Saturday, December 31, 2011

Ron Paul, Racism and Conspiracy Theorists

The Ron Paul campaign must really be doing something right. The corporate owned mainstream media is really attacking him with all guns blazing. They dredge up the fear card and accuse him of being a racist. They spin his words and try to frame the argument in a way that, in my opinion, is very dishonest to say the least. Some would call these corporate shills outright liars, but in their minds they're just trying to push the propaganda that will get their guy elected so their corporate masters can maintain their power. The problem for them is that the masses of humanity aren't as dumb as they seem to believe. The people on catching on to their little game. There's a world of difference between the way they treat Ron Paul who WILL follow through on his campaign promises to restore personal freedoms as best he can (judging from his political consistency and voting record), and the way they treated Barrack Obama who made promises that sounded good and somewhat Ron Paulish but were never meant to be kept.

It's alright when your guy goes out there and talks about hope and change and freedom because they know he'll purposely be ineffective when it comes to loosening the grip the establishment holds on power, but when Ron Paul talks about such things they are suddenly scary and bad because he is suggesting real ways to change the establishment and they know he plans on implementing them. Take, for example, this video clip taken from MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews. At about the three minute mark, they start talking about the anti Washington, DC sentiment on the street and how Democrats thought Barrack Obama was the answer and are now seeing that in Ron Paul. Chris Matthews asks what is it about, is it that "whole freedom, personal freedom thing?"

Ding, ding, ding. He hit the nail on the head. But he made it sound like freedom is a bad thing. The whole nature of what this nation was supposed to be about is somehow greatly flawed. There's a whole undertow, an ocean of information that he glosses over in a few sentences to try to make Ron Paul and his supporters sound bad. We are all crazy for wanting freedom and for being anti Washington, DC and anti-establishment. What do we want freedom for? Then he turns around and makes freedom something only young people want. When we get older and need health care, around 65 or 70, then suddenly government is pretty healthy. You old people don't want freedom, you want to be told where, what, and how when it comes to health care. Is it any wonder corporate owned mainstream media gets more and more insignificant as time goes on? They make themselves sound foolish without even trying.

So, what does Chris Matthews do next to try to impugn Ron Paul? He turns to another corporate owned media source for back up. A New York Times blogger wrote about Ron Paul's 20 year old newsletter and claims it's impossible to know how Ron Paul feels about blacks or gay people who were "viciously disparaged" in it. I can tell you how he feels about them. It's really not hard and he never had to write about it. He feels they are all individual human beings with unalienable rights that should not be violated by government, and especially not the federal government whose mandate is to protect those very rights they now so often violate. Even if Ron Paul was the most racist individual on earth, which he is not, he supports policies that are definitively non racist. He would not use government to empower racist beliefs. He has proven this time and again by being against some of the most racist policies implemented by the federal government, policies that prey upon the economic underclasses, war in general and the war on drugs in particular.

The wars and occupations we engage in depend upon a volunteer army. Much of that army consists of minorities who volunteer because they don't see better economic opportunities offered in this nation. The war on drugs has jailed a much higher percentage of non violent minorities than white folk. If you don't think these policies are racist in nature, than I think you're looking at them with emotional blinders on. Ron Paul wants to put an end to both these policies. That's about as anti racist as you can get. What difference does it make what he thinks privately, as long as he publicly supports policies that encourage personal freedom for all peoples? Unless, of course, Chris Matthews believes that Ron Paul has supported such policies all these decades just so he could procure the office of President of the United States so he could flip flop as he's never done before and implement a policy of racism unequaled in our times! What a devious plan!

Oh, and that would make Chris Matthews a paranoid conspiracy theorist! That is, of course, unless he believes Ron Paul is a lone wolf who has thought up this plan all by himself and has not told anyone else about it. That doesn't seem very likely. Yet the New York Times piece seamlessly melds the racist accusation into the accusation that Ron Paul is a "paranoid conspiracy theorist." Chris Matthews takes it to the next level by tying it all into the "truther" movement and suggesting that Ron Paul might think that George Bush was pushing some sort of detonator that blew up the world trade center. Talk about trying to dredge up emotional muck to get people to forget about the issues they should be focused upon.

