinds of tragedy occurring.

It seems to me that people have a tendency to transpose their own behavior onto others. A liar will believe most people to be liars. A thief will believe most people to be thieves. A violent person will believe most people to be violent. If this is so, it would certainly explain why those leaning to the left want to get rid of guns. Perhaps they don't trust themselves with guns and so they think no one else should have them either. But it is a natural right we all have to be able to defend ourselves, to be able to stand up to bullies who would do us harm. Guns are but a tool that can be used for this purpose. It is not the fault of the many that a few misuse them in an aggressive manner for evil. This is all the more reason that the many should exercise their right, to make it that much more dangerous for the few that wish to be aggressive.

It isn't just the left that engages in violence. The right wing of the political spectrum also has its expressions of violence. Perhaps one doesn't see so many lone nut cases on this side of the spectrum picking up arms against the state, but that's because these people have a tendency to group together and work for the state, at least it seems that way to me. These are the people who will advocate for aggressive wars to "keep us secure." These are the people who will want to fight "them" "over there" so that "they" don't come "over here." They want to keep the violence hidden. They claim to be defending by going on the offense. They claim to venerate democracy (not representative republics) while killing many innocents under a military occupation.

These are also those who advocate a greater police state. They seem to want to give all power to law enforcement. They don't mind violating the individual's right to privacy, yet they will defend the state when it practices secrecy under the guise of "national security." They want to spy on everyone, everywhere, everyday, yet they will get upset when the camera is turned on the police. They want the ordinary citizen to remain docile and compliant to police requests, but they turn a blind eye when the police decide to get a little rough on the citizenry. They are, in effect, using the color of law to bully the public, violate supposedly protected rights, and intrude upon your private life while engaging in official misconduct themselves.

These people are the extremists. The policy of restricting the right to protect one's self is extreme. The policy of spying on and intruding upon the private lives of common folk is extreme. Occupying nations because a few of their citizens decided to commit crimes is extreme. The extremists have taken over. It seems that both wings are flapping violently and taking the main body with them on an unpleasant trip to God knows where. Both wings are heading in the same direction, toward collectivism and big government. One can only hope that the head in the middle can regain control and restore sanity. One can only hope that the vast majority who wish to just live out their lives peacefully as they see fit can exert enough pressure on the wings to get them folded back in and nestled up against the rest of humanity.

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, January 21, 2011

Of Gods and Demons and Mankind

There has always been those among us who believe it is their divine right to rule over other human beings. Back when the Roman Empire ruled over western civilization, the emperors used to believe they were gods. They would present themselves before the "lower classes" and demand to be worshipped. They could demand any human luxury or creature comfort their times had to offer and it would be granted to them. There are stories of a certain emperor even taking other men's wives, men of stature and power, and using those wives as he saw fit. Men of power, military men, were so frightened of the emperor that they dared not defend their own wives when he targeted them. But these emperors weren't really gods, were they? They were simply human beings who had been born into a position of status. They simply let the ability to command others that was a privilege of their birth go to their heads. They let power corrupt their humanity.

I don't know why it is that the power to command other humans has been equated with godhood, but it certainly seems to be the case. In my experience, the power to command shouldn't be equated with being a god, it shouldn't even be equated with being a better human. Usually, as far as I've seen, the power to command has done nothing but make someone a jerk. When someone starts telling others what to do, that person has a tendency to lose the ability to empathize and sometimes to reason. They have a tendency to concentrate on filling their own needs, not worrying so much about the needs of those doing the work. It doesn't always happen, but it happens enough to take note.

Think about what it means to be god for a moment. I've often heard the word love ascribed to god. I've heard him described as a loving and forgiving being. I've also heard of him described as a jealous god, but I'm going to forgive that characteristic for now and hope that he has grown out of that phase of his emotional development. I would also imagine god to be open and honest. These men who think they have godlike qualities when they ascend to power, these emperors, or kings, or whatever authoritarian moniker they attach to themselves, they are sorely mistaken. They have no godlike qualities. Men obey their commands not through love or respect, but out of fear. Usually the fear is based wholly upon the cruelty of man and the fact that these power elite have armed men who will do their bidding. The same is as true of the authoritarians in power today as it was at the birth of civilization.

When one starts to look at the bigger picture, when one starts to look at the wars, the death, the destruction, the injustice, one starts to wonder if maybe these people are even human. Perhaps they're less than human. Historians may glorify such leaders and claim that they spread civilization across the world with their authoritarian systems. They may claim that they have helped bring to pass our modern technologies and governments. They may claim that without such authoritarians we would still be living in chaos as tribal creatures in the wild. What we don't know is what we can't see. We can't see the civilizations that have been lost. We can't see what could have happened if other cultures had been allowed to develop free from the devastation wrought by the wars and influence of empire. We have no idea how advanced we'd be today if the power elite had simply left the peasantry alone to flourish rather than creating wars and strife in an effort to glorify themselves.

