Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Self Immolation in the First World?

There are many who understand that when someone commits suicide they were likely in great pain. Why else would one end their life? Surely people who feel happy and are filled with joy are not going to suddenly sacrifice their good feelings. When one commits suicide it is likely because they want to put an end to the misery. When this is recognized, the question isn't why one would commit suicide, the question becomes what caused that person so much pain that they felt ending their life was their only option?

Sometimes, people kill themselves to make a statement. Sometimes they kill themselves in such an extreme manner that people almost have to sit up and take notice. In those cases, it becomes necessary to examine the cause of the suicide if we wish to prevent such tragedies and strive to better societies for all. There are several suicides that are notable in history including Thich Quang Duc who was the monk who self immolated himself in Vietnam as a protest to the oppression of the Catholic Diem regime that controlled the South Vietnamese government at the time and more recently Mohamed Bouazizi who set himself on fire in Tunisia to protest the government policies that have led to economic stress in that country.

There is an attitude that this kind of protest could not happen in the United States of America, that lighting one's self on fire is something that only crazy people in third world countries would do. What could possibly go so wrong in the United States to drive a person to take such drastic action? What could possibly cause a man so much pain and stress that that man feels his only option and the only way people would listen to him is to light himself on fire? Thomas Ball knows the answers to those questions. He took such action and burned himself to death on Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 in front of the Cheshire County Court House in Keene, New Hampshire.

There are likely many who would think this was the act of a crazy man. They would hear this story and simply shake their heads, label the man insane and walk away. Then there are those of us who would dig deeper. There are compassionate people in this world who understand that people do not just throw their lives away on a whim, that there are reasons for taking such dramatic, extreme actions. Thomas Ball did not just one day decide out of nowhere that it would be a good idea to pour gasoline on himself and light a match. He told us his reasons for doing what he did and we should pay attention. He wrote a long essay which he sent to The Sentinel, a New Hampshire based news source, that arrived the day after the tragedy. Here is Thomas Ball's last statement to the world. I really believe everyone should take the time to read it and give it some thought.

Thomas Ball was not a crazy man. Reading through his letter one can see he was a very lucid individual able to express himself in a very cogent fashion. He, like the other victims of self immolation mentioned earlier in this article, had been harmed by the state. He had fallen victim to the power of government and felt he had no other recourse left to himself. He decided to sacrifice himself in order to bring attention to the plight of many who find themselves entangled in the family court system of this nation.

Anyone who believes that the court system in this nation is fair and just either hasn't had to deal with it or have been fortunate and either had some kind of political influence or found themselves a member of those with favored status. Too often people don't look at the other side of an equation. Too often they believe that the courts are correct and those operating it know best. They can't possibly imagine how many times courts get it completely wrong. They can't imagine how often courts take emotions and feelings and relationships completely out of the equation and leave all traces of humanity out of the case. The courts are simply another one size fits all government organization that has no feelings for those it harms, has no imagination and can see no other way to do things other than the way it has been programmed to behave.

Read through Thomas Ball's statement and you should find that he's pretty well nailed it. He understands intimately the faults of the family court system. I don't know if he saw the larger picture and realized that the same problems permeate all the court systems of this nation, including the criminal court system, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out he did. He was focused on his own experiences, and I can relate to that. I had my own problems with the justice system. I know how Mr. Ball felt because there were times as I was going through the system that I gave serious thought to committing suicide myself, such was the level of stress I felt. My lawyer one time told me that I was a young man and had lots of life to look forward to. It was the thought that someday the stress and pain would end and I would not have to deal with the system that kept me going. Mr. Ball felt the same way, judging from his letter, only the system wasn't about to release him and found ways to keep him involved despite his being found not guilty of his supposed crime. Once these people in the system get their claws into you, they don't want to let go.

