Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The Police State Will Be Videoed and Youtubed

Accountability. This is the one thing many people want when it comes to justice. I would say it was something the vast majority of people want. It is the one thing those in charge do not want. It is one thing those in charge want their enforcers to avoid. They have, in essence, created an atmosphere where the common folk are asked to live by one set of rules while the enforcers and those working for the elite live by another. There has been created an abused class and a privileged class and the divide between the two is becoming more obvious as time goes by.

Modern technology has provided ways to hold those who would claim authority over us accountable. It seems to me, however, that whenever the common folk attempt to hold accountable anyone with supposed authority they run into roadblocks. There have been numerous examples of this throughout history, even in the short history of the United States of America. I believe the proper moral stance on this should be that if something is wrong for the individual to do, then it is wrong for government agents to do. If a government agent is caught doing something wrong, then he should be held to the same standard and treated just the same as anyone who is not a government agent. If anything, police and judicial officials should be held to a higher standard of ethics.

We live in a society where more and more often we hear of police and other government officials abusing their power. Years ago, people scoffed at this notion. Even after such famous, well covered events as the Rodney King case people would claim that such happenings were isolated incidents. They would claim that most law enforcement officers were good people and such incidents were perpetrated by a few bad apples. Some even claimed that police are justified in beating people who have already been put to the ground because, somehow, they are still a threat. Nowadays, I hear of such beatings and misdeeds on almost a daily basis. Nowadays, such occurrences are no longer the exception, they are the rule.

A cursory search on Youtube for police brutality will turn up more than a few hits. Yet there are far too few prosecutions and even fewer convictions for the wrongs done by these abusive individuals. There are still far too many apologists defending these violent actions. Too many seem to have been brainwashed into believing that the police are all angelic persons who mean well and would never purposefully harm someone who didn't deserve it. Too many still seem to believe that it's just a "few bad apples" ruining it for the rest of the group. Well, it seems to me that it's more than just a few bad apples, that the entire barrel is rotten and if anything one would be lucky to find a single good apple in the entire group. Worse than that, it seems that the most corrupt rise to the top of the bureaucratic totem pole, thus corruption is rewarded and honesty punished.

It is more disturbing that those in "authority" would move to make it a crime to record or video their actions or the actions of their enforcers. Of course, one could ask if they are not doing anything wrong, why would they be afraid of being recorded or videoed, as indeed they would ask of you. Of course the common folk know that the main reason they are being videoed is as an excuse to collect revenue for victimless crimes. The reason the "authorities" don't want to be videoed is because they are doing wrong things. They are committing crimes with victims. They are hurting people, and they know it. They just don't want to admit it. They don't want to have to look at the evidence and see the harm they cause others and the violence they create. They want to tell themselves little stories about how good they are, how they're protecting society from the bad guys, and how anyone they harm got what they deserved.

The unblinking eye of the camera has become ubiquitous. It catches those who don't come to a complete stop before proceeding with a right turn on red as well as those who would put a man to the ground, handcuff him and then shoot him in the back of the head. Whereas those who haven't even necessarily endangered anyone by their driving habits will grumble as they pay their fines and move along to get along, those who have harassed, beaten, tasered, and even shot other human beings will use their power and the same intimidation techniques to prevent those who would hold them accountable from recording or even confiscate, steal or destroy video evidence.

That ability, however, is quickly fading. The seemingly obvious right the public should have to record public officials who are being paid with public dollars and are doing their public duties while in public is being honored by judges, surprisingly in a manner that seems to be not as reluctant as one might think. Could this be because the unjust nature of not allowing such crimes to be recorded is so obvious that even judges know that such laws would create unrest amongst the masses? Now if only those same judges in Illinois would allow the public to record video in their public courts where they do their public jobs taking public dollars then maybe we could hold them accountable for their legal chicanery and unjust practices.

Even if laws forbidding the recording of public officials while doing their public jobs were to be instituted and upheld by courts, technology would still try to hold them accountable for their crimes, misdeeds and unethical behaviors. Applications such as Qik which allow people to stream live video right to the Internet will see to that. The common folk are not quite as stupid as the privileged class would like to believe. As more people make the Internet their primary source of information and begin to understand just how real the tyranny has become, more people will demand an end to that tyranny. These same people will, hopefully, become inspired to look for ways to peacefully take power away from these unaccountable bureaucrats and empower the common folk. I believe that for the most part most people just want to be left alone to live their lives. When they are continuously harassed and not allowed to do so, they at least want to be able to gather evidence of those doing the harassing so they can hold them accountable.

People instinctively know right from wrong. They understand when someone has been railroaded or wrongfully treated by someone in authority. Yet sometimes they still have trouble reconciling in their minds that those people in authority are doing wrong. They have been brainwashed into believing that only decent people obtain positions of power and that they have the public's best interests at heart and would never do anything to harm an innocent person who was not hurting others. Video is showing these people that they are wrong in making such assumptions. Even if one at first denies that such evil has penetrated the institutions of justice, one cannot remain in denial forever as the preponderance of evidence shows the tyranny growing.

