Politicizing Healthcare and Diverting Attention

I watched some videos on Youtube recently and was pleasantly surprised by what I saw. Thousands of people across the nation have been attending town hall meetings to express their concerns, vent their anger and demand that their representatives vote no on the proposed health care bill, AKA Obamacare, making its way through congress. It seems that this particular issue has been the one that has activated the people. It seems that the proposed total government takeover of health care is the straw that has broken the camel's back. The ire of the common man has been aroused and we are letting those who are supposed to represent the interests of the average Joe know that with this issue they had better listen.

There has been quite a bit of news coverage on this subject and divergent viewpoints have been expressed. There are even some pundits who have taken the conspiratorial position that these town hall protests have been manufactured by right wing Republican groups to make President Obama look bad and that ordinary people aren't really that upset about the bill. Yeah, right. As if people can't think for themselves. As if people won't protest such intrusions into their private lives unless they are paid or prodded. These pundits don't consider that maybe the common folk have figured out that government has failed massively time and time again. They don't realize that perhaps people consider health care just too important to put it into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. They don't seem to believe that maybe the masses actually realize that the costs of totally nationalizing health care would be far too much for out teetering economy to bear. They don't seem to understand that many people in this country realize that their very lives and the lives of their loved ones could be put at risk by restricted and rationed health care overseen by a coldhearted bureaucratic system rather than by personal physicians and other caring professionals. The people protesting at these town hall meetings couldn't possibly be ordinary folk worried about health care being brought under government control, they have to be Republicans trying to sabotage the Democrats and make the president look bad. Please.

Health care is a very important issue to many people. That's why they came out to protest. It has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican partisanship. Any representative who came out in favor of this bill was confronted by their constituents if the chance presented itself regardless of their party. It's an important issue for me, also. That's why I'd like to keep the government out of it. I believe I can best determine for myself what's best for me and my family when it comes to health care and insurance. I don't want it to be mandated by the government what type of insurance I need to get nor do I wish to be told by them which medical procedures are available and when I can get them, etc. I take this position as a person who has no coverage since I've lost my job. Personally, I think I'd be best off if I had just major medical insurance that would cover any catastrophic event that may occur. For myself I don't go to doctors much anymore and can take care of myself for the most part when it comes to common maladies. I believe that trips to the doctor for a yearly physical and such would be much, much cheaper if it wasn't for all the government mandates the medical community is already saddled with.

I think people are beginning to realize that they want government out of their lives, particularly federal government. That's why they came out against the bailouts. That's why they came out against cap and trade. That's why they're coming out against federalized health care.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats have declared that there is a mandate to provide government health care to all simply because they were voted into office last year. No such mandate exists! Their political victory was not a result of their promises, nor was it a result of anything positive they had done for the American people in the past. Their victories were a direct result of the incompetency of the Bush administration, the unwillingness of the Republicans to prevent the growth of government, and in fact their direct involvement in growing it despite their insinuations they would do the opposite. It seems to me that most people didn't vote for Mr. Obama or any candidate running under the Democrat party banner, most people voted against Mr. Bush's big government policies and the Republicans who supported those policies. They voted for what they wrongly perceived was the only viable alternative.

Mr. Obama was sufficiently vague enough and contagiously charming with his promises of “change” and “hope” to win over an increasingly wary and jilted electorate. Many voters hoped they'd see a reversal of Bush era policies. They hoped against hope that Mr. Obama and a Democrat majority would end the unconstitutional Bush era wars, repeal the unconstitutional Bush era laws and bring back sanity and some semblance of the free market to our economy. Not only did this not happen, but just the opposite occurred and its beginning to look like it will never happen. The people are frustrated that their screams have fallen upon deaf ears. They are angry that their voices continue to be ignored despite the fact that they are trying to use the system to effect the change they want to see and are stonewalled at every turn. Now they express their righteous anger at these town hall venues because they feel they have no other way to make their congress critters listen and the politicians still show no sign that they are paying attention and that they are ready to enact the will of the people.

It seems to me that the establishment is still in control. It seems to me that they couldn't care less what the common man wants. Yet it also seems that the public has perhaps become more energized than they thought. Perhaps the politicians are running a bit scared as they see their constituents begin to protest their actions en masse. There is the possibility that the establishment may have miscalculated the public reaction to their attempted takeover of the health care system. It is also a possibility that this is just a diversion meant to distract the public and the few politicians that may care for them so that other important legislation might be forgotten about.