Mr. Ball's story, in a nutshell, is one of emotional over reaction and a lack of understanding or caring about human nature. He hit his child as punishment for disobeying one time and perhaps that was wrong, but it didn't rise to the level, in my opinion, of getting the state involved. The counselor his wife called told her if she didn't call the police she could be arrested, and that was wrong and a definite problem with the laws as they are currently written. This woman called someone looking for help and rather than helping the counselor calls in a system that is going to split the family up and tear them apart rather than helping them talk things through and striving to keep them together. Rather than allowing those involved talk things through, people who have been married for years and professed to love each other, they split them apart and don't allow them to talk to each other and explain their actions. Such a divide and conquer technique allows the state to maintain control of both sides of the conflict and makes sure that no reconciliation will suddenly arise and spoil their process before it comes to its conclusion and they get their money.

Even after he was found not guilty of any crime, he wasn't allowed visitation because he was going through a divorce which was likely exacerbated by the state's involvement. Ten years after the fact he still couldn't have unsupervised contact with his children despite his children expressing a desire that he be able to do so. He paid his child support as he was supposed to, but when he became unemployed and could no longer afford to pay, he was threatened with more court and jail time. In his own essay, he explains better and more thoughtfully the financial impact this system has on those involved than I could. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. One can try as hard as one wants to break free, but this system has a tight grip and if it's decided to shake you down, you will be shaken down even if you have nothing left to give. Well, Mr. Ball decided to give his blood.

Mr. Ball explains that he was a soldier. He was trained by government. He saw an injustice and tried to determine the best way to fight it. He fell back on his training and determined the best way to get his point across was to light himself on fire in front of a court house. He was trained by government to fight, then the same government tried to dehumanize and humiliate him. He had, in effect, spent nearly his entire adult life somehow involved with government agencies. It is no wonder he can provide such insight as to their true nature.

It is not enough to just shrug off this incident. The system itself has grown so corrupted that those involved don't even realize how bad it smells. They actually believe they're doing good work. They actually believe they're helping children. In the long run, I believe they are hurting more children than they are helping. I believe they are tearing more families apart than they are helping. I believe that they are creating a dependence on the state in order to validate themselves, make sure they have work to do, and are able to reap the benefits of carrying such influence. Mr. Ball has very eloquently pointed this out for all to read, and the actions he took has certainly lead to more interest in what he wrote. It is very sad that he felt it necessary to take such actions.

This is a system that can't be reformed, in my opinion. It needs to be slowly dismantled. It needs to allow for competition. It needs to allow other systems to operate so there is choice. It needs to allow for human compassion and for ideas that will help people who are not constantly involved in the system rather than being beneficial for mostly the lawyers and judges who have a monopoly privilege on law and force. With such competition the people who need dispute resolution will choose which system best suits their personal needs rather than being forced into the one size fits all mentality we have today. One thing is certain, something is wrong when people start reacting in such a way to remind us of third world countries. There has to be a better way;.

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

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Thomas Jefferson Dance, Dance Revolution, a Peaceful Victory

When the Constitution was written way back when, it was supposed to be a blueprint for keeping government tyranny off the backs of the common folk. Part of the way this was supposed to be accomplished was division of power. The federal government was to be divided into three branches of equal power. This was supposed to provide checks and balances so that one branch or another could not become tyrannical and force its will onto the common folk. In addition, those three branches themselves were to be divided so that power would be shared inside the branches of government, supposedly making it even less likely for tyranny to gain a foothold. For various reasons, this idea failed, sort of, yet there is hope that people can peacefully force the federal government to once again respect the natural rights individuals are born with.

There are many freedom advocates who will claim that the Constitution has failed, but my answer to that has almost always been that it is the common folk who have failed to use the law of the Constitution and hold their elected officials accountable for breaking that law. Almost immediately in our history the Constitution began to undergo changes. In the early 19th century it was changed to allow for a presidential/vice presidential ticket rather than selecting the two separately. Many say the reason for this was to prevent a coup d'etat from taking place. Its real effect was to begin the slow consolidation of power in the executive and the political conversion from individuals discussing the issues of the day to a two party system where certain issues were buried and hidden from public scrutiny.