The police state is here. It has been recorded for your perusal. It is already on Youtube. You can deny it all you want, go and stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't affect you, or you can admit it and do nothing anyway as you go along to get along, or you can pick up a video recording device and go try to hold some corrupt officials accountable. Whatever the case, it seems to me that we're all being swept into an upcoming storm in one way or another. Hopefully we can come up on the other side freer, more independent, and not as afraid of the camera's unblinking eye.

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

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Ron Paul; Exposing Establishment Propaganda Since 1976

It is no secret that I am a huge Ron Paul supporter. I wrote quite a few write ups supporting his candidacy during the 2008 campaign. I wrote so much, in fact, that it becomes difficult to say anything that hasn't already been said. That's no big deal. There are many things in life that are worth repeating. Ron Paul is the rarest of politicians. He is the embodiment of honesty, integrity and principle. Most people like him would have just given up long ago on the political process and returned to their normal lives where they wouldn't have to deal with so much filth and corruption. Dr. Paul has hung in there since 1976 when he first entered politics in hopes that he could change for the better the way things are run in Washington, DC. He has done so despite the ostracism and derision of his colleagues and their cronies. Now, as 2012 approaches, he is capturing the attention of even more Americans and they are discovering just how manipulated politics and the mass media are.

With Ron Paul's second place showing in Ames and his continuing rise in poll after poll, the establishment media are up to their old tricks. They have decided to ignore him. They have decided to pretend he doesn't exist. They have decided he is not a top tier candidate and that they are not going to discuss the issues with him and take his ideas seriously, and neither should you. It's gotten so obvious that even some in the establishment media, like Jon Stewart, have taken notice. Yet you still have people like this guy who continue to make excuses for the media's biased behaviors.

The mainstream media wouldn't want you to take the ideas of freedom seriously. Gosh no. I mean, we're all free to do as we please in this nation, right? As long as we do as we are told by the authorities and pay our taxes. As long as we continue to mingle with the other sheep in the herd and don't go out of our way to test new waters. Just let the establishment media worry about who's electable and who isn't. Let them worry about who's top tier and who's not. No need to worry your little head over such matters, the nice talking heads on TV and established pundits in the established newspapers have already done the thinking for you. And they are so much smarter than you. Just move along now, nothing to see here.

And that's not even mentioning how much more restricted your thinking is supposed to be just because you're Republican. Why, Ron Paul can't be the Republican candidate for president because he's against the wars. We can't have Republicans being against the wars! They have to be for death and destruction and mayhem, it's the Republican way! Being against the wars is for those peacenik Democrats. Unless, of course, the wars you're talking about are the ones that the current administration is involved in, those wars are ok. Hmm, I guess maybe there's no place for the majority of people to go on this issue.

But Ron Paul is against the war on drugs! You can't be a Republican and be against the war on drugs! How is that even possible! Being against the war on drugs is a Democrat thing. Why, just look at how Obama has advanced the policy of more tolerance in the drug war. He's done so much for the advancement of medical marijuana and getting the federal government to back off peaceful people who are just trying to provide medication for sick individuals. Oh, wait, he hasn't done that even though he promised to. State sanctioned medical marijuana dispensaries still have to worry about federal authorities cracking down on them. It seems that maybe here's another issue where the policies of neither party reflects the opinion of the majority of the people.

I could go on. Time after time, issue after issue, politicians, especially federal politicians, do as the ruling elite wish, not as their constituents wish, often while breaking promises and principles they campaigned upon. A quick look at the recent bailouts, the health care laws, the rights killing security laws, laws creating organizations like the TSA and other bad laws which have increased the powers of the state while violating individual rights and reducing personal choice confirms this.

Ron Paul has a record of consistency that is second to none. He speaks what he believes and then he backs his words up with his actions and votes. Agree or disagree with his principles and the policies he advocates, one knows where he stands on the issues. He will not intimate a policy of peace and then send troops off to fight foreign wars. He will not state a policy of no nation building and then set out to cause a regime change and add to an empire. He will not advocate a complete audit of the Federal Reserve and then back off when a partial audit is done. He will not advocate free market reforms and then create more regulation and legislation to tie the hands of those who would otherwise provide competition to the established corporations. He will not advocate smaller government and then vote to increase the debt ceiling, hence the size of government. He will not advocate a more transparent administration and then proceed to create more secrecy and punish more whistleblowers than any other previous administration. I have trouble believing that any threat or any attempt at blackmail would cause him to dismiss his principles. With Ron Paul, what you see is what you get, and I believe that is why the establishment is so afraid of him, tries so hard to ignore him, and wants you to believe he is unelectable.