But to address these issues, what is it that Chris Matthews hates about the truth? Why does he try to make the word truther sound so bad? What is wrong with wanting to know the truth? There is so much that went unanswered by the 9/11 commission, what is wrong with wanting another investigation? They just got done explaining how so many people are anti government these days, why should those people accept the conspiracy theories of the government over the conspiracy theories proffered by others who are not involved in government? What is wrong with opening your mind to other possibilities? As for the snide remark about George Bush, I don't think anyone ever accused him of pushing the detonator, but he had to have his buddy Dick Cheney with him when he was questioned about the incident and that little question and answer session took place behind closed doors and was never made public.

So then Chris Matthews takes it another step farther and talks about other conspiracy theories, the most recent being a plot to make it look like the Iranians were planning to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to get us into another war. Once again, Mr. Matthews makes it seem as if such a plot is impossible and anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy. Has he forgotten about the Gulf of Tonkin? Does he think that everyone involved in the United States federal government is angelic? Does he believe that somehow once you join our government you earn a halo? Maybe he believes that people who seek positions of power in politics couldn't possibly engage in illegal acts in order to maintain their power. Maybe he believes that once you are actually governing people only the best human qualities come out and the worst human qualities are forever squelched in you. That's a pretty Polly Anna thing to believe. I somehow doubt that Mr. Matthews is that naive. More likely he's just doing as he's told by his corporate masters and spreading the scary propaganda to make people afraid of Ron Paul and freedom. Does saying that make me a paranoid conspiracy theorist?

I'd like to see someone play "hardball" with Chris Matthews. On his program he gets to frame the debate and ask the questions in a way that twists peoples' words and make them mean things they weren't meant to mean. It's a game the establishment plays to try to make the way of life they force upon us look good and benevolent while anyone else's philosophies or ideas on how we should live our lives become "crazy" or "stupid" or perhaps even "dangerous." I'm certain there's a clever propagandist out there who could make Chris Matthews' ideas seem just as crazy, stupid or dangerous if given the chance. The problem is, the powers that be won't ever give anyone the chance. I wonder just how he'd do if he was the one being questioned.

The interview finished up on a fine note with the explanation that there's a certain amount of prairie pacifism and war fatigue at work here. Duh. Ten years in Iraq. Eight years in Afghanistan. They're still trying to make us believe that the war in Iraq is over when it's not. They over look Libya. Yeah, people want to get out. No more war. No more devious intelligence gathering that puts our reputation at risk. Peace is not a bad thing, nor is it dangerous. No matter how the corporate owned media spins them, freedom and peace are ideals we should strive for. People are tired of the lies and corruption that leads to war that profits the elite few who have grabbed control of our system of government.

Ron Paul is leading because his ideas make sense. He is different from the established candidates. He has opened people's minds. As people's minds open they become more willing to take a look at alternative views of history. Perhaps this will cause a certain amount of them to realize just how badly they've been manipulated throughout their lives. Perhaps that's why these propagandists seen on the establishment corporate mainstream media are losing audience share and becoming less significant all the time. Most people will sooner or later be able to recognize truth when they see it. As has been said, the truth will set you free, and Ron Paul certainly seems more truthful and honest than any other politician at the federal level.

If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.

Friday, December 30, 2011

Evolution and Food, a Different Point of View

I read a paper once on a native American tribe from the southwest. They had a larger than normal occurrence of diabetes. To put it in a nutshell, in trying to determine the cause of this the study found that the loss of a melon that had been natural to their diet contributed greatly to the rise in diabetes cases within the tribe. When the melon was reintroduced into their diet the occurrence of diabetes fell dramatically. It turns out that after ten thousand years of depending on this fruit for a major part of their diet their digestive systems had adapted to the point where taking the food source away caused it damage.

Unfortunately, I can't remember the source for this. It was read long ago when I was in college for some science class I was taking or some such thing. It stuck with me because I remember thinking how this demonstrated the nature of evolution. Evolution isn't something that happens suddenly and, poof, you have a new species. It's not even something you can necessarily see. It's something that happens over a long period of time, thousands and even millions of years, and something that one might not even be able to detect outwardly or by the remains we find. In short, evolution is the adaptation an organism undergoes to keep up with its changing environment. How well an organism can adapt will determine whether it survives and what it will evolve into.

In the case above the native Americans evolved into organisms that needed something in the melon to help them break down sugars in their diet. This wasn't discovered until the food source was removed and the abnormally high occurrence of diabetes was investigated. It makes sense to me that the digestive track and its processes would be some of the first and easiest things to evolve with a changing environment as opposed to something like height, or limbs, or other outward structures. This is because not only are these changes taking place at the molecular and cellular levels, but the body will be changing slowly as the food sources change. Given enough time, the organism may become dependent on certain food sources to remain healthy in ways we might not even think of.