Ever since, the three branches of government have been colluding to increase their own powers rather than fighting to keep the others in check as was the original intention. When I say that, I don't mean that they have been secretly plotting with each other, but it seems to be a natural progression of government to use the force of law entrusted to it to stifle competition for the services it provides. Thus, it should be no surprise when government begins to disrespect the natural rights of the populace it is bound to protect. Government is simply trying to grow in strength and power as is its wont and will continue to do so until the governed decide to keep it in check. The governed, who are mostly the common folk, cannot depend on government to keep itself in check no matter how many branches it is split into, nor can they depend on words written on a piece of paper to do so, this is simply not in the nature of government. In order to keep government in check and prevent it from becoming tyrannical, the people themselves must take action.

Traditionally, it has been the judicial branch that the common folk looked to for remedy against government abuse. This has always been folly, but it seems to have become worse of late. Lysander Spooner is a good example of the failure of the judicial to protect the natural rights of individuals. In the 1830s he formed a postal service to compete with that of the federal government. His service was quite adaptable and did quite well, taking many customers from the federal system. The feds didn't like having their toes stepped upon. They didn't like a private individual showing initiative and directly competing with one of their services. They didn't like having their monopoly privilege challenged, so they had their agents, probably men with guns who obeyed orders without question and imagined they were doing the right thing, shut down Lysander Spooner's operation.

Mr. Spooner took the only option he felt he had for remedy, he took his case to the federal courts. These were the courts that were supposed to protect the rights of individuals. Mr. Spooner felt many of his rights had been violated by government, not the least of which was the right to conduct business on a voluntary basis, to make a living and to acquire private property with the earnings from such business dealings. I know these rights aren't spelled out in the Constitution, but they seem pretty apparent to me and the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution leave no doubt that not all rights are spelled out in the previous amendments, but they do exist nonetheless. The government courts did not side with Mr. Spooner. They did not protect his individual rights. They would not bite the hand that feeds it. Instead, they protected the monopoly privilege of the federal government. They helped increase its power.

The question becomes, how much tyranny will the common folk take? What line must government cross before they decide it is worth their time and effort to get off their butts and take action, to do something to restore the freedoms and rights every human should enjoy by nature of his being? Well, it could well be that we have found that line. Apparently, enough people believe that individuals should be able to express themselves through silently dancing at memorials that they have decided to take part in civil disobedience. This in response to a judge's ruling to the contrary.

It started with an unnecessary arrest, as happens more often in this nation than some might guess, and snowballed into a quest for real freedom. Like so many arrests, this one wasn't really about what they claim it was about, it was about questioning authority and not obeying questionable orders. Being an individual, expressing one's own thoughts and feelings, and thinking for one's self seems to be a crime in this nation more and more often these days. When an appeals court upheld a ban on silently dancing at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC, a small contingent of individuals decided they did not agree with that decision. They decided that this law was a violation of individual rights as well as a silly prohibition on a harmless human activity. They decided to do something about it rather than wasting time and money taking it through the government's court system that so often sides with the government.

What resulted was an exposure of the violent nature of government. Peaceful people who had harmed no one were arrested, one after being slammed to the ground and choked, and hauled away for doing something that no one had even complained about. The arrests happened again because, in my opinion, people refused to simply do as the police said, not because dancing at a public monument is an inherently dangerous activity that needs to be stopped.

The above arrests led to an outcry, fortunately. It's about time such an outcry took place. Hundreds of people showed up the next Saturday to proclaim that they could dance if they wanted to, they could leave their cares behind, and it didn't matter what the courts or the police said. You can see some of the footage at this link. This shows that it is not the courts that are going to protect individual rights from the intrusions of the government, it's you. The police aren't going to honor your rights, they will not honor their oaths to the Constitution if they took such an oath, they are going to mindlessly obey anyone they consider their superior and enforce the law no matter how unjust, unconstitutional, poorly written or just plain immoral. The only way they will ever know better is for the people to take action and expose them as the jack booted thugs they are. The only way our rights will be honored by the political elite is for the common folk to insist upon it.

This was a victory for the freedom movement. It was a victory for the indomitable spirit of the common folk. There will be another dance party on July 4th, Independence Day. If you can make it out to show your independence and promote freedom, you should. This is the kind of involvement that is necessary to send a message to the federal government that we are not sheep waiting to be sheered and we will not simply roll over and let them get away with anything they want. My hope is that this will grow into something bigger. My hope is to some day soon see such a movement demanding the rollback of all intrusive government laws and agencies. We should not only be allowed to dance at national monuments, but even in airports if we so choose. Let freedom ring across this great nation of ours, and let us dance to the ringing we hear.

