Szandor Blestman's Blog

The Money Tree and the Evil of Good Intentions

2012-01-28T15:12:00.000-08:00

"Do you think money grows on trees?"

Dad

It's something most of us learn when we're very young. Money isn't easy to come by. You have to earn it. You have to work for it. You have to do your chores. You have to get a job delivering newspapers. You have to mow people's lawns or shovel their walks when it snows. You have to do something productive and then people will pay you. Only then can you go to the candy store and buy yourself a treat, or spend your Saturday afternoon in a dark movie theater enjoying an eye popping spectacle. That was part of Americana when I was growing up, learning that things weren't just handed to you, they needed to be earned.

Some kids were better off than others. There were richer kids and poorer kids attending the same school I went to. Some had parents that would buy them the best shoes and clothes and things that money could buy and other kids would have to make do with stuff of a lower quality, used stuff, hand-me-downs, or stuff they got from their church or some other local charity. Still, as I recall, most of us had to do chores of some form to earn an allowance, or find some kind of work that kids could do. I used to caddie at the local country club. When I got a little older, I found work in the fast food industry.

I would often find myself wanting for something or other. I never wanted for anything that I truly needed to survive, but there was always some kind of toy or gadget or knickknack that I didn't have. So, when I was younger, I always found myself searching for the elusive money tree. I always found myself wishing I had more so I could buy all the things I wanted. Of course now I know that all the stuff I wished for back then, however much they might be worth nowadays, is nothing but transient junk. Even today, I am probably not grateful enough for the stuff I have as I wish for more, though now I am not even able to scrape by without help.

So, I wonder, what if money did grow on trees? What would you do if you had a tree in your backyard that grew legal tender? What if there were very few of those trees in the world and you were one of the few people that had one?

Would you live a simple life with very few of the things that you needed to get by and be happy with that, or would you buy up all the property you could around that tree, build a huge mansion around it and fill that mansion to the brim with the nicest things money could buy?

Would you keep working or would you start doing what you always wanted to do? Would you travel around the world and revel in the feeling of being treated like royalty? Would you keep sending your children to public schools, or would you arrange to send them to the finest schools available? Would you even have that much time to spend with your children, or would you be too busy globe trotting while they are going to school? What exactly would your children learn in the schools only the elite attend? What lessons do they learn that the children of the common folk do not?

Would you let your friends and neighbors come by and take as much of that money as they could carry, or would you build high walls around it and hire guards to watch over it day and night? Would you very carefully decide who got what? Would you want to carefully monitor it to make sure the money was being used in ways you wanted it used? Would you let all that money corrupt your heart? Would you become greedy, arrogant, paranoid, and maybe just an all around asshole? Are you sure?

If there's one thing I've learned in my life it's that you never know how you're going to act in a given, unique situation until that situation arises. You might think you'd be different if you had a money tree, that you'd be benevolent with all that money, but if such a situation were to arise, how can you be so sure? Think about it, has there ever been a situation in your life that has arisen where you've acted differently than what you would have thought. If not, than you either haven't had too many surprise experiences, or you know yourself better than I have known myself. What does it matter anyway? It's just conjecture, right?

Well, let's take this conjecture a little further. What if your family had a money tree since long ago? What if your great grandfather, or your great-great grandfather had planted it? What if you were brought up believing you were one of the elite, that you were superior to all other humans and you needed to make decisions for all humanity? What if you had been taught from a very young age that the greatest threat to mankind and to this earth was over population? How would you handle that? Would you be able to make the "tough" decisions that needed to be made? Would you believe that by doing so you'd be taking action for the greater good?

Would you be able to use your great wealth to figure out the best ways to get rid of masses of humanity? Would you hire the best minds on earth that held a similar set of beliefs to help? Would you place, bribe, cajole, threaten, and/or blackmail those in positions of political power in order to help your agenda? Could you use war, pestilence, famine, economic disaster and/or disease to cause such a decrease in population? Would you be able to figure out how to keep them from knowing who was causing all the death and suffering, realizing that if they knew they would not understand? Would you use your vast wealth to take control of major media and communications companies to help ensure you remain the hidden hand behind the scenes?

How can you know such things? Likely you are just a hard working Joe like the rest of us common folk. You just want to do your job, earn enough to take care of your family, and come home in the evenings where you can relax and enjoy your hard earned break. Even that's getting harder to come by these days. It seems some entity, some government agency or corporate monopoly wants more and more of your money all the time, that things get more expensive, you earn less, they take more and it gets more difficult to make ends meet. If there was a reason for this, if there was a money tree somewhere would you want to know? Would you be interested in finding out if those in possession of the money tree had an agenda for the greater good? Would you want to know what that agenda was, and what such people believed, what they were taught? If you were to find out and didn't agree with them, what would you do about it? Could you handle the truth, no matter what that truth was and how far out it might seem?

There is such a money tree. It's called central banking. It might not be an actual tree, but they can print or digitally create money from nothing. There are only a few elite families that control most central banks. They are quite hidden from the vast majority of people in the world. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what their agendas are, or indeed if they have any agendas at all other than making (literally) more money. It is quite difficult to determine their mindset as it seems every time one tries to peek behind the curtain very powerful people throw up government roadblocks and the corporate media refuses to investigate or inform. It seems that too often when someone sees something or says something about such matters they are shouted down and chastised by anonymous or questionable sources. It seems anytime someone blows the whistle they are quickly shut up by powerful forces.

What can we do against such a powerful force? What can we do to find out if such agendas exist? What good is it to call for a government investigation if that investigation can be bought off as so many have been in the past? What good is it to demand accountability when just about anyone who promises accountability breaks that promise?

For one thing, perhaps the common folk need to become just a bit more educated on how money and the economy works and how it should work. It really shouldn't be any more complicated than simple math and basic morality. Children should be able to understand economics. When it becomes so complicated that many find it incomprehensible and turn to academia to explain it, then I would suggest that there's probably something hidden there and some form of fraud is taking place.

Perhaps the wrong streets are being occupied. Perhaps the corner of 20th Street and Constitution Ave., NW in Washington, DC needs to be occupied. Perhaps there are 12 other locations in 12 other cities that need to be occupied. Perhaps we need to demand a full accounting of the Fed in such numbers that we cannot be ignored, in such numbers that it doesn't matter whether the corporate media reports it or not, everyone is going to know.

Perhaps we need to demand an end to monopoly privilege of currency creation. Perhaps again we need to do so in such numbers that we cannot possibly be ignored. We all know that nobody should have access to a money tree, so why are they allowed to exist? Demand a return to honest money so that the playing field becomes level and opportunity is equal for all who are willing to work hard and innovate. Demand total transparency so that fraud is exposed and hidden agendas become known.

There is a way out of the mess we find ourselves in, but there needs to be a transition phase to mitigate the damage that could still be caused by the powerful public and private interests that exercise power over the economic system. The marriage between government and central banking needs to be annulled. The unholy alliance of government, international corporations and the monetary system needs to be broken apart. These institutions need to fear the people rather than the people fearing these institutions. These institutions need to be governed by the people rather than governing the people. We should seek restitution rather than retribution so that the fear isn't so bad that violence erupts. The wrongs that have been done should be made right by the perpetrators and the damage caused mended as much as possible.

No one should have access to a money tree. No one should be allowed to have that kind of power. Whether their intentions are good or evil does not matter, for their intentions and the intentions of others will clash. We all live in the same world, and we should all be able to carve out our own little corner of it, our little niche. No one should be able to dictate to the rest of us that we should abide by their intentions, that they are superior to the rest of us by birth. We need to disassemble any apparatus that allows such accumulation of power to take place if we are ever to live in a truly free and voluntary society with equal opportunity for all.

If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com 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." It is also available for the Kobo Vox. The download for this book is only $2.99. 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. I have also released "The Ouijiers" at smashwords.com. For a limited time "The Ouijiers" is available at a cost you set. I ask that if you read it and find it entertaining you pay an amount you consider a fair price for it. You may have to register (for free) with smashwords and turn off the adult filter to see the books.

Tantric Sex, Finding Higher Self and.., Politics?

2012-01-23T17:29:00.000-08:00

Much has been written about the art of tantric sex. I think that many people are drawn to explore it because of the physical aspect. They are titillated by the promise of longer orgasms, more control over orgasms, multiple orgasms and just a more satisfying sexual experience in general. There's no problem with this. Who wouldn't want to have a more pleasurable experience? Who wouldn't want to try something that may help them enjoy an experience as never before? Who wouldn't want to try to make something that has perhaps become old and boring new and exciting again? From what I have read, tantric sex can, indeed, do these things for you.

What intrigued me and drew me to explore tantric sex, however, is the spiritual aspect. Trantric sex is a practice which is supposed to take a physical act and turn it into a spiritual experience. I have been meditating and trying to contact my higher self on and off since I was a kid. Though at times I find myself having difficulties achieving my spiritual goals, I do not give up and I'm always willing to try something new. What could be better than trying something out that combines such an enjoyable activity with spiritual discovery? If I can find my higher self while having sex, and at the same time help someone else achieve the same goal, I think that's an honorable endeavor.

An interesting aspect of tantric sex is the need to find a likeminded partner. I suppose it is possible to do this on one's own, but I think the pleasure would be far greater with two united souls working toward the same goal. Part of the process, according to some, is to take the time each week to talk with your partner and discuss not only matters of sex and what you're both trying to accomplish, but philosophies and just life in general. What a great way to get to know a person better. What a great way to discover the nature of love and the divine in yourself and another.

I think, if the two of you are going to make a commitment to learn to meditate together in such an intimate way, that taking the time to get to know one another more deeply is an important step. After all, if you can't spend a couple hours a week listening to the thoughts and desires of another and explaining your own to that person, perhaps the relationship you have with that person should be reevaluated. If you can't find the time in the course of a week to do this, perhaps you should slow down for a moment and take the time to examine your priorities.

I found one source that made the claim that tantric sex was for some a protest to religious authorities of old who would try to make sex an immoral, dirty act. This is, of course, untrue and a way authoritative figures often try to control the lives of others. Early practitioners of tantric sex were as much as thumbing their noses at the religious elite as they were using it to seek spiritual enlightenment. It seems that the vast majority of ordinary people, no matter where they're from, tend to agree that the authorities have no business getting involved in the private sex lives of consenting adults.

Of course, this is something that happened long ago and was forced upon mankind by puritanical zealots who didn't know better. Such an intrusion on private lives couldn't take place in these more enlightened times. Not in America. Not in the land of the free. We wouldn't stand for such tyranny. I don't know. Those politicians in Washington, DC keep passing more and more draconian laws. They keep removing legal barriers that were meant to prevent them from violating your privacy rights and creeping more and more into your personal affairs. The not so funny thing is that so few seem to care. There is some outcry, but will there be enough? In another generation or so, it wouldn't surprise me to see all of George Orwell's predictions have come true, and then some, if things keep up the way they have been going. It wouldn't surprise me to see government spy cams in people's bedrooms with the excuse that they're keeping everyone safe from the plotting of couples who practice the terrifying ritual of tantric sex.

Politics, in my view, is the art of getting enough people to agree with your point of view that you become validated and are given a certain amount of legitimized power to govern. Of course once power is obtained the trick becomes holding onto it. I believe that most of those who seek this kind of power certainly don't want to share it, least of all with those lowly type common folk who haven't earned prestige as they have. The last thing they want is an independent, free thinking electorate. The last thing they want is to try to rule over bright, innovative people with their own ideas on how things should work. They want docile, compliant folks who will go along with how they feel society should be. They want obedient folks who will go along without questioning the laws they pass no matter how silly or draconian. The last thing they want are enlightened folk and they will likely do what they can to keep their constituents from becoming enlightened.

When practicing trantric sex, the sexual energy is supposed to be channeled through the chakras of the body causing them to open up and giving the practitioner an opportunity to experience and/or meet his/her higher self. This is supposed to be a very euphoric, blissful experience. I haven't been able to achieve on my own a face to face with my higher self in a very long time now. Admittedly, I gave up my meditative practices long ago, which is a story in itself, and I haven't been able to recreate my earlier successes with those practices since I started up again a few years back. It sure would be nice to attempt such a feat with some likeminded, lovely individual with the same goal in mind. Still, I think I know what my higher self would think of the politics of this world and I have the feeling it would be the same for the vast majority of us common folk on this plane of existence.

Perhaps if we were all to discover our higher selves, we'd become more empowered than we can dream of in our wildest imaginings. Perhaps we'd discover just how powerful we are as individual entities. Perhaps we would discover just how beautiful we all truly are. Maybe we would suddenly be aware of just how badly we've been taken in by those who wish to rule over us. Maybe we'd all understand just how immoral it is to force people to accept and pay for monopoly controlled services they don't want to use, they can't afford to use, or they'd go elsewhere to use if given a choice. Maybe we'd all finally understand just how devious and destructive fiat currency schemes are. Maybe we'd all open our eyes and wake up to the men behind the curtain who truly run the world.

One thing I can say, the powers of old were frightened of freedom and enlightenment. They did their best to vilify many practices that would have helped empower the common folk. Perhaps the modern powers that be are worried about disobedience. Perhaps they're worried we'd suddenly stop going along to get along and we'd laugh at their proclamations and demands. Perhaps they're worried we'd seek justice against their fraud. Perhaps they're worried they'd lose their privileged positions and that they would actually have to work and produce something positive for the human race in order to make a living. I think there's nothing scarier to the mind of someone who belongs to the establishment elite than the thought of having to do hard work to earn their own way in this world. Perhaps if enough of us were enlightened we'd be able to expose to the masses just how delusional and psychopathic some of these most powerful individuals are. If it takes tantric sex to achieve enlightenment, become the best human being I can possibly be, and benefit mankind than I, for one, am willing to give it a try.

If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com 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." It is also available for the Kobo Vox. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off at Smashwords 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. I have also released "The Ouijiers" at smashwords.com. For a limited time "The Ouijiers" is available as a free download. I ask that if you read it and find it entertaining you pay an amount you consider a fair price for it. You may have to register (for free) with smashwords and turn off the adult filter to see the books.

Ron Paul is the Only Electable Candidate for President

2012-01-18T14:38:00.000-08:00

The corporate controlled, establishment mass media would still have you believe that Ron Paul is some crazy fringe candidate. They still insist that he is unelectable despite his 3rd place finish in Iowa (one wonders how Santorum got so many votes there) and his second place finish in New Hampshire, and polls that have him doing very well against Obama. This despite the fact that the Republican Party leadership seem embarrassed by his presence and want to keep voters away from him more than the Dursleys wanted to keep Harry Potter away from their muggle relatives. When even those who count the votes have to admit to so many flocking to the eccentric family uncle one starts to wonder if maybe he has a real chance of gaining the Republican nod. It is, after all, a matter of numbers and if there is overwhelming support then even the most corrupt organization starts to worry about being too obvious with their cheating and fixing of elections.

Yes, there are those mindless individuals who still listen to the establishment pundits who tell them who they should vote for. There are still those who refuse to think for themselves and believe the talking heads on television, parroting their talking points. There are still those who let themselves be led by the nose and will stamp their feet and cry isolationists, racists, loss of security, terrorists racing to our shores, crippling the poor, uneducated children, and other such misrepresentations of ideas, but these people are becoming fewer. The corporate controlled establishment media is losing its grip when it comes to forming public opinion. More and more people have stopped listening to these sources and have started looking for alternative points of view. Why? People want the truth. They realize when they are being lied to. People are not as stupid as the establishment seems to think, and they are losing viewers and readership as a result.

Indeed, if one thinks deeply about what the people of this nation want, what they have voted for in the past elections, one suddenly realizes that Ron Paul is the only candidate that will deliver. In 2008 the people voted for "hope" and "change" as a clever marketing device sold the populace on a lesser known, shadowy politician who came out of nowhere. What the people wanted, I assume, was change for the better and hope for a prosperous future. Instead the change made the nation more collectivist than ever and we can only hope that the economy won't collapse entirely.

The principles that Ron Paul advocates will change things for the better. They will, if implemented, create more opportunity and drive individuals to better innovate in the market. They will bring us positive hope for a more prosperous future. Not only that, but Ron Paul has the record to back up his words. He's not some random unknown who's come out of nowhere supported by the money of the corporate establishment. The money he receives mostly comes from ordinary folk like you and me. If politicians are beholden to their contributors, than Ron Paul will be beholden to the common folk of this nation.

The major issue of our day is the economy. The world is sinking into a second great depression and no one seems to know how to stop it. Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to focus on the main driver of modern economies, our central bank, the Federal Reserve. He wants to audit it. He wants to expose the corruption and then likely end it He wants to get in there and find out where our money went. He wants to return to Constitutional money, or at least allow competition in the currency market to create innovation and a buffer against the boom/bust cycle that is caused by the Fed's policies.

No other candidate will even touch the Fed. Why? It might have something to do with the fact that all other candidates are heavily backed by the very banking interests that have failed and are leading us down an even more dangerous path. Ron Paul is the only candidate I know of that voted against the bailouts that left a bad taste in the mouths of so many Americans. Even the current president voted for those bailouts, cutting short a campaign stop to fly to Washington, DC to vote for it. Remember?

How can anyone who wants a better tomorrow justify voting for anyone except Ron Paul when it comes to the economy? If they vote for anyone else they are voting for the status quo. They are voting to keep the same old policies that have brought us to this point. They are voting for the elite to get richer while the poor become wretched. They are voting for an end to the middle class. They are voting for the destruction of our currency and currencies all across the globe so that the central banking cartel can introduce their one world currency and continue to consolidate their power. Even if a candidate promises differently, you know he won't deliver because they're all bought and paid for by the established elite. They only other reason anyone would vote for one of the other candidates is fear.

To those who fear Ron Paul's ideas on economics, I have this to say. Why are you so afraid. The major reason we had a revolution is economics. The British would not acknowledge American interest free state money because it wasn't tied to their central bank. Their established elite made no profit, so they refused to let the Americans' trade with it. The dollar was originally defined as a certain amount if silver to keep the economy stable, not to grow it. It helped keep the United States of America independent of the politics and economics of the rest of the world for over a hundred years. That's why we were so prosperous. Why wouldn't you want to return to the basics that made us such a prosperous nation in the first place? Why are you so frightened of trying something new and innovative? What ever happened to the home of the brave?

Another major issue haunting the electorate over the past decade or so is the issue of war. The very word war has come to mean many things as the politicians and pundits twist it to elicit fearful emotions and capture votes. War is no longer two nations pitting their military against each other. War is occupation. War is nation building. War can be waged against a tactic. War can be waged against a product that some people demand. War has even been waged against poverty in the past, if you listen to politicians. The problem is, these wars aren't really wars, they are simply marketing campaigns. The bigger problem is, these wars affect real people, individuals who have harmed no one, and destroy their lives. These wars are waged against common folk all over the world. They kill innocent people, even women, children and the elderly. These wars are waged against freedom, not for it.

People want peace. Peace is a good thing. When peace is prevalent trade is increased, friendships are solidified and understanding is reached. Wars help to only impair trade, breed hatred and increase and magnify misunderstandings. Ron Paul is not against just one war. He doesn't plan on simply ending one occupation and starting another. He's not out to fool the people into believing he's a peace candidate and then caving into the military industrial complex that is so closely tied to the establishment elite. He's against all war. He's a champion of making friends through positive change. Security is strongest when others have no desire or excuse to attack. Every other Republican candidate in the running want to keep on warring. Barrack Obama has proven with his actions that while he proclaims himself a peace candidate, he practices war mongering.

A third major issue is that of individual rights. Once again, we see where all the other candidates have fallen well short of guarding individual rights. Only Ron Paul has a long and consistent record of voting in such a way as to respect individual rights, and he cites the Constitution of the United States of America as a reason for voting in such ways. In other words, Ron Paul is the only current candidate running for either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party that has honored his oath of office. All others have at some point broken their oath. All others have their exceptions that they use to justify voting to violate individual rights. All others have been willing to sell out your rights for a perception of more security, and an increase in their powers.

In the last election, promises that certain unconstitutional laws would be repealed, at least in part, were made. Many people believed that such promises would be kept and voted for the candidate they thought would keep said promises. They were sorely disappointed. While the president might not be able to repeal such legislation by himself, he can use his position as a bully pulpit to point out those representatives who refuse to follow the demands of their constituents. Only Ron Paul would do so if he obtains the office of president. All others would hem and haw and make excuses for keeping such legislation in force. Why? Because they love power and would not want to give any of it up at all, not the least little bit.

Ron Paul has a history of honesty. He has a history of openness. He has a proven history of understanding economic principles. He has a good grasp on concepts that create economic prosperity and wants to implement those concepts. He has a plan to cut government size and spending. He has a history of striving for peace. He is a veteran who has seen war and knows its true cost and the damage it can cause. He has a history of defending the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. There is no other candidate currently running who has such qualifications.

If you want a smaller, less intrusive, less costly government which obeys the Constitution, Ron Paul is your only choice. If you want someone who will at least strive for a peaceful resolution to wars at home and abroad, Ron Paul is your only choice. If you want honesty and transparency in government, Ron Paul is your only choice. If you want bigger government, more war, more intrusiveness from the State, and the continuation of this downward economic spiral, vote for any other candidate. It really doesn't matter which one, they're all the same, except Ron Paul.

Do not expect the corporate controlled establishment media to present Ron Paul in the manner I just did. They are paid by the same elite interests that have bought most of the politicians at the federal level. They don't want to talk about Ron Paul's honesty, they want to talk about a newsletter someone else edited 20 years ago. They don't want to talk about his sane economic policies, they want to talk about his "crazy" supporters who believe in "paranoid" conspiracy theories. They don't want to talk about his non-interventionalist foreign policy, they want to accuse him of being an isolationist and hating Israel, neither of which is true. They don't want to give him the time to explain his principles and why they work, they want to limit him to under 90 seconds in debates. The establishment media wants to do anything but show Ron Paul in the good light he deserves to be shown in. If they did, he would be elected in a landslide, but even as his popularity with the people surges, they continue to try to find anything to discredit him and keep him from succeeding.

Perhaps this is why Ron Paul supporters appear to be so zealous. They know the establishment media has not given him a fair shake. They realize the media is owned by the same people that own most politicians at the federal level. They know it is up to them to get the word out. I have been writing about Ron Paul since 2007 and I've seen how biased the media is against him. His ideas of freedom are not fringe, or extremist, nor do they make him unelectable. His ideas and principles stem from the very reasons our nation was founded. They are a blueprint for freedom and peace throughout the world. All other candidates are simply a continuation of the power grabbing corruption, indebtedness and empire building that has driven us to ruin. No one but the wealthy elite who profit from such misery wants that. All things considered, Ron Paul is the only electable presidential candidate.

If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com 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 smashwords.com. It is also available for the Kobo Vox. 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 at Smashwords 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.

America, Hate It or Leave It

2012-01-16T14:55:00.001-08:00

The title of this piece will likely seem extremist and very counterintuitive. Perhaps a better title would be "The American Federal Government, Question it and Keep it's Authority in Check or it Will Become More Tyrannical and You Might as Well be Living in Some Authoritarian Collectivist European Regime of the Past." Hmm, that's a little wordy. It's almost as long as one of my longer sentences.

As you may have figured out, I derived the above title from the old saying "America, love it or leave it." That saying has always struck a raw cord with me. It is perhaps one of the most un-American thing one could say, in my opinion. You might as well say "If you don't agree with what the federal government of this country is doing you should just bite your tongue and go along to get along no matter how tyrannical the government acts." This attitude is the same type of attitude that helped create the darkest aspects of the communist regime in the USSR, the fascist regime in pre-WWII Germany and the socialist regime of East Germany. I would bet that it's an attitude prevalent in modern China.