Isn't it interesting to consider the philosophers? They were almost always inevitably anti authoritarians. Their appeals to humanity were almost always scoffed at by those in power, often to the point of imprisonment or worse. It seems to remain so. People in general and philosophers in particular often venerate such characteristics as compassion, empathy, forgiveness, love, respect, caring for others, etc. as the best features of humanity. In literature and the arts protagonists who learn or become adept at experiencing these emotions and feelings are often portrayed as being better for it. They have achieved much on the road to reaching their full human potential. Yet the authoritarians at the top of the heap seem to be devoid of these qualities. The power elite seem to like to think they are above humanity, but time and again they seem unable to exhibit the best humanity has to offer in their behavior.

When you think about the behavior one would expect of demons, however, the picture begins to change. Demons are associated with evil, hatred, death, disease, and all manner of vitriol that has plagued mankind through the ages. They care not for humanity and take pleasure in causing pain and suffering. They are often portrayed as devious and deceptive in order to get their way in their dealings. This seems much closer to the qualities exhibited by the ruling elite in this world, both past and present. These qualities are, in essence, the very qualities needed to propel one to the top in the halls of power and political influence.

Mankind is not ruled by gods, we are ruled by demons. The structure of power is such that those with demonic qualities rise to the top while those endowed with godlike attributes are pushed to the bottom and brushed aside. Those in power are oft times not hesitant to use violence against others in order to get there. They are not hesitant to use violence against the innocent if necessary. They have no principles. They will do whatever it takes to achieve power, no matter how cold, no matter how cruel. The only thing that matters to them is their own glorification.

Why do we allow such things to happen? Why is it that ninety nine percent of us or more allow such a small percentage to rule over us? We don't have to obey just because they have money. We don't have to go along with their vision just because they were born into privilege. What about the vision you have for your own life? Likely their vision will put up barriers you'll have to overcome in order to realize your vision. A system that allows the demons of humanity to advance over those with more venerated qualities is more than broken, more than corrupted. Certainly humanity can come up with a better way.

At one time I would have said that the United States of America had created a better system. I would have pointed out that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have enshrined certain principles above all others that those in power should not be able to easily violate. But those documents were shredded long ago and are completely ignored by too many of our current congress critters and public masters. From the first moments the governing bodies of this nation convened they started working at changing the Constitution to garner more power for themselves. All monopoly governmental systems, even the best intentioned, seem to fall to corruption as the demons battle to rise to power. Ours has been no different.

With the new congress, there is hope. Already they have managed to vote to repeal the health care bill that so many protested against. This is a good start, but has so far been nothing but a symbolic gesture. It heartens me that the house is threatening to remove funding from the program and that states are threatening to nullify the law. This is a good indication that the people are trying to take power back and realize that we should have choice in the markets, not restrictive government monopolies stifling competition. But this is not enough. There is still too much power controlled by those exhibiting demonic qualities in the form of laws such as The Food Safety Modernization Act, The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act. These laws also need to be repealed. The Patriot Act is up for renewal soon. The new congress can take another step in the right direction by simply letting it sunset thus reducing the tyranny we find ourselves living under.

We need to stop expecting gods to come to our aid. We need to stop letting demons use fear to command and control us. We need to stand tall and declare our humanity. It is, after all, humanity that has the most at stake in this world. We need to let those in power know that we are not going to willingly go along with their dictates and that we wish to be left alone to take care of our own lives. It is my hope that we are taking a turn in the right direction, albeit an agonizingly slow one, and that one day we shall live in a voluntary society where aggression of all forms, even government force, is frowned upon. I hope to live in a society where exhibiting behavior venerated by humanity is rewarded in the power structure and exhibiting those behaviors condemned by humanity is excluded from power. This can only be achieved with the eternal vigilance of principled people watching over those who would be gods.

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.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Government Restrictions Versus Free Market Regulation

I like to write these articles as an attempt to get people to think. Certainly having a platform to voice one's opinion is nice, but for the most part I built the platform I shout from. I am not always right, if being right or wrong are even appropriate terms when it comes to opinion, but I do enjoy it when one of my articles strikes up a buzz or an interesting conversation. Such is what happened recently when I wrote an article expressing my view on the inappropriateness of congress passing resolutions that are largely symbolic in nature rather than working on cutting the size of the federal government which I believe is way too large.

The conversation seemed to settle around one sentence in the article rather than the general concept I was trying to convey. I find that happens quite often, a critic will pick one sentence in the body of an article which expresses a concept he disagrees with and will try to pick apart the entire article because of it. With this article, the discussion evolved into a debate about government over regulation and interpreting the Constitution. It was quite an interesting discussion with good points being made on both sides. As I read it, however, I decided that perhaps I should write something clarifying my view on why I believe there is too much government regulation.

To simplify things, the two sides taken were that government should regulate more versus government should regulate less. I don't believe that there'd be much of an argument if I was to say that many people, if not most, realize that regulations have failed in one way or another. It seems to me that what many people seem to believe is that without government restrictions markets would be unregulated. They seem to believe that if government wasn't there to control business we would all be subjected to buying inferior products at over inflated prices while evil and greedy businessmen laughed at us from their mansions high on the hillside. They seem to believe that food would be poisoned, medicine would be prohibitively expensive, energy would be unavailable, there'd be mayhem in the streets and we'd all be slaves to a few elite robber barons. I think the opposite is true. Government has been there my entire life and they've failed miserably not because they haven't done their job, but because they've restricted businesses too much and stifled competition. I've seen it in my lifetime as I watch the economy crumble to dust.