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

Monday, June 6, 2011

Evolution, Religion and Mankind's Impact on Climate Change

People carry around many misconceptions in their thought processes. They make all kinds of assumptions that have nothing to do with facts, reasons, or observations. Sometimes this becomes evident in such a way as to take one aback and make one say "huh?" I discovered this personally one day when I became involved in a rather boisterous conversation about human driven climate change.

It is interesting to note that this conversation started out as a rather friendly one in which we were all agreeing that government was growing out of control. When the other man mentioned human driven climate change, I opined my view that humans have very little, if anything, to do with climate change and that the sun was a much bigger factor. The look on his face changed from one of jovial jocularity to that of a man who had just witnessed someone kicking his dog. How dare I challenge his beliefs on human driven climate change? He grew huffy and fumed. I was a bit taken aback as I thought this man had exhibited some modicum of free thought, but I too grew huffy and knew I would have to defend my position.

The man spouted something about the UN and thousands of scientists. At least he didn't cite Al Gore. I mentioned the emails proving that data was falsified and cooked, the fact that carbon dioxide is a life giving gas (plants use it like we use oxygen, for those who don't know) and not a pollutant, the greater role that water vapor plays in driving climate, and the taxes the elite want to impose upon us for breathing, which produces carbon dioxide.

His face turned red as he fumed. I breathed hard, waiting for his next barb. He mentioned something about the Bible. "Excuse me?" I asked, not knowing what point he was trying to make. He accused me of being a religious zealot. I was aghast. This man believed that if I didn't believe in the manmade climate change propaganda driven by the collectivist, one world government type agenda that I must be some kind of Bible thumper.

Flabbergasted, I stammered for a moment, then explained to him that wasn't the case and that I had been a Geology major at the University of Illinois back in the 1980s. I knew of the ice core samples that showed high amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere long before mankind could have possibly had an impact on the environment because, I explained, mankind had not evolved enough at that time. He quieted down at that point, but I could tell he was still roiling under the surface. I said nothing more, not wishing to cause anymore of a scene than had already been acted out.

Thinking back on this exchange, it occurred to me how good an illustration it is on the human capacity to not only believe stories they're told without further investigation, but to defend their positions even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I believe much of this phenomenon comes from the trust we put in our sources. It seems to me that as humans we tend to have an unhealthy reverence toward those we hold in great esteem. It seems that many tie their own self worth to the fallible humans or organizations that they put their faith in. In many cases these same people or organizations are the ones informing them and telling them what to believe and how to behave. When one has tied his own goodness and self worth to another like that, it is only natural to deny evidence that the entity worshipped in such a way is not really as it seems. There is a subconscious equivocation going on that if the person or organization trusted is bad, the person or entity doing the trusting must also be bad. This is not only an untrue equivocation, but one that most probably don't realize is happening.

This phenomenon was realized by the power elite early on in mankind's history. For instance, there is much evidence that churches and the priest class knew long ago that the earth was round and revolved around the sun, yet the common folk were taught it was flat and that various gods were responsible for the movements in the sky. Why? Because by keeping that knowledge hidden from common people the priest class was able to better control them. They could tell frightening stories to them to convince them to hand over a portion of the food and wealth they produced to a parasitic class that did essentially nothing. In many ways, this still goes on today. Substitute the word priest with the word scientist, and then the word church with the word government and you will have a good idea of what I believe is going on with human caused climate change. This is a complicated science with easily manipulated data and beyond the grasp of most common folk to understand, let alone test for themselves. The priest/scientist class has gotten together with the church of one world government to produce a frightening set of circumstances they can use to convince the common folk to turn over a portion of the wealth they produce.