I think Ron Paul is a serious, top tier presidential candidate and would do well in either party because he is what most voters want in their candidates. I don't know about anyone else, but I want honesty in politics. I want dignity. I want principle. I want transparency. I want a return of the protection of individual rights as promised in the Constitution and I want to be able to hold elected officials accountable when they engage in corrupt and fraudulent activities. I'm not saying that Ron Paul would be able to completely end corruption in Washington, DC, but I think an administration run by him would have a far better shot of bringing about the things listed above than any of the candidates backed by the establishment.

The problem is a problem with perception, not with reality. In reality, if enough people support any candidate and will vote for him, he is electable. The establishment media does not want to focus on such facts. They want to focus on personalities. They want to focus on electing people who will bend to the will of the power elite. Anyone who challenges that status quo is a threat and the media lapdogs of that power elite will set out to neutralize that threat as best they can. These people don't want to discuss real issues. They don't want to discuss ideologies that haven't been cleared by their authoritarian masters. They want to discuss why one personality is more politically viable than another and what issues one must concentrate on due to his party affiliation. It is important to remember that most other candidates running for the Republican nomination are not there because they are populist candidates, they are there because they gained power through the power elite. They owe their allegiance to some establishment entity or another that has likely made them very rich, not to the common folk.

It is time the common folk showed the power brokers that they no longer trust them and will no longer listen to the propaganda they spew. It is time we put our man in office. I think Ron Paul's ideas of liberty are sound and his desire to honor his oath of office and adhere to the Constitution of the United States of America is admirable. I think that if enough people hear that message that they will once again have hope and will shed the apathy instilled in them by the futility of the one party with two faces system that has sadly been the norm in this nation for too long. Those people, the ones who have given up hope and so they no longer participate, are the ones this message should appeal to the most. I think the majority of Americans are still freedom loving individualists, and I believe that this majority can catapult Ron Paul to victory.

Personally, I'm tired of this federal government. I'm tired of the politicians. I'm tired of their lies. I'm tired of their arrogance. I'm tired of them ignoring my concerns. I'm tired of them telling me what to think. I'm tired of them telling me how to spend my money. I'm tired of their failed, one size fits all solutions. I'm tired of their trying to take care of everyone from cradle to grave. I'm tired of them trying to be everything to everyone.

I've heard that the definition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing over and over again and to hope for a different result. Isn't that what we've been doing with the political process for decades? When we elect those who merely pay lip service to principle, we will only get lies and deception. When we elect those with globalist agendas, we will get more globalism. When we elect those with collectivist schemes, we get more collectivism. When we elect those with a record of nepotism and corruption, we will get more nepotism and corruption. Why do we keep listening to the establishment media and letting them tell us who's top tier and who isn't? Their record is as dismal as any establishment politician's. It's time for real change. It's time for real hope. You say you want a r3VO˩ution ? It's time to give Ron (Paul) a chance.

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

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Central Banking Propagandists Sell Economic Poison

The propaganda is coming on hot and heavy since the debt ceiling decision that sold our great grandchildren's future to the banking elite. It seems that someone wants you to think that adding more debt to the already over burdened national line of credit is a good thing. It seems that someone wants you to believe that an economic crisis has been averted, not merely postponed and eventually made worse. It seems that someone wants you to move on placidly with your life, not think about the struggling economy, or the growing unemployment, or the dollar losing its value, and just accept that the Federal Reserve and their bought and paid for politicians are just going to do as they please no matter what you might think. Well, at least it's not hard to tell just who the mainstream mass media works for.

I want to point out a couple of interesting spins I caught in the corporate media. The first is the big deal made over the S&P downgrading the credit worthiness of the United States of America's federal government. The implications are that this was motivated by politics and has nothing to do with the ability for the United States of America to pay its debts. Duh. The S&P had already shattered its credibility by maintaining high credit ratings for many of the corporations that would later need to be bailed out back in 2008. Its actions can easily lead one to believe that it's an organization that was taken over by the elite financial interests long ago. It should be no surprise that these same financial interests would use their influence to get the S&P to downgrade the US federal government's credit rating, something that should have been done long ago, and then use their media arms to point out the poor judgment of their recent ratings errors.

There's no question in my mind that financial markets are manipulated. This is proven by the fact that a plunge protection team admittedly exists. The question is how deep and wide the manipulation goes. I would venture to say that the manipulation goes very deep and is spread out extremely wide. Why wouldn't a financial elite class with a monopoly on the creation of money use that power to grab as much influence in that sector as possible? Why wouldn't these people buy the influence of ratings agencies and then use their influence for their own benefit? Why wouldn't they want to use their insider knowledge to try to keep those on the outside from withdrawing their funds in a timely fashion while allowing insiders to get out before they start losing money?

When the media is controlled by the financial elite, one can't count on them to give accurate information. Yet they want money to keep flowing from the common folk into their game so they can continue to fleece them. They have to try to at least appear to be credible. It's a fine line walked by the mainstream media. I think they are teetering on the brink as more and more people loose their trust in the establishment.