It is very difficult for government authorities, A.K.A. federal law enforcement, to do their jobs without the help of the citizenry when their jobs become corrupt and they seek to squelch political dissension. Even with all of today's modern equipment it is very difficult to spy on all the populace without the help of jackboot kissing individuals. It takes an army of nosy busybodies to report on their neighbors. It takes a lot of fear and propaganda to create such an army. This is not the way of freedom loving people.

Furthermore, individuals who are truly worried about their personal freedoms ought to worry about the personal freedoms of others. Allow others to make their own decisions as you would want to make yours. So long as you are not treading upon the rights of others you should be allowed to do as you please, and so should they. This is as American a concept as you can get. Yes, it is okay to offer advice and discuss methods which have worked for you, yes you should be able to offer your opinion even if not asked for it, but forcing someone to do something against his will simply because you feel it's the right way to do things is wrong. You would not like to be treated in such a way, so why would you treat someone in such a way?

When government has the power to force your neighbor to do something he doesn't want to do, for instance with his property or his business, then they have the power to force you to do something you don't want to do. Once freedom is diminished and power is given over to government, it becomes very difficult to reclaim that power, as we have discovered. Everyone, including kings and over reaching presidents, believe they know what's best for everyone else. Amazingly, what's better for everyone else usually corresponds with what's best for the individual making that decision.

Given the power to take someone else's money under the guise of the legitimacy of governance, one would be loathe to give that power back. When the people of a nation simply decide to let the power elite do as they please with the money they collect in taxes (by force I might add) without questioning who benefits, then no one should be surprised when only the power elite and their friends and supporters are the ones who benefit at the expense of everyone else. By intimating one should not complain about such circumstances one shows his favor and fealty to the power elite. This would be tantamount to a colonist supporting the king of England in the late eighteenth century. The king did, after all, supply an army to the colonies to help keep them "secure" against the French, the Spanish and indigenous peoples. Isn't that akin to the excuses they use today, to allow your freedoms to be violated for a sense of security?

Yes, it is okay to dislike what government is doing, particularly the federal government which is the government most disconnected from the people. It is fine to protest government policy. It is, in my opinion, necessary to always question authority, to forever point out government flaws and the wrongs done in the name of government. It is even a good thing, in my opinion, to hate certain aspects of government and those that do have likely somehow suffered or have seen loved ones suffer due to some policy, regulation, or power abuse of government. Nothing is more American than to try to do something about such unfairness and to promote liberty for all.

I don't hate America. I love the land. I think there is beauty everywhere. I love the people. I think Americans are some of the most real, most generous, most caring people I've ever known. I think that given the chance and opportunity, they become some of the most industrious and innovative people also. Government takes those things away when it becomes as huge as the one we have today. Those who receive from the government worry about what will become of them if they have to start providing for themselves again. Those on top of the heap worry about losing the power they have achieved or perhaps even inherited. These people feel entitled and squeeze those in the middle who are now struggling to simply maintain a way of life that has been generations in the making.

If you don't ask me to leave the land I love because I happen to disagree with immoral government practices and policies, I won't ask you to leave because you agree with those policies and somehow twist them to make them moral in your mind. If you don't hate what the federal government has become, or even any aspect of it, then so be it. You can continue to fawn over it all you want. You can set up a shrine to it in your living room and pray to it, for all I care. I don't truly ask you to leave this nation, though I question how much you're going to like it when freedom once again reigns supreme over this land. You will still be welcome to stay. I will honor your right to your opinion and your right to express that opinion as you see fit. I simply ask that you honor my right to express my opinions as I see fit. I ask that you allow me to live free as I see fit. I ask that you treat me as you would want to be treated. I ask that you open your mind. If you can't do these things, than I simply ask that you leave me alone. I would also claim the right to be left alone and insist that big government honor that right for everyone who has not harmed or trampled upon the rights of others.

If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com 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 smashwords.com. 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.

The Long History of Government Distrust and Abuse

2012-01-12T19:16:00.000-08:00

For the Western world, the philosophy of government goes back thousands of years. In the very ancient past, at the dawn of civilization, authoritarian style autocracies dominated. This was likely due to the tribal hierarchy we as a species evolved, and perhaps the need for rulers to organize tasks for the people in a newly evolving agrarian society. Cities and population centers grew around the fertile soils that fed the populace and civilization was able to flourish. Science and technology advanced and mankind soon found itself able to philosophize in ways that perhaps were not possible before the advent of domesticated agriculture.

I'm not sure if the Greeks were the first to experiment with differing styles of government, but I will say they are the best known of the classic Western civilizations to do so. No matter what style of government they experimented with, it always devolved into something it wasn't meant to be. It always turned into some form of unjust class system where a powerful class was stealing from or bullying or otherwise taking advantage of an under class. The same was true in the Roman republic as it devolved into an empire with an elite class on top, merchant classes and working classes in the middle, and a slave class on the bottom. There is no Utopia, and there never will be as long as humans seek the power to control others.

When one takes a closer look at this phenomenon, it is easy to believe that many political leaders and important historical figures were trying to do the best for the people of their nation/kingdom/empire. It is more likely that those who would rule over others were and are doing what is best for themselves and only do what is best for others when what is best for others is also best for the ruler. This likely happened more often than not in tribal societies where the chieftain had to live among his people. With the advent of plant and animal domestication and a more stable food source, populations were able to grow and communities became larger. Cities developed. Rulers were better able to separate themselves from the general population. A privileged class developed and they became more able to do what was best for their own class without accounting for the rest of the population.

As civilization prospered, the ruling class was able to separate itself further and further from the common folk. They began to see their privileges as birthrights and the lands and people they ruled over as their personal property. As the separation widened, the ruling class found it easier to do things for their own, personal interests. They were able to hire body guards and police forces that would keep the common folk away by force. They could do things directly contrary to the interests of the people and not be held accountable. Anyone who spoke out against them were dealt with swiftly and brutally. This type of treatment in many cases helped hasten the downfall of kingdoms and empires, and when that happened everyone suffered.

kings and emperors quickly learned to divert attention from their own deeds, which they knew in their hearts were wrong. They did so through subversion. They did so through deception. They did so through war. They did so to keep the populace unaware of the real reasons for their impoverishment and hard times. They did so to prevent the populace from taking their anger out on them. They quickly learned that if they could keep their serfs happy and ignorant they would be more productive and more willing to give their lives and allegiance to their king.

While serfs and common folks may have whispered amongst themselves about liberty and determining their own destiny away from tyrants and kings, it wasn't until 1215 when a positive legal step toward this goal took place. Basically, it put legal limits on what a king could do to certain subjects under his rule. It limited government power. Unfortunately this document was not all inclusive and left many of the common folk, if not most of them, still subject to the whims of the king. It was but a step in the right direction.

Since that time, the common folk have slowly moved toward more freedom using several machinations. The power elite have always been reluctant to give up power, but through the ages they have done so begrudgingly in the Western world. The royal class, the kings and queens, give up some power to the aristocrats. The aristocrats allowed for a certain amount of government input by the merchant class. As time went on a scale to access power was established. Yet somehow this was not enough. There were still classes so low on the scale that they had no chance of bettering their station in life and the upper classes seemed to forever trod upon them.

Then the "New World" was discovered. The Americas were a place where people could live out their dream and determine their own destiny through their own hard work. The poor, neglected and downtrodden did whatever was in their power to make it to the shores of this new land and grab what they could of the opportunities presented to them. The United States of America was especially appealing to many Europeans due to their more tolerant governments. This was especially true after the revolution with the creation of a government that was not only perhaps the most limited government mankind had seen for millennia, but was also forged to protect individual rights above arbitrary laws that usually benefited only the ruling class.

At first America prospered greatly. Certainly America had its problems, but its adherence to its founding principles made it possible to quickly overcome such problems, for the most part. Yet even as freedom flourished and prosperity reigned, there were those who strove to replace opportunity and abundance with the shackles of big government. Whether they were envious of seeing so many prosper when they once simply endured, or their greed was so great that they couldn't stand seeing so much wealth spread amongst so many, or they just couldn't stand to let so many determine their own destiny when they were once tied down by the bonds of the state, I do not know, but they slowly began to erode the principles of individual rights this nation was built upon. They slowly subverted the Constitution and redefined the limits of our federal government.

Even as this was happening there were those who mistrusted the federal government of the United States of America. There were those who challenged such powers and lost. Thousands of journalists and civilians were thrown in prison by Abraham Lincoln for writing editorials against his politics and war policies. Woodrow Wilson later followed suit by helping to get the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 passed. These presidents and others, along with other willing politicians seeking power, wealth and influence for themselves and their friends, all created these laws supposedly for security purposes during wartimes, and then proceeded to abuse them by arresting and jailing those who simply disagreed with them and how they handled power. Is it any wonder the common folk have come to distrust government?

Over the past decades the federal government has continued to produce propaganda and misinformation to promote itself. It has continued to maintain an aura of fear over the population in order to create a demand for security. That is the only way it could have grown to become the leviathan which today gives out trillions in bailouts to international corporations and foreign central banks rather than worry about production here. It declares war on products, concepts, tactics and other intangibles to subvert the original purpose given it by our Constitution rather than protect the rights of individuals as was its mandate. This government continues to abuse its people, individuals who have harmed no one, as much as any tyrannical government in the past. Certainly, the jails and prisons may be nicer and the treatment not quite as harsh as other past regimes, but a cage is a cage and a serf is a serf.

Government continues to abuse the power they're entrusted with. Our federal government continues to erode the freedoms it was supposed to protect. War and national security are nothing but excuses used to justify the violation of human rights by authoritarians. Propaganda and fear mongering work only to keep the elite ruling establishment in power. That's why when I hear the establishment media call Ron Paul and his ideas of freedom dangerous I have to laugh. Freedom isn't dangerous. Peace isn't dangerous. Non intervention isn't dangerous. Those are the ideas that benefit many and lead to prosperity, as has been proven in our very own history. The establishment ideas of pre-emptive non declared war, imperialism and nation building are the ideas that are dangerous. Those ideas harm many and benefit only a very few who are already extremely wealthy. Don't let the establishment fool you into thinking otherwise.

We are, each and every one of us, born with certain inalienable rights. These rights come as a result of our humanity, because we are able to think and reason for ourselves. No one, not even government, has the right to violate your rights simply because they're scared, or they think you might do something, or you question them, or you challenge their perceived power. No one has the right to violate an individual's rights on a whim. That is tyranny. That is abuse of power. That is why there is distrust. That is what the founders of the United States of America fought against. We are seeing what happens when freedoms are curtailed in favor of perceived security. It is not pretty. We can reclaim our liberties once again, but we must become engaged with the system. We must let those who rule know that we will settle for nothing less than honesty, openness and principle. We then must teach society what it means to be free so that our progeny will be able to identify the propaganda and keep our nation free and prosperous.

If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com 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 smashwords.com. 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.

Ron Paul Supporters, Are You Ready to Get Down and Dirty?

2012-01-07T19:16:00.000-08:00

Politics is a dirty business. Everyone knows that. It is full of power hungry control freaks who care nothing about transparency, accountability, honesty or principle. They don't want to see government shrink because that would mean their power shrinks. If that's the case, why do we hear so often so many politicians speak about such things as if they have these admirable traits when the opposite is true? Politicians are notorious for lying, flip flopping, hypocrisy and breaking promises. There are an extreme number of powerful people who are anything but admirable. In fact, many of them would be considered despicable if not for the fact that for some reason or another we as a society seem to excuse people in politics for acting in such a fashion. We have let the system become a cesspool where such men can find a respectable home.

The nature of politics puts principled people at a definite disadvantage. I'm not talking about just the overtly immoral things like lying, misrepresenting and stealing the vote, I'm also talking about more subtle things, tricks and sleaze that are not illegal or immoral, but are quite likely unethical, in my opinion. An honest, ethical, principled individual isn't going to want to partake in any of that kind of chicanery in order to win an election, he's going to want to win because he takes a moral stand on the issues. Expecting an honest, principled man to get elected is sort of like expecting an honest man to win at poker when he's sitting at a table full of cheats. It's not likely to happen.

So I sit here, contemplating such things, and I feel the need to ask, how is it that things have come this far? How is it that the system itself has become so corrupted that honest and principled men cannot win elections? Why do we accept such nonsense? Well, I can tell you this, I don't believe it happened overnight. There was a time in this nation when we had citizen politicians and statesmen who did not make a career out of politics and were not in it simply to win and gain power. Yet even back then the seeds of destruction had been sewn. Even back then a certain amount of unethical behavior was quite tolerated. The corruption seeped into the bloodstream of the American politic, small changes were made in the Constitution and how it was applied, and from there it twisted and bent the system until it became the unrecognizable mixture of socialism, corporatism, crony capitalism, oligarchic, and plutocratic systems that we have today, I doubt very much we can straighten it out overnight.

Still, we have to start somewhere. Personally, I think we need more honest, principled individuals to get involved with local government, such as setting up oversight for the county court systems and independent citizen committees to combat over reaching city government that creates undo burdens to opening private businesses. But people seem to want to concentrate on politics at the national level, which is really where they have the least amount of power. Still, there is hope.

The first thing to consider when looking at this is that even national politics starts at the local level. If we consider that Ron Paul is the best candidate for president and if the goal is to restore a principled national government that obeys the limits put upon it by the Constitution, then it behooves us to remember that there are powerful forces working to prevent him from even achieving the Republican nomination. Of course we all know just how much chance a third party has thanks to successful propaganda about political party duopoly that has inculcated the American public. The best chance Ron Paul has of becoming president, as he himself well knows, is for him to become the Republican nominee. The old maxim that it doesn't matter how many votes he gets, it matters who counts the votes applies here. It is important that Ron Paul supporters be able to count the vote.

I am not for a moment suggesting that Ron Paul supporters do this to steal the election. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite, that supporters of other candidates already hold positions where they are able to count the vote and they will use these positions to steal the election, if they can. I believe Ron Paul has the support and the votes he needs to win an election, after all, who doesn't want honest and transparent government? Only those who benefit from such corruption, and even some of them realize the danger of allowing so much corruption as we now have in government. I think that Ron Paul supporters need to gain positions where they can take the ability to steal the election away from those in power so that we can all have confidence in the electoral process.

Yet even with elections that are not stolen there can be a certain amount of skullduggery to subvert a populist candidate. We likely saw some of that take place in Iowa. Candidates will buy votes from people who supported other candidates. Lies, propaganda and disinformation will be spread to invoke fear in certain voters so they come out and vote against a certain candidate. That's why it's important to get as many Ron Paul supporters out there to vote for him as possible. Numbers are of utmost importance. As more primaries pass and it gets closer to the Republican convention, that's when the field will be whittled down and we will really see where the truly concerned Republican base stands in terms of the most important issues.

So far, I haven't said anything that would leave a bad taste in the mouths of Ron Paul supporters. Well, the next suggestion just might. It revolves around delegates to the Republican convention. Keep in mind, it will be the delegates at the convention, not the voters at the polls, who will ultimately choose the Republican nominee for President. It has been mentioned that Ron Paul supporters in Iowa have come forth to volunteer to be delegates already. I have heard that he might already have more delegates than any other candidate. This is a good thing. Now I suggest that other Ron Paul supporters go to their county Republican party headquarters and volunteer to become delegates for other Republican candidates who have earned delegates to the convention.

I know this might sound strange and if you are a Ron Paul supporter voting for another candidate would sound distasteful, but that is how politics work in this nation. The reason to become a delegate tied to another candidate, however, is in case the convention does not come up with a clear winner, but needs to be brokered. It is my understanding that new rules adopted this year allow for candidates to keep a certain amount of their delegates from states they competed in, it is not a winner takes all delegates rule. If after the first vote there is no clear winner at the Republican national convention, delegates are no longer beholden to the candidate they pledged their vote to and can, by rule, switch their loyalties to another. At that stage, we know that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters will never change loyalties, but the delegates of other less principled candidates will be happy to follow their candidate's example and be less than principled. Wouldn't it be better to have those delegates be Ron Paul supporters rather than those who think that being loyal to the party is more important than being loyal to principle and will vote for whoever they're told to?

Even this small deviousness would seem a big deal to many Ron Paul supporters who put honesty, ethics, morality and principle above all else. Yet it really isn't all that bad and is within the rules of the Republican convention as long as you vote for the delegate you pledged to vote for on the first ballot. Of course, if you didn't do that, well, that would ultimately be your call. Others have done worse. There are many other dirty tricks and devious practices that occur during campaigns. Right now, it looks like Ron Paul supporters don't have to do much other than support him with their vote and their money. It is yet to be seen if anything of a devious nature need be done. If something less savory needed to happen, would a Ron Paul supporter be in a position to make it happen?

With Ron Paul as president, even the corrupt mechanisms of politics in this nation might begin to change for the better. I've come to believe that a man who is too honest would not make a good politician, Ron Paul is one of the exceptions to that rule. Wouldn't it be nice if we live to see a day when those who are honest and principled are elevated to the highest levels of government while those who are less than ethical are exposed and unable to hold any position of public trust? I don't believe for a second that one man can undo overnight what has taken the system decades to achieve, but I do believe that one man in the highest position of government is a huge step along the road to accomplishing such a goal. If it takes a few twists and devious tricks along the way, then so be it. The other side certainly wouldn't hesitate to use such methods.

If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com 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 smashwords.com. 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.

The True Cost of Using Privately Provided Currency

2012-01-03T23:16:00.001-08:00

If you've been following the economic news lately, and most people have been, you may have become interested in searching for alternative views on why the economy is the way it is. This may be at least partly because the corporate mainstream media has done such a poor job of predicting and reporting past and current economic conditions. The corporate media had in the past, in fact, laughed at some analysts who proved to be more correct than the establishment owned analysts. I read an interview with Catherine Austin Fitts and was quite intrigued. One of the most intriguing things about it is that she either cannot or will not disclose who are (is) really in charge.

This makes me think. I wonder who these mystery people (mystery person) are (is). More than that, I wonder what their (I believe there is more than one) plan for us is. One thing is certain if you ask me, they are not interested in what is best for the vast majority of individuals on this planet. In fact, they seem determined to rid the planet of most souls. I think that perhaps they are having some amount of trouble managing the vast numbers of humans on this planet.

It sounds much like a conspiracy theory. How can so few control so many? It's really not that hard when we consider how economics are manipulated in this world. I say manipulated instead of controlled because in reality that is what's happening. Control is just a matter of perception. The economy is simply how trade is accomplished. We have allowed a few elite to control the currencies of the world and hence they have the wealth to manipulate markets and many other things in terms of how trade is accomplished. The central banking systems of the world, many of which are owned by a small cadre of banking families and run for profit, have the power to create the money of nations, and they do so by creating debt. Let's explore what this has cost the common folk in terms of real assets.

Most recently it has cost property. People have lost their homes. More than that, its cost us the concept of private property. This concept is one that suggests that you own what you buy. Yet, if what you buy is land, whether you buy that land to live on, to farm on, to build on, to do business on, or to simply maintain as wild lands, you will never own it. You will be forced to pay taxes on it. The question needs to be asked, if you have to pay someone to "own" something, do you really own it, or do they?

It has cost our dreams. The American dream is one of freedom. It is one where you can own your own property and do with it as you please. It is one where you can own your own business and run it as you see fit. It is one where you have the opportunity to create your own destiny. It is one where you live as a free person and interact with other free individuals on a voluntary basis. That dream has died. Most people have mortgaged their dream. The banks own it and rent it to you for a monthly fee. You will never own that dream, for even when that mortgage is paid off at many times the original price you thought you were paying, there are those who would lay claim to that which you thought you owned.

People don't even realize they don't own themselves anymore. The income tax is evidence of this. If you extend the question asked above about paying property taxes the same question can apply to your personal self. If you have to pay someone a portion of the money you earn from your labor, do you own that labor, or do they? If you don't own your labor, than do you really own your self? It's important, in my opinion, to be honest with your answer, or at least intellectually honest.

Many people will claim that they are not forced to pay income taxes, or property taxes for that matter, but they do so voluntarily. Really? Would you really continue to pay such taxes if government wouldn't send men with guns to arrest you, put you in front of a judge and throw you in jail if you didn't? Would you pay as much as they demand? Even if you would, do you support the use of such force and the threat of using such coercive methods against someone who wouldn't? These are questions that should be pondered deeply by common folk, but are usually just brushed off as just the way things are.

I bring up taxes because the income tax needed to be enacted in our nation to fund the Federal Reserve when it was first created. They needed the promise of a continuous stream of public money to set up their private enterprise. Until that point, with the exception of the Civil War, there was never any need for an income tax in this nation and, in fact, it's implementation had been illegal under the auspices of the Constitution of the United States of America. They took real money, silver and gold was money at the time, from people and replaced those real commodities with paper promises. Yep, you can blame the Federal Reserve for your enslavement to the income tax.

I bring up property taxes to show that government believes it owns your property. Now government is supposed to be subservient to the people, or the individuals who require the services the government provides. Ask yourself, if they are using coercive methods to collect your money on a non voluntary basis, are they subservient to you or are you subservient to them? Again, only you know whether you are being honest with yourself if you ask the question while considering whether or not you'd pay if you weren't being forced to do so. I do see the necessity for many government services, but government, even at a local level, is not being held accountable for the poor service it provides. I think there's better ways to deliver services, but the currency system running this nation makes these alternatives hard to implement.

It seems that, since the federal government is able to create money using the Federal Reserve and the state and local governments of this nation are not, they must in many ways bow down before the federal government and do as they wish or their funding may suffer. That is how power is centralized. And those in charge of creating money, having created trillions and taking their cut right off the top in interest, have been able to slowly over the decades greatly influence businesses and corporations of great importance and purchase the power of government while producing nothing but debt. In this way, secretive, unaccountable power is centralized.

Here again, we see the cost of using privately controlled currency. These men of wealth use that wealth to obtain greater influence for themselves and their friends and have in the process empowered the devious and greedy. They have proven to be ruthless in their pursuit of power, using their privilege to draw more power to themselves and to crush any kind of competition regardless of the legality or morality of the methods they employ to do so. In allowing a private cartel to control central banking, free men have relinquished their ability to determine their individual destiny and granted that power to those who would operate in shadows.

I believe that central bankers in one form or another have been behind most of the wars of mankind, as historical evidence shows. They have been behind the scenes and pulling the strings on many of the institutions we would otherwise blame. Central banking has cost us the lives of millions of our fellow human beings. It has cost us a number of our presidents, the most recent was quite popular. It has cost us a past that could have been golden, but instead has been crimson and cruel with bloodshed. It will cost us our future, and our children and grandchildren's future, if it is allowed to go on unchecked.

I'm not certain if there's some power above the central banks and their corporate establishment. I'm not certain if there's some power pulling the strings of the private owners of these banks. The central banks, those who create the power, are as high up the economic ladder and the power structure as I can see. They are rewarded with profits from the common folk of the nations they serve, yet they share none of the risks. They continuously acquire real wealth and assets and decide when the people can enjoy boom times, and when they suffer through busts. They remain fabulously wealthy either way. After all, they do control the money supply.

The only way we'll ever find out the truth about who is really in charge, who really pulls the strings, who is really so inhuman and greedy as to make so many suffer is to investigate the central banking cartel. They need to be audited. They need to be held accountable. It needs to be discovered how much of their wealth was achieved through fraudulent means. They need to be stripped of their power and conditions need to be put in place to make sure they never have so much power and influence over the affairs of mankind ever again.

If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com 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 smashwords.com. 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.

Ron Paul, Racism and Conspiracy Theorists

2011-12-31T19:11:00.000-08:00

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 szandorblestman.com 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 smashwords.com. 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.

Evolution and Food, a Different Point of View

2011-12-30T09:34:00.000-08:00

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 szandorblestman.com 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 smashwords.com. 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.