There are many who might find it hard to believe that I could believe in the theory of evolution but not in the theory of manmade climate change. First off, I have my own experiences, studies and experiments that I participated in when I was younger to rely on. I have looked into other theories, like intelligent design, and have found them woefully lacking. Much of their time and effort seems to be spent in an effort to disprove the theory of evolution rather than proving their own case. Just for the record, disproving one thing does not necessarily prove another.

There is lots of solid science behind evolution. It is a theory that can be observed by anyone as it is constantly taking place all around us. It is the science of adapting to changes, and more specifically of nature adapting to natural changes in a natural manner. There is even a science, albeit a controversial one, the science of genetics, that is based on the theory of evolution and has produced usable products. There are many questions involving the safety of these products, and many questions involving the morals of some who promote this science and its manmade products, but that is an article for another day.

On the other hand, I have looked into the theory of manmade global warming and certain things didn't add up, even before the deception was made clear by the email leaks that came out more than a year ago. In the late seventies, early eighties the scare was a new ice age caused by global cooling. The geologic record shows hundreds of major climate changes and millions of minor ones across the eons. Mostly, the evidence suggests that these are caused by some kind of natural cycles involving the sun and the moon, but major ones can be caused by earthen activity such as volcanism or cataclysmic events such as meteor or comet strikes. I can't say enough how little an effect the feared carbon dioxide has on climate, but how much of an effect water has. But then, it's a lot harder to demonize water than it is to demonize carbon dioxide, a gas with a much scarier and scientific sounding name. Want to scare someone? Just ask them if they think the government should do something about the dangerous and deadly dihydrogen monoxide and see what they say. Tell them many die from it every year. You just asked them if they think the government should do something about water.

No, I do not kneel at the church of science just like I do not kneel at anyone's altar. I do not blindly follow along with a crowd just because someone says something is true. I question everything, especially authority, and look into things on my own. I look into not only the science behind things, but the politics behind things and the wealth, power and control that can be derived from supporting certain agendas. It seems to me that big government and world government are quickly becoming like a modern version of "the church" as it existed and exerted its control through the dark ages. It seems that many scientists have become the new priest class and manmade climate change the new terrorizing threat of being damned to hell for all eternity.

One last thing I'd like to point out. Just because I do not believe in manmade climate change doesn't mean I don't believe in natural climate change. It also doesn't mean I support the oil or coal corporations, or any energy corporation. It doesn't mean the Koch brothers have paid me money to write about these matters. (Although I wish they would. I asked Mr. Branson for the $25 million he offered as a prize over four years ago, but he never got back to me.) In fact, I think the time has come for people to begin changing over to solar and wind energy generation combined with battery storage to power their homes. I think it is time for a viable electric car that can go eighty miles an hour and get hundreds of miles to a charge.

I think it's time to start to get everyone off the grid and become independent from the energy companies. This has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with loosening the stranglehold energy corporations and big international banks have on humanity and the political landscape. I imagine that there are many people who will have trouble comprehending how I can deny manmade climate change and still be against big energy corporations, just like the man in the grocery store who couldn't comprehend that I could deny manmade climate change without being a right wing religious zealot. It's too bad so many people have trouble realizing that there are almost always more than two choices in life.

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

Friday, June 3, 2011

Abuse of Power and Ending American Apathy

I remember a conversation I had with my ex father in law a long time ago. It was during a rare occasion where we were working together and the talk turned to politics for some reason. I had almost always been one who voted for third party candidates and I let him know that I did not go by the party line. He let me know that he did not discuss politics. He felt that it didn't really matter who was voted into office, that there was nothing we common folk couldn't do to change the inherent corruption bred by politics. They were going to do whatever they wanted to do. The discussion ended and nothing of any significance had changed in the world.

I see and understand his point in many ways. The world of politics, and more specifically the world of the political and power elite, certainly does seem impenetrable for people of little means. In many ways it seems nearly incomprehensible to anyone who operates on common sense. This is particularly true of federal politics. As far as that goes, we all have our own personal lives to worry about. Why should we have to worry about the laws and regulations coming out of Washington DC which is so far away? As long as those laws don't affect our personal lives, why should we worry about them? And the perception is that as long as we are law abiding citizens going about our business and bothering no one else, such laws and regulations will not affect our lives. So it is that many of us common folk remain apathetic and believe ourselves helpless against the federal leviathan, if we think about it at all.