The second spin I noticed is the notion that this debt decision somehow shows that congress has matured. I read a headline that actually declared that this decision shows that congress has grown up. Somehow, people believe that compromising on principle is a good, adult thing to do and that piling debt on top of debt will somehow improve the economy rather than destroy the currency. In my opinion, this decision does anything but show a maturing of congress. Indeed, mature congressmen would have stuck by their principles and made the hard and perhaps painful decisions to cut expenses that may have politically upset many of their constituents. The decision made to compromise showed only that most politicians are going to cave to pressure from special interests rather than listen to the majority of the people they represent. Power corrupts.

A recent Rasmussen poll shows that most people don't believe the United States federal government has the consent of the governed. This to me is a very telling statistic. First off, it is Rasmussen that conducted this study, a very credible source for most people even if it is an establishment organization. The other thing that makes this more credible in my mind is that this is a result that the establishment should not want to be brought out. More than that, if you talk to people, even statists, most will probably have some complaint or concern about how the government does business and many will voice their belief that they feel they are not represented by the federal government and its policies. My opinion is that's because the common folk are not represented in congress, the political and financial elite are.

We have been told that a default on the interest of the national debt will lead to even worse economic conditions. This could be so, but such steps could be compared to the practice of giving a cancer patient chemotherapy. The patient might appear to be sicker as he undergoes the process, but eventually the cancer in the body politic will shrink and go into remission. The debt is the cancer and paying it down is the only cure. Big government needs to be cut down and control put back in the hands of local populations. The national credit card needs to be taken away.

Keep in mind that the Constitution of the United States of America allows for an interest free currency. In fact, it allows for only gold and silver coins to be used as money, and only the government may coin money, but the mint is open to the public with anyone being able to get bullion minted into coins. While some will argue that this view of money is quaint and old fashioned, I would argue that it was when these principles were abandoned for political and elitist agendas that the economy started down the path which led to the current mess. In any case, there is a case to be made that the Constitution was never changed and therefore the current system we operate under is unconstitutional and fraudulent.

Whatever the case, we all know that we could not do the same things in our personal lives that the government and their agents claim to be able to do. We could not pile debt on top of debt and expect to become truly wealthy. We could not print money out of nothing without living in fear of being arrested for counterfeiting. I have always felt that if something is wrong for an individual person to do, it is wrong for a group of people to do, it is therefore wrong for government or their agents to do. If you are to give a pass to that group due to good intentions, then the individual should also receive the same consideration.

Those who keep pushing the legitimacy of central banking and fiat currencies are selling the populace economic poison. A quick look back into history will confirm this point of view. Fiat currencies have historically ended up in a bad way. The currencies collapse, devalue and can end up hyper-inflating. Those that have held the privilege of printing the money end up with all the wealth, either collecting real assets such as homes, natural resources, infrastructure, land, etc., when the eventual default occurs or moving the wealth out of the country and employing government agencies to tax the indigenous population into extreme poverty. It is this type of wealth transfer the elite who run the Federal Reserve in the United States is trying to accomplish, in my opinion. They are trying to grab up as much of the wealth of the common folk of this nation as they can, and the further in debt they can drive us, the more stuff they can claim ownership of when the system eventually collapses. They will reap the benefits of the economic poison by inheriting the leftovers of a dead economy.

It doesn't have to end up that way. The United States of America does not have to become a banana republic owned and operated by banking interests. Those that operate the central banking systems can be identified and held to account. The Federal Reserve system can be fully audited and the criminality exposed. Tax monies that have been misappropriated can be returned and used to correct the situation. Corruption does not have to be tolerated in order to sustain the system, but should be cleaned up and the mechanisms that allowed it removed. The system can be slowly disassembled to minimize economic pain as a new, more accountable, more transparent, constitutional system is put in its place, as is the law of the land. Before any of that will happen, however, I believe it will be necessary admit that problems exist, expose the source of those problems and widely disseminate that information. The mainstream mass media is certainly not helping in that area.

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

Thursday, August 11, 2011

The 12 Scariest TSA Stories of All Time

(The author of this article requested I post it here. Personally, I think she goes a little easy on the TSA. Many of these stories suggest that the TSA needs to be reformed. I think they need to be abolished and that the individual airlines should be in charge of their own security, that way the passengers themselves, those using the service, could decide for themselves just how much scrutiny they wish to put themselves through when they fly.)