Ask yourself one simple question, and it is especially pertinent if you are a businessman or trying to start your own business. Ask yourself, "Should government regulate my business?" I'm guessing there's a good chance you're going to say no. Oh, there's a few who might say yes, perhaps someone from a huge corporation or some other established or establishment enterprise that wants to limit their competition, but for the most part I would guess that most small businessmen would say no. However, many of those same people would say it's ok for the government to regulate other people's businesses. It's ok for them to pass laws restricting the operations of the banks, or insurance companies, or energy companies, or utility companies, or restaurants, etc, etc, etc, but don't regulate my candle shop, or coffee store, or newspaper, or blog, or lemonade stand, etc. You see, the good businessman understands that in order to make a profit, in order to make a living, he needs to provide a product or service that people demand. He knows that in order to continue to survive he needs to do a satisfactory job. He knows that in order to grow and thrive he needs to do a better job, he needs to provide quality products and services at fair prices so that people will recommend him to others.

Only monopolies or those involved in limited and restricted markets can afford to provide poor products or services at high prices. If they try that in a market where true competition exists, they will drive business to their competitor. If they don't listen to the complaints and concerns of their customers, they will drive business to their competitors. Of course, the biggest monopoly is government. Perhaps that explains why so many seem to have a problem with government. Perhaps that explains why government is so non responsive. They don't have to be responsive. Not only don't they care about their customers, they don't care if their customers stop using their services, they're going to get their money from them anyway.

It is government protection that causes monopolies to exist. The evidence is all around us. One has to but look at the bailouts and one starts to realize the role government plays in the creation of monopolies. The "too big to fail" that the government bailed out are profiting and growing while their competition has become either "too small to succeed" or are being bought out. Consumer choice is dwindling. The government has been working on creating laws restricting businesses in this country for centuries now, and they have managed to create legislation that only large corporations can afford to obey and so the small entrepreneur starting off can't even begin to compete with the behemoths that dominate the marketplace. Government and corporations have, in essence, teamed up to keep the little guy from participating in the system.

The biggest difference between free market regulation and government restriction is the use of force. Government is force. It has shown this many times. It is the only tool they use for compliance. The only way they know how to do business is by threats and coercion. They make the laws and then steal your money if you fail to obey. If you feel they were wrong and you were doing business on the up and up, the court system they set up as a supposed remedy is often prohibitively expensive. Many times you can pay the fine, or you can pay more to take it to court. If you decide not to pay the fees and fines they charge, they have men with guns who will put you in a place you don't want to be. They will shut down your business and take everything you own regardless of fairness or circumstances, even if it puts people out of work. Is it any wonder people mumble their complaints about government but then reluctantly give into their demands?

A true free market, however, works on the principle of voluntary association. I don't mean what has become known as a free market today, for we haven't seen a truly free market in a long time. What we have today in supposedly free societies are markets dominated by the politically connected. It is crony capitalism, or corporatism. I'm talking about a market where if I have the money to create a product or service I can enter the marketplace and start selling. I wouldn't have to get a license or ask permission from some government bureaucrat, or otherwise pay my tributes or bribes or protection money to our overlords. I would open my doors and you can decide for yourself whether or not you want to do business with me. If you like my product, you would continue to do business with me and perhaps recommend my business to people you know. If you don't like my product you would decide to go elsewhere and tell the people you know not to do business with me. This would be a completely voluntary system between a customer and a business with no third parties involved.

I'm fairly sure that some people will argue for the need to use force to bring certain businesses to heel. I would guess that some would argue that a greater force was needed to see to it that certain businesses wouldn't become too powerful or monopolistic. Again, I believe that modern corporatism shows us that it is government that causes these things. They think the common folk are too stupid to decide where to spend their money, or how to vote with their dollar. I disagree and think that consumers can make important decisions in the open marketplace when a business starts enacting unpopular policies or causes harm in some shape or form, especially with modern communications the way they are. I also think that free market pressures is more likely to actually succeed where government fails.

Such a marketplace would necessitate that the consumer become more knowledgeable and make better decisions as to which company to spend his money on. It would put more responsibility on the consumer in order to regulate the markets. When consumers become lazy and refuse to educate themselves as to who they're doing business with, then they will start to lose money, pay more than they should, and even get ripped off or defrauded. That is, in essence, what is happening today even with government regulation, and I feel it is why there is such a push to prevent people from learning Austrian economics. The corporate world and their government cronies want people to remain uneducated so they can continue to fleece the masses.

I'm not sure what remedies would crop up in a truly free market to hold businesses accountable when consumers are wronged, but I can say that in the corporate dominated world of today they are not held to account on many occasions. Again, as evidence, one can point to the bank bailouts. One can point to the auto industry bailouts. One can point to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. All these recent events are examples of how the federal government has failed miserably to carry out their mandate or hold corporate interests accountable. Why would we want to keep giving this institution chances? I think we as free humans need to take matters into our own hands and quit depending on bureaucracies which fail again and again. We can do a better job. We don't need the federal government regulating every aspect of our lives.