I believe this perception of national politics is an illusion. More than that, I believe it is a carefully crafted illusion put in place purposely to shield the power elite from being held accountable to the will and power of individuals whose natural rights have been violated. Those in power don't care about the opinions of the politically inactive. They don't care if their actions or laws affect the politically inactive. They just care that the politically inactive keep paying their taxes, ducking their heads, jumping through hoops, paying their fines and fees, asking for permission, and basically going along to get along. Those behaviors, as far as the political elite are concerned, show tacit approval for their tyranny. Those behaviors support the political elite no matter what their agenda.

As the collectivist centralization of power that has been going on for decades matures, the federal power grab has begun to affect more and more people. The federal government has begun to intrude on more and more lives. I believe this is beginning to cause a backlash. It has always been difficult enough for the common folk to deal with the local mob. They have always grumbled and complained about having to pay for permits and stickers and other local excuses for extortion, but at least it was local. At least you know who the busybodies and control freaks are and perhaps how to avoid them. At least the money is staying in the community. With the feds, they are sticking their hands in your pockets from miles away (unless you live near DC) and the money is going to fund boondoggles, wars, bailouts, banks, and who knows what else. The money is being funneled up to the already too wealthy power elite rather than going to help the local populace. Much of the money is going to fund programs that many people don't approve of. It is no wonder that the anger is seething and palpable in this nation, and indeed around the world.

As more people feel their lives are being directly affected by the collectivists in Washington DC, more people begin to become involved. Some people might even do something radical like vote for the first time in their lives. Of course these people, being that they have sat on the sidelines and just watched for most of their lives, might be prone to having their enthusiasm quickly squelched as they come to find out that their ideas and candidates are viciously attacked by the establishment powers. They are likely to quickly figure out that voting leads nowhere, that they are usually left with the choice between a crap sandwich and a douche bag. Honest, freedom loving candidates are forced out by the power hungry, war mongering, big government loving Republicans and Democrats who align their agenda with the corporate elite who fund them. Any candidate with any kind of smaller government message is quickly overwhelmed by other interests. The establishment wants to keep most people apathetic and they do so by controlling the political landscape.

It doesn't take much to figure out the electoral system has been compromised. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that electronic voting can be easily manipulated and genuine populist candidates undermined. It doesn't take much to see how easily an election can be fixed or stolen. The establishment media and the political establishment believe most people are stupid, and maybe they're right. They believe most people won't do much of anything about their criminal behavior and evidently they are right. Yet more and more people are doing something. The anger is growing. They are peacefully protesting against the TSA at airports. They have stopped flying because of the porno scans and the groping. They are dancing at the Jefferson Memorial. They are voicing their opposition to the tyranny, but the tyrants are refusing to listen. They are disobeying the collectivists mandates more and more often. The spirit of freedom is awakening across the land.

The political elite might be panicking, but they insist on ignoring the growing numbers of common folk demanding freedom and a return to constitutional governance. Maybe they seriously believe if they ignore us we will just go away. Maybe they seriously believe if they crack down hard enough on some of us the rest will get scared and go cower in a corner somewhere. You know, for all their supposed intelligence, scientific studies and super computer modeling, the elite don't seem to understand the common folk very well. They don't understand common decency, they don't understand common sense, they don't understand empathy, and most of all they don't understand the tenacity of the common folk and their resolve to make better lives for themselves. When such things are severely threatened, and recently they have been, folks will mobilize as never imagined by those in power who think of others as nothing but livestock.

It might take a lot to get people to sit up and take notice, but once they do it doesn't take much to start a revolution. As long as the common folk were left alone, they were content to go along to get along. As more and more lives are affected by the poor economic conditions, ruined by the police state, destroyed by endless war, fleeced by the unblinking eye of the surveillance state, and groped, prodded and probed by the uncaring hands of the security state, more and more people will feel forced to get off their butts and to something to help right the situation. It doesn't take much to win a revolution, either. I've heard estimates ranging from three percent to ten percent of the American populace who took active roles in winning the War for Independence. We are likely approaching and may have more than that percentage now who are fed up with the feds.