All this gives me pause to think, what happens if our modern day food sources are suddenly changed? How would that affect our bodies that have adapted to certain qualities in certain food sources over the millennia? Will our bodies even be able to absorb the necessary nutrition from such food sources? Will they develop diseases such as diabetes and cancer? Such questions are already being answered, and you're doing the answering. Certain companies have decided it's alright to make such genetic changes in our food supply and not even tell us about them. Our federal government and their establishment corporate sponsors have teamed up and decided that there is no problem with turning the citizenry of this nation into guinea pigs. They refuse to even label genetically modified foods at the store and let you make the decision whether you wish to purchase and eat them or not.

It's bad enough that we eat so much prepared food. It's bad enough that we eat so many preservatives and manmade additives and ingredients in our modern diets. It wouldn't surprise me to find that these things have quite a bit to do with the increased cases of cancers, diabetes, heart disease and other maladies prevalent in modern society. But at least we more or less choose to consume such foods. At least most of us realize the risks and choose convenience and affordability over quality. Many people aren't even aware they're consuming genetically modified food, let alone informed on the risks.

We have been eating many foods for thousands of years. Our bodies expect certain elements and qualities in our meats, grains, fruits and vegetables. Our bodies have evolved over these thousands of years along with the food our diets consist of. My generation is possibly better able to handle the processing our food undergoes than even my father's generation, but that is not certain. When a different element is introduced into our food, our bodies have to figure out how to deal with it. Our bodies have to evolve. That takes time. Our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will likely have a better chance of their bodies adapting to absorb the necessary nutrition from these genetically modified foods than you or I do, but there are no guarantees. For all we know, modifying such foods could backfire and cause a catastrophe. And what will be available for most of us to eat is now being decided by a few faceless bureaucrats and elite corporatists who will never be held accountable for any possible disaster.

At the very least, food that is genetically modified should be labeled so. At the very least, those who grow natural crops should be reimbursed when their crops are destroyed by wind borne cross pollination with genetically modified crops. Instead the powers that be fight to prevent genetically modified foods from being labeled. Instead the courts are finding in favor of corporate farms and forcing small family farms out of business when cross pollination occurs by claiming the small farmers have violated the corporations' patents on such foods. Everything is backward. The powers that be want to keep us in the dark. The powers that be seem to want to force natural foods out of the market. Is it any wonder that so many see a conspiracy when it comes to food manipulation?

This is just another example of the total failure of the federal government to protect individuals or even to simply be reasonable and fair. In study after study it is shown that natural foods are better for the body. In study after study it is shown that natural foods provide the body with the nutrition necessary to grow stronger, to stay younger longer, to fight off diseases better, yet the corporate farms that have taken control of so much of our farmland insist on feeding us foods that are less and less natural and therefore less nutritious and less beneficial to the body. At the very least each individual should be able to decide what food they want to eat and feed their families. In our modern world, even the very least is denied us due to misinformation, government incompetence and even deliberately hidden information. It seems to me that if the powers that be appointed to such tasks can't protect the integrity of our food they should be held accountable when that integrity breaks down.

If you like my writings, please visit my website to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

All Roads Lead to Ron Paul

Ron Paul is finally getting the attention he has deserved for so long. The mainstream corporate media is finally relenting, although grudgingly, to the pressure applied by virtue of Dr. Paul's rising popularity and his unwavering principles. His message of liberty is finally beginning to sink into the minds of the sheeple. It has taken a long time because our society has grown up around sound bites of a few seconds or less. It becomes difficult to explain complicated solutions in less than a minute, let alone only a few seconds. It is also easier for those who edit sound bites to make bad ideas sound better, or more compassionate, or more moral, etc. The manipulations have recently become so obvious, however, that even the most sheepish of those who follow the herd have begun to notice.

Sound bites don't depend on deep thought and moral, philosophical reasoning. Sound bites depend more on emotion. The emotion usually preyed upon is fear. It usually takes the form of "if not this than that" or "if not this than how?" Examples are, "If not the Republican candidate than (gasp) the Democrat candidate." "If we don't fight them over there, than we'll have to fight them over here!" "If we don't protect democracy, than we'll all be living under sharia law!" etc. Similarly, I've heard or read things like "If not for government, how would there be roads?" or "If not for the Department of Education, how would our children be educated?" or "If not for the Department of Housing how could poor people afford housing?" These types of tactics to control thought processes serve only to restrict the imagination and maintain the status quo.