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.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Congress Would Rather Condemn Shooting Than Do Their Job

The congress today decided to postpone work on reforming the health care bill in order to bring to the floor and vote on a resolution condemning the shooting that took place in Arizona over the weekend. I have to ask, is this really necessary? People all over the world abhor violence. Human beings realize that harming others is wrong and protest such occurrences everyday. What makes this event so different that the members of the House of Representatives decide to take time off the supposedly important work they are doing in order to pass a meaningless and merely symbolic gesture? Is it because one of their own was attacked? Well, at the risk of sounding insensitive, I say get over it and get to work doing what you're paid to do. If you wish to mourn and express your condolences etc. on a personal basis, then do so on your own time. Use the time you're paid to work to do the business of the people.

Of course you condemn the events that took place in Arizona over the weekend. We all do, except perhaps those among us who are sick and applaud violence or secretly hope for it because it can be used to further their political agendas. The vast majority of us are quite saddened. Violence is contemptible. But there is absolutely no need to pass a resolution condemning it. That is not your job. It is not what you are paid to do. Have you learned nothing from the past two election cycles?

People are tired of congress wasting their time. They are tired of them violating the Constitution and passing laws that over regulate both our business and our private lives. Haven't you got that through your heads yet? Of course we condemn murder. There are already laws against it with the severest of penalties attached. The perpetrator has been caught. He has been charged. He will be tried. He will likely be found guilty. All the necessary steps have been taken to help ensure that he will do no more harm. The authorities in Arizona have done what needs to be done. You as a political body should have nothing more to do with this whole mess.

There is important work that needs to be done. Our nation is bankrupt. We are in so much debt we can hardly count on ever paying it all back. You need to figure out how to get out of the mess your predecessors got you into. The health care bill needs to be repealed not merely reformed, as does all past unconstitutional legislation. The Fed needs to be audited so that we know how much of our money was spent and where it went. It then needs to be abolished so we can once again enjoy honest money. Investigations need to be done to help end corruption and arrest those who engaged in it. The federal government needs to be cut in all areas. You need to have debates on the best ways to go about doing this and then get it done. All kinds of work needs to be done, so get going.

Every day billions are wasted as the federal boondoggle continues. So much could be saved if we start to extricate our troops from the middle east. Much more could be saved if we start to shut down the operations of empire and bring all our troops back to our shores where they belong. Unnecessary and unconstitutional federal agencies need to be shut down. Those operations should begin as soon as possible. The federal attack dogs from the IRS, TSA and other federal agencies that have been hounding the common folk of the United States of America need to be called to heel. This is the change that needs to take place in order for prosperity to once again grace these shores. This is the freedom promised to us by our ancestors who built this nation. The work to restore constitutional government, personal liberties and independence needs to begin immediately. One day less of negligent spending means one day closer to a time when we can once again enjoy the blessings of freedom bestowed upon us by our founders.

I have a simple message for the members of congress. Stop with the grand standing. Stop with the publicity stunts. Stop wasting time with meaningless resolutions that do nothing to scale back government, bring back prosperity or restore respect for individual rights meant to be granted all humanity. Start dismantling the monstrosity you have built that is the current corporate federal government that harms so many. Take the message of the past few elections cycles to heart, for if you don't get it the American people will continue to try to find someone who does get it to take your place.

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, January 11, 2011

The Murders in Arizona and Attacks on Freedom

Yet another nut job has decided to take his frustrations out on innocent people. This time one Jared Loughner managed to kill six people and wound thirteen others. The dead include a child, 9 year old Christina Green. Also dead are John Roll, Gabriel Zimmerman, Dorwin Stoddard, Dorthy Murray and Phyllis Scheck. This is a senseless act of violence that should be completely condemned. Jared Loughner needs to be brought to justice and severely punished. I can't imagine any reason that could be given to excuse such abhorrent behavior.

Different groups are going to use this tragic event to try to advance their agenda. This fact in and of itself is a tragedy. The folks on the left are going to try to use this event to curtail gun rights and free speech. The folks on the right are going to use the fact that this event was carried out by a left wing ideologue to try to reflect that violent nature onto anyone with those leanings. It's so predictable. It works that way every time.

Media and people with an agenda will find all kinds of things to blame this incident on. Some will blame it on the availability of legal guns. Others will blame it on Jared's use of marijuana. Still others will blame it on his apparent obsession with and perhaps worship of demonic forces. Some will blame it on society and the inability of anyone to help an obviously troubled young man. There are claims of mind control. I doubt we will ever know for certain the full truth of the matter, and even if the truth does come out how are we ever to trust the information since the general public has been fooled by so many psy-ops and cover ups so often in the past? The blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of the individual who committed the act, but of course extenuating circumstances, if there are any, should be taken into consideration.