All Roads Lead to Ron Paul

2011-12-29T10:46:00.000-08:00

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 szandorblestman.com 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 smashwords.com. 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.

Government Thugs, Terrorists and 93 Treasonous Senators

2011-12-03T22:28:00.000-08:00

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 szandorblestman.com. 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.

Viewing the Santa Claus Mentality

2011-12-01T23:31:00.000-08:00

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 szandorblestman.com. 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.

Ron Paul, the Honest Government I Deserve

2011-11-06T21:23:00.001-08:00

I have heard that you get the government you deserve. This might be true for you, but I can tell you I've never gotten the government I deserve. I've never voted for a corrupted, corporate establishment owned, globalist, big government Democrat. I've never voted for a corrupted, corporate establishment owned, globalist, big government Republican. I've always voted for candidates who espoused smaller, more transparent government. I've always voted for candidates who espoused peace and non aggression in foreign policy. I've always vote for principle, never either of two evils whether one is lesser or not. It wasn't enough that someone just paid lip service to principle, they had to exhibit a public record supporting their position.

I have voted for honest government. Establishment politicians lie. They appeal to the perceived desires they see in the voters whose ballots they want to capture, but they don't even plan on honoring their words. To say they are deceitful is more than an understatement. I don't deserve deceitful government. I don't deserve secret government. I don't deserve a government who looks down upon me and treats me like a stupid herd animal they can fool, manipulate and control. Maybe you do, and maybe that's why you keep voting for establishment candidates, but I do not.

I have voted for government with integrity. Establishment politicians are corrupt. They take money from lobbyists. They are funded by international corporate interests. They belong to secretive non governmental organizations that seem able to exercise selfish power over the policies implemented by government. They care not for common folk or their travails, they care only for their own and the benefit of their benefactors. Perhaps that is the government you deserve, but I deserve the integrity I asked for.

I have voted for the American libertarian principles of freedom and liberty despite what the corporate political establishment has offered up as representing America and what it stands for. I have voted for small, constitutional government. Establishment politicians want to control your life from birth to death. They want you enslaved. They do so through big government. They do so by creating government monopolies to severely limit your choices. They do so by limiting your purchasing choices and empowering their choices through regulation and the taxation of income. Perhaps you don't want to make financial decisions for yourself. Perhaps you want to be taken care of from cradle to grave. You have gotten the government you deserve. I wish to make my own decisions and to take care of myself. Where is the government I deserve?

I have voted for peace. I do not wish to see my children marched off to war for the sake of international corporations and their profits. I do not wish to see or hear about innocent bodies strewn in the streets due to the actions of my fellow countrymen. I certainly don't want to be forced to pay for such actions. Establishment politicians seem to be war mongers, even those who present themselves as peace candidates. I would as soon simply trade with other cultures rather than bomb them. I would as soon feel secure because we are well liked in the world and get along with others rather than because we are scanned and/or felt up at airports, train stations, bus stations and soon at random on the roadways and in the malls by TSA agents on power trips. Perhaps you have voted for war. Perhaps you believe that's the way to greater security. Perhaps you have desired and voted for the police state. You have gotten the government you deserve. The problem is those of us who believe in freedom not only for ourselves, but for others, do not get the government we deserve.

In 2008 I did not vote for hope, I voted for real solutions that have worked in the past and should work into the future. I did not vote for change, I voted for transformation to a better way, a step toward a better world. I did not fall for the sirens' song of establishment politicians, I looked for a genuine voice who proved with his actions and public record what he espoused with his words. I voted for Ron Paul, even though I had to write his name on the ballot. I refused to vote for any candidate backed by the corporate establishment.

I'm really not sure who deserves the kind of tyrannical and freedom crushing government we are evolving in this nation. Perhaps it's those in the inaccurate, so called mainstream media who refuse to acknowledge Ron Paul's growing popularity. Perhaps those talking heads and political pundits deserve to be patted down and groped by TSA agents. Perhaps they deserve to be pulled over and interrogated at roadside checkpoints. Perhaps they deserve to have their homes and personal belongings searched without warrant. Perhaps they deserve to be over scrutinized and over taxed by government agencies. Perhaps they deserve to have all their individual rights violated by government, but I do not. And I don't believe many others do either. I don't believe very many people voted for this kind of government intrusion at all, no matter who they may have voted for in the past.

The best government is the government you don't have to think about. The best government is the government that can be trusted to do the right thing. People are thinking about the government too often these days, and the thoughts aren't usually pleasant ones. Hardly anyone trusts the government. Many are of the opinion the government continuously does what's wrong. The masses are grumbling and almost no one is sitting up and saying we have the best government ever, and anyone who does is quickly shouted down and relegated to irrelevancy.

We have a chance in 2012 to truly voice to the powers that be the kind of government we think we deserve. We can tell them we wish for smaller, more responsible government, or we can tell them we want bigger, unaccountable government. We can tell them we want honest government, or we can let them keep getting away with the corruption they engage in. We can tell them we want transparent government, or we can tell them we don't mind their secrecy. We can tell them we want peace, or we can let them continue to throw away lives and treasure with their occupations and wars of aggression. We can tell them we want honest money and a stable economy, or we can let them continue to keep us indebted to a private central banking cartel with a monopoly on the currency supply. We can vote for Ron Paul, or we can vote for one of the establishment, corporate owned candidates. First he must win the Republican nomination, so we have to support him in such numbers and shout so loud that the powers that be can no longer ignore him. Time is growing short. You can strive to get the kind of government you deserve, or you can accept the government someone else deserves.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

Silver and Sunshine, the Great Vampire Killers

2011-11-02T15:07:00.000-07:00

If you were a parasite with intelligence, how would you design yourself to survive? Well, if it was me, I'd try to convince my victims that I was a necessary part of their lives. Of course to do that, I'd have to be very charming. I'd have to be able to capture their minds, so to speak, to put them in a trance and to make them believe that what I was doing was good for them. At that point, I'd be able to feed off of them as much as I wanted, so long as I kept them alive. I mean, if I killed one I could always find another one I could attach myself to, but if I killed too many and especially if there were others of my kind hanging around, I could be in trouble if the supply of victims ran low. This is a problem that vampires might run into if their supply of human beings runs low.

Of course, none of us like to be fed upon. We slap mosquitoes. We burn off leeches. We inspect ourselves for ticks if we've been in the woods and pull them out if they've attached themselves. We take medications to get rid of internal worms. Most of us are disgusted by such creatures. Yet if the same behavior is exhibited by humans, especially good looking humans who are sexually stimulating, many will accept it as a matter of course and even romanticize it.

Those who are aware of the evil nature of such parasitical creatures, however, keep their eyes out for the hidden vampire and seek to destroy it before it can harm another. It is much harder for them to fall for the vampire's charms. It is much harder to brainwash them into thinking the vampire is necessary. Vampire hunters will try to warn others of the true nature of the vampire living amongst them, but their warnings will oft times go unheeded. The vampires are experts at enslaving human minds and creating willing servants who will guard the vampire's secrets and try to thwart the vampire hunters. No one wants to admit to the reality of vampires and would sooner go along with their lives completely oblivious to the danger they are in, some even defending the vampires for fear of upsetting the status quo.

Vampires like to consider themselves superior to humans. They exist in their undead form for longer than humans live on average. They think themselves physically stronger. They think themselves more intelligent. They have powers ordinary humans only dream of. They get off on observing the hapless humans they feed upon and perhaps every once in awhile toying with them like a cat toys with a mouse. They think they can get away with whatever they please and no one can stop them. But they do have their weaknesses. There are a few things that can be done to destroy them and their evil plans.

It is interesting to note a couple of things that have been known to destroy certain vampires in the past. The two I wish to talk about are silver and sunshine. Silver is a well known anti bacterial agent. It will also kill several forms of parasites. Perhaps it is no surprise that it kills vampires (and werewolves) as it seems to be a cleansing agent.

Sunshine is also known to kill vampires. It is also known to help battle bacteria and parasites in the human body. It provides the body with vitamin D which is a necessary nutritional component that boosts the human immune system. Again, we see a real life cleansing agent prevalent in the lore for killing an evil that has inflicted mankind. Is this just a coincidence, or are there real life examples of vampires feeding on humankind throughout history?

Well, I don't know about individual vampires, but I do recognize societal vampires. These are the parasites that feed off the productivity of humanity as a whole. They suck the lifeblood of our economic systems and bring sickness, destruction and even death to the societies they infect. Most people walk about in a daze, either super exuberant or in a state of financial shock, not knowing that these vampires are the true cause of the boom and bust cycles their economies go through. I am talking, of course, about the Federal Reserve system in the United States of America and central banking in the Western world in general. The same remedies used to destroy vampires of lore can be used to bring about the end to these economic vampires, or at least to hold them more accountable.

Silver is just one precious metal that can be used to destroy the monster that is the Federal Reserve. The paper money put out by that institution is created from nothing and only good as long as people will accept it in payment for goods and services. The vampiric Federal Reserve has managed to ruin the value of its currency, the Federal Reserve Note (FRN), by flooding the market with its product. This has happened because of the simple law of supply and demand. The supply has been inflated, so those selling products and services are demanding more of it. Silver, however, as with any precious metal, cannot be printed on demand and it is therefore harder to inflate the supply. Its value will go up as the supply dwindles. Producers will ask for less of it as they compete with others supplying similar products and services in the marketplace. If the marketplace begins to demand silver (and other precious metals) instead of paper for their goods and services, FRNs will be forced out of the marketplace and the parasitical Federal Reserve system will be destroyed.

The other well known cure for vampires, sunlight, is equally lethal to the Federal Reserve system. For decades, the vast majority didn't realize that there was a vampire in their midst. People looked at the Federal Reserve system and thought is was a government institution set there to see to the needs of the populace rather than a quasi private, quasi public entity that could siphon its profits to the coffers of a wealthy elite while ensuring that any loses would be paid for by the American taxpayer. It's good work if you can get it. Of course this would only work so long as enough people remained ignorant of the true nature of this institution. By shining the light on the Federal Reserve, so to speak, the people become enraged and policy can be changed to hold the Fed accountable. While this appears to be happening, it is important to make sure the Fed remains exposed until the full light of day shines upon it so it cannot duck back into the shadows and hide behind the backs of its servant politicians who defend its policies.

These are, of course, only two of the remedies that can be applied to rid our society of the most dangerous vampire we have ever known. I'm sure there are more. The most important thing is to make sure enough people realize the true nature of the Federal Reserve. Once that is accomplished and enough people have become aware, those who run the Federal Reserve will hopefully become less arrogant and more willing to work to benefit the masses. They don't want to be held accountable by the entire world for causing the total destruction of the world's economy. They don't want their crimes to be well known, and so perhaps the heat will be enough for them to put an end to their criminal enterprises. After all, I don't think they want to be burned, and I doubt very much they want to be begging for mercy from the masses of humanity. They would very much like to stay on top, even if it means some of their most cherished plans against humanity have to be postponed. While I am all for killing the vampire, I also understand that many of its victims have fallen in love with it and its removal must be done carefully so that the victims do not suffer its fate and can recover.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

Imagination and the Battle Against Globalism and the New World Order

2011-10-31T16:53:00.000-07:00

It should be no secret by now that a cadre of central banksters, politicians and extremely wealthy corporatists have been working to implement a global order which would benefit their interests. The mere knowledge of this causes different reactions in different people. Some will enter a state of denial and claim no such things exist. Others may admit to the existence of such conspiracies, but would claim there was nothing that can be done to stop them. Still others would not only admit to the conspiratorial nature of those at the top, they would explore methods to thwart such plans and prevent humankind from re-entering a feudal serf system. They would try to convince the deniers to join them in their efforts. To these people I say use the gift of imagination that nature has given to the human race.

Those who would conspire to deny humans their basic rights and to life, liberty and property do so in the most devious ways. I have heard it said that the most hopelessly enslaved are those who believe they are free. This is what has happened to humanity in the Western world. Those at the top pulling the strings, the ruling elite as I call them, have created power structures in such a way as to give people the illusion of freedom and self determination while in reality they are a serf class completely dependent on the establishment systems that are in place. They did such a good job that they may well have trapped themselves in their delusional snare.

The world around us has existed for all our lives. We have seen changes, but they have been more or less subtle. Most of the important structures and institutions we have grown accustomed to have been around since before we were born, depending, of course, on your age. We can't imagine life without them. This is, perhaps, at least partially by design. There is much that remains hidden to most behind the hustle and bustle of everyday life. There is much that goes unreported behind the glitz and dazzle of the modern day establishment news media. There is much that remains unknown to the public at large inside the academic industrial complex. In short, there is much that has been kept from the general public so that the current power elite could remain in power, so that the establishment could remain the establishment now and into the future.

Yet power seems to be slipping through the fingers of the establishment. Try as they might to remain a hidden hand, more and more people are looking to where the light is shining and are identifying the culprits that have brought tyranny upon us. It is becoming obvious that those who have failed us, those who are responsible for the current economic debacle and the impending catastrophe, those who are behind the wars and the violence in the world, are the same ones who are pulling the strings of governance. These are the people who have used their vast wealth to corrupt the politicians for their own benefit. These are the people who are trying to consolidate even more power and form a tyrannical centralized world government that they can control.

The illusions are slipping away, reality is coming into focus and the people are moving to reassert their power and demand accountability. The establishment is shaking. It is quite likely they are frightened of the people gaining knowledge. They don't like being exposed. They may be getting ready to panic. Once panicked they are more likely to make mistakes. They will get desperate. Desperation could lead to violence. It is at this point, when they try to force their will upon the masses through violence, that the common folk must measure their reaction and use their imagination to counter such measures, for reacting with violence could well be the biggest mistake possible.

The powers that be have two main weapons, fear and force. Fear prevents people from taking action. It makes them hesitate. They are afraid of the violence that can be brought down upon them. They are afraid of the pain and the damage such violence could cause. They are afraid of the changes that could come to the world they know. Most of all, they are afraid of the unknown. These are fears that need to be overcome if the common folk are to reclaim the power they deserve and their rightful inheritance of liberty. They must speak up against the practices of the power elite and know that their policies are immoral and the principles of freedom are the very essence of morality.

In our efforts to prevent the ruling elite from completing their globalist agenda we have discovered many things that haven't worked. We have seen that voting doesn't work. Too many sheeple don't seem to realize that the two party system is just one party with two faces working for the elite. They don't seem able to comprehend that power corrupts. And when a candidate appears on the scene that is actually honest and not working for the corporate establishment interests, the machinery is put in place to marginalize and discredit him, or the dubious voting machines are put to work to steal the election.

We have seen that the justice system doesn't work. Time and again we have seen the courts make bad rulings and uphold unconstitutional laws. Time and again they have allowed government to trample on individual rights. They have shown that they are not an organization interested in truth and justice so much as an organization devoted to revenue collection and the growth and profit of its own branch of government. The justice system, while it will bring individuals who have harmed others to justice and rule in favor of individual rights every so often for public relation purposes, is more than willing to throw people who have harmed no one into a cold cell simply for dissenting, believing they own their own bodies, or objecting to the opinions and policies of those in power. Once again we see a system where people go along to get along due to fear of imprisonment and the power the system has over them.

We have seen that protests have mixed results. While they might get a "win" for some minor issue or another every once in awhile, the major issues remain unassailable and the globalists move forward with their centralization agenda. We have seen movements co-opted by powerful groups with political agendas of their own. We have seen that politicians don't really listen to or honor the message of the protests. They hear it, and then they pay it lip service, but they do nothing substantial about it if that message contradicts the wishes of the establishment ruling elite. They spin the message until its original meaning is twisted and lost in obfuscation. Lately they have even blatantly lied, making promises to adhere to a message or principle and then doing exactly the opposite of what they promised. They care not for democracy or the opinions of a vocal group, they care only for the wishes of those with the money, those with the real power.

We have seen that violence doesn't work. Violence is their strong suit, not ours. If there's one thing that governments do really well, it's violence. They have spent their fortunes figuring out bigger and better ways to kill and destroy. We think of weapons, for the most part, in terms of self defense. Violence will just beget more violence. In a violent political struggle, the winner is just the more powerful of two violent gangs. The common folk are going to be ruled over by one violent gang or another.

It may seem like the ruling elite hold all the cards, but they have no imagination. They simply keep repeating their old tricks, as they have for ages, hoping we won't learn, hoping we're too distracted to notice. This is why we need to use our imaginations. We need to innovate to figure out peaceable ways to reassert our power and hold them accountable. A couple of things we do have, we have the ability to say no. We have love, empathy and the ability to help each other. We can say "no" to their dictates and refuse to follow their orders. We can tell them we've had enough of their tyranny and refuse to harm our fellow humans as they attempt to divide and conquer. We can help those who actively dissent and help to set up organizations that will provide needed services when the establishment organizations can no longer function.

We can continue to expose them for the criminals they are. The corporate globalist elite and those who support them understand that what they are doing is wrong. Continue rolling the video during any encounter you might have with those who claim any kind of "authority" over you. Video any public encounter you may have with any sort of public figure associated with the corporate establishment. Watch them scurry as the light is shone upon them. Very few people like bullies. Almost nobody appreciates being coerced into paying for services they don't want to use, or for very poor customer service. Shaming those who engage in such activity is quite important. I think exposure is one of the things the globalists fear most.

I'm sure there are far more innovative ways of being civilly disobedient and asserting your freedom and independence. It is up to you to find and apply such methods. We are all moving into the future and that future does include global economics and commerce, the question is who will control it? Will we all be able to interact on a voluntary level, or will we be forced to do business through a few elite controlling monopolistic power structures? Will we be able to make our own decisions as to what we consume, or will we have to ask permission from a few control freaks at the top as to what we can and cannot purchase? Will we be able to freely associate with whoever we want, or will we be forced to interface with some unfeeling bureaucracy in some unknown place? The answer lies in you and how you choose to live your life, for that is where you exercise the most control.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

Co-opting the Populist Majorities

2011-10-23T09:17:00.000-07:00

I have stated before that I am happy to see the "Occupy Wall Street" movement moving forward and turning into something bigger. I am happy to see it gain momentum and migrate to other areas. The American people, like people all over the world, are angry with the ruling classes and are voicing their discontent. Whether the oligarchs have planned and/or financed the populist movements that have popped up lately I don't know, but it seems to me that it would be prudent for them to try to infiltrate such movements and obtain leadership positions so that they can steer them in directions they want them to go.

As with the tea party movement that was co-opted by the right, or the Republicans, so the left, or the Democrats, is co-opting the Occupy Wall Street movement, or at least trying to. Like the Tea Party movement, the Occupy Wall Street movement seems to be a decentralized grass roots effort without leadership or direction, just a protest meant to show the establishment the anger felt by the common folk. The people have shown that they know the system is broken and they want it fixed, but there are many divergent views as to exactly what about the system is broken and how to fix it. As often happens, there are many who attempt to take leadership upon themselves and instill their own vision of what should be and how to achieve that vision into the movement.

It seems to me that people have a tendency to do as little work as possible. Unfortunately, this also appears to be true when it comes to thinking. There are, however, those who are willing to do the thinking for everyone so long as they believe they'll gain something from it. I believe it is therefore important to expose as many people who are taking part in these protests to as many perspectives and ideas as possible. I believe it is important for all individuals to think for themselves and internalize as much information as possible to form their opinions.

It seems to me that many people taking part in these movements self identify with certain groups that may have gripes with other groups. This makes it easier for the establishment to use the strategy of divide and conquer to destabilize popular movements. A good example of this is business owners versus employees. Just because one owns a business doesn't make one rich or successful. Even those who are well off, very successful and look extremely wealthy, whether incorporated or not, can't really be compared to the huge, international corporations that have formed the backbone of the establishment. Yet there are those who would believe such successful businessmen are part of the elite ruling class. It seems to me that the differences and lack of understanding between these two groups can make it difficult for one to empathize with the other.

The problems that have become prevalent in this nation today aren't about left or right, Democrat or Republican, or conservative or liberal. The differences in these philosophies are miniscule for the most part. The problems are about liberty or tyranny. When government harasses, intimidates and jails the populace, that is tyranny. When people are able to peacefully go about their lives and their business without fear of official government intrusion and retribution, that is liberty. I believe that most people, despite what they might say about wanting freebees, simply wish to be left alone and would be happy to live in an economic environment that provided opportunity. I believe that most people, though they may not know it, would be pleased with free market solutions that would hold businesses accountable for their mistakes and create a competitive environment that rewarded and invited hard work and innovation.

This is not what we have in our nation today. What we have in a way is unique, and yet it has been tried in various iterations throughout history. It is the unholy marriage of big government, the huge established international corporations, and the central banking cartel pulling the strings. It can be called fascism, corporatism, an oligarchy, a plutocracy, etc., but there hasn't been a free market in this nation for a long, long time, if indeed there ever was a true free market. It is, in my humble opinion, the insistence on looking to the federal government to help regulate the marketplace that has enabled it to become the leviathan it is today and given it its ability to create market monopolies that could not otherwise exist.

I have found that there are a number of things that point to evidence that a given person or organization is trying to co-opt a movement and implant an agenda into it, especially if they are claiming a leadership or financial role to officially represent the diversified people involved in the movement. The first is a claim that more taxes are necessary. More taxes amount to more government. It is tantamount to asking the already over bloated federal government to grow even larger. Higher taxes on the rich is just a wealth redistribution scheme and could even send them fleeing from the country, taking jobs with them. Less spending is what is needed. Stopping hostilities in occupied nations and bringing troops home would be a good start and would save trillions. Whatever happened to the anti war movement anyway and why isn't it being cranked back up at these new Occupy Wall Street protests? I thought the left was supposed to despise war.

Another thing I'm leery of are efforts to insist on intervention and oversight from world organizations. America can take care of itself and its own problems. We do not need oversight from world organizations. We do not need a one world government. One world government would not be a touchy, feely, loving thing. It would involve more centralization, grander corruption and more money wasted on unnecessary bureaucracies that chew up and spit out little guys while letting the huge corporate interests get away with murder. It would mean more wealth, privilege, autonomy and immunity for the already super wealthy elite and more unjust restriction for the common folk while their rights are disrespected and eroded away. What is really needed is decentralization and more emphasis on local structures where problems are better understood, they can better be held accountable and individual rights are more likely to be taken into account.

Another thing to watch out for are people agitating for violence. I am quite happy to see Occupy Wall Street remaining a peaceful vigil as that movement had the capacity to blow up early on. People need to be aware of agent provocateurs in their midst. I understand that it is easy to get frustrated at the seeming lack of progress when it comes to changing the economic conditions. No one in power seems to be listening to the common folk, but they have been hearing the clamor coming from the street recently. Remember this, it is not the politicians that are changing things, it is the protesting and the threat of civil disobedience that is having the greatest effect. Violence never solved anything.

The other thing that bothers me is the entitlement mentality. I cringe when I hear someone asking to be given something for nothing. It seems that too many don't realize that in order to get something from the government, it had to be taken from someone else by force of taxation. Taxation is neither voluntary nor free from coercion as the powers that be would have you believe. People don't seem to realize that in order to get some form of service for free the people who provide that service have to become slavish. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone paid for it. In the current system we have, in order to benefit some, economic harm has to be done to others.

I understand that billions were given to the elite uber rich in the form of bailouts, and I understand the "I want mine" attitude, but two wrongs don't make a right. Personally, I think we'd have been better off if the lower classes had been bailed out rather than the elite banking cartel. This action has helped the super rich in a couple of ways. It has given them the liquidity they needed to cover up their criminal dealings while providing them with a way to pit the upper middle class taxpayers against the poor welfare class. The problem the ruling class might be having now is that I believe a lot more people have figured this out than they might have counted on.