Let's not forget that there is a cap and trade bill that has already been passed by the House and is scheduled to be considered by the Senate. Many voters have expressed concern over this bill. Many understand that this huge bill, unread by many of those who voted for it, does nothing to help the environment and is just a hidden tax on the middle class. It does everything it can to help destroy the economy and funnel more money to the already overly rich elite at the very top of the heap. Could the political elite use the news coverage and the hotly charged debate surrounding the health care bill as a smoke screen to sneak through this legislation unnoticed by most? The possibility does exist.

There is also an important bill with over 280 cosponsors being proposed in the House that would audit the Fed and bring transparency to their operation. It was getting quite a bit of press and gaining momentum until this health care controversy came along. Now all of a sudden that bill and the refusal of the Democrats' leadership to bring it to a vote is back page news as the furor over the health care bill grows. This seems awfully darn convenient for the Fed which wishes its secret dealings to remain hidden from the American people whose money supply they control. I do hope this bill and its significance is not lost in the mayhem created by Obamacare.

Let's also not forget the promises made and perhaps already broken by the Obama administration and the Democrats elected to help ensure passage of his agenda. Was it not they who promised to help bring about a more transparent and receptive government? I remember something about not rushing bills through in such a hasty fashion. I remember something about bills being posted online for at least three days before being voted on so that the American people as well as the representatives in congress could get a chance to read them and voice their opposition or approval. What happened to that? Where has that attitude gone in the last few months as the deficit has skyrocketed?

It's been a long time since there's been this much uncertainty in the atmosphere. As a child in the sixties I remember this feeling, but back then I wasn't exactly sure what it was all about. As an adult I can say that this uncertainty, when thought about, has a tendency to leave an uneasiness in the stomach. It is both an exhilarating and slightly scary feeling. There are too many directions in which this can go. The political elite can once again decide to ignore the masses, push through this unpopular health care bill and risk a wrath they have never experienced before. Or the masses could then just shrug their shoulders, become once again apathetic and discouraged, go back to sleep and fade away into insignificance under the auspices of happy servitude. Or the politicians could give into the masses of humanity protesting this issue, finally decide to do the will of the people, and then turn around and pass more unpopular legislation and block popular legislation as the people celebrate a hard fought victory and forget to pay attention to other important political happenings. Or the people could finally wake up, realize their true power and understand that the only way to get the elites to do what is good for the masses is to keep a close eye on them and demand transparency and an approach to politics based upon the principles of freedom and liberty this nation was founded on even if it comes from the unprincipled persons currently holding political office.

Moving forward I do hope that these protests are taken seriously by the political elites. I do hope that they result in more than just lip service from the current cadre of control freaks inhabiting the halls of power in Washington, DC. As Thomas Jefferson said, “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” I don't wish anyone to fear anyone else, but it would be nice if for once freedom would prevail in the federal legislature.

One last observation I'd like to make, I don't think the political elite can go about their business as usual anymore. It doesn't matter whether these protests were spontaneous, as I believe they were, or were spurred on by certain organizations or personalities as the power elite would have you believe. One way or another, I believe they are going to have to deal with their constituents and start answering some tough questions. I believe the righteous anger exhibited by people in the last few days is a sign that they have shaken free of the malaise that prosperous years have infected them with and they are beginning to come to the realization that it is best to decide things for themselves rather than leave important decisions to the whims the unaccountable political elite in Washington, DC. Those holding political office are going to have to start to work, for a change, and likely they're going to have to decide whether to empower the people of this great nation once again or fight to keep the power in their hands. Let's pray they make the right decision.

Ron Paul and Alternative Leadership

I realize I write a lot about Ron Paul. I make no apologies for that. He is out on the forefront of a new freedom movement, a movement that is gaining strength as more and more people begin to understand its true nature. There are two divergent ideologies at odds in the world today, collectivism and individualism. Unfortunately, collectivism and group thought seem to be the dominate ideologies guiding politics in modern times. Ron Paul has emerged as the most prominent leader championing the virtues of individualism. This ideology is the spirit which drove the founders of our nation and was codified into law via the Bill of Rights in an effort to ensure that it would be the guiding ideology in perpetuity of the people who would come to these shores seeking freedom. Over the past few decades it seems that most people have forgotten this as we struggle and experiment with different collectivist political schemes, most of which have already been tried and have already failed in other parts of the world. Not only has Ron Paul reminded us of this, he has brought to the forefront of our consciousness ideas that innately make sense to many of us, the ideas of freedom and liberty.