But maintaining the status quo is taking us down a road to a very dark place. Even the most oblivious mind is beginning to recognize this. It's really not difficult to see the dark clouds and the storms gathering if we stay on the road we're on, yet the only solutions offered by the powers that be are more of the same. More taxes. More spending. More borrowing. More restrictions. More lies. More corruption. When someone in the back of the bus starts to speak up and say "Hey, maybe we should turn around and find our way back to a better road," it's getting easier to listen.

There was a time in this nation when we were on a better road. There was a time when we prospered so well that we out prospered the rest of the world and built a nation with a lifestyle nearly all the other nations were envious of. There was a time when our ancestors enjoyed more personal liberties than the vast majority of other people throughout the world and used those liberties to build better lives for themselves and their families. There was a time when a great many people knew what it meant to be free and struggled to find their way to the shores of the United States of America so that they could get away from intrusive governments and the overbearing restrictions these governments impose on their citizens. We took a wrong turn off that road long ago.

More and more people are starting to realize this, and are voicing their concerns in various ways. Whether these people participate in the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street protests, they are all after the same thing, though they may not know it yet. If you want the illegal wars and occupations of foreign lands to end, you want freedom. If you want taxation to cease, you want freedom. If you want the Fed audited and held accountable for their corruption, you want freedom. If you want the Constitution of the United States of America to once again be honored by government representatives rather than scorned by them, you want freedom. If you want less government, you want more freedom. If you want transparent, accountable government, you want freedom. If you want affordable schools, or affordable healthcare, you want freedom. If you want to straighten out the economy, you want freedom.

Lots of people want freedom and they don't even know it. Many people will pick a pet issue and concentrate on that. They look to government to solve the problem for them by voting for this candidate or that candidate from this party or that party. They take this tact over and over again and no problem is solved. They vote for Democrats, there is still war. They vote for Republicans, taxes are still too high. They vote for Democrats, costs for education, healthcare and other socialized programs continue to soar. They vote for Republicans and the federal government continues to grow. No matter who's in power, our freedoms are continuously violated, the police state intrudes more into our personal lives, government gets more and we receive less. Government has failed. We were all better off with more freedom and less government than we have been since the federal government has become such a leviathan.

No matter what you want, no matter what issue you're concerned with, getting Ron Paul from the back seat into the driver's seat will get you on the road to where you want to go. He has always stood for the principles of individual liberty and has consistently voted in support of those principles. No other candidate currently running for president has such a record. In fact, those other politicians and establishment cronies who have been in power for so long have made certain that the established powers that be have maintained their power. They are in control of the bus and they refuse to give up their power and turn it around no matter the consequences. They seem to think that even if the bus goes over a cliff they will be able to jump out at the last minute or somehow survive the crash.

With Ron Paul driving, however, all others riding along will be able to determine for themselves when they want to get off the bus. They will be able to determine for themselves what roads they want to go down. This has been the dream of mankind since time immemorial, to be able to take responsibility for one's own destiny rather than being tied into the fate of a multitude. That is the essence of the principles of liberty. We each determine for ourselves what avenues we wish to explore and where we wish to invest the money we earn. We each get to own a little corner of the world and do as we please with it. Some will succeed and flourish and others will fail. It will be up to individuals whether those that fail should be helped or not. No one will be forced to invest in principles, practices or policies they do not believe in. That is the nature of the world as it should be. That is what humanity should strive for.

This seems to be what the established powers are afraid of. They don't seem to want humanity to reach its full potential. They want to maintain their fear based control of humanity. They seem afraid that if they lose control that their way of life will disappear. They certainly don't seem to want to give anyone a chance to compete with them and show that we can innovate and develop better ways if given a chance. This is why they use their controlled media to attack Ron Paul. This is why they dredge up twenty year old controversies that were explained long ago. This is why they're panicking as their failure is exposed. People are beginning to check their emotions and think about things just a little bit more. They are beginning to understand that these little feel good sound bites that have steered us down a collectivist path have failed to bring us the promised results.