Finally, I'd be wary of Republican and Democrat politicians jumping in front of the parade and wanting to pass new laws. With a few exceptions, politicians are mostly part of the problem and I don't believe they're going to be part of the answer, certainly not the batch of establishment globalist cronies we have in there now. We need laws repealed, not further restrictions imposed, in order to give entrepreneurs freer reign and grease the gears of economic growth. Perhaps if during the next couple of election cycles we can replace the current incumbents with more liberty oriented, smaller government folks things will be different. Until such a time, I think it is safe to assume that most politicians jumping on the bandwagon to make grand speeches to these movements are doing so for their own benefit, to get elected and to promote their corporate big government agendas.

If there's one thing the ruling class can't have, it's successful populist movements. They will try their best to co-opt such movements and make them irrelevant. It is therefore helpful to identify issues agreed upon by different movements and join together where possible. One such issue is the Federal Reserve. Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street crowds have identified this monolithic organization as a main source of our current economic troubles. Auditing, investigating, changing and even eliminating this failed institution should continue to be a mantra coming from all sides. Those who have participated in or enabled fraudulent and unethical behavior in the banking industry should be held accountable for their criminal activities and should be forced to make things right even if they have to lose their own massive fortunes doing so.

The other thing I believe most people would agree with is that business and personal relationships should be voluntary in nature. We need to recognize that government as it is run today is far from voluntary. It has been said many times that government is a monopoly on the use of force. Even Barrack Obama has said so. This force either prevents people from engaging in activities they want to engage in or makes them engage in behavior they don't want to engage in. The problem is that thousands, perhaps millions, of laws have been written that prevent people from engaging in behaviors that may be beneficial to them or that force them to engage in behaviors that may be harmful to them. In short, governments in general and the federal government in particular have overstepped their bounds far too often and the common folk are finally showing their displeasure.

It is my hope that populist movements don't succumb to establishment co-opting. I think it is important to keep putting out the message of freedom into these movements. I hope that more people are coming to understand this message and how important it is to become the free society that was the dream of some of the founders of this nation. Should the principles of freedom and liberty once again take hold in this nation and come to flourish and bloom, I think we will see such prosperity as is difficult to imagine.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

999 is 666 Upside Down and Backward

2011-10-16T09:30:00.001-07:00

"Let me tell you how it will be,
There's one for you, nineteen for me...
...Don't ask me what I want it for,
If you don't want to pay some more
Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman."
From Taxman by The Beatles

No, I'm not claiming that Herman Cain is the Antichrist, though I'm sure that there are many others who will. I will say, however, that I'm scratching my head wondering how he got so popular promoting such a lame tax scheme. Are there really that many people who will fall for such a propagandistic gimmick? Are there really that many people who don't know how taxes work? Are there really that many people that don't understand that this is a tax increase for everyone? My guess is that the media is exaggerating Mr. Cain's popularity just as they are understating Dr. Paul's. I think the establishment is running scared at Ron Paul's popularity and so they commanded their corporate media lackeys to promote this guy as the next great messiah or some such thing.

If you haven't figured it out by now, the establishment wants to keep someone it can control in the White House, but it doesn't want you to think the president is controlled. They know that Ron Paul is too principled and wants to use the Constitution as a legal tool to force establishment entities to relinquish some of their power. His record shows he can't be bought off and he will likely deliver true change at least when it comes to how the executive branch of the government is run. With Ron Paul's surge in popularity and the ideas of freedom beginning to catch on, the establishment needs someone they can present to the Republican base as someone in tune with Republican concerns. It seems they've already given up on Mitt Romney with his Romneycare so similar to Obamacare and Rick Perry with his mandated vaccines and obvious globalist connections.

Looking at Herman Cain's past, it isn't hard to figure out who he really represents. From 1989 to 1996 he worked on the Omaha Branch Board, as a Deputy Chairman and as a Chairman respectively for the Kansas City branch of the Federal Reserve. Need I say more? This man reeks of establishment. He says the right things to appeal to the conservative base, but has no voting record to help determine whether he will stand by his views or if he's just paying lip service to conservative values. In this respect, he is a nebulous political figure much like Barrack Obama was in 2008. If nothing else, he certainly has shown that he loves taxes and that intimates to me that he'd as soon raise your taxes rather than cut spending.

What's more concerning to me than the more obtuse issue of where Mr. Cain's money comes from and who he represents is his insistence that more taxation is a viable solution for problems created by government excess and greed. While it is true that I am notorious for being anti income tax and believing the only fair tax is no tax, I wouldn't be so quick to speak out against a plan that actually reduced the tax burden of the common folk. Mr. Cain's 999 tax plan is not a tax break for anyone, and it is most definitely an increase for the poorest Americans. Right on it's surface it ensures that close to 27% of everyone's income will go to the federal government. That's in addition to property, state and local taxes that everyone pays. Too many people can't afford such an increase.

For those that might be unfamiliar with Mr. Cain's plan, he wishes to implement a 9% corporate tax rate, a 9% flat income tax rate, and a 9% national sales tax. Some of you might be thinking that Mr. Cain's plan only ensures that one would pay nine percent of his income to the federal government based on the nine percent income tax portion of his plan. Well, consider this, do you think that corporations are going to just accept a 9% hit to their bottom line and not do anything about it? I very much doubt that. I would venture to guess that such an increase in their costs would be passed onto you. It might not happen right away, but eventually the consumer will pay for the tax increase through higher prices. While one could make the legitimate claim that one can avoid this tax by not doing business with corporations, the reality is that corporations are so pervasive in this country that only a miniscule number of people would actually be able to accomplish such a feat.

As for income tax rates, according to the Tax Foundation the median percentage of income tax paid for the lowest half of earners in 2008 was 2.59%. There's no doubt here that these people would suffer a significant tax increase on this alone should Mr. Cain's plan be implemented. The top 50% paid a median income tax of 13.65%. A couple of things to keep in mind. The figures above are for adjusted gross income. Mr. Cain's plan, as far as I can tell, would be based simply upon gross income, so depending upon the numbers one paying 13.65% tax on adjusted gross might be paying less than 9% gross. Another consideration is that the top 50% median is greatly pulled up by the top 10% or so who pay much higher income tax rates then most of us. This tax plan would be a tax cut for those people. Once again we see a tax cut for the very rich who can most afford it and a tax increase for the poor. Kind of makes one wonder why anyone who isn't worth millions or tens of millions would support such a plan.

Lastly let's look at the 9% sales tax. Honestly, can you afford to pay 9% more for everything you purchase? This makes one wonder if Herman Cain has gone to the grocery store recently, or ever. Of course, a similar argument could be made here as above that one could avoid this tax by not doing business, but how many of us have the means and the ability to produce food, shelter, clothes and the essentials for life? That's not including all the nice modern conveniences that make life so much easier and enjoyable. With lower income people everywhere already having to make tough choices between things like medicine or food, heat or rent, etc., why would anyone think it would be a good idea to take another 9% of their income to give to the federal government and make it that much tougher for the already dispossessed to survive?

I've said it more than once and I'll say it again, to me taxes are theft. They are a form of extortion. One could say they are legalized, legitimized theft to help pay for socialized services provided by a monopolistic organization called the federal government. I say theft is theft no matter the excuses, no matter how covert. They more or less turn the populace into a quivering slavish mass of humanity too fearful to withhold their funds from the behemoth that has become the federal government no matter how much they disagree with the policies practiced by that organization.

There are those who would claim that we all need to "pay our fair share" for government services we all benefit from, and personally I wouldn't mind doing so if I felt I was getting fair value for the money I spend and if I didn't feel threatened and coerced to do so. If their services are so great than why can't they collect money on a voluntary basis like the rest of us? The problem is that I feel, as do many others, that many of the services provided by the federal government are not valuable, yet if I don't pay for them through my income taxes I will be audited and threatened with fees, fines, jail or worse. I've seen in my lifetime a lot of people whose lives have been ruined by the IRS, and the IRS never have to answer for their crimes.

A program like 999 is 666 upside down and backward. The fact that so many are touting this as a viable solution to our economic problems shows how misleading a successful marketing campaign can be. The little 999 mantra reminds me a little of the "hope" and "change" mantra I heard during the 2008 presidential campaign. It is not the mark of the beast which you will need before you can buy or sell anything, but it could become the law of the land that you will have to pay for to feed the beast known as the federal government. It doesn't mean that Mr. Herman Cain is the antichrist, but it does show how centralized government has become more anti Christ like. They don't care if they mark you or not, as long as they get their money. They don't care if you protest or not, as long as you continue to pay their taxes. They don't even care who you vote for, as long as they continue to pull the strings.

Herman Cain might understand that what is needed is less spending and a smaller federal government, but he is not the one who will manifest such changes. He wants to keep the status quo. He wants to keep growing the centralized federal government, to keep empowering Washington, DC, and to keep the populace obedient. He is just another control freak, big government politician that will say and do anything to get elected. Ron Paul is still the best candidate for instilling worthwhile change in government policies. He understands that the federal government is already too big. He understands that the federal reserve needs to be audited and that the income tax and the IRS need to be eliminated. Vote against the backward and upside down 666. End the fed. End the wars. End the income tax. Vote for Ron Paul.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

The Fed, Economic Growth and Economic Stability

2011-10-11T19:25:00.000-07:00

With all that's going on in the world today I thought it might be interesting to take a step back and consider the question "How did we get here?" I know that at times it might seem like I harp on the subject, but I believe it is an important one. Sometimes, we don't know how far back into antiquity some ideas go. Often times I am surprised when I find out just how long ago certain knowledge was gained. It seems to me that there is not only truth to the saying that he who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it, but I think that perhaps those who know history can manipulate those who don't and profit from their knowledge coupled with others' ignorance.

History, to me, is more than just names and dates and a series of events that happened on a timeline. It is more than just a linear progression. It is not two dimensional to be looked at simply in terms of cause and effect. It is like a diamond, like a clear multi-faceted crystal that can be examined in a multitude of ways from nearly infinite perspectives. To get a more accurate view of history it is important to examine as many of these perspectives and facets as possible. By doing so we can gain insight into the inner workings of mankind's psychology, particularly at the different class levels as they existed then and as they exist now. It is also important to examine the things that didn't happen, the would've beens and could've beens that never were. In this way we exercise our imaginations to help us evaluate present and future decisions for our personal lives going forward.

For the purpose of brevity, I don't want to go too far back into the past. I would like to mention a couple of points, however. The first is that money has been around for a very, very long time. It originated out of a need to represent the labor needed to produce certain products for trade for a more efficient barter system. The second is that the manipulation of money has been around for nearly as long as money has. Since money was usually coined from precious metals, it wasn't long before people figured out how to shave coins and debase the metals for their own profit while making the money worth less for the common folk. Such practices were quickly recognized as fraudulent, a form of stealing, and laws were enacted to attempt to prevent people from engaging in such practices.

The third point I'd like to mention is that paper money originated long ago in the form of receipts for gold deposited in the safes of local goldsmiths. In this way, the goldsmiths soon became the world's first bankers of sorts. Some of them soon discovered that the receipts they gave out were, in fact, as good as gold. They noticed that only a certain percentage of their costumers at any one time would come back soon and claim their gold, so they began to give out a certain percentage more receipts than they had gold, a practice very much like what is known today as fractional reserve. This made them very wealthy. It didn't take long, however, for the people to recognize the fraudulent nature of this practice and demand an end to it. Theft is theft whether done through covert or overt means.

This brings us to fiat money. It seems that with wealth comes power and influence. At some point, the wealthy bankers were able to convince the royalty of Europe to team up with them, so to speak. It wasn't hard to see the advantage this would have for both those classes of society as they could siphon off the wealth of the working, productive class and move it to the parasitic ruling class without direct taxation which most people oppose. Many people believe that fiat money is synonymous with paper money, but this is not so. Fiat money merely means money by decree, or money that law says must be accepted as a token of exchange when conducting trade. If a government passed a law requiring maple leaves to be used as tokens of exchange when conducting trade, then maple leaves would become legal tender and one could gather up maple leaves as one sees fit and use them at local merchants to purchase goods and services. If a merchant refused to take the maple leaves, the consumer could report that merchant to the local authorities and the merchant could be arrested and thrown in jail. This would remain so as long as the populace believed their government to be legitimate.

Fast forward to 1913. It was near the end of this year, actually closer to 1914, that the Federal Reserve act was passed. It is interesting to note that this act was not passed until after the 16th amendment to the Constitution was ratified, which happened earlier in Feb. 1913. This was, in my opinion, the most significant event of the 20th century. It was the creation of a semi-private, quasi-governmental central bank in the United States of America. It came about despite the dismantling of central banks in this nation twice in its young history. It came about despite the debates that had been going on since the inception of the nation. It came about despite the pragmatic arguments against letting such an institution take hold in our nation. It came about despite Constitutional law that forbade such an enterprise. It came about and legalized practices that had already been recognized as fraudulent centuries before.

There also was much secrecy surrounding the creation of the Federal Reserve. It seems to me that the population at the time was much more aware of the dangers of central banking than it is today. In order to gain the public trust those who would most benefit from such a system, the same oligarchic families that are involved in it today, had to resort to a great deal of deception and unethical means. These men knew what they were doing and they knew it was unsavory, that's why they wanted to remain hidden and they wanted the public misinformed. They knew their eventual goal would be to create a fiat paper currency that would slowly but surely steal the purchasing power of the common folk. In the meantime, as their system moved the economy toward inevitable collapse, they and their descendents would acquire an incredible amount of the real wealth in the world.

My favorite illustration of how this works follows. Let's say you had a rich great grandfather who had an extra two hundred thousand dollars he didn't know what to do with back in 1914. This was a very hefty sum back then, and he figured it was much more than was necessary to keep a family going for many generations. At the outbreak of WWI, (which coincidentally started not long after the passing of the Federal Reserve Act) he becomes uncertain as to the fate of mankind and so he decides to bury it in the backyard. He divides the money in half and puts a hundred thousand in cash in one box and buys a hundred thousand in physical gold bullion which he buries in another box. Not long after he dies and the two boxes are forgotten as he takes their hiding place to the grave, not that it matters as his estate is quite large even without it.

Now, let's say that you inherit his estate. You spot a place that looks like it might make a good rose garden and lo and behold you dig up the two boxes as you get to work. The cash, taken at face value, has lost an extreme amount of buying power. Consider that one could buy a loaf of bread for a nickel or less in 1914, a Ford Model T would cost one $99 dollars and a very nice house would cost one three thousand dollars or less. I'm not sure but I would guess that mansions would run from ten to thirty thousand. Although a hundred grand is still a good chunk of money today, it would only make a very nice down payment on most homes and you'd still have to take out a mortgage. You certainly couldn't easily buy twenty or more rental properties with it like you could back then.

Ah, but you also got the box of gold. While that gold had the exact same purchasing power in 1914 as the face value of the cash, it's purchasing power today is much more than a hundred grand. Let's do some quick math. The average cost of an ounce of gold in 1914, according to this chart by the National Mining Association, was $18.99. A hundred thousand dollars would have bought $100,000÷$18.99 per ounce, or 5265.92 ounces of gold. Today's gold price, as I write this, is $1664.28 per ounce. The gold has the purchasing power of $1664.28 per ounce multiplied by 5265.92 ounces, or $8,763,981.04 in today's dollars. Do you see where that purchasing power has been stolen? That's $8,663,981 in purchasing power that's been lost. That means that a hundred dollars used to have the purchasing power of approximately $8,764. Ten dollars back then was like approximately $870 today.

Looking again at the National Mining Association chart mentioned above, one quickly notices how long gold held its value at around twenty dollars per ounce. The chart only goes back to 1833, but the gold constant goes back much further, at least to the 1400s, according to this source. During all these years, there was no central bank in the United States of America, but the state banks more or less competed against each other using the Constitutionally approved coining standards for precious metals. That's economic stability. While there were economically troubled times, those times were short lived as the freer markets established in this nation quickly adjusted to market fluctuations and the market manipulations of the European central banks.

One notices how the cost of gold shoots up in the early thirties and then once again in the early seventies. Those were very economically troubled times and personally I'd like to know how much gold was owned and bought by central banks and the families that own them at the time. It's getting very scary now how quickly the price of not only gold, but of all precious metals, has shot up. That is an indication of how many dollars are out there floating around. While the economy might be growing in terms of dollars, economic activity has certainly slowed. I've heard that some indicators are pointing toward recovery, and I certainly hope they're correct, but in my personal life I see no indication that the economy is going to get better any time soon.

So we find ourselves in the present circumstances. With all the protests going on, with all the "occupation" movements taking place, it is apparent that the common folk have come to realize that something is very wrong. Very few people, however, seem to understand the history of how we came to this point in time. They blame this politician or that politician, this political party or that political party, this policy or that policy, this philosophy or that philosophy. They don't seem to understand that, while all these things may have contributed to the problems in one way or another, all these things have been manipulated across time to benefit the moneyed elite. If one thing has remained nearly constant over the past hundred years, it's that the old money has stayed with the same shadowy group of families controlling the world's central banking cartel. One thing is certain, since the Fed's birth in 1913 the economy has grown, but it has been quite unstable with huge mood swings. All the economic growth seems to have gone into their coffers. They have had a government sponsored and endorsed monopoly on the creation of our currency for nearly a hundred years and they have managed to utterly fail on maintaining the stability in the markets and a high employment rate as they promised they would.

What Americans had before the creation of the Fed was ownership. What they had was pride that they had earned their belongings, self reliance as they made their way through life, and respect for others' private property. What they had was freedom and independence. That has been taken away from us. Such principles have been slowly eroded over the decades. Hard work, ingenuity and independence have been replaced by sloth and dependence on the system. The vast majority of us own nothing. We are too far in debt. Too many of us are one step away from losing everything. We no longer do for ourselves and our families anymore. We no longer take the risks and reap the rewards. We stifle ourselves from fear of breaking one of the millions of laws on the books. We beg permission from government agencies to allow us to start our own businesses, to do what we do best. We demand that things be given to us for nothing and have become dependent on the system to take care of us. That is what happens when a monetary system based on something of value is allowed to be shifted into a fiat, paper currency system based on credit.

Yes, there are viable solutions out there that can be used to turn this economic situation around. Yes, I even think that some solutions based on government force of law and regulation can be applied to help the situation. But I don't think this will help if we lose focus on the main causes of the problem. I don't think government solutions will work so long as the Federal Reserve and their corporate cronies have so much power within the federal government. If we allow for competition in the market place, if we stop allowing government to protect and bailout corporations and the international banking systems, we can start empowering the individual.

People have a tendency to protect their selves, their families and their friends. They have a tendency to hang onto power tenaciously once they achieve it. They have a tendency to reward their friends and punish their enemies if given a chance. They have a tendency to become corrupted by the power. As long as government decides who is too big to fail and who is not, the wealthiest of the moneyed elite will be able to pay to play and to bankrupt those who they don't want to play with. As long as a government sanctioned monopoly on currency exists, it will be the moneyed elite and their political cronies who will call the shots. The ultimate answer has nothing to do with increasing taxes or imposing more regulations, the ultimate answer is to empower individuals and let them decide who thrives and who fails in an open, transparent marketplace by voting with their dollars. When the common folk once again throw off the chains of socialist government, demand respect for their natural rights, and are able to keep all the money they earn and possess property without fear of government sanctioned confiscation, then they shall be truly free and we will once again prosper. Then we will know economic stability whether we have economic growth or not.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

Occupy Wall Street Sieges New York City

2011-10-02T09:07:00.001-07:00

I was very excited to hear about occupy Wall Street. This really seemed to me to be the kind of thing we needed. At least here we would see peaceful protestors making demands that should be made. At least here we would see the grassroots taking matters into their own hands. This sounded like the kind of movement that could make a difference. Somehow, however, I managed to remain uninformed on what was going on with it. It was more than just the blackout by the corporate mainstream media that caused this, it was my ignorance toward looking it up for myself. As I heard more and more about it, particularly the police brutality aspect, I decided to look into it on my own.

I must say, I am happy to see people finally getting involved. I'm glad to see them realize that voting one big government party to replace another big government party is not going to solve any problem. I'm glad to see the anger directed in what I would consider the right direction, toward the corporations and banks that shield the established power elite. I'm glad to see my advice being taken (albeit also the advice of several far more famous historical figures) and the protests remaining peaceful. I'm glad to see the violence of the state being exposed, but saddened to see the victims of that violence suffer.

What I've observed happening validates what I've been saying for quite sometime now, in a way. I've been making the claim that more and more of the common folk have been waking up. More and more people have been coming to the conclusion that something is very wrong with the system. I noticed this long, long ago, but only really started to worry and do something about it in the last six or seven years. It takes others a little longer to get active. It takes them awhile to jump in the pool, so to speak, and many people have to see others crowding the pool before they decide to test the waters. What started out as a small gathering of people camping in a private park in order to protest the power of Wall Street has blossomed into large marches and protests and a full blown movement.

Perhaps that's why the corporate mainstream media decided to ignore this situation at first. In my opinion, they are continuing to under report this event. This could be perhaps one of the biggest stories of the day, perhaps the opening salvo in an attempt to peacefully reign in the uncontrolled power of unprecedented wealth in the hands of a very few people, in the hands of those who control the printing of fiat money. Perhaps this is the first step toward empowering the common folk and the individual once again. The corporate media certainly wouldn't want to let the common folk know that such a movement was gaining steam in this nation. They wouldn't want the masses of sheeple sympathizing with those protesting.

Since these people look so normal, and are so diverse, the corporate media would find it hard to spin this event as it unfolds. Here is further evidence that the media is colluding with the power elite, as I have been saying for years. Yet even this seems to be changing as we get reports (like this one) that chastise the police. There have been many reports of police misbehavior during this protest, but it seems to me that one still has to look to the Internet for sources such as RT and the live feed from Global Revolution for the best information regarding these protests. While it seems the corporate mainstream media only reports on these events when they feel they have to in order to remain relevant, the alternative sources sniff out these important events to gain relevance and to expose the public to a more truthful perspective.

The diversity of people protesting is astounding. This shows the melting pot aspect of the American nation. This is not a protest like one would see in the 1960s when one group or another was demanding rights for a specific group of people. It is not a group of black people demanding equal rights under the law or a group of hippies demanding an end to the Vietnam War, it's a diverse group of individuals demanding justice and an end to the unjust privileges garnered by the corporate elite, particularly those privileges that are paid for by taxing the middle class. These people provide a cross section of the population here in the United States of America that the vast majority of people can relate to in one way or another.

The variety of people and political opinions taking part in the Occupy Wall Street movement is both a strength and a weakness. The whole thing is rather nebulous. It's rather difficult to pin down exactly what changes the protestors would like to see enacted. Like a cloud, it can be in the shape of a dragon one minute, the next it's looking like a kitten. It's difficult to know whether or not you wish to get involved or get behind something when you're not exactly sure what solutions are being offered.

At the same time it's hard not to agree with complaints against corporate greed, corporate power and influence, the bailouts, the undo influence of the international mega-banks in our government structure, and the unchecked, secretive powers of private central banks that are supposed to be responsible for our economic well being. There seems to be real discussions occurring now on the streets of New York and elsewhere, open and transparent discussions amongst the masses of humanity. This is a great example of the open marketplace of ideas which can be tried out if government just lifts the restrictions that ban these ideas from competing with established institutions that have utterly failed.

It's good to see people complaining, and it's good to see them trying to hold those at the top of the heap accountable for their fraudulent practices. Personally, I don't like government solutions as there always seems to be unforeseen consequences to making laws prohibiting certain voluntary human interactions. One size fits all solutions will not work and are inherently unfair.