The call has already gone out for more gun control regulation. They want to make sure that guns stay out of the hands of such psychotics. Yet there are already laws on the books that are supposed to prevent this type of thing. These laws obviously haven't worked. Creating more laws hasn't worked in the past, why would it work now? It seems to me that if there was ever a psychotic individual, this man was it, yet so many people seem to have been unable to determine he was going to hurt others. I think that no matter how tightly you try to control guns, there will always be psychotic people who will be able to arm themselves if they are so determined and hurt people. It seems to me that we'd all be better off if we were all able to be armed in order to defend ourselves from such occurrences.

More worrisome is the push to pass laws restricting speech. People have the right to speak their minds. By forcing them to keep quiet through the threat of law you only cause them to hide their thoughts. Jared Loughner was very public with his feelings, people were afraid of him, he had made death threats, yet no one seemed able to see this coming. How much more sudden and unexpected would this have been if he had been forced to hide his thoughts and emotions for fear of being arrested?

From what I have seen, I think Jared Loughner is insane, pure and simple. I'm no expert on such matters, but looking at the crime, the shrine, the demon worship, the youtube channel, the claims of mind control, what would you expect one to conclude? Insane or not, it is the man Jared Loughner who needs to be held to account for the deaths he caused, not Rush Limbaugh, not David Icke, not Alex Jones, not talk radio, not the right to bear arms (the right of self defense), not freedom of speech, and not anyone or anything else this troubled young man might be associated with. In fact, it is at times like these we need to band together and shun those who would use such an event to attack freedoms. Those who would use such a tragic and unusual event to force their political agenda into our everyday lives must have something to gain, and that something is likely money and power. We must realize this and resist their sirens' call for more laws and regulations which in the long run only helps the establishment and makes things worse for everyone else.

Shame on all those who use these tragedies for their political gain. Shame on those who wish to demonize individualism in their effort to form their collectivist dystopias. Even Mr. John Green, Christina Green's father, bravely appeared on television and fought back tears in the midst of what must have been overwhelming grief to ask that his daughter's death not be used for political agendas to curtail more of our freedoms. He bemoaned the disrespect the federal government has shown our individual freedoms, especially since the attacks of September 11th, 2001. He cited his own experiences in having to deal with the TSA because he travels so much. Yet there are those who continue to rant against "right wing extremists," "conspiracy theorists," "constitutionalists," and other individualists who threaten their collectivist ideologies as a result of this tragedy. Shame on them for showing such lack of empathy.

It is beyond me why the mainstream media continues to give a platform to "experts" such as Mark Potok at the Southern Poverty Law Center, an institution whose ideas should be irrelevant in a land where freedom is supposed to reign supreme. Their collectivist ideologies would be more at home nested in a society such as those built by the leaders of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. The media should not be giving this organization any kind of legitimacy. This man and his institution are only experts at putting people into groups and putting labels upon them. They can't seem to comprehend that an individual is more than the lump sum of the groups he associates with. Perhaps that's because they are so wrapped up in their own associations and so invested in the legalized force that is the government that they can't even imagine others operating in a peaceful manner to bring about a society where the freedom of individuals is respected.

Group punishment is inherently unfair. The vast majority of us are sane. The vast majority of us are responsible. We should not be punished because some insane person decided to use a gun to go on a killing spree. We should not have to worry about voicing our political opinions because some nut job decides he wants to take it on himself to murder in a way that can be interpreted by some as a protest. The vast majority of law abiding citizens know how to use firearms and the freedom of speech in a responsible manner. We must guard the rights of even the minority if we wish to protect those rights for all.

We should all offer a prayer for the victims of Jared Loughner. We should offer a prayer for this nation. We should pray that those who attempt to subvert the principles upon which this nation was built will not succeed in their ambitions. We should even, as unpopular as this may sound, offer a prayer for the troubled young man who carried out this tragedy. After all, his life is as good as over. We should pray that somehow, someday, he can find some kind of redemption. Then we should go about the tough business of bringing about a voluntary society. We should try to educate our young people that violence solves nothing. Violence only begets more violence. Even the unspoken violence that is the state's monopoly of force needs to be condemned. We should work toward a society where participation in government is strictly voluntary and those who wish to be left alone will be left alone. If we can achieve such a society, perhaps such tragedies will become but a memory of a nightmare upon the dawn of a new day. I'm afraid we have a long road ahead of us if we are to reach such a goal.

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.

Monday, January 10, 2011

The Farcical Reading of the Constitution

In what I feel is best described as a sort of publicity stunt, the newly seated members of the House of Representatives decided to read aloud the Constitution of the United of America on the floor of the house. Some might claim this to be some kind of big deal, that it shows our politicians have finally acknowledged their deference to the Constitution, but I don't think this is so. It only shows me that these people know how to read. It doesn't show that they understand what they are reading. It doesn't show that they care about what they are reading. It only shows that they know how to put consonants and syllables together to form words and that they can put words together to form sentences. It certainly doesn't show that they have any idea as to the concepts that were being put forth by those who penned the Constitution.