Almost everyone understands that we have been lied to. Almost everyone understands that the establishment politicians have utterly failed. Almost everyone is at least beginning to realize that our representatives are not our representatives, but are the representatives of a small group that has been in charge for a very long time now. No matter your party, no matter your issue, it is time to choose an alternative to the same old, same old. Ron Paul is the best alternative we have. He stands at the crossroads between the corrupt and growing status quo and the honest, open and accountable government almost all of us wish to see.

If you like my writings, please visit my website to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Government Thugs, Terrorists and 93 Treasonous Senators

There is just too much going on to remain still now, isn't there? Things are getting way too interesting to ignore. I have a little time on the weekends so I thought I'd take the time to write a short commentary on a couple of recent developments. I don't need to tell you that something is wrong, we all know something is very wrong. The system has failed us. The problem is, those in charge of the system refuse to change the system. They keep failing. They have no new or effective ideas. They also refuse to listen to the grievances of the many. They refuse to be accountable.

It seems that once again the government is showing its true colors. They have but one trick up their sleeve, only one thing they do real well, and it's not roads. The government is force. It is violence. Government as an organization cannot handle anything without violence or the threat of violence. They are the mob. They are the definition of immorality. It should not be surprising when they become violent. Indeed, it is often surprising when they remain peaceful.

It should be no surprise to anyone that many of the Occupy (fill in the blank) movements have been broken up in a violent fashion by the police. Many of them were likely chomping at the bit to get in there and "knock some heads together." They've been wanting to get in there and show these peaceful protestors what for. This goes to show that it is not the common folk that need to be feared. They are not engaging in mob violence. It is the government agents that use violence, and indeed it is shown time and again that they are usually the ones that initiate the violence.

I really don't know for sure why this is. It is my conjecture that this is because violent type people are attracted to jobs that will give them free reign to express that violence. They are not going to think about whether what they're doing is right or wrong. They're not going to be thinking about the oath they may have taken to the Constitution. They are simply going to obey orders without question. In fact, I believe that those in charge of these organizations purposely recruit people with personality types that are easy to mold into obedient robotic types who don't mind just following orders.

The police should be protecting the people of the United States, not the politicians. It is at least partially because they have this enforcement arm that the politicians are able to avoid accountability for the mistakes they make. For the most part the politicians control the police and have great influence in terms of the judicial system. It would be a wonderful thing to start seeing the police refuse in mass to carry out orders from their superiors that instruct them to carry out violence against common folk merely trying to voice their legitimate grievances and have them legitimately addressed.

This nation is supposedly engaged in a war on terror. I'm afraid the people of this nation are losing badly. It seems to me that the terrorists have taken over government agencies. I am personally far more terrified of what the government has done and continues to do to destroy our way of life than anything any extremist criminal can do. I know there are many others who share this point of view with me. Government agencies are engaging in violence, not ordinary people. Government agencies use coercion and threats in their interactions with others, not ordinary people on the streets or ordinary businesses on Main Street. The federal government, on the other hand, seems to be winning the war as those in power gather more power to themselves at the cost of individual freedom. It seems to me that anyone who questions the federal government and demands accountability, particularly in a peaceful manner, terrify government officials and can therefore be considered terrorists by said officials.

With the police and the justice system behind them, the senators in Washington, DC have decided they can once again circumvent the US Constitution by passing yet another bill that violates individual rights spelled out in the first ten amendments. Whether or not this bill will become a law is yet to be seen, but judging by the 93 to 7 vote for the bill it would be surprising if the house votes against it. When a bill is passed with such overwhelming numbers one can be fairly certain that there is tremendous pressure being applied by the powers that be who control our congress. This certainly isn't because of political pressure from the people, many of whom have voiced their concern against this bill. I am talking about S 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.

This bill authorizes the entire United States of America to be defined as a war zone due to the war on terror and allows for the indefinite jailing of United States citizens without trial or due process of law. Senators will, of course, argue this point, but as usual the language used in the bill is so ambiguous that it will allow for many different interpretations. It is also understood by many, especially those of us who have had to deal with the justice system in some way or another, that laws are often enforced due to the letter of the law, not the spirit of it. The very fact that there could have been any kind of controversy should invalidate that law and cause it to be rewritten in a more straight forward manner.

In my opinion, this Constitution of this nation was set up to limit the scope of government and should be the supreme law of the land. People who question the authority of government should not be considered terrorists, they should be considered concerned individuals trying to hold elected officials accountable to following the law. It was thrown out long ago. It was well hidden from the public long ago, but it is becoming harder and harder for even the most zealous government worshipper to deny. The limited republic set up by our founding fathers after having fought so hard against a powerful, tyrannical, empirical monarchy has been lost. It is now a fascist, corporate controlled oligarchy because the people have no power to enforce the Constitution.