I hope that this discussion leads to people coming to the same conclusions I've reached. I hope they can come to see the wisdom in limiting government powers. I hope they come to understand that government will overstep it's limits any chance it gets if we do not remain vigilant. I hope they come to understand that by allowing government and their corporate, Wall Street buddies to regulate their own affairs through fiat rather than through a free market they have taken power from a working class that could vote with its dollars and given power to the few who have managed to gain a monopoly or cartelized privilege. With understanding comes the realization that with power comes corruption and the only way to tame that corruption is to take power away.

It seems to me that what is happening is almost as spiritual as it is emotional. Mankind seems to be evolving. The economic hardships we have suffered from recently seem to be teaching us something. We have hopefully learned that we cannot depend on government. We have hopefully learned that collectivism is not fair. We have hopefully learned that socialism leads to economic ruin. I hope we will all soon be ready to accept freedom and individualism and to give free markets a chance to work.

We are hopefully starting to learn that there must be a better way than through the institutions that have failed us utterly. I'm thinking that we will soon learn that those at the top will remain there until we take matters into our own hands. Yet how can we do that and still remain peaceful? What would be the best way to hold these institutions accountable if they do nothing when so many march in protest? Look at all those people on the street and ask yourself what would happen if they decided to withhold their money from the institutions they so distain? What would happen if we all decided not to pay taxes? What would happen if you starved the beast of your wealth and support? What would happen if we all simply decided to ignore their dictates and simply live our lives as free people, each individual deciding for themselves what is best for them? I wonder.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

Free Market Jobs and Taxing the Rich

2011-09-28T08:46:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of talk lately coming from the federal government about creating jobs. There's been congressional hearings on the subject. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. What's it been, ten, eleven, twelve years since this economic downturn started? Four or five years into this current depression? It's hard to tell how long it's been since government and their lapdog corporate media sources like to obfuscate and manipulate economic statistics and realities so much. Well, I've been out of a good paying job for two and a half years now, so for me at least that's how long the depression has lasted. I've had to worry about my own job creation and producing what I can for that long now.

You might think that in my situation I would be all for taxing the rich so that I could work. You might think I'd be jumping for joy, salivating at the chance to get government work so that I can eat and pay my rent every month. You might think that, but you'd be wrong. I took the red pill a long time ago, so long ago that I can hardly remember what it's like to not be able to see through the matrix. Still, government work, if I could get it, would look awfully tempting right now. I would no longer be a burden to those who presently support me and could become a burden to all those who pay taxes. It's not a positive step toward a voluntary society, but maybe I'd be able to survive a few more years and live to a ripe old age without ever having to say "Welcome to Walmart."

I watched testimony from Peter Schiff during the congressional hearings on job creation. It was very interesting testimony. He said, to paraphrase, that the government is preventing him from creating jobs. He said he was fined for hiring too many people and that he paid over half a million dollars in legal fees defending his hiring practices. His claim is that one of the riskiest things an employer can do these days is to hire somebody. As an employer he is worried about litigation and the hidden costs of employing someone that comes with government regulation. He offered testimony and evidence, in essence, that the best thing government can do to create jobs is to step aside and let private businesses compete without fear of repercussions.

He further discussed how much he was taxed. He points out, in different words, that government is not the most effective organization to determine where to best spend resources and that taxes do not always go to the best places to create jobs. He also intimated that if he gets taxed anymore he would move out of the country, stating that he had already moved many of his operations overseas. It makes sense to me that if jobs are going to be created, the rich who provide the jobs need incentives to stay in the country and keep their businesses here, not move away from it.

Now, it seems to me that the current administration has taken a position that tries to pit the rich against the poor. That would be a divide and conquer strategy. This is a dangerous strategy to use. If it were to work it would be a lose/lose strategy for the common folk, but if it fails it could be disastrous for those using it. It is used, in my humble opinion, to divert attention away from the international central banking cartel and their corporate crony elite and to focus it on the productive sector of society that has yet to achieve the status of international corporations. Think about it, isn't wealth relative? To a homeless person, someone making 30 grand a year might seem wealthy, to the person making 30 grand someone making a 100 grand might seem wealthy, and on up the line. I would venture a guess that the wealth of the central bankers would make Bill Gates et al., look like paupers. When you blame "the rich," who are you really blaming?

When was the last time you got a steady job from someone who was poor? I realize there are exceptions, but as a rule it is usually the richer person who acts as the employer and the poorer person who acts as the employee. So what are we to do, direct our anger at those who appear to us to be wealthy, demand they be taxed even more than they already are and drive them out of the country? Drive away the only people that have a chance of setting up businesses able to compete with huge multi-national corporations? Do you think those faceless, heartless corporations are going to offer Americans decent paying jobs? They will offer as few as they possibly can, as long as they can set up shop in India or China and make a cent more profit for their shareholders.

It is the middle class businessmen that need to compete with the corporate juggernauts. They need to innovate. They need to offer higher quality, competitive products. The government needs to lower the barriers to entry in the market, not make entry tougher by imposing more government regulations and restrictions. Competition will make even the mega international corporations answerable to market pressure. Think that's not possible? We are already seeing it happen in the information dissemination business. In fact, my website, szandorblestman.com, is part of it. The giant, establishment media corporations are hurting as people look to the Internet to find a higher quality, more honest product than the establishment media can provide.

Lately I've seen many people protesting and making the claim that they have the right to a job. I realize that many will be angry with this, but I feel that the only job anyone has a right to is the job they create for themselves. I have tried to create a job for myself by disseminating my opinion, a job which pays nothing except what people voluntarily give me for what they think my write ups are worth. Apparently, my opinion isn't worth much as I haven't made much doing this. If I made a dime for every time an article of mine had been viewed, I'd probably be doing alright. If I got a dollar donation from everyone who ever visited my website I'd probably be making a decent living. Still, I keep plugging away hoping to one day be able to better my circumstances. I have no right to force another to give me work. I have no right to enslave others to my will.

If someday I have the means to be able to employ someone in my business, I don't want to be forced to give people work. I want to have the freedom to be able to hire the people I feel would do the best job for me and have the skills needed to make my business better. I don't want to be forced by government mandate to hire folks who bring no value to my company. I think that many of us want to be wealthy. We want to better our circumstances. It should be remembered that in order to live free we have to allow others to live free also. Employers should not be made slave to employees, and vice versa.

I do believe, however, that corporations have gained far too much power in the modern world. They have far too much control over the government. In fact, it seems to me that international corporations have essentially become part of many Western governments around the world. They have the bulk of the wealth, along with their central banking masters, and they have worked with governments worldwide to create overwhelming obstacles to market entry for those who could help break their cartels. They control the jobs and they're going to make sure that the countries which have the cheapest labor get them. International corporations have no loyalty to any country, culture, society or principle. They are a creation of government and they are given privileges no individual or self owned business could hope to obtain. These entities and the individuals who run them are unaccountable for their actions, as has been demonstrated by the bailouts. They are, in my humble opinion, the establishment, and their privileges need to be removed if they are ever to be held accountable for the fraud and abuse they have visited upon the common folk of this nation, and indeed the world.

One needs to be very careful these days who one considers wealthy. One needs to be careful about the demands they make on government. One needs to become more self reliant and to be more aware of who one supports and which principles one advocates. As individuals we should all try to become more aware of the needs and desires of others and try to provide as best we can the goods and services necessary to live decently. Those who are able to provide for the community should thrive while those who are not should be afforded opportunities to do so. It is time to shed the growing dependency on corporations and big government. It is time to recognize that while those failed institutions might seem to have all the wealth and power, they only have failed policies, broken promises, and fraudulent paper. The common folk have the numbers and the spirit, they just need to find the imagination, the will and the determination to use them.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

The Untimely Death of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

2011-09-22T22:08:00.000-07:00

It has now been more than ten years since about three thousand people were killed in a crime perpetrated by, well, it really isn't quite clear who perpetrated the crime. There are all kinds of theories and suggestions proffered as to who is responsible for the crime and how it was really carried out. I think that if one looks into these theories and possibilities with an open mind it might surprise many the evidence that contradicts the "official" theory as to what happened. As one looks more closely at all the events of that day and weighs the preponderance of evidence the "official" story that was reported by the corporate media becomes less and less likely to be the real story as to what actually happened. Still, many people simply shut their eyes, put their heads down, and refuse to believe that they are being emotionally manipulated by the powers that be.

I mention 9/11 because of all the propaganda that I saw surrounding it's ten year anniversary. Has it been ten years already? Can't they just let that old wound heal? Do they have to keep opening it up, keep making the dread and horror felt on that day bubble to the surface? Of course they can't. The powers that be want to keep you in fear, want to keep you confused and uncertain. They want you to turn to them in your hour of emotional distress and ask for their help. Of course, they will only be too glad to help you, if you simply let them impose upon your individual rights, just a little, just enough to take naked body scans of you and grope your sexual bits at the airports.

The worshippers of the state will cry "Foul!" at the slightest suggestion that there was any sort of conspiracy at any level of government that led to the 9/11 attacks. They can't admit that the state, their god, is anything other than perfect and loving. No one involved in government could be that evil to plan that type of attack. Even if it's pointed out how the federal government was at the very least so inept that they utterly failed that day the state cultists will make excuses for their divinity of choice, talk about all the good people that are trying to do their best for humanity inside the bureaucratic structure such as it is, and that if we just give them more power to violate individual rights that all mankind will be safe from all the boogiemen of the world and we will no longer have to worry. There are some people who simply refuse to grow up.

There is good reason to believe in conspiracy, even at the level of the attacks of 9/11. First off, there is history. History shows us that as far back as Nero and the burning of Rome, perhaps even further back, those at the top echelon of the government structure were willing to sacrifice the common folk if they felt such sacrifice would be to their benefit. There were the Maine, the Lusitania, the McCollum memo, Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty, to name a few. Those conspiracies were meant to goad the nation into war. Then there were the assassination conspiracies, the Kennedy's, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, and even Ronald Reagan which seemed to pit men advocating freedom and individual rights against the secret power elite.

Of course, of the above the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy is the most famous. For decades many argued in favor of the Warren Commission and that Lee Harvey Oswald acted as a lone gunman. Those who disagreed with this were oft times labeled as crazy conspiracy nuts. Presently it appears that the majority of the populace in the United States actually believe the conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK assassination, yet nothing is done to hold anyone accountable. We even have the deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt, a known CIA operative, yet nothing is done to try to hold those who are still alive and showed either malice or incompetence accountable. What good would that do nearly 50 years later? Well, it might just show some people that heinous acts are not to be tolerated and that justice can catch up even decades after the fact.

The debate about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, however, have been lively over the past ten years in large part due to the Internet. With this tool, people can examine and review the events of the day as never before. Contradictions between the official story and video and eyewitness evidence are glaring. Omissions from the official 9/11 report and the questionable manner in which the investigation was carried out is disconcerting. Even the manner in which events unfolded on that day and the speed at which the perpetrators were identified are matters for concern. Yet it wasn't the corporate establishment media and their crack investigative teams that uncovered these troublesome anomalies, it was normal people like you and me. We have entered into a new era where we no longer are forced to believe what the establishment tells us due to a restricted number of media outlets, we have entered an era where we can investigate on our own and determine for ourselves what we believe the truth is using a myriad of sources.

So, with all this magnificent technology opening the minds of so many, why is it that lately I've been hearing so much about the death of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Well, as was pointed out to me recently, perhaps it's because it seems as if nothing gets done about it. It's sad to say, but it reminds me quite a bit of the JFK assassination. Many people disbelieve the official story, but no one seems to care that no one is being held accountable. No one seems to care that there are no "official" investigations going on. No one seems to care that those speaking out are still being shouted down by the establishment media and the propaganda machine is still backing the "official" explanations. People continue to just duck their heads and go along to get along.

So what if the conspiracy theories are even true? What are you going to do about it? Do you think the establishment powers are going to investigate themselves? Did anyone even get fired for the gross incompetence that was apparent on that day? Did anyone at the top of the food chain, any of the political elite, get so much as a slap on the wrist, a finger in the face and a tsk, tsk, for messing up big time? I think not. In fact, it seems to me that those who should have, at the very least, been fired and shamed for their gross incompetence and bald faced lies were in fact slapped on the back, given a "good job" compliment and even promoted. No one could possibly have imagined planes being used as bombs, we were told. That, too, was a lie.

Instead of firing the entire administration that allowed such an event, one that should have been extremely difficult for foreigners living in caves halfway around the world to accomplish, the lawmakers of this nation decided to give the executive branch even more power by passing draconian, freedom crushing legislation. Instead of dismantling the intelligence mechanisms that had failed so miserably and investigating them for possible culpability in perhaps the most heinous crimes in history, the elected "representatives" of this nation decided to centralize and militarize the policing agencies to an even greater extent multiplying by many times the extent of the corruption that can now take place. Instead of launching an investigation to pinpoint who masterminded, who helped, and who should be held to blame for the crime and then going after the individual culprits through international policing means, the politically elite of this nation launched wars that would kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocents who had nothing to do with the event.

Now we live in a police state where those who are supposed to be public servants have become the privileged masters. Now we are suffering from a failed economy. Now we have to pay for jailed people who have harmed no one, for the unemployed, and for many others who have been removed from the productive sector of the economy and moved in one way or another to the sector that leeches off the tax dollars of the common folk. Now we have shoveled trillions of dollars that had to borrowed into wars that have produced nothing but misery for millions, but have provided profits for a few in certain established corporate interests. Now we have to live in a world where those who were grossly incompetent and failed utterly were not held accountable for perhaps the most epic fail in history, they were rewarded for it and obtained greater power. Oh yeah, and nothing changed in 2008 when those who weren't paying attention were fooled again by nebulous promises and propaganda.

So, what are you going to do about it? Have the 9/11 conspiracy theories met their deaths? Are they meaningless and ineffectual? Those in power aren't about to give it up. They are a one trick pony that only have fear, coercion, threats of violence and actual violence to enforce their will upon others. It will take some innovation to combat that. It is easy to react to it, to meet violence with violence, but those in power will only use such a reaction as an excuse to escalate the violence. I don't think that's something very many of us want. Besides, that would be playing to the state's strength. It would be nice, however, to get the boot of tyranny off our collective throats.

I believe there are several things that need to be done if we are to shake loose of this collectivist system and return to the individualist model fought for by the founders of this nation. First, we need numbers. As it stands, there are always more people waking up, so to speak, but there are still too many who are dazed by the establishment propaganda or remain apathetic. Talk about 9/11 conspiracies calmly and rationally if you must, but back off anyone who becomes agitated and overly emotional. They are not going to be convinced regardless of any evidence you might present and you will want to show others around who might be more open minded that you are the rational one and the supporters of the official version are the ones likely to resort to emotional bullying techniques.

Don't try to force your views down people's throats. Express your point of view, but don't harp on it unless those you are talking to seem interested in listening. Make your points, and then shift the conversation over to a discussion about the value of liberty. Talk about freedom and free market solutions. Use the morality aspect. Some people will hem and haw about such ideas, but seeds will be planted. People tend not to listen when they first hear something, but if it is repeated to them a few times, especially from different sources, their interest becomes piqued. Certainly the corporate media is going to try to avoid such a discussion, and they will try to spin it to make it look like collectivist solutions are better if the subject comes up, so the more real, common type folks discussing these ideas in pubs and meeting rooms across the nation, the better.

If you can, become active. Participate in gatherings and protests if possible. Brace yourself, because as this movement becomes more influential the state will try to squelch it and may resort to violence. They can get pretty sneaky about this, so keep an eye out for any fellow protestors who might want to engage in violence and if you spot some like that, try to use other peaceful protestors to help keep them in check. You don't want any agents provocateurs ruining your day. If the state does start something, be ready to take some pages from Gandhi's and Martin Luther King's books and take some lumps. Public perception is extremely important and you don't want to be seen as the aggressor, but the innocent victim simply trying to exercise a God given human right.

Bring a video camera. One that streams directly to the Internet is best. This isn't the 1960's anymore. The corporate media is going to continue to try to ignore any freedom protests as they do not want to give the impression that such a movement is gaining popularity or public support. It is up to the common folk to do the reporting now. Let everyone see just how violent agents of the state can be. Once again, public perception is important. Perhaps even some of the mindless zombies who can only follow orders and lack the ability to tell right from wrong can be shamed into inaction. If the militarized police start to disobey and decide to honor their oaths to protect the Constitution instead of cracking innocent heads, then the establishment is indeed going to have problems.

So long as 9/11 conspiracy theories can continue to open the minds of some who are willing to consider them and expose the incompetence and utter failure of the established political structure, I don't think they should be proclaimed dead. Winning back our freedoms and returning to the principles our nation was founded upon likely will not be easy. Showing others how illegitimate the authorities have become is also a difficult proposition. We need to become an authority unto ourselves. Justice might never be served for the crimes that some of the ruling elite have engaged in, but the least we can do is to try to wrest their power and authority from them. We should use all the tools available to us to accomplish this. Nothing will change until those in power realize they can no longer get away with secrecy and conspiracy and the government won't become open and transparent until enough of us care to make it so. The corruption will not go away until those who engage in it are exposed and shamed by their actions and the risks of engaging in such activities outweigh the benefits.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

Ron Paul and the Booing Teocons

2011-09-19T11:22:00.000-07:00

The mainstream media tried to ignore him. They thought they could keep his message from getting out to the public. When they couldn't keep his message hidden any longer as his supporters got the word out and more and more people saw the signs waving and went to the web to sate their interests, they denounced him. They called him crazy, just like his ideas and his supporters. They claimed his ideas could never work. They claimed he was just too radical and was unelectable. All their attacks have missed their marks or backfired. The message of liberty resonates in the spirit of the common folk. Freedom has worked in the past and it can work again in the future. Our nation was built upon these principles and it became a great nation because of them, not in spite of them. The principles that have brought this nation down, that have steered us to this point in history, to the brink of economic disaster and societal collapse, are the principles of collectivism that have been slowly forced upon us by the established power and political elite, particularly in the last century or so.

Yet the established powers don't want to give up their collectivist ideals. Perhaps this is because their powers stem from those ideals. They seem almost childlike in their fear as they scramble to make excuses for their failed policies. They do all they can to make the ideas of liberty, the ideas expressed by Ron Paul, seem irrelevant. Even as their tricks become more obvious to those watching, the establishment and their media lapdogs continue to try to frame the debate in a way that favors their collectivist, corporatist, crony capitalist point of view. They just don't seem able to innovate. They seem to be almost panicking as more and more people catch on and turn away from their influence to try to find a better way.

The establishment is not going to give in easily. They have already tried to infiltrate the Tea Party to make it seem as if the grassroots movement isn't so populist as one might think. At a Republican debate sponsored by the Tea Party, Ron Paul was booed by the very movement his 2008 candidacy started. What's more, he was booed while answering a question that had been well established. Once again a candidate questioned Ron Paul's assertion that the foreign policy of the United States federal government led to the attacks on 9/11. As Dr. Paul tried to explain the concept of blowback and why meddling in the affairs of others can lead to feelings of resentment a chorus of boos cascaded from the crowd. This makes one wonder if the crowd was full of plants or if there are really that many people involved with the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement who simply haven't been paying attention for the last few years.

It was Rick Santorum who challenged Ron Paul on this issue, and I was hoping to see another lambasting like was given to Rudolph Giuliani in a 2008 debate. After all, the ex senator seems to require an education on the subject. He could have used a reading list as Dr. Paul gave to Mr. Giuliani to show just where the idea of blowback comes from. It should be understood that it wasn't Ron Paul that claimed US foreign policy caused 9/11, he is merely repeating the opinions of certain CIA operatives and foreign policy experts. Booing and jeering the messenger will not alter those facts. Trying to make it sound as if Ron Paul dreamed up the idea of blowback on his own will not make that concept any less dangerous. We as a nation don't need a president who closes his eyes to reality in an effort to gain political popularity. We don't need media outlets who obfuscate the truth for political and financial gain. We need a president who understands reality and tells it like it is, one who will offer real solutions to real problems.

They continue to question Dr. Paul's sanity and the validity of his ideas, but it seems to me that it is their ideas that are crazy. It's crazy to bomb people into oblivion and expect them to be thankful. It's crazy to occupy their lands and lay claim to their natural resources and expect them to be welcoming. It's crazy to send soldiers to foreign lands, have them shoot up the place, torture and kill without accountability and expect the people of that land to be less than resentful. It is beyond me how those who continue to make excuses for these occupations cannot see how such behavior makes enemies, not friends. It is beyond me how they can truly believe these wars are anything less than the strong bullying the weak.

Perhaps a few might truly be stuck in a World War II mindset. Perhaps they truly believe that the common folk of a nation are going to cheer our troops as they march in the streets as if they are the great liberators. But in World War II the American military was driving out occupying forces. It's different when you become the occupying force. Certainly, some of the common folk may benefit from the occupation and these people may want the forces to stay, but most will likely wish to simply be left alone and will resent the presence of foreign military forces.

The same can be said for the economic policies put in place by the collectivist powers that be. It is crazy to believe you can get out of debt by going deeper into debt. It is crazy to believe you can clear up a debt problem by spending more, or even by maintaining current levels of spending. It is crazy to believe that higher taxes on anyone will solve the problem when so much money is being wasted on interest payments and war. Somehow those who booed Ron Paul seem able to understand that there is too much spending, yet they don't seem able to understand the wastefulness of spending money on bombs, death and the destruction of war. Spending money on defense is not a bad idea, but spreading military force across the world is not defense, it is what empire does.

It is the very definition of crazy to keep trying the same thing and expecting different results. The policies that the establishment politicians keep advocating have been tried before and have failed. Their policies have led us to a place where we are less free, less innovative, less productive and less prosperous than ever before. They have led us to a place where we are trapped in fear and dependent upon them rather than independent and responsible for our own well being and flourishing in an atmosphere of tolerance and love. It has been a slow ride to get here, and could possibly be a slow ride getting back, but that ride won't even start unless we try doing something different or something that we know has worked in the past. That something is to start honoring the principles of individual freedom.

The establishment truly doesn't want the common folk thinking. They want to keep them reacting at an emotional level. They want to keep them believing the jingoistic flag waving that gives them the most control over the masses. They want to keep the common folk fearful of their shadows so that they will allow their freedoms to be trampled and violated without question. A thinking public is dangerous to the establishment who wish to maintain their power. An intelligent, thoughtful public will eventually see through their fallacious policies. An intelligent public will ask to be left alone and treated like adults to determine for themselves how to live their lives and spend their money rather than be babied and treated like idiots being told how to live their lives and spend their money from cradle to grave. An intelligent public will be able to look at Ron Paul's past, his voting record and his unwavering principles and determine for themselves that he is not the typical establishment politician. Naturally, the establishment does not want someone in power who they don't control, and so they will continue to pull out whatever tricks they can in order to keep the thinking public from flexing its muscle.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

Aiming Hatred Correctly

2011-09-13T16:20:00.000-07:00

The other night I was accused of being a dangerous right wing extremist. This accusation came from someone I considered a friend, someone I play golf with. I knew he was a was an ardent follower of the Democrats, and I had seen him in the past become very emotional when discussing politics, so I always did my very best to avoid that topic with him. On this particular night we had just finished a round of golf and I was discussing the dismal season both Chicago baseball teams were having with another golfer when this man sat next to us and he brought up the topic of politics.

It seemed the ideas I espouse were quite radical to him. Wanting to know exactly what's so radical about freedom and in an attempt to pin down the details of his political beliefs, I tried to ask him some questions. The more I probed, the more excited and emotional he became. He seemed to believe that big government was the only answer to our economic problems and that my ideas of smaller governments with less power, free market regulations instead of government imposed restrictions and the empowerment of individuals to make their own decisions, both financial and personal, were dangerous. I suggested to him that big government was the purview of socialistic systems that had failed in the past, even the recent past. At this point he became very angry and claimed I had just accused all Democrats of being socialists.