It is not enough to be able to read the Constitution. Those who have been elected to office must obey it. They must come to understand that this is the law of the land, the way in which our forefathers meant the federal government to operate. It restricts their power, and that is something those who seek power do not want to come to terms with. It is interesting to note, for instance, that while the reading was taking place someone decided to voice their opposition to the present sitting president by rather loudly voicing their concern that Mr. Obama was not actually a native born American. While I admit this was inappropriate behavior, I do not believe it warranted her arrest. The outburst was brief and she showed no sign of further disruption. Yet she was quickly removed and charged with a crime. What power does the average person have in this country if they cannot voice their opposition at a public event?

These people who pretend to care about what the Constitution says take an oath to it, and yet they pass laws year after year, month after month, week after week, day after day, that violate the constitution. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that were later determined to be unconstitutional. It isn't hard to understand the Constitution. It's written in plain English, regardless of what "experts" would have you believe about the language two hundred years ago. The English language hasn't changed that much and the culture of freedom the founding fathers were trying to cultivate is not that hard to understand. The Bill of Rights is plain and simple to understand. One does not have to read aloud the Constitution to understand that the federal government was meant to be very limited in its scope and was crafted to protect freedoms, not attack them as they have in the last decade.

The populace has become tired of the attempts to demonize and tear down and violate the individual rights granted to us by our very humanity. They are tired of being treated like criminals every time they go to the airport. They are tired of calls to further intrude upon our liberties every time something bad happens. Yet now some of the same congress critters who have passed and supported unconstitutional legislation want us to believe they are suddenly concerned with the Constitution by merely reading it. It's going to take more than a publicity stunt to convince me they want to honor their oaths.

Reading the Constitution aloud on the floor of the house isn't enough. Certainly it is a small step, but more concrete actions need to be taken before I will be convinced that they are truly interested in returning to a constitutional government. The process of repealing all the past unconstitutional laws must be started. It won't be enough to simply repeal the health care bill that has come to be known as Obamacare. There is other legislation that is still in force that the Republican administration passed. The Patriot Act comes to mind. The Military Commissions Act is another unconstitutional law that needs to be repealed. Repealing these laws would be a huge step in restoring government's respect for the people's freedoms and returning to the rule of law that is a constitutional government.

Along with these steps, laws need to be passed to prevent such federal government intervention from ever occurring again. Laws requiring congress to read the bills, write the bills, and cite the constitutional passage that grants the congress power to pass a particular bill need to be passed. Passing congressional rules for such things is not enough. Rules can be broken with virtually no repercussions to those breaking them. Laws with real teeth and real punishments for breaking them need to be put in place so that there is recourse when a congress person decides it might be in their best interest to break the law.

In addition, unconstitutional institutions need to be disassembled and their duties given over to more local interests. We don't need homeland security, we need local peace officers. We don't need a department of education, we need local and free market schools with more involvement of parents. We don't need to maintain an empire, we need to bring our soldiers back from all foreign lands. They should be here for defense rather than there for occupation. We don't need a TSA, we need to allow the airlines to provide security for their customers. These are but a few things that can be done to get back to a constitutional government.

I'm glad that the congress has recognized that many of their constituents do care about the Constitution and want it to be obeyed, but I am not going to be fooled into thinking that by reading it they are going to obey it. They must now show that they understand what they have read. They must now show that they care about what they have read. Actions speak so much louder than words. Now that the congress has recognized that there is a Constitution, they need to act and show that they are going to obey it. They need to realize that their power is limited and the power of the people is what truly matters. It is the people that make the nation prosperous, not the government.

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.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Corporations and the Federal Government's Bass Ackwards Priorities

If there's anything in this world that should be regulated, it's corporations. If there's anything that centralized government should do, it's protect the common folk from these monstrous behemoths. Some might think that's blasphemy coming from a free market enthusiast like I am. That's because for decades, perhaps even centuries, people have been misinformed, perhaps deliberately, as to the nature of corporations. Many people have come to believe that to be pro business, pro free market is tantamount to being pro corporation. This is not so. In fact, I believe just the opposite. I think that being pro corporation is being anti business. I think that being pro corporation is being anti free market, in fact it's tantamount to being anti freedom in general.

What many don't realize, or don't think about, is that corporations are creatures of the state. They are an invention of the government. Without the state, they would not exist. What they have done is to create an entity that has all the benefits of a business, but relieves those involved of any of the risks. They have created, in essence, a privileged group. Even in law, corporations have been granted the rights of individuals, yet because of their makeup they aren't held accountable for their actions as individuals are.

Corporations are able to operate with the blessings of the state. If they do something wrong, no one is held responsible. British Petroleum and all the corporations involved with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are a great example of this. For all the damage they've done to the Gulf of Mexico, they have hardly been punished. To describe their punishment as a slap on the wrist is to describe it as a far sterner punishment than they actually received. Eleven men died on that platform and no executive, no one near the top or making command decisions, have been held to account. No one has been brought up on manslaughter, or even negligence, charges. All the money spent on the clean up, which is of dubious quality, and on litigation avoidance schemes has come from the company. No individuals at the top have been forced to spend one cent of their own money for their lack of concern with what their own company has done to nature and humanity. Worst of all, these same elite, unethical, un-empathetic individuals are still in charge and their corporations are still operating.