In the fall of 2008 there was great hope and exuberance in our nation, indeed perhaps throughout the world. I didn't share in the exuberance, but of course I could feel it exuding from so many others. Still, I feel as if even back then many who praised the new “change” and “hope” that was being touted understood deep down that there was something wrong. We've all seen this song and dance before. With the exception of the most ardent and brainwashed amongst us, I think that most realized as they voted for “change” and “hope” that they were grasping at straws. They were simply so indoctrinated into this unfairly positioned two party collectivist monopoly that they either couldn't or they refused to see any alternatives. The mainstream media helped to maintain the facade, of course.

The common folk know when they're being lied to. More and more people are beginning to realize that they have been presented with illusions all these years. They are discovering that they have been given false choices, that they have been shown a false version of the way things are and the way they have to be. Many are getting tired of being told how and what to think by talking heads and politicos who are just different sides of the same collectivist coin and have come to the realization that they can determine for themselves what opinions to hold. They have stopped reading newspapers and tuning in to television news not because of convenience, but in search of an alternative source of information that more conforms with the reality they want to create. Many may not even realize that they are searching for an individualist philosophy, they only know that they wish to find an honest news source they can trust, one that shows some common sense.

Things seem to have gotten a bit worse lately. I've been hearing about how the economy is recovering. I've been listening to these talking heads spouting off about production and credit and liquidity. I've been hearing numbers that can't be true. These people think you and I are stupid. They believe they can pull the wool over our eyes even as we stare into the abyss. The means of production have been shipped offshore. Unemployment is soaring. Everywhere you look people have been laid off. Those who still have jobs are working longer and harder for less money. Private businesses are hanging on by their fingertips. No one's buying anything because most people are trying to pay off their debt.

Think about your own life. Are you better off than you were last year? Five years ago? If so, do you have to help out more people or take on more responsibility because of it? How about your family and friends, how many of them are having difficulties? Yet the mainstream media continues to try to paint a rosy picture, put on a smiling face and tell you that everything is going to be alright while the establishment politicians give all the money and power to the already incredibly wealthy (who seem to be hoarding it) in the form of bailouts and then increase taxes on the strapped middle class. The whole time they're doing this they try to divert our attention by ranting and raving about global warming and expensive health care. Is it any wonder people have started looking elsewhere for sanity? Is it any wonder people have lost trust in those who were once, long ago, considered paragons of virtue?

The political leadership of this country has been as disappointing as the mainstream media's fluff filled news coverage. They also apparently believe you and I are stupid, or perhaps that we're simply not paying attention. They seem to believe they can do whatever they want to us and not have to worry about the consequences of their actions. They can get away with spending or giving our money and our progeny's money to the undeserving because we continue to re-elect them, not to mention many of them don't have to worry about their own circumstances anyway. They get away with passing unconstitutional laws because no one calls them onto the carpet about such details.

The founders of our country set up the federal government in the spirit that individuals in this country would need protection from the powerful state governments that were to be set up, not to become a hindrance and encumbrance to individual innovation, self determination and personal liberty. This is exactly what the federal government has become in its efforts to be everything to everyone, all encompassing and omnipotent. It was supposed to be a check on competing states to protect individualism, not a tyrant issuing dictates to, demanding money from and regulating the trade between individuals living in this nation. It has stepped outside the bounds of the constitution that was written and adopted in an effort to regulate the power of a central government and the political leadership in Washington, DC couldn't care less. In fact, they wish to facilitate the change toward tyranny and increase their own personal power.

It is time to start looking for new, alternative leadership as the masses have started looking to new, alternative news sources. It is time to start looking for people who understand that protecting and respecting the rights of the individual is the best way to protect the group. “Szandor, how can we do this when it is so far from any major election?” you may ask. There need not be any elections to seek alternative leadership. In fact, elections have proven to be quite ineffectual when it comes to eliminating graft and corruption in the system. Alternative leadership should come from those who understand laws and regulations need not be proposed to control the behavior of the people and the marketplace, they need to be proposed to control and regulate the political and power elite. These leaders need to realize that a federal government should not be set up to mandate how citizens behave, but should be used to make sure that individual rights are protected from abuse by corporate and state agencies. These leaders need to start policing the political and power elite, exposing the secrets they want to keep from the general public and get them to stop trying to frighten us into surrendering our personal power and responsibilities.