The TSA is an oft hated and maligned part of airline travel, and although the agency seems to get an excessively bad rap, many stories of TSA incidents indicate that the public's assessment is correct. Airline passengers going through security should not fear brutal force, sexual harassment, insensitive treatment, and even being separated from their child in the name of safety, yet as you'll see from the following stories, they do. Although these stories are among the worst, so many more were not included, and continue to develop each day. Read on to find 12 chilling TSA horror stories.
  1. Meg McLain Can't Get Home

    What happens when you opt out of the backscatter scan and ask questions about the pat down? If you're Meg McLain, you get harassed and ultimately, get your ticket ripped up. Meg was cuffed in a chair and escorted out of the airport by 12 Miami cops after she questioned what would happen to her in the secondary screening pat down. Her US Airways ticket was torn up, and although US Airways promised to credit her for a new flight, they then refused to replace her ticket. As a talk show host with Free Keene, Meg's story received plenty of attention, with a wildly popular YouTube video, a visit to the Alex Jones Show, and an interview with The Consumerist. The TSA released surveillance videos of the incident in an attempt to lay the blame for the incident on McLain; however, some believe that the videos actually vindicate her.
  2. Ninety-four year-old stands for her patdown

    At 94 years old, Marian Paterson is not as physically capable as others may be, and that means that it is not comfortable for her to stand for long periods of time. But nonetheless, Paterson was made to stand "for over ten minutes," as she reports, much longer than is necessary to complete a TSA patdown, and much longer than she felt physically able to handle. Her family believes that the TSA went too far, indicating that "they groped her…all over her body." Marian had trouble understanding why, "of all the people in America, they'd pick out some little old lady."
  3. A terminal cancer patient is forced to remove her adult diaper

    Another elderly woman, Jean Weber's 95-year-old mother, in the final stages of her leukemia battle, was forced to submit to a patdown just a week after receiving a blood transfusion. Her "wet and firm" diaper was deemed suspicious, and she was taken to a private room. They had to remove her diaper, and she was separated from her daughter Jean. She did not have an extra pair, and was forced to go through the airport without underwear. Although the procedure was technically correct, Weber feels that "the procedure needs to be changed," allowing more sensitivity to those with certain health needs.
  4. Bladder cancer survivor humiliated and covered in urine

    The TSA seems to have it out for those affected by cancer. Tom Sawyer wears a urostomy bag, a device necessary after his successful fight with bladder cancer. The TSA scanner picked up his bag, and he was chosen for a pat down. He had to ask for privacy during the screening, which he received, albeit not without eye rolling. During the procedure, he tried several times to explain his medical condition, and warned them that they could break the seal on his urostomy bag, covering him with urine. But despite his explanations, Sawyer was ignored, the seal was broken, and urine spilled all over his shirt, leg, and pants. The TSA agents' response? As Sawyer recounted, "he told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn't seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark." Without so much as an apology, Sawyer had to walk through the airport, still soaked in urine, board his plane, and wait until after takeoff to clean himself up. On the incident, Sawyer commented, "If this country is going to sacrifice treating people like human beings in the name of safety, then we have already lost the war."
  5. Oops, your breasts are exposed. Good thing we have video

    An Amarillo woman filed a suit against the TSA for publicly exposing her breasts at a Corpus Christi Airport. She was picked out for an extended search procedure before her flight in 2008, and "as the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff's blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs' breasts to everyone in the area." The victim filed an administrative claim against the TSA, but after the agency failed to respond, she filed a lawsuit. To further her embarrassment, the victim claims that TSA employees joked and laughed about her accident, with one male TSA employee sharing "that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that 'he would just have to watch the video.'"
  6. Removing nipple rings with pliers

    The TSA indicates that "security officers are well trained to screen individuals with body piercings in sensitive areas with dignity and respect," but Mandi Hamlin did not receive such treatment. Instead, she was forced to remove her nipple piercings, one of which had to be taken out with pliers. The TSA's policy is to give individuals with body piercings either pat downs or have them remove the piercings in private; however, Hamlin was not given the option of the pat down — her only available option was to remove her piercings. In fact, she indicated that she could show a female agent her piercings, but was told she couldn't board her flight without removing all piercings. In a letter to the TSA, Hamlin's attorney reminded the agency that "After nipple rings are inserted, the skin can often heal around the piercing, and the rings can be extremely difficult and painful to remove," making what they forced Hamlin to do cruel, especially as reinserting them is also quite painful. And as if that wasn't enough, while Hamlin was removing her jewelry behind a curtain, she heard male TSA agents snickering at her plight. Her lawyer notes, "The last time that I checked, a nipple was not a dangerous weapon."