Consider for a moment what would have happened if John Doe's oil company had owned the Deepwater Horizon rather than BP and the same scenario had unfolded. John Doe would have been ruined. His oil company would have gone out of business. Likely any companies associated with his endeavor would have also suffered greatly. If they and their executives were held accountable they should have had at least portions of their personal wealth taken to make things right with those harmed. If they had been unable to contain the spill as BP was, then those who were going to be directly affected would have acted to minimize the damage. This might well have been more effective than what actually happened, as those who wanted to take action were told not to and to let BP handle it. That attitude may well have ended up causing damage that could have been avoided had other entities been allowed to help.

There is an argument to be made in this case that modern corporations have too many shareholders to hold everyone responsible for such an incident and that those shareholders are punished by a drop in the stock price. Well, I suppose that's true in a sense. Yet this is the core of the problem. These people are protected by law. The only risk they're taking is that their stocks will lose value. The only risk an executive has to worry about is that his bonus at the end of the year will be less. It is these people, the executives and the decision makers more than the general investors, who should be held accountable for such happenings. As it stands, it is the common folk, the fishermen and others who make their livings from or consume the products of the gulf, who end up shouldering the burden. They had absolutely nothing to do with causing the disaster, yet it is they who are punished for the mistakes of others.

This scenario has happened often. Corporations are protected from the common folk by the legal monopoly on force that is government, while the common folk have little to no protection from the crimes committed by corporate entities. Just the opposite should be true. It is highly unlikely an average Joe like you or I will ever be able to cause great harm to any corporate entity, yet some multi national corporation can cause you, your family or your neighbors great harm with impunity through some action they know to be risky or possibly damaging. The idea behind the federal government of the United States of America was to protect weak individuals from such powerful forces such as over zealous police states and extremely wealthy corporations. This idea has been apparently forgotten in all the propaganda of providing security.

In the past, other governments had no qualms with allowing powerful and wealthy entities to run roughshod over the common folk. In many cases, especially in Western European monarchies, the government was actually the entity doing so and they would do so for their own benefit. Back then, governments felt they owned the populations on their lands and would claim the products of their serfs' labor as their own and use such products in trade with other governments. It was this type of system the founding fathers of our nation were trying to get away from. It is such a shame we have fallen so far from those original principles. It is a greater shame that the world seems to be devolving back to a feudal type system through insidious manners.

If anything, our federal government should be taxing and regulating corporations, particularly large multi national corporations, and leaving the rest of us alone. To those who say that this would mean higher prices for consumers, I say it would open up opportunity for small businesses who are willing to take the risk to compete with the large mega corporations to offer better products for a fair price. To those who say this would chase the corporations from our shores I say fine, let them run. I have confidence that American entrepreneurs would pick up the slack and provide the goods and services that were in demand. The bass ackward federal government has done just the opposite for decades, taxing and regulating the little guys and letting the corporations do as they please while providing corporate welfare. Look where that's landed us.

I believe the United States should lead by example. Let us either hold the mega corporations accountable for their misdeeds or tax them heavily for the privileges granted to them through the federal government and let's see the how long it takes before the competitive nature of humanity brings prosperity back to these shores. It was John D. Rockefeller who claimed that competition was a sin, I think that competition is a blessing for all and monopolies are a curse. If there were no government sanctioned unfair advantages to corporations it wouldn't be long until there would only be businesses competing in the marketplace that could be held accountable rather than being able to fall back on government legalities and regulations that let them off the hook.

As I stated earlier, I am not anti business. I want businesses to open in the United States and provide jobs, goods and services to our economy. I want our economy to prosper. I just believe that incorporating and granting privileges to powerful entities is the wrong way to go about it. I am tired of the unfair privileges I see granted to the mega corporations. I want to see businesses operating in such a way that those who run or own them are held liable for any mistakes made.

I believe that if these entities were forced to operate without the advantages given to them by the often convoluted regulations that usually favor huge, wealthy corporations the market would soon provide us with more choice and better services at cheaper prices. I believe we would see less damage taking place and would be better able to vote with our dollars which businesses would survive and which would fail. Perhaps I'm wrong, but as it stands I think we can easily see where the mistakes have been made. Hindsight is 20/20. We've been doing it their way for a long time now and it's led us down a path to economic ruin. It's time to try another way, a better way.

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, January 4, 2011

Lending, Borrowing and Risk

Neither a borrower nor a lender be. These are the words of the bard. Well, at least they're the words a character of the bard spoke to his son. This advice is as wise today as it was back in Shakespeare's time. It may be a little different today than it was back then, but not much. The basics are pretty much the same. Borrowers risk losing their wealth through interest payments and lose of collateral, lenders risk losing their wealth through the bankruptcy of borrowers. The acts of lending and borrowing need to be measured and the risks on both sides considered before it is agreed upon.