Although he wasn't the first, Ron Paul is the most recent to pick up the banner of freedom and parade it in front of the masses. He did so in last year's televised presidential debates. He delivered his message succinctly in plain English so the common man could understand and with great reverence to the Constitution of this nation. While he didn't win the nomination, likely due to the characterization in the mainstream media that he was unelectable and the mindlessness of the American voters when it comes to believing the political talking heads on TV, he did awaken a great many people as to certain political realities taking place in this country and shake the apathy out of them. He gave hope to those of us who believe in an individualist philosophy.

Ron Paul's campaign also managed to frighten the political establishment. It showed them that a large contingent of the American electorate still cares about the ideas of liberty, smaller government and political adherence to the Constitution. The visual nature of his supporters and their enthusiasm gave them pause to think. The amount of money he was able to raise from the grass roots and the innovative ways in which this feat was accomplished left the political establishment and the power elite scratching their heads. They were left wondering how an uncharismatic, old country doctor could attract such a diverse base of support and collect so much from those of us who seem to have so little. The answer is simple, it wasn't the man, it was the message. As Ron Paul himself likes to say, freedom is popular.

Ron Paul showed us just how powerful a lone voice in the wilderness can be. He defied the political establishment and kept touting his message as best he could under hostile circumstances. He showed us in an honest and thoughtful manner that it's okay to challenge the political establishment and to say no to unprincipled policies enacted more for political expediency instead of necessity. He reached a great many with his coy politeness and straightforward common sense despite efforts to paint him as an unelectable crazy fool and a joke. Despite losing the nomination he has kept his name at the forefront of the political scene with his push to pass a measure to audit the Federal Reserve and bring more transparency to that quasi-government organization. His legacy also includes an organization called “Campaign for Liberty” which is helping to spread the message of freedom and garner support for efforts to regain the respect for our rights that government should hold. Meanwhile others such as Judge Andrew Napolitano and Peter Schiff have picked up on delivering the messages of individual personal freedoms and free market enterprise to the general public and are doing a fantastic job at it. These are the alternative leaders we need to pay attention to going forward.

Yet more is needed. These few are not enough to open the minds of those who refuse to listen and still don't understand exactly what it is that we have lost. Yes, more and more people are beginning to realize the growth and prosperity that cutting back government services and returning to a freedom oriented society would bring, but we need to be relentless if we are to bring about the change we in the freedom movement seek. We need more leaders to step forward, more alternatives from which to choose.

Where do we find such leaders? Look in the mirror. We all need to do our part. I saw a youtube video today of a young former soldier at a town hall meeting who demanded an apology from his congresswoman because he had upheld his oath to the Constitution but she was not fighting against health care reform as her oath to the Constitution demands of her. He received a standing ovation. I've seen other videos, read and heard about other efforts to effect change, to exercise rights and to let those who think they rule over us know that we are not going to simply sit by and let them get away with ignoring their own rules and the laws set down by the founding fathers. This is the kind of alternative leadership needed to turn things around and to activate more citizens. People are mad and they're getting madder, now they simply need a direction in which to point their anger.

You will not find these stories reported in the mainstream media. That is why they have lost viewers, readers and listeners. That is why more and more people have turned to alternative sources to get their news. Likewise, more and more people are going to be turning to alternative sources to find their leaders. It is up to us to become those leaders. It is up to us to turn the masses away from the meaningless drivel put out by mainstream media and political sources and show them the significance of individualism in our society. It is up to us to become the alternative leadership. When this happens, then we shall take back the government of the people, by the people and for the people. When we do this, then we shall become empowered and we will know what it is to be truly free and self determined.

Democracy; Only Good When it Serves the Elite?

“The American republic; it's not your founding forefathers' representative democracy anymore”
Szandor Blestman

I'm not a huge fan of democracy. I think it's over rated and that the propaganda espousing its greatness has indoctrinated many people into believing that mob rule is the best political system ever created. My favorite description of a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Early on in the history of the American federal government certain changes were made to the Constitution to help establish more of a democracy type government that certain influential founders had warned against. The corruptible influences of such disregard for the original intentions and spirit that our forefathers wanted to impart upon our nation is now obvious for all to see. Democratic rule is well intentioned, however, even if it is true the a majority of people can at times be wrong about a given issue. It is the system we as Americans must deal with in our everyday lives, so we may as well make the best of it as often as possible.