I have to admit I was a little bit confused. I had not mentioned Democrats or Republicans. In fact, as most of you know, I believe that the two party paradigm is a big part of the problem and that we really have a one party system with two faces. I could tell, however, by the tone of this man's voice and the redness in his face, that he was not in a condition to listen to reason. Not wanting the situation to devolve and being one who wishes to de-escalate situations, I tried to find common ground. With the now clear knowledge that this man was cemented in the left/right paradigm as a Democrat, I decided to bring up my opposition to war and how we can scale back spending in that sector. I was surprised when he made the claim that these wars were necessary. I suppose I shouldn't have been.

By this time, however, I was completely befuddled by this man's insistence. I had tried to find common ground, but was unable to do so. I explained to him that I wasn't very good at explaining my point of view verbally, but was much better at the written word. That's why I had started writing my perspective in opinion articles, so I could avoid discussing them in inappropriate venues and manners. I tried to give him a card so he could look up my website and read my articles, but he refused to take it. His mind was made up and I was wrong and a dangerous extremist, there was nothing more to it. The conversation ended uneasily and I nervously changed the subject back to sports.

As I drove home, I began to wonder why it was my friend felt I was dangerous. I could understand that from his point of view I could be considered a right wing extremist, but dangerous? I'm a peaceful man. I advocate for peace. I advocate for civil disobedience and peaceful non-cooperation. I abhor violence against the state almost as much as I abhor the violence of the state, though I do understand the need for self defense. I merely want the government to leave me and anyone else who wishes for freedom alone. Is that so dangerous?

It struck me that perhaps, in his eyes, it was. I realized that he had not been arguing from reason, but from emotion. He was arguing to maintain the beliefs that had been pounded into his head since his youth. He had never been exposed to the possibilities of free market solutions and his imagination just couldn't fathom how they would work. He had been taught his entire life and indoctrinated into believing that big government was the answer. That is the way things have operated his entire adult life. He couldn't come to terms with the fact that his whole way of looking at politics and government might be an illusion, that they are just shadows dancing on the wall of the cave while the real answers to our societal and economic problems lie outside the cave of collectivism in the bright light of freedom. He was afraid to admit to himself that there might be a better way.

Fear and ignorance can lead to hatred. This is not a rational hatred, but one based on emotions. That hatred can easily be aimed at the wrong people. If you don't understand some culture, or concept, or philosophy, it becomes easy for manipulators to use a few extreme examples to get the ignorant to believe that all connected with that culture or concept or philosophy are the same. All anarchists become assassins and bomb throwing madmen. All Muslims become blood thirsty murderers wanting to kill the infidel and impose Sharia law. All libertarians become selfish money grubbers with no compassion for the poor and downtrodden. These are hardly enlightened points of view and lead to grave errors in judgment. Just look at what happened to the Jews in Germany in the 1930s and 40s when they became the reason for everything bad that happened in the economy.

Aiming hatred in this way leads to innocents getting caught up in an attempt to punish a few who may or may not have done wrong. Peaceful people should not be targeted for attempting peaceful change. People longing for independence should not be targeted for asking to be left alone. Those with open eyes should not be targeted for whistle blowing or for pointing out the wrongs that are done by governments and their agents. Most of all, human beings should not be targeted for exercising their God given freedoms, the freedom to own themselves and the products of their labor, to pursue their happiness as they see fit, to express themselves, to defend themselves, to practice their beliefs, to report the truth as they see it, etc. This is especially true in the United States of America where such rights were codified into the supreme law of the land and expressly forbade any government from violating these most important natural rights of individuals. Fat lot of good that's done us when no one in government is held accountable when they decide to violate those rights anyway.

Yet there are times when hatred is a reasonable response for wrongs that are done, albeit hardly ever a good one. I believe that forgiveness is a powerful healing force for yourself and others, but I can understand when people target their hatred at those who have harmed their family and friends, and I can't blame them for doing so. Yet I think it's more important and perhaps more effective to step back and examine the power structure of the organizations that have caused the harm. It seems to me that it hardly seems worthwhile to hate the human drones who seem to have lost their ability to think or tell right from wrong. They simply follow orders. It would make more sense to target your hatred higher up the power chain. I think it would be even more effective if the hatred one harbored was to be aimed at the hidden powers, the men behind the curtains so to speak.

Indeed, if one is to harbor hatred, wouldn't it make more sense to aim it at those who have brought the present situation to bear? Hasn't it become obvious by now that what we have been trying for the past few decades has utterly failed? Shouldn't the hatred be aimed at those who insist on doing things the same way and maintaining the status quo rather than at those who want to instill some genuine change into the establishment and actually try make them follow their rules and hold them accountable when they don't? Better yet, shouldn't that hatred be aimed at those who are able to pull the financial strings of the establishment and get whatever they want for their benefit and to the detriment of the rest of us?

Again, I don't think hatred is a good thing and I try not to let it live in my heart, but it seems to me that the ruling elite of this world, those in control of the central banks and the international corporate establishment, may harbor an extreme hatred for the masses of humanity. It seems that they hide in the shadows because they are not proud of what they do. In fact, it seems to me that they know what they're doing is wrong and they're afraid of being discovered by the common folk as being the real power behind the world's powers. Not that I blame them. They're likely afraid of the hatred that would be targeted at them should they be discovered for all the fraud and deception they've engaged in and how they've manipulated humankind into wars, occupations and other military operations for their own benefits and profits. They know how they treat those they harbor hatred for, so it'd only be natural for them to be afraid of how they would be treated by those who harbor hatred for them.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

The Police State Will Be Videoed and Youtubed

2011-08-31T09:20:00.000-07:00

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 szandorblestman.com. 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.

Ron Paul; Exposing Establishment Propaganda Since 1976

2011-08-21T07:12:00.000-07:00

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 szandorblestman.com. 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.

Central Banking Propagandists Sell Economic Poison

2011-08-16T20:32:00.000-07:00

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 szandorblestman.com. 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.

The 12 Scariest TSA Stories of All Time

2011-08-11T15:44:00.000-07:00

(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.

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.
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."
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.
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."
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.'"
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.

A Cash Filled, Central Banking Free Society

2011-08-02T21:45:00.000-07:00

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 szandorblestman.com. 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

2011-08-02T08:59:00.000-07:00

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 szandorblestman.com. 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.

Pirates of Savannah, A Book Review

2011-07-31T08:18:00.000-07:00

I must admit, I am a tad bit jealous of Tarrin Lupo. He is a man of many talents, not the least of which is his ability to tell a story. His book, "Pirates of Savannah," is a well crafted historical fiction that recounts a time nearly forgotten and hardly ever mentioned in the study of United States history. Through the eyes of Patrick Willis, a man condemned to live out his years in the king's debt prison, we experience the new world of the colonies a few decades before the Americans declared their independence from the English crown. It is an exciting and sometimes disturbing tale, an interesting mix of fact and fiction that will keep the reader turning the page to learn the fate of the main characters.

We often forget that history, as life, is the day to day mundane interspersed with exciting events every so often. It is the mundane that is most important to most people and the excitement is usually not such a good thing. This is especially true if one lives under the rule of a tyrannical despot and the excitement involves his henchmen exercising the king's power to steal and punish. As Americans we might forget the blood, sweat and tears our forefathers had to suffer in order to establish this nation. We have almost certainly forgotten that they withstood decades of oppression before they finally screamed "enough!" and became independent of sovereign kings. It was a shout that the whole world heard.

Mr. Lupo's novel concentrates on the exciting events that change the hearts and minds of men. He does an excellent job of inserting the message of freedom into his story. The reader is reminded of what freedom is and why it is so important. I think that too many people have forgotten the trials and tribulations our forefathers struggled through to get to the point we're at today, and too many people are willing to take steps backward and allow the tyranny to once again take hold in the body politic. While "Pirates of Savannah" may be a work of historical fiction, the principles upon which it was based remain true and relevant to this day.

"Pirates of Savannah" is a quick and exciting read. The characters are likable and believable. The historic facts are interesting and engrossing. All and all, it was quite an enjoyable book. I highly recommend it.

Norway and Violent Lessons of the State

2011-07-25T13:16:00.000-07:00

A terrible, terrible tragedy struck Norway on July 22nd, 2011. My heartfelt condolences go out to all that lost someone in those terrorist attacks. It is a horrible thing to lose a loved one in such a violent manner. I cannot express enough my dismay when I heard the news. Norway is perhaps one of the last places on earth one would expect such a tragedy to strike. Of course when one hears about such tragedy, it is only natural to scratch one's head and wonder why.

That said, it may be important to remember that tragedies occur on nearly a daily basis in other parts of the world. How many innocent children have been killed in Iraq since the United States and their allies began hostilities in that nation? How many innocents have died in Afghanistan? How many innocents have died in Pakistan? Libya? Is it somehow better because they have died at the hands of generals and the soldiers who obey their orders rather than at the hands of a lone gunman? Is it somehow less shocking? Is it any less terrible? Does the loss of a loved one hurt less because it happened as the result of a military operation? My heartfelt condolences go out to those who have lost loved ones in those terrorist attacks, for what is a full scale military attack if not terrifying?

It seems that we as a species have a strange need to excuse behaviors in supposed authoritarian figures that we find abhorrent, frightening and inhuman in individuals that hold no air of authority. It's almost as if such excuses are psychological bandages or salves applied to the karmic wounds suffered when one somehow identifies himself with another who is obviously engaging in evil doings. I think it would be better if we endeavor to prevent such psychic injury from occurring rather than trying to treat it after the fact.

Why do such tragedies occur? Perhaps it has to do with the lessons such violent people have learned in their lives. Perhaps they have learned that violence works when it comes to solving problems. I'm not talking about overt lessons where one sits and listens to a teacher who tells them violence is the way. I'm talking about more subtle lessons. After all, what is life but an inundation of lessons day in and day out from birth until death? People are constantly and consistently learning and evolving. Perhaps they've seen from childhood that violent means are the means most often utilized when it comes to bringing about social change one wishes to see in the world, or at least that's what they believe they've learned. Perhaps they think that if they truly wish to change the world, the only option they have is through violence. For them, violence works.

I agree that this point of view is misguided, but let's look through history and see why someone might come to think this way. Ancient empires like the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, and even the Chinese profited greatly from violence. Even the Bible tells stories of genocide committed by those who are supposedly God's favorite people. They stole natural resources and made slaves from the other human beings they conquered. In more modern times, the British empire rose and it's people became very prosperous through violence. The American nation was birthed in violence and won its independence through violent means. It grew and morphed into an empire the likes of which the world has never seen. It continues to use violence to maintain its empire and though it has its problems and its standard of living has fallen precipitously over the last couple of decades, it is still viewed as a prosperous and successful nation.

Closer to home, governments have shown how successful people and organizations can be through violence. The tax system proves this. Though nearly everyone complains about taxes and how their money is spent by government, people still tend to defend the system and fail to see the violence inherent in it. Simply put, the only reason people pay taxes is because of the threat of violence hanging over their heads should they refuse. That's extortion. Taxes are theft. Even if you are one of those who claim that they don't believe this to be true and use mental gymnastics to make excuses for the government, I believe that the vast majority of people understand this in their emotional heart and moral spirit if not in their logical mind.

Even though government constantly fails, it is quite successful at stealing money and convincing the masses that such theft is a necessity to societal well being. Central banks are also very adept at this. They steal money in the form of government bailouts and they steal purchasing power in the form of inflation. It's difficult to say who learned from whom, the central banks from government or government from central banks, but it is clear to see the collusion between the two types of institutions. Even today we can see subtle threats of violence coming out of the central banking institutions who claim that we will all suffer great economic calamity if we don't continue to feed the central banking monster.

Take a look at politicians, especially in Washington DC, but likely worldwide, and you will see wealth and success. Most likely don't know what it's like to actually work and be productive for a living, they only know how to finagle and play the system. They know how to lie and manipulate. They know how to be coercive and use enforcers, violence and threats of violence to get what they want. There are none who are more financially successful than the central bankers and they have consistently been the driving force behind most of the violence and wars for centuries. Their fraud and manipulations have caused more harm, death and violence than any measure of good they may have accidentally or incidentally caused. The long and short of it is, whether one knows it or not, one learns the lesson that violence works in the system as it is set up. Is it really any wonder when some so called nutcase decides to act on such knowledge, even when those lessons may be subconscious in nature?

I'm afraid that tragedies like the one that occurred in Norway will continue to occur even in places one would not expect until we start to teach people that peace and non violence work. When the masses begin to learn the lesson that peaceful means of change lead to peace and prosperity, then peace and prosperity will be rewarded and our society will become more peaceful and prosperous. When violence becomes shunned by the masses and more and more people refuse to take part in the violence of the state, there will be fewer incidents of violence. Unfortunately, I don't believe that time has yet arrived, but I do believe the path to that time is open and has been revealed to more people and they are deciding to tread upon it.

I'm fairly certain that the mainstream mass media is not going to look at this incident in the same way. I'm fairly certain they are not going to talk about the violence of the state and how its wars are leading to more people deciding to act out in ways abhorrent to the nature of mankind. Instead, they are going to try to demonize certain political groups and views that they want to squelch. They are going to try to divide and conquer rather than pointing to the root cause of the violence. They want to analyze the problem in a way that will increase the power of centralized government (and its centralized banking cartel) rather than pointing out the huge faults in the system. Watch out for that. Keep your eye out for the propaganda which will seek to perpetuate the violence through violating individual rights rather than alleviate the problem through decentralization.

We have had socialistic systems in place for quite some time now. It just seems to get worse. It just seems to consistently reward failure. It just seems to consistently punish those who seek a better way. Perhaps the time has come to try a better, more voluntary societal model. Make taxes voluntary and allow those who wish to withhold taxes do so with impunity when government funds projects with which they disagree. Allow competition in currency and other services government currently monopolizes. Allow those who use such services to pay for them so that a fair price can be established for such services. Make sure that people engaging in the economy need to be productive to succeed and have something of their own to lose should they fail. In this way, perhaps those who currently believe that violence is their only choice will see other, more positive options.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe this man should be excused for his actions. He has harmed others and should be held accountable. I am simply making suggestions for how to avoid such tragedies in the future. I am simply suggesting that we examine with great vigor the true nature of how our governments work. I don't believe that any society will ever be a perfect utopia, but I do believe that the only way to become a less violent society is to build less violent governmental systems. The socialists seem to believe that a utopia can be built by violence, but I don't buy that. Fear is the poison that causes hatred. Hatred leads to anger and violence. Violence achieves only death and destruction for both the physical and the spiritual. Because these things are part of humanity, there can never be a utopia, but we can get close if we learn to recognize how concentrating power over others causes human emotion and morality to become corrupt. When we reach that point, perhaps war and such tragedies will be but nightmares remembered upon the wakening of humanity.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

Food, Control and the Growing Police State

2011-07-22T22:13:00.000-07:00

Food has always been a tool the elite have used to control the masses. When you control the food supply, you control everything, even life and death. A starving man is more likely to sell his soul for a potato then someone with a full tummy. The relatively free market of food production and distribution that has been in place in this nation for a few centuries now has led to unrivaled prosperity. Food can, in fact, be grown for practically nothing if you have the land, the time and can afford to buy just a few heirloom seeds to grow the organic vegetables necessary for good health. This will save you money, is better for you than grocery store vegetables which may be genetically modified or may contain unwanted chemicals, and helps you to become less dependent on the state for your survival.

It is the last part of the above statement that frightens government officials. They want you dependent on them. For some, it makes them feel important. Others may just want to feel needed or helpful. Still others may just want the paycheck. Whatever the case, they don't seem to just want to leave you alone to your own devices. Perhaps that's why they're attempting to pass laws making it illegal to grow your own garden. Perhaps that's why they want to make sure you're a compliant grass farmer just like your neighbors. Perhaps that's why they're trying to control the food necessary for life.

There was much reporting done on the story of Julie Bass from Oak Park, Michigan, who was arrested for growing a garden in her (gasp) front lawn. There was so much reporting on this story, in fact, that the city of Oak Park decided to drop the charges. They had claimed that the citizens of Oak Park were in favor of such ordinances that made it a crime to have anything but nicely manicured, inedible, Kentucky bluegrass lawns (an exaggeration, but you get the idea). I think they were rather surprised when the Bass's neighbors came out decidedly against the arrest. Rather than apologizing and admitting they were wrong like normal people would do, however, they did what you would expect of government control freaks who think they're perfect. They found something else to charge poor Julie Bass with. Things get tough for you once you're on the government's shit list.

As Julie Bass's further adventures in the world of government abuse unfold, I hope she continues to receive the support of her neighbors and things turn out well for her. There are others who are not quite as fortunate as her, however, when it comes to the government's longing for complete control over food. There are other victims of inane policies of local government gangs. The homeless in Orlando are a good example.

Now, you'd think that government officials would want to help the disadvantaged such as people who have lost everything due to the economic downturn. That's what government officials would have us believe in many cases, that they are there to help when one is down and out. Why, then, would they want to make sure the homeless are hungry? Why would they want to arrest people for feeding other people who can't afford to buy a sandwich? Why would they wish to appear so callous about those who they are supposed to be helping? Perhaps they don't like the thought that they aren't the only ones who care about the plight of less fortunate people. Perhaps they simply don't like someone trying to muscle in on their charity monopoly. I'm not sure, but there is something terribly wrong with a system that decides to arrest people for helping.

There is a man, a super activist so to speak, who is trying to rectify this situation. His name is Julian Heicklen. He is a 79 year old activist who is trying to show us all what it means to truly fight tyranny and become free. He is going to Lake Eola Park in Orlando Florida on August 18th to help the "Food not Bombs" people distribute food to anyone who's hungry, including homeless people. Many have already been arrested by the not overly compassionate Orlando police for such acts of kindness. He also plans on engaging in other non violent illegal activities such as distributing Fully Informed Jury Association literature to people at the Orange County Court Complex and taking pictures of police officers doing their work to point out the ridiculousness of tyrannical laws, but it is the distributing of food down there that has really piqued my interest. The other activism is important as it sheds light on practices the controllers would like to keep secret, but one must truly wonder what on earth was going through their heads when they decided to make it illegal to help others who are less fortunate.

So, some local tyrants have decided not to allow the local serfs to grow vegetables in their front yards. They've decided that only they are allowed to help the needy, and they're doing a real poor job of it. If that's not enough to convince you of the immorality of many local governments that the common folk are supposed to be protected against, then I would point out the slew of kids' lemonade stands that have been shut down recently. Many stories of this occurring have been circulating lately and all I've heard about is people shaking their heads and complaining. Recently, however, someone has decided to do something about it.

Robert Fernandes has decided to create a website that promotes an event called Lemonade Freedom Day on August 20th, 2011. The idea is to spread the word that selling lemonade is not a crime and should not be treated as such. Don't you remember being a kid and setting up a lemonade stand? I remember doing so, only I sold Kool-Aid. I'm fairly certain that millions of children across this nation have fond memories of similar experiences. Why would someone want to steal such a valuable activity from modern youth? Why would anyone want to criminalize such a delightful piece of summertime Americana? Could it be that perhaps they wish to suppress the entrepreneurial spirit that helped build America? Could it be that their lust for control is so overwhelming to them that they couldn't care less about the children affected? Could it be that they are simply trying to drill into the heads of our youth the idea of obedience to law, no matter how onerous, bad, or immoral the law is? As I see it, authority has grown so far out of control that it has made itself illegitimate.

There are a couple of things that tie all these news stories together. The first is that none of these laws would matter if it wasn't for the enforcers, the police. All of these so called crimes would not have made the news if the police had simply said "no" when asked to arrest the perpetrators or shut down their operations. But the police in this nation seem to no longer be able to think for themselves. They have become the automatons of the state, excusing their actions because they are "just doing their jobs" just like the German Nazis excused their actions during World War II. I would point out that their job includes upholding the Constitution of the United States of America. I would point out that their job includes saying "no" to enforcing bad laws when ordered to. If things were running properly and the system wasn't so corrupt, perhaps that's what would be happening. In a perfect world, the brave peace officer who stands up to the corrupt government official would become a hero and be rewarded while the corrupt government official would get his comeuppance. Instead, we have a world where any "law enforcement officer" is punished for standing up to the system and lives in fear of losing his job or worse if he does what's right.

The other thing that ties these stories together is the common folk. It is their apathy that has allowed the system to deteriorate to this point. It is their going along to get along and simply not saying anything that has allowed the system to become so corrupt. It is their shrugging their shoulders and keeping their heads down that has allowed evil to win as much as it has, as the proverbial saying goes. Those in government have come to believe they can simply do as they please. They have come to believe that whatever they say is law and the people will grumble and moan, but simply obey and not do anything else about it. Well, that seems to be changing. The people spoke up about the Julie Bass situation and they're taking action to correct the other injustices mentioned above. Methinks that perhaps the government officials have pushed the envelope just a little too far and more than enough people can now see just how much the tyranny has grown. Next month should be an interesting one as the people attempt to trim it back.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

Individual Rights, Justice and Policing the World

2011-07-20T09:48:00.000-07:00

Lately I have been concentrating my writings on Democrats and their big government programs. This is likely because the president is a Democrat and supposedly his administration is one that pushes the agenda of the Democrats. He has, in my opinion, misrepresented his principles to the American people and has simply continued and expanded the big government programs of the previous administrations, programs he intimated would end when he was a candidate.

But I have claimed for years that Democrats and Republicans are more or less the same, two sides of the same coin so to speak. They are all big government control freaks that wish to rule the common folk from on high and remove freedom and opportunity from those of little means so that they cannot compete with the ruling elite. Recently, I received an email from the newest senator from Illinois, Mark Kirk, that troubled me. I felt that this freshman Republican, swept into office due to the mistakes of the power hungry Democrats and their refusal to listen to the will of the common folk, needed a little lesson in the principles of freedom this nation was founded upon.

In his email, Mr. Mark Kirk asked a question that struck me as absolutely obnoxious and ignorant in its nature. To paraphrase, he wanted to know if I felt "terrorists" should be transferred to the US and "given" Constitutional rights. I was aghast that an American who had taken a vow to uphold the Constitution would have such a gross misunderstanding as to what individual rights are, where they come from and what the Bill of Rights was all about. Of course it strikes me that most members of congress likely have the same misunderstandings, or perhaps they just claim to so that they have an excuse to continue growing government and imposing an authoritarian regime upon the common folk.

I shouldn't have to explain to Mr. Mark Kirk, or anyone for that matter, that rights aren't something that are granted by the government, rights are something inherent to every human being because of their humanity. Why is it I constantly feel I have to explain this to people? This is why the Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution in the first place. Our founding fathers, and many of the European common folk inhabiting the North American continent alongside them at the time, didn't trust the authoritarian governments of the times. They realized governments took and took and took from the common folk and gave all manner of privileges to the elite rulers. The sad truth is that likely those at the top who call themselves lawmakers think of themselves as superior to the rest of us and don't believe in individual rights. They likely actually place themselves on the level of gods and believe they grant or deny rights rather than respect or violate them.

The proper question, I suppose, would be should the people in positions of authority within the United States military be allowed to continue to violate an accused man's right to a fair and open trial, or should the right to face his accusers and defend his actions be honored by government officials? My answer to that question is the latter. Of course the United States should honor the human rights of others, no matter their birth origin. These are human beings, not lesser beings to be trifled with. They have the same thoughts, emotions and wishes for a better life as anyone. If they are guilty of some crime, let it be proven in a court of law just like anyone else. Let them be sentenced so they can pay for their crime just like anyone else. If they are innocent, they need to be freed to pursue their own destiny as all humans should. The United States of America was supposed to be a nation that held a moral high ground when it came to law and individual rights. Even if that moral high ground was lost long ago, it is never too late to try to reestablish it.