    1. Sikh profiled for screening, forced to remove his turban

      The TSA recommends removing all headwear, "but the rules accommodate those with religious, medical, or other reasons for which the passenger wishes not to remove the item." That is not the experience that Gurdeep Singh Bawa received at Chicago O'Hare in 2010. For religious reasons, Bawa does not let anyone touch his turban, and he does not take it off, an action that is very disrespectful. Despite clearing two tests for explosives trace detection, he was told he would have to take his turban off. After removing it in a private room, officers took it away, bringing it back minutes later. Bawa and other Sikhs in his community feel that they are being "religiously, racially profiled," and Bawa in particular feels that he was offended, noting, "I've never been humiliated like this in my life."
    2. Taking a teddy bear away from a three-year-old girl

      Kids often get very attached to toys, and three-year-old Mandy Simon is no exception. So when screeners took her teddy bear away from her to run it through the x-ray machine, she was very upset. Although it was standard procedure, the incident was jarring for little Mandy, and she was so upset about her teddy bear, she couldn't walk calmly through the metal detector, setting the machine off twice. It was at that point that she had to be patted down, still crying, and screaming, "Stop touching me!" Her dad, a Houston TV news reporter, caught the incident on video, which ended up getting lots of attention and pushback from Slashdot and a mention in several news outlets, including NY Daily News.
    3. Suing for a concussion

      In 2010, Robin Kassner sued the TSA for using abusive bodily force against her at the Reagan National Airport in 2007. The TSA claims that "was interfering with the screening process and refusing to follow security procedures." The security cameras show a scuffle, with Kassner wrestled to the floor by police, and taking an elbow to the head as she was slammed on a table. Kassner claims that she blacked out and suffered a concussion, which has led to memory problems. It's not clear what she did to provoke such a response. She is seeking $10 million in damages for the incident.
    4. We don't care about your disability, little boy

      Four-year-old Ryan Thomas was born sixteen weeks early, and as a result, is developmentally delayed: at the time of his TSA incident, he was just starting to walk. His parents use a stroller for him, as well as leg braces for his malformed legs with low muscle tone. Unable to walk steadily on his own, his mother initially walked him through the metal detector, and his leg braces set the alarm off. Ryan was forced to take off his leg braces, but his mother was not allowed to help him walk this time — he had to walk on his own. That's right, a disabled four-year-old just learning to walk with the assistance of leg braces had to walk, without any physical assistance or the use of his braces, through the detector for TSA. After Ryan's father went to the press, the TSA apologized to the family, and acknowledged that there are other ways to screen those with disabilities, including those that don't require a disabled child to do what is nearly impossible.
    5. Amputee separated from her four-year-old son

      Peggy is a mother of a four-year-old, and she also has a below-knee amputation. Both she and her son were subjected to invasive pat downs, and were also separated from each other. Peggy had to sit and watch without helping or comforting her son as he was patted down, which included a peek in his diaper, an experience that left him shaking but still not able to seek the comfort of his mother. Peggy had her own, far worse embarrassment to deal with after her son's ordeal. She had to remove not just her prosthetic leg, but her prosthetic liner, and run them through the x-ray scanner. Her prosthetic liner must be kept sanitary to avoid infection and a possible higher level amputation, and above that, protects from sight a part of Peggy's body that she feels "is on par with one's genitals." She was gawked at while her liner was run through the machine with no attempt to keep it sanitary, and was then thrown haphazardly into her lap. Peggy's story reached Boing Boing, and is a focal point of the Amputee Coalition of America's Call for Improved Screening Procedures for TSA.
    6. TSA agents took my son

      The TSA doesn't seem to respect the bond and safety of mother and child. In 2009, Nicole White claims she was separated from her 16-month-old son, Jackson. According to the TSA, they "will not ask you to do anything that will separate you from your child or children," but that was not Nicole and Jackson's experience. After his pacifier clip set off an alarm, Nicole and Jackson were escorted together to a plastic box, where they waited and became increasingly late for their flight. They were eventually patted down, but instead of patting down Jackson in Nicole's lap, a TSA agent insisted that he had to be picked up, and Nicole handed him to the agent. It was at that point the agent walked away with her son, and despite Nicole's questions and tears, she could not see Jackson and was ignored until the TSA threatened to involve the authorities. She was separated from her son for an estimated 10 minutes, during which time she had a panic attack. The TSA posted videos to discredit her story, but Nicole, just like Meg McLain, maintains that the full incident was not posted, including the time when Jackson was taken away and Nicole made two phone calls to her husband and mother.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

A Cash Filled, Central Banking Free Society

Did you watch the show? It was the latest reality show, complete with drama, unexpected twists and all kinds of different personalities clashing with one another. Like all reality shows, it was not really an improvised and unplanned series of events, but was mostly scripted and had a predictable outcome. In fact, the outcome was predicted by many who were paying attention. I am talking, of course, about the show that congress was putting on to try to make the public believe they care about shrinking government and convince the masses they are doing something to alleviate the debt. The saddest part of this reality show is that it actually affects each and every one of us with very real consequences for their actions.

What has occurred was so predictable, it's laughable. I knew months ago what was going to happen. I heard from several sources this exact scenario. Congress would try to frighten us by saying default and collapse was inevitable, would result in unprecedented catastrophe, and would bring about chaos and mayhem unless we bowed to the will of the central banks and raised the debt ceiling. They would then pretend to be at an impasse, that the two parties were actually different and battling each other for the principles they believe in. It would look like the deadline would be reached and the nation would go into (gasp) default and then, suddenly, at the last moment, a compromise would be reached and the world would be saved! Hurray for the heroic politicians!