Many people may be despondent about any chances that a revolution will do much good. That's likely how the elite would want you to feel. According to many historical accounts, soldiers fighting on the American side in our battle to free ourselves from the tyranny of King George III and the British Empire were often not too certain about their chances against the world's greatest military power. While they may have won the war, their revolution was based in violence and so the violence of the state is now revisited upon the descendents of the revolutionaries. I believe it is time to change the system through peaceful means, though it may be tough, and become a prosperous, peaceful society many wish to see.

Even more people might be certain that peaceful means of change will not work. They forget the lessons of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. It seems to me that they showed us best how peaceful non compliance can work. It seems to me that they showed us how to best change the world for the better. Peaceful non compliance is a great way to expose the "authorities" as the violent control freaks that they are. Civil disobedience is the best way to tell those in power that we do not accept their dictates, that we are not their slaves, and that we will live our lives on our feet as free people rather than on our knees begging for their permission to act human and pleading with them not to hurt us. This is simply not acceptable any longer. Some brave people might get hurt by peacefully standing up to the power elite, but in the long run it will be worth it as even they begin to realize that what they are doing is wrong.

There is only a very small percentage of people who are psychopaths and want to cause harm to others. There is only a small percentage who are sociopaths and want to control others through the violent use of force. It seems to me that many of these people seem to obtain positions of power, perhaps because of their willingness to do harm. Most people just want to live peacefully. Most people just want to be left alone to go about their business and their day to day lives. I think we would do well to remember that everybody participates in markets of one form or another, but not everyone participates in politics. The marketplace counts on peaceful, voluntary exchange between people to succeed. Politics seem to count on force and deception. It seems to me that a free and open marketplace would be a much better and more efficient way to solve our problems than counting on a secretive government monopoly that has been proven to lie time and again. I think the best way to bring about positive change will be to expose the psychopaths for who they are and then refuse to obey them any longer.

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

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

The Patriot Act, Fox News, the TSA and Feeling Less Free

The Patriot Act, in my opinion, has been one of the most egregious, liberty violating acts that has ever been passed by congress. It was a knee jerk reaction to the 9/11 attacks. It is so huge and was passed so quickly after that event that any thinking person must realize it had to be written well before the attacks took place, was waiting for just such an attack so it could be introduced, and could not have possibly been read and its implications understood by anyone who voted for it. I doubt very much that any congress critter has yet to read it in its entirety. Here it is almost ten years later and it still sullies the political landscape of this once great republic.

It seems that most common folk don't fully understand what the Patriot Act truly is. If the polls are to be believed (I personally don't trust most polls) then they seem to think that the Patriot Act has somehow made our nation more secure. They seem to believe the propaganda that is spewed forth from corporate establishment media giants that the Patriot Act has done its job and protected us. Yet it wasn't the Patriot Act that stopped the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber, it was the passengers themselves. And every time a plot is reported foiled, it is later determined that the plot only occurred because some federal security agency or another helped it along. So one might wonder, if the Patriot Act has been doing its job, will they finally get rid of it if it fails and another terrorist event occurs? I doubt that very much. That's too much like hoping that once Osama Bin Laden is finally and officially killed in some special forces raid that the wars of occupation will end and our troops will come home.

Recently, three of the most soviet like, Big Brother type provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire. Congress didn't want to deal with them earlier in the year, likely because they were worried about backlash. The Senate did what they so often do, put off the vote until the last minute and then rushed the legislation through without proper debate because they don't want the legislation scrutinized. They passed a four year extension on this monstrosity complete with its most controversial provisions because, in my humble opinion, they don't want to give up power and they'd love to be able to arrest their political adversaries should push come to shove.

Rand Paul, the freshman senator from Kentucky, was the only one who stood up to this abuse of power. He was the only one who questioned the power of the party leadership, on both sides of the aisle. He merely asked for a debate on introducing amendments meant to protect freedoms we as Americans are supposed to enjoy. For all his efforts he was excoriated by the establishment for not following like a sheep instead of applauded for his stand and his most American individualist ideals.