Another word whose meaning has been obfuscated, much like the term human rights, is the word war. For thousands of years, war was a condition where two nations mustered as many soldiers as they could and then battled on fields of honor, or some such thing. War in the modern vernacular has come to mean any action taken against people who refuse to bow to the dictates of government officials. Any real war that might have been is over in a few days, after that what we have would better be described as an occupation and the subjugation of an indigenous population by military force. The word war is used simply as an attempt to legitimize and excuse violations committed against individual rights that might otherwise be subject to more scrutiny.

Americans might do well to remember that at one time it was our forefathers who were fighting against tyranny and oppression brought to our shores by the military prowess of another nation. One of the reasons the Bill of Rights was written in the first place was because England's military was violating the individual rights of so many colonists. The king felt his men had the right to invade your home without warrant. He felt his men had the right to detain individuals indefinitely without trial. He felt he had the right to ship his prisoners away to a far off foreign land, to torture them, and to use any evidence or confession obtained from said tortures in a court of law to convict them. The colonists felt otherwise. They felt that the individual rights of the most vulnerable should be respected by government, not violated by the powerful, and that the burden of proof should be on the shoulders of the accusers to prove the accused guilty, not on the shoulders of the accused to prove himself innocent. That is the moral high ground, and that is the principle our government needs to uphold if it is to remain legitimate.

The government should have nothing to worry about if those they accuse of being terrorists have, in fact, engaged in some form of terrorism against the civilian populace. They should have no problems bringing the facts into open court and allowing those facts to be scrutinized by the general public. The fact that they keep these accused hidden and their trials secret is troublesome. The fact that it takes whistleblowers and organizations like Wikileaks to uncover disturbing behaviors of our military is also troubling. These behaviors and methods should frowned upon within military and intelligence organizations, not condoned by them. Of course, if the US military was to withdraw from policing the world and maintaining an empire, such methods would be unnecessary and there would be no worrying behaviors to uncover.

More and more I hear people speaking out against the practices of government violating individual rights. For years many common folk have grumbled beneath their breath and silently gone along to get along. Some have even been frightened to speak out against these government practices much like the soviets and those behind the iron curtain were. More and more people are nodding their heads in agreement and adding their two cents worth when I speak of the freedom message at taverns and bars. People are tired of our so called representatives violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution. People are tired of having their rights and the rights of others violated by government office holders and their enforcers. Most people just want to be left alone to live their own lives, and this includes many of the so called terrorists that have been imprisoned by the US military. It is time for politicians to start honoring their oaths and the principles they're supposed to represent to regain the moral high ground the founding fathers fought to establish.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

War, the Sickness of Empire and Economic Genocide

2011-07-04T14:05:00.000-07:00

I've made the claim for some time now that the economy is people. It's you and me trading goods and services on a voluntary basis. It's me providing you with my labor or something I've created, then you providing him with your labor or something you've created, then him providing her with his labor or something he's created and so on and so forth. This is what makes economy, so it would make sense that the economy would grow as the population grows. It would make sense that the economy would shrink as the population shrinks. It would make sense that the economy would stabilize when the population stabilizes. But this is not what has happened. I believe this is at least partially because some people have been able to manipulate the mechanisms of economy in unnatural ways for their own benefit, and therefore to the detriment of most others.

One way this can be accomplished is through war. It has been said that war is the health of the state. Certainly it has been shown through history that nothing grows the power of a central government better than war. But while war may help the machinations of the state, it does not do the same for the economy. Instead, it takes resources that would be better spent on other ventures and uses them to destroy lives and property. Yes, it might help enrich certain individuals and corporations and those who work for them, but in the end it is a drain on resources and kills the very people who could help grow the economy through peaceful, mutually beneficial trade.

This might be something that many Americans in particular might find hard to accept. The population of that nation has not had to deal with the horrors of war upon the citizenry for almost a hundred and fifty years. The wars their government has engaged in have more or less been profitable to them. World War I helped its economy as it remained neutral and provided arms to the combatants before they entered it in 1917. World War II provided American industry with many opportunities before the Japanese attacked near the end of 1941. The industrial might of America was unrivaled coming out of World War II and the adoption of the dollar as the world's reserve currency created a military, industrial and financial super power unmatched in the world's history. War seemed to be good for America.

Yet the nation's populace seemed to remain ignorant as to the true nature of its perceived wealth. The wars its government has engaged in have been paid for by borrowing, not by using money that had been saved. The resources that may have helped pay for wars have in reality been stolen from indigenous populations at the point of a gun. These resources certainly weren't acquired through voluntary trade. These debts need to be paid back in some form or another, the question is by whom? I certainly don't believe it should be by the common folk who may have tacitly gone along with the war programs but did not orchestrate them. Yet it is the common folk who will pay because of the fiscal and political manipulations of the super wealthy elite who continue to hide and obfuscate their influence in such matters.

The debts are coming due. Those who have loaned the money, regardless of whether or not paper money has any real value, want to be paid back. There is a problem, however, in that the nation is technically bankrupt. And it's not just the United States of America that has this problem, but many nations worldwide take in less revenue than they spend and can no longer afford to pay back even the interest on the loans they've received from various lenders. To solve this problem, governments often feel they can do two things, either raise taxes or cut spending. The United States government has for years decided to put the burden on the backs of their future generations by printing money and inflating the currency supply. I think a better solution would be to stop wasting money on bullets, bombs and engines of destruction. I think it is a good time to stop policing an empire, start closing down bases and bringing home troops, and use the trillions that would be saved by not empire building to pay off the debt and start rebuilding prosperity and wealth.

Yet this is not something that the central banking institutions would have. They wish to keep the common folk in debt. They wish to siphon off the unprecedented wealth that has been enjoyed by the largest and most powerful middle class the world has ever known and horde it in their own coffers. Why not do this by bombing already impoverished people? Why not destroy the infrastructure of nations that are on their way up the socio-economic ladder? Why not use fear, ignorance and the inherent distrust of other cultures to foment a clash of civilizations? In this way, they can keep the wealthier nation in debt and dependent on their good graces and at the same time steal the natural resources of less fortunate nations through the international corporations they control. Why should they care if innocents are killed along the way, as long as their pockets are lined and their coffers filled?

War of any kind does not bring economic prosperity to the masses. It does not bring freedom, liberty or democracy to the people. It brings only death and destruction, the exact opposite of economic prosperity. It brings complete moral degradation. It brings about the enslavement of the masses in one form or another to all the parties involved. It brings about unprecedented profits for a few societal parasites who wish to horde all the wealth for themselves. It brings prosperity only to the fat spiders at the top who spin their webs to entrap all humanity so they can feed upon the misery they create. It is these few wealthy elite who seem to wish for the destruction of all economy who should be held to account, not the common folk. It is they who have failed miserably, for they have shown their utter disdain for humankind and the desperate emotional impoverishment they wallow in when it comes to caring for the less fortunate.

Peace is the way to economic prosperity. Individual freedom is the way to peace. Only by creating and producing will the economy grow, not through killing and destroying. How much more can mankind endure before this lesson is learned? It is time to stop empowering the elite who pull the strings. It is time to stop borrowing their worthless paper money for wars and other destructive government programs they have set up to entrap the masses of humanity. It is time to create alternatives to the monopolies of currency they control and to allow these alternatives to operate unmolested by the government agencies that the wealthy corporate elite have bought and paid for. It is time to stop forcing our empire and corporate world government upon the masses of the world and to start allowing all individuals to operate as the sovereign beings they are. Americans should be leading by example, not by the heavy handed machinations of a militarized police force.

We have seen this sickness before in the world. We have seen historically how empire corrupts and rots away the core of the principles that brought it into being. We have seen how power corrupts and how absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is time for the common folk to shout "Enough!" It is time we refuse to pay for the destruction any longer. It is time to trim back the branches of empire, break the grip of government monopoly and rid ourselves of the tyranny that is now encamped upon our shores. When this happens, the buds of freedom can grow again and perhaps one day blossom into beautiful flowers. When this happens, prosperity will once again visit the common folk and we can all build wealth together.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. 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.

Self Immolation in the First World?

2011-06-21T10:50:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson Dance, Dance Revolution, a Peaceful Victory

2011-06-11T11:34:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution, Religion and Mankind's Impact on Climate Change

2011-06-06T20:42:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abuse of Power and Ending American Apathy

2011-06-03T16:48:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-06-01T06:07:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson and Dancing for Freedom

2011-05-29T13:08:00.000-07:00

Of all the most famous founding fathers of the United States of America, Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the one who best understood the meaning of freedom. The man himself was not perfect and indeed there are many who love to point out his flaws. One of the main points they make is that he spoke of freedom as he owned slaves. This is, in my opinion, a classic example of trying to invalidate the message by assassinating the character of the messenger. How can a man talk about such principles when he doesn't live by them? Mr. Jefferson was just a man, complete with all the faults and foibles that come with being a man, trying to make his way through life as best he could in the times he lived in. That does not make his message any less powerful, or any less valid. He was very much an individualist, and very much believed in limiting the power of government, respecting the god given rights and protecting the sovereignty of the individual.

He was so much respected that there is a monument built to him in the nation's capitol. I must wonder if Thomas Jefferson would have approved of such a monument being built, but nonetheless it is there. Personally, I would consider it a tribute to the ideas of freedom he proffered rather than a tribute to the man himself. I think it should exonerate the ideas of individual liberty and personal freedom rather than the man who put those ideas on paper. He was a product of the times he lived in, someone who rose to the occasion when he was called to do so, as so often seems to happen in history.

And so it was that Brooke Oberwetter, evidently a great fan of the third president, decided in 2008 that she would like to celebrate the ideas of freedom by silently dancing at the Jefferson Memorial for ten minutes at midnight on his birthday. She, and about twenty of her friends, wore ipods, by all accounts other than the police's remained quiet and respectful, and expressed their joy that this man had lived and had eloquently opined his views on freedom by dancing around his statue. For this act, and for asking the arresting officer what law she had broken, she was arrested. Thus began her ordeal and a quest to find freedom and justice in a nation where such words hold no meaning in the eyes of those who enforce the will and collectivist ideals of the power elite.

Recently, a judge in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the park police were justified in arresting Oberwetter. I suppose they believe that the right to freely express one's self in public ends once you step inside the hallowed halls of a memorial to the champion of the right to freely express one's self. But this case went further than that. It upheld the privileges of the policing class. It upheld their perceived authority and their ability to arbitrarily determine what constitutes a protest, or dancing, or an expression of any type and what constitutes a breech of the peace. It exonerated their abusive actions. Keep in mind that in this case no one was harmed and no one complained. It was the police who decided the actions of this woman was a form of protest, even though she'd likely tell you it was a form of celebration.

This court obviously couldn't care less about individual free speech rights, or any of the natural individual rights Jefferson so strongly advocated. This judge does not feel it necessary to protect those rights from overbearing police who would abuse their power and violate those rights. This judge. like so many others of their ilk, is not protecting the Constitution and the rights of the common folk, but is protecting the privileged class from being held accountable for their criminal actions that do harm others. It seems to me that Ms. Oberwetter wasn't arrested for the act of dancing, she was arrested for the act of questioning a law enforcement officer. She was arrested for questioning authority. That seems to be a great crime in this nation lately, one that many a judge in many a court is upholding.

Fortunately, the attitude of the population seems to be changing of late. Certain people are deciding for themselves what it means to be free and have stopped letting the control freaks in black dresses sitting behind benches decide. They have decided to question authority and the legitimacy of so called laws that discern no victims. They have decided to act like free people by simply saying "no" to authorities and disobeying their dictates. They decided to show solidarity with Brooke Oberwetter and anyone else who wished to dance at the Jefferson Memorial by holding their own little silent dancing event. They decided to expose tyranny for what it is. You can see what happened here.

A couple of comments about the video. Some of you might recognize Adam Kokesh. He's the host of a show called "Adam Vs the Man" on RT. He's also an Iraq war veteran who ran for a seat in the House of Representatives in his district in Arizona. I doubt very much that the person who was elected to that seat cares as much about your personal freedom as Adam does. He went to Iraq and put his life on the line in an effort to advance the ideals that government should respect the natural rights of individuals, and now he dances (if you can call it that) in an effort to get his own government to recognize those same ideals and to stop violating the rights of peaceful individuals. As a reward for his valiant efforts he was body slammed to the hard concrete by a police officer. It might not seem that bad as Adam is a strong young man, but such a move could have possibly resulted in great bodily damage and even death.

These people were harming no one. They were disturbing no one. It was the police that initiated the disturbance. It was the police who threatened the safety of innocent individuals. It was the police that became violent. It was the police who brought harm to others. In their over zealous efforts to blindly enforce the law without question and to please their superiors, the Park Police showed their true colors and their violent nature. They showed their willingness to give up their own thought processes and their intolerance for anyone who questions their authority. They have been exposed as the supporters of tyranny that they are. Is it any wonder so many are now referring to police officers as thugs? Is it any wonder more and more people are losing respect for that profession?

You may notice how quickly these police closed down the monument and ushered out anyone with a video camera. Likely they knew what they were doing was wrong. Likely they realized how tyrannical they would look. It quickly became "illegal" to video record in the Jefferson Memorial. It seems to me that the "authorities" want to be able to video record the common folk whenever and wherever they feel they can use such technology to fleece them for fines and fees, but turn the cameras on them to record their criminal activities and the story quickly changes. All attempts to criminalize video or audio recording the police in public while doing their public duties need to be exposed, challenged and overturned just as all laws restricting the freedom speech should be. These laws are another example of government over stepping their bounds and trying to prevent their agents from being held accountable for their actions.

One might argue that dancing in the Jefferson Memorial is no big deal. That the people wanting to engage in such activity are foolish or silly and should merely bow to the will of the "authorities" and happily obey their wishes. They would argue that such people shouldn't make a federal case out of this behavior. I would agree with them that dancing at the Jefferson Memorial is no big deal. I would argue, however, that it was the "authorities" who have made it a big deal. It is they who have made this into a federal case. Had they just left these people alone to dance silently as they wished, no one would have noticed and they would have gone away after a few minutes. They could have exercised restraint, but instead, the "authorities" decided to crack down on this innocuous activity and put on a show for all to see.

Now the activists are fired up. The "authorities" have thrown down the gauntlet. Peaceful activists have decided to take up the challenge and have promised to once again show up at the Jefferson Memorial next Saturday to silently dance in celebration of Thomas Jefferson and his freedom ideals. I'm pretty certain that TJ himself would have applauded these efforts, after all he apparently loved dancing, calling it a healthy and elegant exercise and instructing his daughters to learn to dance. He also advocated a revolution every twenty years or so to keep the government in check. It seems that perhaps the people have finally decided to take his advice in a peaceful manner. They have decided that freedom looks like silently dancing to honor one of the founding fathers. If you agree, and you live in the Washington DC area, then perhaps you should join them. Wouldn't it be something to see hundreds of people silently dancing at the Jefferson Memorial to honor the concept of freedom? I think that would be a wonderful sight to behold.

The "authorities," on the other hand, just might feel it is too late to back down. They want to continue to make the common folk feel powerless so that their agents can continue to have their way with us and they can continue fleecing the masses. These are interesting times we live in. It will be interesting to see how far they will go to maintain their air of legitimacy. It will be interesting to see if in the future they continue to bust heads for quietly dancing, just how many peaceful heads they will be willing to bust, and how they will define exactly what dancing is. It will be interesting to see just how tyrannical and out of control they have become.

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

Fiat Diplomas Reducing the Value of Education

2011-05-26T14:57:00.000-07:00

By now, most people who have weaned themselves from their dependency on corporate mass media and news, and even some who haven't, understand the concept of fiat currency and how such systems reduce the value of money. Quite quickly, fiat money is money by decree, or legal tender laws where the government forces everyone to accept paper money in exchange for products and services. Value is lost as money is printed from thin air. This, combined with the practice of fractional reserve where debt is used to create more money, has created the current worldwide financial crisis we find ourselves in. As more money chases the same amount of goods, the value of that money is reduced.

This same phenomenon can work for other goods and services as well. The fact of the matter is that as things become more available in the marketplace, they become less valuable. It only makes sense when you consider that what most people are really trading in order to get things is labor. In fact, that really is, in the long run, what the economy is all about. It's about labor of some form or another. It's about working to provide fellow human beings with goods and services that are needed and desired. It's not about money, or gold, or silver, or oil or any other commodity. Those things are just tokens of exchange. It only makes sense that the easier it is to obtain something, the less work needs to be done to get it.

A long time ago, a formal education was a rare thing. Then again, a long time ago no one was ever truly sure from year to year whether they would have a good harvest or not. Only the very rich could afford to get a formal education. Only royalty and those claiming the divine right of sovereignty could afford to hire tutors to come educate their children in the basics of math, science and reading. The rest of the world was struggling just to survive. Of course, that doesn't mean that children weren't learning, it just means that poor children were learning how to survive while rich children were learning how to manipulate the poorer classes. People learned what they needed to survive. A formal education was a luxury.

As time went by, societies grew and civilizations progressed. Classes of people became more of a continuum than a straight division. Trade flourished, products and services improved and people with certain skill sets were in demand and well paid. As a result, formal education was more in demand. Merchants and other highly paid professionals became able to afford formal education for their children. Yet many people in well paid professions needed no schools or formal education to make a better life for themselves and become productive members of society. Many would carry on their parent's business or obtained an apprenticeship.

The roots of our "modern" educational system lie in the Prussian school system that was instituted in the mid eighteenth century. It is a system that is so antiquated that the country where it was developed no longer exists as an independent nation. Prussia was one of the many Germanic nations. It developed a certain infamy for its army which eventually helped to form a Germanic empire that unified Germany and eventually became the German nation we are familiar with today. Back in the eighteenth century, however, at the very earliest stages of the industrial revolution, Prussia needed young men who would be uncompromising in their love for the state and obedient to authority without question or hesitation. They needed good soldiers. They needed sheeple. They took a page from the ancient Spartans and developed a school system that would mold young minds in just such a way, only they were far more subtle about it than their Greek counterparts. This is the school system adopted by the Bostonians in the mid nineteenth century that spread throughout the United States and is still used to this very day.

Now we are more or less stuck with a state run compulsory system. As a consequence the value of that education has greatly declined. One has but to look at testing from earlier this century and compare it to testing in the same grades that goes on now to see just how little is actually taught these days. So why is it the value of education seems to decline so much the more centralized it becomes? Why is it that one needs a high school education in order to get a job where before little or no formal education was necessary? Why is it that, on average, it takes even more than a bachelor's degree these days to get a decent paying job? The reasons, in my humble opinion, are in large part due to the fiat nature of the school system. They are due to the laws that force all children to attend school and get a certain amount of formal education. They are due to the laws that force everyone to pay for the formal education of other people's children.

The modern school system seems a perfect example of government's standard "one size fits all" solution to a problem. It seems to me that they have a tendency to think of children as robots that need to be programmed to operate in society rather than as individuals each with a different and unique set of emotional, psychological and physical needs. They seem to want to teach children what to think rather than how to think for themselves. The "No Child Left Behind Act," a centralized federal program meant to improve the quality of education in this nation, has done just the opposite. It has lowered the educational level of all, slowing down the speed at which children are educated so that slower learners can keep up. It has taken the children who would have otherwise excelled in school and turned them into a bunch of bored watchers waiting for the others racing along at a snail's pace to catch up. It has churned out a population that might be able to regurgitate facts, but are unable to analyze many of the possibilities of what those facts might mean.

While this system hurts the common folk and tends to dumb down the nation, there are those who benefit from it. The cost of college is artificially high because the demand is artificially high. This benefits the colleges and universities and those employed by them. The cost has become so high that most people can't afford a higher education without obtaining a loan. This benefits the banks which are the real power behind government. This also illustrates another failure of government. The excuse used to prop up and support public schools is that everyone deserves a "free" basic education so that the poor have equal opportunity to get ahead, but a modern high school education hardly qualifies one for equal opportunities these days and most have to earn a bachelor's degree or beyond in order to open the doors of opportunity. The poor are still left behind due to the expense of higher education.

Despite all this, many still defend public education as a necessity in this nation. They seem to believe that if there was no public education we'd be a nation of idiots. They seem to believe that if it wasn't for public education we'd be a nation of criminals and thieves. Those people have obviously never met an average home schooled child. Home schooled children are notorious for outperforming publicly schooled children. So are the children whose families are able to afford the wealthiest private schools. Public schools are not only not necessary in this nation, I contend they are holding back the quality of formal education in this nation.

If one asks how the average family could afford a formal education without government help, I would suggest one consider how much they'd save if they didn't have to pay that portion of their property taxes that go to schools in their district. If one had that amount of money to use to decide where to send their child for a formal education, would one be able to afford it? Consider that there'd likely be several options and education businesses competing for that money. They would likely come up with different ways to save money to efficiently deliver that education. The best would rise to the top, the worst would fail in the marketplace and go out of business, and the costs would likely go lower and lower as technology improves and the marketplace determines the best options for the individuals seeking such services. It seems that government monopoly and fiat education, on the other hand, have been shown as the most inefficient ways of delivering education services.

Supply and demand of any commodity, product or service is what determines its value. That's about as basic as economics get. There is a huge supply of formal educational services in this nation. Because of this supply, there is also a huge demand that has been artificially created. Modern formal education has cranked out a population that has a tendency to not think so much as believe. It has cranked out a population that has a tendency to not question authority. It has cranked out a population that has a tendency to just go along to get along, to believe what they hear from authority figures, and to not strive for their full potential but reach for mediocrity. The fiat nature of our modern education system has resulted in creating twelve wasted years of youth. It has made education in this nation just about worthless. Decentralizing education and getting the federal government out of the schools would be a good first step in reversing this trend. Eliminating the Department of Education would also help balance the budget and save taxpayer money, money that could be spent on private educational institutions that would pop up in a free market.

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

Ron Paul Makes Sense Because Freedom Makes Sense

2011-05-24T18:49:00.000-07:00

I was talking to my brother the other day about Democrats and Republicans. We were discussing the increasingly obvious perception that there is no difference between the two parties. The reason for this, in my humble opinion, is also obvious. Both Democrats and Republicans lust for power. They want the world to be twisted to their point of view and they want others to honor and adore them for it. They want to tell everyone how to live their lives and where to spend their money. Both parties love big government, the bigger the better. It increases their power and their personal worth in their own eyes. The average person, on the other hand, likely wants more freedom, though he may not even realize that's what he wants. The common folk have for millennia been seeking more say over their destinies.

Politicians have a way of saying what people want to hear, making promises as to how they will behave, and then not following through with their actions. They have a tendency to tell you how to think rather than listening to you to find out what you think. They ignore what they don't want to hear and justify the actions they take which violate the oaths they made. They have no problem with hypocrisy, so long as their power and influence is increased and yours is diminished.

Freedom has been broken down and divided into two basic categories by politicians and their client experts, economic freedoms and personal freedoms. Whether this was done purposefully or not is debatable, but it has resulted in a divide and conquer system that has led to bigger government and more tyranny despite promises to the opposite. Republicans promise greater economic freedom, but only deliver bigger government in terms of military spending and a growth of the police state. Democrats promise greater personal freedom but only deliver bigger government in terms of more spending on social programs and more regulations and restrictions in the business sector. Somehow, no matter who is elected into office, government always manages to grow in size and scope despite the demand for the opposite. The elite class gains more power and disregards the rights of the common folk. The elite class wins, the common folk lose.