I even saw little Timmy Geithner come out and say something similar just a few days ago. He was talking about how congress had no choice but to reach a compromise and raise the debt ceiling. I don't know how it happened, but somehow these people have come to believe that the only way to get out of debt is to pile on more debt. They have even convinced many of the common folk of this. That makes about as much sense as believing the only way to lose weight is add even more fattening foods to your diet. The way to get out of debt is to quit buying anything that isn't absolutely necessary, to pay down any debt you may have already accumulated, and to try to get back to basics. Raising the debt ceiling only means going into more debt.

This outcome was predictable because it has been going on for a very long time. Banks have been manipulating governments and currencies for their benefit and to the detriment of society and the masses of humanity in general for centuries. The latest iteration of this parasitic monstrosity is known as the Federal Reserve, attached itself to productive humanity in 1913 with the help of the United States congress, and has been happily sustaining itself through our hard labor ever since. It is using the same fraudulent techniques that central banks have used for ages to enrich itself only with a modern twist. It uses the popular mass media to generate propaganda, spread fear of economic failure and convince the masses that without it there would be no economic growth.

So, in 1913 the Federal Reserve began to siphon off the wealth of the lower classes and funnel it to the extremely wealthy elite banking class. It began to spread its tentacles into all areas of the financial world. It began its manipulations that would lead to the ruination of millions. It began to create the corporations that would one day become too big to fail. It began to put into motion its plans to control and dominate a new world order with a new world big centralized bank. But this really didn't begin in 1913, it began long before then. The families involved in this scam have been around for centuries and are simply modernizing their old tricks. They are simply doing what the masses have allowed them to do for ages. Perhaps their ancestors can't be held accountable, but those who continue to help perpetuate this fraud need to be exposed and held accountable if we are ever to realize a truly free society.

Contrary to what many would have you believe, there are many ways the economy could have been helped without raising the debt ceiling, without hurting the poor or those dependent upon the state for their survival, and without growing government. The number one way I can think of is to end the occupations and aggressions the United States military is engaging in. How many billions would that cut from the budget and then how much head room would we have? We could stop policing the world and bring all troops home from all foreign shores. How much room would that leave? We could get rid of the department of education and let local interests and parents handle the education of the children. We could get rid of the TSA and let airlines handle their own security. Oh, and billions could be saved if our government stopped paying interest on the debt and paid back only the principle.

This congress, these politicians and the bankers that control them don't want to eliminate the debt. They don't want to shrink government or give up any power. They want it all, and they want you to just sit back and accept their dictates. They will keep growing the government until everyone is working for or dependent upon them in one form or another. They want you and your progeny as their livestock so that they can do with you as they please. That seems to be their ultimate goal, to completely control the lives of everyone on this planet so that they can live out their sick delusions of becoming gods.

At the same time, they want you to believe that they are making spending cuts. I keep reading about them cutting two trillion in spending, but they raised the debt ceiling. Huh? If they raised the debt ceiling, that means that they are increasing spending. If they were to cut spending by two trillion, then the ceiling should be falling by two trillion. What they've really done is stretched out their ability to waste more money and continue to benefit themselves and their friends for the next ten years. What they've done is to defer the burden of paying off the debt to the next few generations, just like they deferred the burden of paying off debt to this generation when they printed all that money to pay for the social programs and the wars fought in the twentieth century. They are hoping to divert your attention so that in ten years we'll forget their folly of 2011 and they can continue to increase the debt unabated.

I think the buck should stop here, so to speak, with this generation, and we should start paring down all government. Forget about a balanced budget amendment. That allows for the federal government to be far too large, to be able to borrow far too much money, to have far too much power, and to maintain the ability to intrude upon your life and violate your rights. The first thing I'd like to see is a full audit of not only the Federal Reserve, but of all central banks. While all this drama about the budget was taking place, an important report about the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) one time audit of the Fed came out. It shows over 16 trillion in emergency loans going out to financial institutions worldwide and other disturbing facts. Exactly how much is the deficit? Exactly who has benefited from these funds? I have the feeling a full audit would reveal much that many of the elite would not want you to know.

The next thing that we should do is go back to constitutional money or allow for competition in the currency market. Neither of those ideas are perfect and certain people will find fault in each one, but in my opinion both are better than the system currently in place. I think competition in currency would be best and the marketplace would be able to figure out the best way to hold accountable those who would commit fraud. I think that a society based on cash where the need for credit is limited would be liberating. Remember, debt means you do not own the things you think you own. The debtor is beholding to the lender who can lay claim to his things if conditions warrant. A cash based society free from central banking interests would lead to greater ownership opportunities, more self reliance and more freedom for all. This is what humanity should be striving for.