Now, I'm not one to watch corporate television news programs, but I came across a Fox program with a bunch of talking heads discussing this issue. I was appalled to hear them more or less condoning a police state in our nation. They are taking a thousand years of struggle against authoritarianism and throwing it away, defending a doctrine that allows government agents to spy on people going about their daily business without just cause. They are defending a doctrine that claims everyone is guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. It was this kind of tyranny that the founding fathers fought against. This kind of tyranny led to the writing of the Declaration of Independence. This kind of tyranny was the reason they included the Bill of Rights in the constitution. The Patriot Act is as un-American, fascist, soviet-esque and unpatriotic as it gets. It violates the natural rights of individuals in almost every way they can be violated and yet these men continue to support it without so much as batting an eye, and then they call Rand Paul extreme. To them, the senator from Kentucky is extreme because he values the principles America was founded upon. One can only assume they consider all individualists, constitutionalists, libertarians and anyone who wants a smaller, more accountable federal government as extreme. To them, an extremist is one who challenges the supremacy of their corporate masters.

One of the most remarkable statements came from Charles Krauthammer. He claimed that all those warnings about America becoming a police state didn't pan out. Has he been living under a rock for the last ten years? He asked something along the line of is their anyone who thinks their freedoms have been curtailed? He suggested that he hadn't heard of anyone who felt that way. Well, I for one feel that way, Mr. Krauthammer, so now you have heard of someone.

How about all those people who are subjected to naked body scanners at the airports and TSA gropings? Do you think they might feel a little less free? I know that I'd like to feel like I could fly places, but I don't want to subject myself to their intrusions. I seem to recall that others have even protested against such measures. How could you call that anything but a police state provision? It is the Patriot Act that has given us the TSA, and now they're coming out of the airports and are soon to be seen on a street, in a mall, or at a prom dance near you. They needed to do more than just debate amendments to the Patriot Act, they need to repeal the entire bill.

How about the checkpoints that are popping up, especially in border states? Do you think that the people who have to pass through them feel less free? Do you think that they might start to have an inkling that something has gone wrong and this is no longer the free nation it has been claimed to be? How about all those people who want to drink raw milk? Do you think they feel less free when the Feds tell them they can't decide for themselves what to put in their own bodies? How about the peaceful Amish, do you think they might feel less free when their farms are raided by SWAT teams for selling the milk others ask for? How about the dancers at the Jefferson Memorial? Do you think they might feel a little less free as they were handcuffed for prancing around a little or gently swaying in place? These are things that have all been normalized because of the Patriot Act and similar legislation. It is the federal government that has become extreme. It is they who are cracking down on peaceful individuals and restricting normal human activity they should have no business even caring about.

Do you like the fact that FBI agents can now write their own warrants without having to so much as show a judge probable cause, just like the king's men were able to do in the 1700s? Do you like the fact that they can break into anyone's home they want when no one's home and steal whatever they wish without a warrant, simply on a suspicion, and not have to be accountable to anyone? Do you think it's ok that they can proclaim someone an enemy combatant at anytime they wish and hold them indefinitely without a trial? Do you believe that I'm a little extreme for mentioning such provisions and that your government would never do such things? The Patriot Act grants government agents the legal authority to take such actions, and when someone has such power it is only a matter of time before that power is abused and some innocent individuals suffer because of that abuse. Besides, just because you may not have heard about such things happening doesn't mean such events haven't already occurred. You certainly can't count on the corporate media to inform you of such abuses when they do happen.

There are plenty of people that feel their freedoms have been curtailed. There are plenty of people who feel less safe because of government intrusion, not more secure. Everyday more and more people become victims of state agents. Everyday new police brutality videos come out. Everyday stories of the police state grow more and more egregious. Everyday the politicians show us they don't give a damn about individual rights and care only about their own power. Everyday the corporate media shows its true colors by defending collectivist doctrine and the agenda of the power elite. I believe, however, that one day enough people will finally be fed up enough that we will take our freedom back. On that day, it will be remembered who supported natural individual rights and who fought for the authoritarian collectivist agenda.

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