I don't believe that speaking out against government or its policies is treason. I don't believe that pointing out its mistakes and ineptitude is treason. I believe that acting against the best interests of the people of a nation that you are supposed to represent is tantamount to treason. I believe that passing laws that usurp power and suppress the supreme law of the land is treasonous. I believe that a senator should be smart enough to know when a bill is unconstitutional. If we had an enforcement arm that could make sure the supreme law of the land is never violated than the 93 senators who voted for S 1867 could be arrested and put on trial for treason. If we had that kind of power, in my humble opinion, several unconstitutional laws passed in the past decade or so would never have even been introduced, we would still enjoy our individual freedoms, and we would enjoy a much greater sense of security in this nation.

I believe there will be difficult times ahead, but I have confidence we will overcome these hardships and come out better on the other side. The important thing is to remain peaceful, as difficult as that might seem. The important thing is to take care of each other because, god knows, the government is not going to take care of us. Sometimes it seems to me that the government wants to eliminate us. Mankind is striving to improve itself and will not be denied. Keep envisioning peaceful change. Keep refusing to engage in violent behavior. The ordinary people hold the moral high ground. The promise of freedom that this nation was built upon has yet to be fully realized. I'd like to think that it is our destiny to achieve a society that provides the liberty we deserve and our forefathers fought to obtain.

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, December 1, 2011

Viewing the Santa Claus Mentality

It's been several weeks since I've last posted an opinion article. Please forgive me, but I've been very busy lately. I've actually found some work that pays me and I've been taking care of that rather than writing which hasn't been paying the rent for me. I do enjoy eating. One of my jobs is being a guinea pig in a research study. The other day, while waiting for them to poke, prod or stick me, I was watching daytime TV, something I hardly ever do. I was watching a show called "The View" which involves several famous lady television personalities discussing "issues" of the day. They started talking about Barack Obama's accomplishments and said some things that really struck me as not very well thought out, to put it politely. The more I listened, the more I felt as if my intelligence had been greatly insulted. I'd like to opine about just a few of them.

Let me preface this by stating that I think words are very important. I think that we oft times misuse and abuse words. Words are especially important in the media and with media personalities who many people look up to. Sometimes words are not to be taken literally, but they are by some people. Subconsciously people may take words to heart and believe them as literal without really thinking about it. In this way, public opinion can be manipulated. I am also guilty of doing this, though I do try to be specific with my writings.

One statement made by at least one of the ladies on "The View" was that Barack Obama "saved" GM. Barack Obama has never "saved" anyone or anything as far as I know. What Barack Obama may have done is support legislation that forced American taxpayers to pay for the operations of General Motors and other American automobile manufacturers. In other words, he supported a bailout to a very wealthy corporation that has mismanaged its business. Barack Obama is not some superman that can fly in on his own and "save" a multi-billion dollar international corporation, he needs help from other politicians and bureaucrats willing to spend other people's money. Media personalities should stop implying one man has such power.

To speak to the issue, however, perhaps this legislation did save GM, that is what is seen. What is not seen are the companies that would have been created had GM gone out of business. What is not seen is the millions of jobs that may have been created as GM's assets were bought up by smaller, more agile, more viable auto companies and put to better use. What is not seen are the more innovative products that may have been created had free markets been allowed to operate as they are supposed to. What is not seen are the dreams and ambitions that have been squashed not because GM went out of business, but because they stayed in business. You might say that this is speculation, and you'd be correct, but keep in mind that small businesses employ more people than big businesses (who seem to continuously try to cut costs by cutting labor expenses) and historically when nations are prospering they are implementing free market principles and when they are failing they are nationalizing companies and implementing collectivist principles.

Another claim made on "The View" was that Barack Obama "gave" us healthcare. Barack Obama has given no one healthcare, with the exception of his kids or family maybe, who he might have administered some aspirin or applied a bandage to. If I'm wrong and he has given someone healthcare, he may have committed the crime of practicing medicine without a license. For the most part, only doctors are allowed to provide healthcare in this nation. Doctors are supposedly some of the most intelligent, best educated people in our nation, but when they are forced to give service to people for free then they are suffering a subtle form of slavery.