Lately, however, it has become more than evident that those in power care nothing for the tenets of democracy they so publicly embrace. While they dutifully sit behind television cameras and explain the need to send soldiers to every corner of the world in order to bring the benefits of democracy to oppressed peoples, they ignore the concerns coming from the majority of their own constituents. This is in no way a new phenomenon, but it is one that has become more blatant in recent years.

I suppose the easiest place to start is to look at the bailouts of the past year. Certainly, I can point out many other past instances where the principles of democracy were ignored by our elected officials. When the big bank bailout was approved it wasn't the first time Congress decided to act against the will of the American people, but it was perhaps one of the most egregious. One only needs to rewind to some of the comments made by certain congress critters to understand this. When congressmen are getting 300 emails against a bill to every email for the same bill and they still vote for it, what could be more undemocratic? When the sitting Speaker of the House makes the claim that she knows better than her constituents what's good for them and how to best spend their money, could she make a statement that shows more disdain and disregard for the people she is supposed to serve?

In the case of the bailouts, the benefit to the ruling elite is obvious to some. The banks, with their trillions, can afford to donate quite a bit of money to campaigns of politicians. They can afford to pay for lobbyists and (dare I say it?) bribe elected officials. When they got into trouble because they had decided to loan money to people who eventually couldn't pay it back, they did not take responsibility for their mistakes, they chose to use the force of government to rectify their misguided decisions and to ensure that their wealth would not be lost. The people instantly understood that this meant they and their progeny would be paying for the mistakes of a few through taxation, and the vast majority of the populace used the system of representative democracy to voice their opposition to such an action. The people could not have been any clearer that they did not want these bailouts to take place. Still, that kind of democracy was not recognized by the political elite and they went ahead with their plans, using the claim of trying to prevent economic collapse to excuse their inexcusable ignorance.

It seems to me that perhaps this disregard for the will of the people was at least partially responsible for the election wins of many of the Democrats in the 2008 federal elections. Let us not forget that Mr. Bush's administration was responsible for starting what would become a very unpopular war and for bullying the congress into passing some extremely unconstitutional legislation. The Democrats took power at least in part as a protest to unpopular policies such as the Iraq war, torture and secret prisons, and support for laws like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions act. People have shown that they would prefer to keep their freedoms rather than give in to allow government to run roughshod over their rights for the illusion of security. But it doesn't matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power. The government doesn't listen to the people. It would not serve the interests of the political elite to do so. Instead, they do what they want and as they feel they must in order to control the masses and keep their secrets hidden.

The Obama administration is not going to reverse any of the harm done by the Bush administration. That would mean relinquishing some of their power. Instead of bowing to the will of the majority and focusing on dismantling the mechanisms that have made the executive branch of the federal government far too powerful, and that power far too easy to abuse, the Obama administration has decided to focus on centralizing power even more, putting real power into the hands of fewer and fewer people. This will certainly make it easier for the powerful who pay for the federal government to control it.

Bailing out the banks wasn't enough. With the blessings of this new administration and despite popular opposition, the few who make the laws decided to bail out the auto industry. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they purchased as much of the industry as they could so that its loses would be shouldered by this nation's common folks rather than the wealthy elite who would have otherwise bore that burden. Unlike the majority who seem to understand that a private business succeeds or fails as dictated by the market and the will of the people to purchase the goods or services offered, the wealthy elite believes itself to be too big to fail and uses the force of government and stolen tax money that should not be available to them to ensure that competitive entrepreneurs will not be able to bring their innovations to market. This is how the economy stagnates.

The most recent folly of the undemocratic government we have been saddled with is the “Cap and Trade” regulation recently passed in the House of Representatives, albeit by a razor thin margin. Again, an unpopular piece of legislation has been passed because a working democratic process would not be good for the interests of the ruling elite. The people of this nation, for the most part, understand that this legislation is nothing more than a tax increase disguised as an ecological “feel good” measure. The trust in the federal government is quickly disappearing as more and more of these tomes of laws are imposed upon the American people. One can only hope that somehow the Senate shows some sign of sanity as the people continue to bombard their “representatives” with their opposition and concerns. There is still some hope as some senators are becoming nervous and beginning to realize that they cannot keep denying the people's will forever.