Modern lending seems to have taken a different bent. It appears that the act of lending no longer has any risks, at least not for the biggest banks, the "too big to fail," where the act of borrowing shoulders the complete burden. Yet for many of us, modern life in America has become nearly impossible without borrowing. This has occurred largely because politicians have decided they know best what to do with your money. It seems that not only have they decided they know best what to do with your money that they extract from you through taxation, they have decided that they should be able to force you to buy products and services that they own. In fact, they seem to be moving toward owning all business in this nation and around the world. It seems to me that they have decided they own all your wealth, all the world's wealth, and they're trying to centralize it all into a new world order that will decide how each and every individual in this world will live.

The banks want us to believe we are indebted to them. They want us to believe that they own all the wealth because it was bought with money and credit they created. They want us to believe that since the money was borrowed from them they should have the right to just steal all wealth if the money can't be paid back. On the surface this would seem fair, but things get much more complicated than appearances. In the first place the money is fraudulent since it is simply created out of thin air upon demand. In the second place the product created or labor put forth to earn the money used to pay back banks is very real. It seems to me that someone is getting something for nothing.

What is happening is a spiral downward. The economy is collapsing. People are losing their jobs and are unable to pay their mortgages. The banks foreclose. People are put out on the street, still trying to find work. The houses that were mortgaged remain empty as people without jobs can't afford to buy them, and what bank is going to loan to the unemployed? The empty houses fall apart and lose value. Small banks that have been too heavily invested in these properties or have made other bad decisions become insolvent. They either go out of business or are bought up by bigger, more politically connected banks which are propped up by taxpayer dollars. Money becomes more consolidated. Lending tightens. Properties remain dormant and continue to lose value. People remain unemployed. The economy continues to depend on the whims of a few very wealthy elites at the top of the heap.

Yet we as a nation, as a society, and as independent, freedom loving people aren't powerless. We don't have to sit back and simply let the power elite run the economy into the ground. We don't have to just accept the struggles that are going to be forced upon the poorer under classes. It all starts by recognizing the culprits. It starts with understanding that the lenders, those who pull the strings of the economy, those with the power to threaten the congress of the United States of America with financial devastation and martial law if they are not bailed out, it starts with understanding that they are at fault and they need to be held accountable. This has yet to be done.

Lenders need to be reminded that sometimes when you risk your money you lose it. More than that, the extremely wealthy, the moneyed power elite, the royalty of the modern world, those who run the central banks and multi national corporations of the world and manipulate economies, they need to be held accountable for their misdeeds and unethical behavior. I don't believe these people need to be hanged, but I do think that they should be punished in a way that is sure to be worse than death to them. I think they should be audited and made to pay back from their own personal fortunes all the money they have defrauded from the people of the world. Should that amount to their losing their fortunes then perhaps it would do them some good to actually work for a living and help produce something that would benefit mankind and people would actually voluntarily pay for rather than creating pyramid schemes that funnel all the wealth to themselves and their friends at the top.

Bankruptcy might not be such a bad thing. It forces the bad debt out of the system. It causes the lenders to renegotiate with the borrowers. It could help the parties involved come to a workable solution. It could help restructure terms to make it more palatable for all parties concerned. If done correctly, it might actually help all people involved come to innovative solutions for the problems that crop up through charging unsustainable interest versus living above one's means. States and nations might go bankrupt, but that doesn't necessarily mean austerity for the common folk. It might not be so wise for the extremely wealthy and power elite to break the promises and forsake the commitments they've made to the common folk.

Let us not forget that we, the common folk, the middle class of America, are also lenders here. Our taxes are what paid for the bailouts of the "too big to fail" corporations. Yet we do not get interest. Any interest paid on those debts doesn't go to government, we the taxpayers aren't going to see dividends. The interest paid on the trillions which have funded these bailouts goes right to the private interests that own the central banks. This could amount to billions. Yet we aren't even allowed to see where all this money has gone. Those who were lent the wealth and treasure of the American people don't want the American people to know what they've done with that wealth and treasure. A good, full audit of the Federal Reserve should help shed some light on that. We need a full accounting of how much has been created, how much has been paid back, how much interest has been collected and where all that money has likely ended up.

It seems to me that just about everyone realizes that the system is broken. It seems that just about everyone understands that corruption is rampant. Yet we continue to go about our daily lives maintaining the status quo and letting the illness of corruption fester. If we continue to turn a blind eye to the problems and let the power elite drive the economy as they see fit, it won't be long before the vast majority of those who were living comfortably find themselves in tents while a very few sit in their mansions at the top of the hill overseeing the rest of humanity. An audit of the fed would help to remove the public blinders that have been placed over our eyes by decades of propaganda and disinformation.

In a proper, stable monetary system, credit shouldn't matter so much, the outright ownership of property (rather than mortgaged property) would be more prevalent and saving would be more important than investing. Most of us would likely be taking the advice of the bard and neither lending nor borrowing. There's good reason this advice was given and good reason why it should still be heeded in modern times. Once we come to a better understanding of how the current monetary system works and how it became so corrupt, we can begin the process of overhauling that system. A good place to start might be the Constitution our politicians are supposed to adhere to. A good cleansing of the bad debt, holding those at the top accountable, and a smooth transition to constitutional money would do wonders for the economy. Even just taking the first small steps on such a path could lead one to see a much brighter future.

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.