In 2008, Ron Paul threw a wrench into this machinery in his bid to become the Republican presidential candidate. This was because he advocates a pro liberty stance no matter the issue. He has a record of voting for less government, no matter the issue. He has decided to honor his oath to the Constitution and protect individual rights, no matter the issue. It was because of his principles, his honesty, that the media painted him as unelectable and against certain mainstream Republican dogmas.

Ron Paul makes a lot of sense to a great many people, more than many might imagine. This has more to do with the message than it does with the man. As is often pointed out, Ron Paul is not the most proficient speaker in politics. He is not capable of hypnotic oratory that fires people up like the current president. In fact, sometimes he has a tendency to hesitate in his speech or stumble over his words. But this is an honest shortcoming, one that people are willing to put up with when they are interested in the subject matter.
Ron Paul has a message of more freedom, not more restrictions. He has a message of smaller, limited government, not more regulatory agencies adding more bureaucracies and more potential for corruption and tyranny. He has a message of free market competition rather than government monopoly. While it may not be apparent to some right away, the ideas he proposes make economic as well as moral sense. Some will argue differently because to them freedom is hard work. It might mean giving up some things a few may feel entitled to, but it also means greater opportunity to provide for yourself, not having to worry so much about losing what you've worked for, and regaining a sense of pride and accomplishment by taking personal responsibility for yourself and your loved ones.

Ron Paul has declared he will run for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2012, as many of us figured he would. This is a good thing in and of itself. He will now be included in the debates, one of which has already taken place, and will continue to disseminate a liberty message to many who might not have otherwise thought of issues in such a manner. He will be able to further clarify and explain the message to an even larger audience. It is my hope that more and more people will be able to hear the truth in his words and listen to the sense his ideas make rather than believing in the illusions woven by the lies of the other politicians and listening to their empty promises.

Freedom makes sense in this world. It makes sense for you to keep the wealth you earn for yourself and for you to decide what to do with it. Does it make sense for you to receive wealth you didn't earn from some uncaring stranger? Does it make sense for you to let someone else decide what to do with the wealth you've earned, someone who takes that wealth through coercive threats and force?

It makes sense to want to trade peacefully with other peoples in the world. It makes sense that by building such friendships we have more influence upon them and more impact in changing their cultures. Does it make sense to bomb and shoot them or their relatives and then expect them to be nice to us? Does it make sense to force change upon them through violence and then expect them to meekly accept that change? Is it possible that at such times people would be willing to sacrifice what little personal liberties they had to support strong men who promise to protect them from us?

It makes sense that you should decide what to do with your own body. Does it make sense to allow complete strangers to mandate what you can and can't do with your own person? Does it make sense to allow those same people to tell you how much risk you can take in your own life? Does it make sense for you to allow them to hire others to spy on you and enforce any such nanny state laws? Don't you think that such power would be abused? Don't you think that people might use such power to benefit themselves and their friends regardless of who it might hurt? Doesn't it make more sense for each individual to decide what is right in their own lives for their own bodies so long as they don't harm others? Doesn't it make more sense that each individual should decide the risk level he wishes to take on in his own life? Doesn't it make more sense for people to be able to learn from their mistakes and celebrate their successes rather than never even being able to test their potential because a faceless state won't allow them to take such risks?

Some say the American experiment in freedom has failed, but I say this is not so. The American experiment in freedom was working just fine, so fine in fact that I believe many fell asleep at the wheel and stopped paying attention. We became the mightiest economic engine the world has ever known because of its individualist roots and philosophy, not due to welfare or warfare. At the turn of the twentieth century, the collectivists gained a foothold in this nation and they have been slowly eroding the foundations of our prosperity. It is their socialist, fascist, corporatist experiments that have failed. It's their philosophies that are now prominent in our federal government institutions and it's their laws and actions that have led us down this path of self destruction and economic crisis. It is time to reverse this trend and reinforce the principles the American nation was founded upon. The first step in this process is to do what Ron Paul suggests and simply start following the Constitution. In this way perhaps we can once again become the shining beacon on the hill for the rest of the world and we can evolve into the free nation our forefathers envisioned and millions fought and died for.

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

Free Market Misconceptions in the Blogosphere

2011-05-15T15:34:00.000-07:00

I was perusing some blogs the other day when I came upon a comment that struck a nerve in me. It was a comment that I think is indicative of the attitudes of some people who tend to believe in the left side of the political spectrum. I believe these are mostly goodhearted, well intentioned people, but I also believe they have been misinformed about what a free market is and what it is not. The comment, to paraphrase, basically blamed the free market for the financial mess we find ourselves in. I was compelled to reply to the comment and felt it might be appropriate to elaborate on my thoughts and share them with everyone. I think that, after all, words are important tools when it comes to communicating ideas with people and when definitions become skewed and screwy communications can become muddled. It then becomes important to redefine and better explain words so that everyone can better understand the concept that is trying to be conveyed.

The first and biggest misconception about free markets, in my humble opinion, is that we've ever had one. At least we haven't had one in recent history. I don't know whether this misconception has been spread deliberately or not, but I believe that at least in some cases it has been purposely proffered in order to obfuscate and shift blame so that a more collectivist agenda could be carried out. Yet people still blame the free market for the current situation. How can you blame something that hasn't existed in at least a couple of hundred years, if it ever existed, for modern problems? Well, some people have claimed it existed and some claim it still exists and others believe those people.

A free market is just that, free. That means it would be free of regulations. That means it would be free of licensing requirements. A free market would consist of free people freely doing business with others on a voluntary basis. The markets of the world today are far from that. They are watched over and strictly controlled by groups of people called government that claim a monopoly on force. These people are in turn watched over and controlled by a group of very wealthy corporations who have managed to create their own monopolies of sorts through bribes, payoffs, and influence peddling. Those corporations are, in turn, controlled by central banking interests who have managed to create, with the help of their political connections, legalized monopolies on the creation of currency. These are the establishment I so often write about. The free market has zero blame for the worldwide financial and currency crises that many have so recently become aware of, the problems are caused by the failures of the establishment monopolies and their machinations and manipulations.

We have in the world today, despite what you may have heard, a world market controlled mostly by multi-national corporations that answer to no one. They have grabbed not only virtual monopolies on many of the markets that force the world populous to use their products and services despite their records of poor quality, they have purchased with their ill gotten profits a monopoly on political power and in the process have corrupted and undermined some of the best conceived and most progressive governments the world had ever seen. We might have thought that the kings and queens of yesteryear had faded into memory and were no longer a threat to human kind, but their heirs, with the support of the families of the central banking cartels, have used their vast wealth obtained over centuries of creating wealth through privileged land ownership and serfdom to help re-create a modern version of the medieval feudal system that exalts lords and ladies while neglecting and abusing the common folk.

Corporations are government legal fictions created to protect the owners, board members, shareholders, etc., of the corporations. They are formed to prevent the common folk from holding them accountable should they cause damage or harm. Even the abbreviation LLC means limited liability corporation. The owners and shareholders of such a corporation can only be held legally responsible for any negligence or wrong doing of the corporation to a point, then the government protections kick in. In a free market system, those doing business would have to assume the risks that go along with doing that business if they wanted to reap the rewards. They would have to assume full liability for any negligence, fraud, or harm done and so would have to be extra careful to ensure that everything was on the up and up. The government would work for individuals who had suffered rather than for the corporation that caused the damage. Individual rights would be protected against aggression from the rich and powerful rather than being violated and aggressed against by the rich and powerful as happens in the present day.

People seem to forget who the free market is. The free market is you. Unless you are a bureaucrat making money off the coercive tax system, or a mobster running a protection racket, likely you are doing business on a voluntary basis and providing a product or service which needs to be better in some way than your competition. The free market is all who are small enough to fail and will do so if they are not competitive against others who offer the same or a similar product or service. The free market is the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. It is the local hairstylist who knows just how you like your hair cut. It is the corner store as opposed to big box stores. It is the local family farm as opposed to the large corporate farm. It is the local restaurant as opposed to the corporate franchise. It is the shoe factory down the road as opposed to the one that moves to another country. It is the doctor that makes house calls to the very poor as well as the very wealthy. It is a community of people who know and care for each other and do their best to provide the goods and services asked for in the open market.

The free market is a multitude of choice from a multitude of places, not the restrictive nature of a few cartels as exists today. An illusion of choice exists in the modern marketplace in order to fool people into believing there is a free market that can be blamed for problems that are almost certain to pop up when monopolistic organizations operate without accountability. This is especially true in the energy and financial sectors of the economy. In fact, it seems as though these sectors have far too much influence in the world's markets and have stifled innovations tremendously. It's strange to me that as a species we've developed such amazing technologies in so many different areas, yet we're still using technologies that are over a hundred years old to fuel our cars and provide us with electricity. It reminds me of something a friend of mine used to say, that if industries in the late nineteenth century had the power then that some have today, we'd still be using candles and oil lamps to light our nights and horses and buggies to travel. I have often wondered what kind of technologies have been lost or hidden due to the influence of modern mega corporations that have every incentive to keep the current technologies selling.

There was a time when markets were open to everyone. There was a time when all one had to do was hang out a shingle and he was in business. Those were some of the most prosperous times on record. Even today, societies that move from a more restrictive economy into a less restrictive one become more prosperous. Modern China is a good example of this phenomenon. When people are able to vote with their dollars, when they're able to decide for themselves who they want to do business with and who they don't want to deal with, when they can make their own decisions on how to spend their money and aren't dependent on government making such decisions for them, the best products and services for the least money tend to come to the fore, technology advances and everyone benefits. When government restricts and markets become less free, innovation is stifled, technology stagnates and the economy falters.

It seems to me that people have a tendency to resent being told what to do. They don't want anyone telling them how to live their private lives, who to have relationships with, how many children to have, what to eat, how to treat their bodies, etc., yet they don't seem to have a problem with telling others how to behave. This seems to be especially true when it comes to business dealings. People seem to have no problem with using the force of government to restrict economic activity. There's this false belief that government will somehow magically make people better behaved by simply creating licenses and regulations to engage in business. They seem to believe that government is good and will protect all the "little people" from big, bad corporations. They seem to forget that in order to be free you must allow others to be free. This works for economic activity as well as for personal activity. They seem to forget that government fails time and time again, no matter its mandate. It seems to me that government protects the corporations from ordinary folk, not the other way around.

The current economic crisis is not a failure of the free market, but a failure of government to provide a marketplace where opportunity abounds. It is not the failure of free market business practices, but a successful insertion of monopolistic practices and cartel takeovers. The economic problems we face are not the fault of free markets, they are the fault of an unaccountable, unresponsive elite establishment which has no incentive to change and fights to keep any competition that may challenge it out of the marketplace. They are the fault of a wealthy, elite establishment that has its fingers in too many pies and a winner take all agenda. They have every means at their disposal to keep the advantages they already have, and it is to their advantage to confuse and obfuscate the true meaning and nature of a free market. All it will take for them to keep winning and remain on top would be for all to blame free markets for a poor economy, for them to accept crappy products and services from monopolies and believe that it's simply the way things have to be, for them to believe that there's such a thing as "too big to fail," and for no one to speak up against the fascist, authoritarian, corporatist, one world government we are moving toward. In the long run, however, they will fail when enough of the common folk figure out their tricks and lies and the misconceptions are no longer believed.

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

Elegy for my Dad

2011-05-15T14:26:00.000-07:00

How does one determine the worth of a life? Certainly one way is by how many other lives he has affected in a positive way. Certainly one way is by how many others knew and loved him. On this basis alone I would say that my dad's life was worth more than all the kings and queens of Europe and all the presidents of the United States combined. My father lived a blessed and wonderful life. He was a loving and caring husband to my mother for sixty years. He was the father to eight wonderful human beings, myself and those I am proud to call my brothers and sisters. He was a son and a brother who cared deeply for his siblings and took great pride in his family. He was a well liked and respected teacher and coach. He touched many lives and left a mark on them that many will never forget.

My dad was more than just an English teacher and football coach, he was a life teacher. He showed people what it was to live life to its fullest. He worked hard to provide for his family, and he played hard to nurture his soul. He was not only always active and athletic, but he was also intelligent and cerebral. He was very competitive. He loved to do a good crossword puzzle as much as he loved to play a good game of tennis. He exercised both his body and his mind and kept them active as long as he could. My dad loved life, and he loved being alive.

My father cared deeply for people. He might not have always known how to properly show it, but there was an aura about him that let you know he cared. If there's anything I'll always remember about my dad it's his smile. His smile would light up a room. He had the most exquisite sense of humor. I think he could find humor in just about any situation. He would tell stories about things that had made him angry and laugh about them later. When he laughed, it was contagious, it made others feel good. When he smiled, he did so with more than his lips and his cheeks, he did so with his eyes.

My dad's eyes were intense. When he was angry, they would blaze and burn right through you. When he smiled or laughed, they would glimmer like two stars in heaven. If the eyes are windows to the soul, then I would say that my dad's soul is very bright and lively.

Dad loved to tell stories. He loved the attention. He could tell a story and hold an audience's interest with the best of them. He had something to say for just about every occasion and he'd usually say it. More often than not those listening would end up laughing and feeling better for the experience.

My dad taught me much. He gave me more than he'll know. My sense of humor. My love of writing and the English language. My love of telling stories. My smile. There is so much of him I can see in myself. I thank him for these gifts and treasure the good qualities I inherited from him. It is through all of us that his memory continues on in this world, and it is up to all of us to make sure that his good qualities flourish while any qualities that may not be so complementary diminish.

I know that my dad's soul will continue to watch over his family. I know that his smile will continue to shine upon us as we continue on with life's struggles and sorrows, its joys and triumphs. He will be missed by all who knew and loved him. I will miss him tremendously, I will miss his smile, his laughter and his sage advice. He will be missed by all who knew and loved him. I hope the angels appreciate his smile and laughter as much as I did.

The Dangerous Naivety of the Lone Wolf Theorist

2011-05-10T22:06:00.001-07:00

If one listens to the establishment media and talking heads lately, one will hear much about conspiracy theorists. Now of course this term is used to impugn anyone who would endorse such theories. Everyone knows that conspiracy theorists are crazy, right? Everyone knows that government wouldn't lie about important things like world events. Everyone knows that the establishment would never try to cover anything up and hide the truth from the populace. Well, at least not the important stuff. Well, at least no people in power would ever plot against their own people, right? Not even if the outcome would be beneficial to their personal interests, right? Hmm? Perhaps we should explore the world of the lone wolf theorist. After all, if an event was not carried out as part of some kind of conspiracy, it must have been carried out by a single entity, a lone wolf if you will.

The lone wolf theorist appears to me to be very trusting. He seems to trust in the establishment implicitly. He does not wish to question whether or not facts are true, even when they seem questionable. He prefers to take opinion and conjecture as fact so long as they come from an established source. Yet he seems to believe that he is, in fact, the knower of all things there are to know. He believes that he has the facts, and the facts tell him that government is good, conspiracies don't exist, and the establishment account of events is never wrong.

The lone wolf theorist believes that nutcases are able to plan complicated actions on their own and gain access to highly valued and protected targets without any problems. They believe that paranoid schizophrenics can quite easily plan things weeks and perhaps months ahead of time without anyone suspecting a thing. They must believe that these people are among the most intelligent among us, certainly the most devious. Indeed, in many cases it seems that these lone wolfs must have near super human qualities in order to pull off some of the schemes they have been accused of.

No man is an island. We all engage in some kind of contact with our fellow humans. Even Ted Kaczynski, who did his utmost to remove himself from the rest of humanity, had to interact with others from time to time. A true lone wolf and intellectual, Mr. Kaczynski had to stick to soft targets and mail bombs to avoid capture. It is highly unlikely he could have ever pulled off an assassination of a well protected person or the kind of terrorist attack people seem to fear most, for those kind of operations almost require a conspiracy, and certainly so if the perpetrator wishes to not get caught.

Of course, the other aspect of conspiracy theory is the theory aspect. I suppose one who thinks conspiracies theories are crazy could believe that conspiracies exist, but the version he believes in is fact. Could we call such a person a conspiracy factist? How about a conspiracy knower? Either way, I believe that the only way someone could be absolutely certain as to whether or not a given event was plotted the way it was reported to be plotted would be if he was personally involved. Unless that's the case, one has to take the word of someone else as to what is or was the truth of a given situation.

The vast majority of the population all across the planet are entertaining some kind of theory when it comes to news stories. Some people might realize this, but most probably don't. They simply watch establishment news programs on the television, listen to establishment news radio, or read establishment newspapers or magazines and take them at their word. There's never any questioning. There's never any investigation. People just take it for granted that establishment media is being honest, have done their due diligence in terms of investigating a story, and are accurate and realistic in their reporting. The problem is that the establishment media often uses government sources. In fact, they have come to depend on government sources for their stories in many cases. The establishment media may well take for granted that the government sources are being honest and accurate. They have, in essence, failed in any watchdog duties that may be expected of them.

In the United States of America, in the legal system, one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is supposed to weigh upon the prosecution. Yet in too many cases people who were "proven" to be guilty were later proven to be innocent. It seems to me that there is some kind of disconnect at work here to make this possible. Perhaps in law, as in the court of public opinion that is shaped by establishment media, it is not so much "facts" and "proof" that count, but who the jury will believe, who they trust, and who they tend to disagree with. It seems to me that these days, as many who have become involved with the legal system have come to find out, that one is guilty until he can prove himself innocent in a court of law. The legal system in this nation has devolved into the type of system that the founders fought to escape from. It is no longer a system we can be so proud of because our system is so much better than tyrannical legal systems. It has become as corrupt as many other legal systems around the world and so few seem to care. This is because so many are brainwashed and no longer question the authorities because they'd rather believe the lone wolf theorists they see on television and feel good that their nation's legal system is still the bestest, most greatest, most honest, in the whole, wide world and would never make a mistake.

The biggest difference between the conspiracy theorist and the lone wolf theorist, or the conspiracy theorist and the conspiracy knower, is who they trust for their information. Most conspiracy theorists, if they are at all reputable, will follow their instincts and ask questions of those who should know, who were involved, or who have done research that may have been missed by the mainstream. Most lone wolf theorists or conspiracy knowers will simply take the word of the establishment media, its talking heads and government sources. At least, it seems that way to me.

I got news in case you didn't know, government lies. Politicians lie and make promises they don't intend on keeping to get votes. Bureaucrats lie, misrepresent and exagerate to increase the budgets for their bureaucracies. Establishment corporations lie to get legislation passed that will help them maintain their markets. Establishment media lies, misrepresents and embellishes to maintain its relationships with all those listed above in order to make sure they don't loose access to their sources. Yet somehow these people who have been shown to deceive are still seen as reputable and even held in high esteem by some.

This is where the biggest danger lies. Threats to freedom come not from outside enemies trying to control us with military force, but from enemies within manipulating our emotions. We are indoctrinated from childhood. Those we trust abuse their status. They use fear and guilt to steal our wealth and as excuses to violate our liberties. Those who do not wish to see will defend their actions even as those in power become more controlling and tyrannical. They forget to question authority. They neglect to look into motive. They obey dictates from the top, centralized authority without thought of who benefits from such regulations. They go along to get along, lowering their chins and watching their feet as they make their way through life hoping to stay off the radar. They become a small cog in a system that slowly turns the masses into slaves for a power elite while grinding down opportunity and innovation. They loose the individualist concepts of liberty and independence and replace them with the fallacious collectivist promises of protection and being cared for. We should not be a nation of people dependent upon hope in a centralized government, but a nation of self governing individuals confident in our abilities to provide for our own needs independent of government interference.

Do not be so critical of conspiracy theorists questioning the government point of view. They are rightly questioning authority and showing a healthy skepticism. Instead, be more wary of those who would vehemently defend the establishment storyline and trust in such an historically untrustworthy organization. Be more wary of those who would offhandedly judge the messengers as crazy rather than disputing the facts and checking out the sources. Perhaps it is the lone wolf theorists and conspiracy knowers who should be questioned and investigated. Perhaps they have more to gain or loose than one might imagine. Oh wait, that sounds like a conspiracy theory. I must be crazy.

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

The Boogie Man is Dead, Now Fear the Goblins

2011-05-02T11:39:00.000-07:00

The Bureau of Protection Against Evil Fairytale Creatures (PAEFC) announced in a news release today that the Boogie Man has been killed.

"This goes to show that the trillions of dollars spent and the millions of innocent lives lost in the years of hunting down this dangerous fairytale creature was worth it," Johnny Truthteller, a spokesman for the PAEFC, said in the news release. "A dangerous creature responsible for many atrocities, including kidnapping young children from their homes and eating them, has been neutralized. For those who have been harmed by this vile creature, justice has been served."

King Barry Goodfellow, the commander and chief of Goodguyland, held a press conference to confirm the news.

"After many, many years of searching, we have finally found this menace to childhood dreaming and put an end to his evil," King Goodfellow said. "This gives all citizens of Goodguyland reason to celebrate. No longer will children have to shake and quake as they hide under their beds for fear that the Boogie Man will jump out of their closet while they sleep. No longer will young people need to be afraid of walking in dark forests at night. Let it be known to all that have suffered due to the actions of this creature that justice has been served."

The Boogie Man was killed in Farawayland where he was hiding in a goblin compound. PAEFC officials claim he was beheaded by the good king's knights in a dangerous military operation that took place in the middle of the night when no one was looking. They were quick to destroy the body so that no one could look at it and bring the magical being back to life.

This good news comes at a time when faith in the leadership of Goodguyland is fading and people are beginning to question the wisdom of keeping so many of our young knights in so many foreign lands around the globe. It is hoped by the political and military leaders of Goodguyland that this will lift the spirits of its citizens and convince them to shut up about all the bad things that are happening due to military operations. It is also hoped that this will take the spotlight off the economic troubles currently being experienced in Goodguyland.

On a related note, in a separate news conference, King Barry Goodfellow said, "This does not mean that we can relax. We must remain vigilant. Alki Goblinia (the organization headed by the Boogie Man before his death) is still operating. We are certain the goblins will try to strike back after the death of their leader. They have managed to get all sorts of dangerous magical weapons that have eluded our magical weapons detectors that have cost the taxpayers of Goodguyland billions of dollars to build. This does not mean that our scientists have failed, only that the goblins are smarter than we thought. Children should still remain cautious and hide under their blankets when they sleep."

When this reporter asked King Barry Goodfellow about the failing economy he said, "The economy is getting better. People are going back to work. The recession ended years ago. We are not in a depression. All indicators are it is growing. Now is not the time to think about the economy. It's time to celebrate. Come on, the Boogie Man is dead. Goodguyland is the greatest place in the universe again. What did you bring up the economy for? Have a drink. Go buy a flag and sing songs about how great Goodguyland is."

There are those who are not so sure about the validity of the reports that the Boogie Man is dead. Some believe he died years ago and the threat of attacks from Alki Goblinia is overblown. They believe that goblins are mostly used by parents to control their children and King Barry Goodfellow to justify a domestic police force that has become increasingly violent against the citizens of Goodguyland who try to exercise their individual rights.

Justin Freeman, president of the Fairytale Disbeliever Committee, said in an interview after he heard the news of the Boogie Man's death, "This is just another distraction. The Boogie Man died long ago and this is a political trick being used to restore nationalism and take the populace's mind off the domestic problems we face. You watch, nothing will change. Our knights will continue to occupy Farawayland. Our military will continue to conduct operations in other foreign lands. People who at one time criticized King Barry Goodfellow will now praise him. People want an excuse to feel good even though our way of life is deteriorating and this story that has been weaved by those who benefit from war gives them the chance to do that."

It is clear that Justin Freeman and others like him think the government made all this up for their own benefit. This reporter thinks we should laugh at them and not even bother to look into the validity of their allegations and accusations. Why think? This is a time to celebrate and forget about our problems.

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