In the near future there will be a vote on health care reform. The people of this nation, in my opinion, have made it clear that they do not wish the government to be involved in health care. While the media and the political elite that use it for their propaganda rant and rail about how unaffordable health care is and how many people are without insurance, they do not discuss the positives of our health care system (such as choice and quality) nor do I hear much discussion about the true causes of the failings of this nation's health care system which have nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with the already heavily socialized institutions that have grown like cancers in this field of human endeavor. As I write this there is much debate in the halls of federal politics about another mega page piece of legislation involving health care and it looks as if it will have problems passing. Perhaps there is hope yet for the democratic process if the congress critters can finally decide to do the people's will in this matter and get out of health care altogether rather than doing what would be good for the political elite and passing legislation that would completely socialize medicine.

It is not enough to point out just the unpopular legislation that has been passed by congress. There is popular legislation out there that congress will not even consider. One of my personal favorite pieces of legislation is DownsizeDC.org's “Read the Bills Act.” This is a piece of legislation that would require congress to read all their bills aloud to a quorum and allow seven days where the law would be posted online to be reviewed by anyone interested and to allow time for those parties to contact their representatives to support or oppose the bill. In addition, the bill makes provisions that if a law is altered than the altered bill must again be read and posted with another seven day waiting period. What person could possibly find fault with such a bill? What are we paying these lawmakers for anyway, if they don't read and understand the bills they pass? I believe if a poll was conducted we would find that such a bill would be supported by a super majority of the common folk. Had such a law been the law of the land back in 2001 the tomes known as “The Patriot Act” and “The Military Commissions Act” would have never gotten to the floor. We would no longer have to worry about laws being so long and complicated and perhaps even contradicting themselves. Unfortunately, this law has yet to find a congressional representative brave enough to introduce it and it likely wouldn't pass because it is a law that constricts the power of the ruling elite instead of increasing it.

The last example I would like to discuss truly illustrates the total breakdown of our democratic system when it comes to the will of the people versus the will of the elite and just how powerful the ruling class really is. I am talking about Ron Paul's bill HR 1207, the “Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.” This is a simple bill that would not take long to read aloud in congress and would simply allow the GAO to completely audit the Fed. The last I heard there were 275 cosponsors to this bill. This means that not only would a majority of us common folk be in favor of such a bill, but so would a majority of our representatives. There is, however, one person that can prevent this bill from coming to the floor of the House for a vote. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has the power to do this. Since this bill will adversely effect some very powerful people, she has been hesitant to allow it to be voted on. This does not seem very democratic to me. One can only hope that the common folk can continue to exert enough political pressure on the powerful to get them to reconsider their positions.

I'm fairly certain that if this bill was thousands of pages long, a benefit to the powerful and detrimental to the common folk or their rights than the lawmakers would have voted it into law moments after it had been written. That seems to be the way modern democracy works. Its good to those who can afford to pay for it and their opinion is well represented, but if you are among the lower, middle or even some of the upper middle classes than your opinion matters little. This is not freedom, but a way of making sure that everyone knows their proper place in society. Bring Ron Paul's HR 1207 to vote and then audit the Fed. Perhaps then we will realize the depth of the corruption and do something to correct it. Perhaps then we will create a system where even the most common of the common can use the money he has as a vote by deciding for himself what services to pay for rather than being forced to pay for services provided by the federal government monopoly. Now that would be a democratic system I could get behind.

Spilling the Blood of the Peaceful

I’ve recently moved. As a result, I’ve been meeting new and interesting people. The more neighbors I meet, the more common folk I speak with, the more I realize that the vast majority of people realize and understand the principles upon which this country was built and that our government and governments around the world have subverted these principles. As a society, we have entrusted groups of people to uphold the values that made this a great and prosperous nation and slowly over the decades those values have been degraded. We have problems even defining what it means to be principled anymore. If we wish to live as peaceful and prosperous freemen, we should try to understand the motivations and mechanisms of those who wish to prevent us from realizing such a society.

A couple nights ago I got into a discussion with Kamyar, one of my new neighbors. I got to know him a little better. He explained to me that he was Persian (from Iran) and that he was a member of the Baha’i faith. I know next to nothing of the Baha’i faith, so I was curious about it. He told me it was a religion based on peace, much like many religions have claimed to be. He also explained to me that he had come to the United States of America back in the late seventies and that he was unable at the time to return to Iran for fear that he would be persecuted there because of his religion. At the time of the revolution in Iran, Baha’ists were being jailed and killed.

I, in turn, told Kamyar some of the things I have heard about the persecution of such groups as the Buddhists, the Falun Gong, and the Quakers back in colonial times. This conversation started me pondering, “Why is it that those in power have a tendency to crack down hard and bring violence upon otherwise peaceful people?”