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

A Tyrant Judge and his Florida Fiefdom

I do not advocate violence. I believe it to be counterproductive. There are times, however, when it seems that one must exercise some form of force to restrain those who think they are superior to the rest of us and deserve special privileges in order to prevent them from doing harm. This can be called self defense or intervention in the defense of another peaceful person who may be harmed. I also consider myself to be a reasonable person, so I am willing to consider all sides of a story. What I have come to discover as I have aged is that the common folk have become too willing to simply bow to authority and obey authority figures without question while those same authority figures overstep their bounds time and again and are almost never held accountable for their actions and/or bad decisions.

Recently, Chief Judge Belvin Perry signed an order prohibiting the distribution of jury nullification literature outside the Orange County courthouse in Florida. There are many things wrong with this order on the surface. It extends the power that a judge is supposed to exercise in a reasonable manner to outside the purview of his courtroom. It violates the individual's right to free speech on public property where it is most necessary and effective. It violates the principle of separation of power by allowing a single individual to write the law, as well as judge it, and bypasses the power and processes of the legislative branch. Perhaps most important, yet less obvious, it takes away an important tool used for centuries by humans to inform their fellow human beings of the power they have to determine their own destiny. This is, in my opinion, the real reason why this order was written. Chief Judge Belvin Perry does not want individuals well educated about their power when it comes to law polluting the pool of potential jurors with people who will judge the law itself. He wants sheeple who will respect his authority and mindlessly follow without question his instructions.

Chief Judge Belvin Perry cares not for the law. He cares not for the rights of individuals. He cares not for principle or preserving the foundations upon which our nation was based. He cares not what you or I or any of the common folk think or feel. He cares only for his own ego. He cares only for his own power. He thinks he is superior to the rest of us and knows best what we can and can't do, and he's willing to throw people in jail in order to prove it. It seems to me that he feels he is supreme in his own fiefdom and his word is law, not that he is a servant of the people sitting in judgment of government agents who may violate individual rights.

As evidence of the above statement I cite the arrest and conviction of one Mark Schmidter. It wasn't enough that he was arrested for handing out pamphlets, a victimless crime that harms no one but merely offers knowledge to others, he was convicted and sentenced to 151 days in jail. In my opinion, the judge committed multiple crimes that harmed someone by throwing a man in jail when he did nothing wrong. Chief Judge Belvin Perry found Mark Schmidter guilty of "indirect criminal contempt," whatever that means. What it amounts to is a system where a tin pot judicial lord can use some poorly worded law that can be broadly interpreted to throw anyone who challenges his authority in a jail cell, in some cases indefinitely. What it amounts to is creating political prisoners from people who have a difference of opinion and are exercising their natural right to speak out against injustice. This is not what America was supposed to be about. This is what every tyrannical government in human history is about.

As I said above, I do not advocate violence, but in this case I think it is Chief Judge Belvin Perry who should be thrown in a jail cell. I think he should have been charged with treason for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution. I think the bailiffs and court police who also take oaths to uphold the Constitution should have refused to follow the judge's order to throw Mr. Schmidter and jail and should have arrested the judge instead. But the ranks of officials who are supposed to protect individuals from having their rights violated by the leviathan state are no longer filled with courageous men and women who understand the principles of liberty, they are filled by vacant eyed, salivating, power crazed bureaucrats waiting for the order to bust heads and engage in the very behaviors they are supposed to protect against.

Unfortunately, Chief Judge Belvin Perry will likely never be held accountable for his action. Like his brethren in the law enforcement community, he is treated differently within the justice system than the rest of us. He has the privilege of being able to break the law and harm individuals with impunity. The best that we can hope for at this moment is that Mr. Schmidter is vindicated on appeal and that Chief Judge Belvin Perry is unseated as a judge, or relieved of his post, or at the very least giving a slap on the wrist for this obvious violation of Constitutional law. I doubt very much even that will happen.

It is my hope that even more people will now show up to support Mr. Schmidter and his efforts. It is my hope that even more activists will now show up at the Orange County courthouse in Florida and pass out jury nullification pamphlets to prospective jurors. It is my hope that the common folk will demand the release of Mr. Mark Schmidter and the resignation of Chief Judge Belvin Perry. I would like to see so many people demanding the restoration of respect for their rights that these bureaucratic officials are forced to yield.

It has become obvious that the officials care not to follow their own rules. They constantly violate not only their oaths, but their own regulations they supposedly set up to ensure accountability. If they can violate the rules governing their behavior with impunity, then the common folk ought to be able to do the same. It remains to be seen how far the common folk will allow the bureaucrats to push the envelope. It remains to be seen how long the common folk will allow these violations to continue to take place. I have seen evidence, however, that the masses are awakening to their plight and more and more action is being taken to correct the usurpation that has occurred. It is my hope that even the bureaucrats will one day be able to see the flaws inherent in the system as it is and help to peacefully create an open, free, taxless, voluntary society.

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