What Barack Obama did do was support legislation that requires every individual in this nation to purchase a product known as healthcare insurance or face fines and penalties to be paid to the federal government. He supported legislation which removes choice. He supported a bill so huge and convoluted it may take decades before its ramifications are truly known. He, and those who helped him, forced through legislation using coercive or at least ethically questionable methods. He used his bully pulpit as the newly elected head administrator to help pass legislation as if it was a mandate from the voters though it had not been one of the major issues during the campaign. To make the statement that he "gave" us healthcare is extremely misleading.

One of the ladies made the statement that now people with pre-existing conditions have to be covered. This might be true. This has been a contention in this nation. I agree that the costs of healthcare has gone way up and that people with pre-existing conditions should be taken care of, but I believe there are better, more efficient ways to do this than through federal mandate. At the very least, the government could have written a short, to the point law to take care of this problem. Here's an example, "Insurance coverage will not be denied to those with pre-existing conditions by any company who wishes to provide healthcare insurance to people residing within the United States of America." They needn't write a thousand pages of law to accomplish that.

At one point, one of the women asked if I (as one of many viewers of "The View" on that particular day) thought that these things would have been accomplished if John McCain had been elected to the head administrative position in these United States of America. To be honest, I think that John McCain and Barack Obama answer to the same powers that be. But that really doesn't matter. The implication is that there are only two parties, Democrat and Republican, and only two platforms, and only two choices in this nation which are basically the same coin with two sides. We don't select the candidates, they are selected for us to make sure we have no real choice. I haven't voted for a Republican or Democrat as head administrator to this nation for decades, with the exception of Ron Paul. I think that they are all as a rule corrupt liars, with Ron Paul the exception.

But the above issues are not really what this article is meant to be about. The point I want to make is the presentation of what I would refer to as the Santa Claus mentality. These women are supposed to be some of the most intelligent, most respected women in our nation, yet look how they framed their praise of Barack Obama. He "saved" something for us. He "gave" us something. They imply that he is some sort of super hero, some sort of Santa Claus. Unfortunately, it is likely that many people just accept these notions and will parrot these opinions without further thought.

There are a number of conclusions I can draw from watching this show. These women may actually believe what they say about Mr. Obama. Perhaps they need some form of hero to cling to. Perhaps they long for a Santa Claus to take care of some need they have within them that hasn't been met in the real world. Perhaps they feel the need to have someone take care of them from cradle to grave rather than taking personal responsibility for their own lives. There are many people in the world that seem to engage in this kind of wishful thinking. There are many who seem to have this psychological makeup. Somehow, I doubt this is true of most successful people, and the women on "The View" are certainly successful.

These women may simply be repeating certain things they are told to repeat. They may have to express certain points of view or the powers that be that own the network they work at will fire them. Certainly there is evidence of this when we consider that Rosie O'Donnell once co-hosted that show until she took a controversial position on the 9/11 attacks and she was fired and effectively shut up. Hmm, that could make some people wonder. Still, judging from the sincerity with which these women present their opinions, this doesn't seem very likely to me.

What I feel is the most likely explanation for what I heard is that these women are in denial. They are subconsciously blocking out ideas and opinions that cross over their comfort zones. They have trouble when thinking outside the box. They continue to draw upon their indoctrination and refuse to see the corruption and the unfairness inherent in the system that has treated them so well. They are now looking down from their personal ivory towers and really don't wish to recognize that these towers are built upon faulty foundations. Personally, I think that every time they are offered a choice they take the blue pill instead of the red one. Fortunately, I believe that more and more people are taking the red pill and seeing through the illusions that have been built up around us and sold to us as reality.

It is time to reframe the debate. It is time to start using the language as it should be used rather than to create impressions of reality that simply don't hold up to scrutiny. It is time to be rid of the Santa Claus mentality. There is no Superman. There is no Santa Claus. Each one of us should be making our own decisions that we feel are best for our own lives. We should stop expecting any one man, or the government as a whole, to save us as a collective. We should stop expecting any one man, or the government as a whole, to give us stuff as if every day was Christmas. What the federal government was supposed to be set up for was to protect our individual rights against state governments that might try to abuse them. What it was supposed to do was protect opportunity so that every person in this nation could gain wealth and affluence through hard work and effort. It failed to adhere to its original mandates. I think that at the core, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street were about re-establishing the liberty principles this nation was created upon. I hope that those individuals involved with either one of these organizations will keep them alive and help them grow in that direction.

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.