It occurs to me that throughout history the human race has experienced this scenario time and again. It is particularly well documented in modern times, but persecutions of peaceful peoples have been occurring for millennia. Why should this be? I suppose it’s not so hard to understand when considering a warlike people attacking another people to steal their lands and natural resources and to enslave them. This is particularly true of ancient times when perhaps the natural world, and life itself, was a little harsher on mankind and survival a bit more uncertain and dependent upon forces outside man’s control. It is perhaps a little more complicated or difficult to understand when the peaceful elements inside a given society are violently targeted.

One explanation that certainly seems reasonable is that the peaceful people present an easy target for those in power. Indeed, when considering the similarities between the techniques of coercive authoritarians and schoolyard bullies, one can easily note that both have a tendency to pick on the weakest element they can find. They seemingly wish to bring harm to another, either to exercise some inhuman sadistic drive or to feed their own overbearing egos and solidify some needy superiority complex they may be feeling, while minimizing the risk that they may actually be harmed.

As intriguing and complete as the above explanation is, would it not be wise and prudent for one pondering these issues to consider other possible explanations? Perhaps there is more to these peaceful philosophies than meets the eye. Perhaps there is more to this esoteric practice of bringing violence upon the peaceful then fulfilling the psychological needs and the self gratification of a few powerful psychopaths. Perhaps these peaceful philosophies are a greater threat to the established powers than many may realize.

If one looks at philosophies revolving around the concept of peace, one might come to the conclusion that these philosophies are diametrically opposed to governing philosophies. Peaceful people, for the most part, just want to be left alone. While they might espouse their philosophy rather fervently, they can really only try to persuade others to embrace it. There is no threat they can carry out that would cause undo stress upon an individual to coerce them to follow a truly peaceful philosophy. If there were, or if the group tried to implement such actions, then the peaceful philosophy they espouse would not be a truly peaceful philosophy, at least not in practice.

Peaceful people, following peaceful principles, do not wish to exercise power over others. They do wish to make their own decisions about their own lives and how to go about living it, however. Governing philosophies, however, are quite a bit different. As George Washington so succinctly put it, “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” Those who would govern others believe in the use of force to do so. They believe that they must use force to cause others to embrace their philosophy. They do not wish to leave others alone to make their own decisions, but wish to control everyone’s life as much as possible and are forever trying to expand their influence and purview. Of course, the fact that by doing this those at the top of the heap can often enrich themselves serves as quite an incentive to those who wish to play with the fire that is government.

And so it is that these divergent philosophies often collide in a given society. A philosophy of peace will begin to gain support and recognition amongst the populace and the authoritarians in control become nervous or frightened as their legitimacy comes into question. Those in power know that their power comes from the bottom and works its way up. They know that if the base erodes their ability to threaten, coerce and use physical force against those they rule is weakened. They don’t wish for these ideas to spread amongst the masses and so they strike viciously at those who threatened not their physical form, but their perceived privileges. Those who would rule and praise the ideals of exercising power over others care nothing for equality, or laws, or justice, or righteousness, or principles when it comes to their own actions, they care only for the seductive high produced by the process of controlling one’s fellow human beings and by the privileges and benefits gained by such practices. They care so much for such things that they have no qualms in seducing others with lies and propaganda and then carrying out state sanctioned pogroms of imprisonment, torture and even murder of those who simply wish to be left alone. And so the blood of the peaceful is spilled while the violent authoritarians are protected not only by the state, but by the beliefs and principles of their victims, by the very philosophies they seek to destroy.

It is in this way those in power seek to influence the masses. Should those who espouse a philosophy of peace try to defend themselves, then it is likely they will be quickly portrayed as violent militants who are a threat not only to those in power, but to the peace loving society underneath them. The masses of the populace may see the carnage taking place and so become fearful of following such a peaceful philosophy. They may even take up arms against such a resistance in an effort to gain a portion of the benefits and privileges they see those in power enjoying. On the other hand, if those espousing a philosophy of peace refuse to become violent and stick to their principles even in the face of unjust state power levied against them, they will likely experience great suffering at the hands of the powerful, but the populace might just begin to recognize the inherent corruptibility of such power and turn away in disgust from those wielding it. They may even flock to the aid of those practicing such peaceful philosophies out of human decency and despite the dangers.

The philosophies of freedom and individual liberty are peaceful philosophies. Those who practice them wish only to be left alone. They do not wish to force their will upon others, but they do desire the freedom to be able to express themselves to those who would listen. They wish only to be able to practice personal responsibility for themselves and their families. They wish only to keep that which they have earned, to decide for themselves how to best spend their money or where it would be best to apply their efforts and wealth for the betterment of their community and the world. They seek only voluntary interactions between themselves, their friends and anyone they might do business with.

This is, of course, a threat to those who wish to maintain power over the populace. It is even more of a threat to those who wish to try to centralize power and keep it in the hands of the few. While self defense remains a human right, it should be used judiciously and it would be prudent to remember that those in power at the moment can easily twist the words and motives of those who defend themselves with violence and make them seem to be the aggressor. It is my hope that as this peaceful freedom movement grows those involved remain brave in the face of state violence and adhere to their principles without resorting to the cruel and inhumane methods used by the powerful. It is my hope that, especially in these modern times with all our video and communication technology, those who espouse the philosophies of freedom and individualism and practice peaceful civil disobedience will be able to finally show even the most indoctrinated statist the violence and inhumanity of the organization he supports and worships.

More American Injustice, the Ed and Elaine Brown Deception

I had the pleasure of being a guest on a radio show hosted in part by Elaine Brown. I found her to be intelligent and engaging. This was, of course, a couple of years ago, just before federal agents arrested the Browns for pointing out to all of us the inherent immorality of extorting money from honest folk.., I mean for tax evasion. In addition to being quite a gracious host, she struck me as being extremely intelligent, principled and peaceful. I very much enjoyed speaking with her.

Ms. Brown articulated quite well that she believed herself to be a free person and that she wanted to rid herself of the ties that bind us all to the behemoth known as the federal government. It is well known that she was protesting the way the federal government goes about its business and how their actions demonstrate that those in power have been elevated to the status of masters of the populace. Indeed, if people are not allowed to peacefully withhold their funding and withdraw their consent without fear of retribution, how are they supposed to voice their grievances and concerns in a meaningful way? From election fraud and improprieties, to wars and foreign entanglements, to using the money of the middle classes to bail out the elite and the unwillingness of the Senate to audit the Federal Reserve, time and again the voices of the people have been ignored when they have used the prescribed system set up by the governing bodies and the grievances expressed have not been redressed as supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

In October of 2007 the Browns were kidnapped from their home by federal agents. They then began serving their sentences in federal prisons for crimes they had been convicted of in absentia. These were victimless crimes as no fellow human was physically harmed and nobody’s property was stolen or damaged. Whether or not these so called crimes should even be considered crimes is the subject of much debate, although those in power would like us all to believe that this is not so. The Browns were sentenced to five years in prison because they had the audacity to question the system and attempt to do something about it. But this was not enough for the feds. They had to break the Browns’ spirits and try to squelch the message that the Browns were attempting to send to the masses.

Originally, Ed and Elaine Brown had planned on seeing their trial through. They had planned on using several different arguments in their defense. They had prepared many arguments meant to explain why they were doing what they were doing and why they had the right to take such actions. The judge in the case denied the Browns the ability to use any such defenses in their case. It was at this point that the Browns decided the system was rigged and that they had no other option but to step outside of the system and to withdraw their consent if their message was to be heard. Their crime wasn’t so much that they didn’t pay their taxes and that they didn’t show up to their appointed court date, it was that they dared to disobey, to question authority, and to stand up for their individual rights and to claim their freedom. This type of behavior very much frightens the federal authorities and when it occurs they feel the necessity to crack down exceptionally hard.

Last week the Browns were once again dragged into court and tried on different charges related more to the standoff that happened as a result of the government’s actions than to the original charges the Browns were arrested for. These charges were for such things as weapons violations and threatening or trying to intimidate federal agents. I’m not sure about anyone else, but to me federal agents, especially when gathered in large groups, are far more intimidating than an old retired gentleman holed up in his house. Yet the federal government felt they had to make an example of the Browns. They had to show the people who is in charge. They want you to know without a shadow of a doubt that if you disobey their dictates and refuse to go along with their demands, no matter your reasoning, no matter how much support you’ve garnered, no matter the constitutionality of your argument, you will be harshly punished. They are big, strong and possess the guns and power and you are weak, puny and insignificant. The most heinous of crimes in the eyes of those in power are the crimes of disobedience to the state and questioning their authority.

While it may be true that Ed Brown may have made some statements and accusations that seem a bit outlandish and threatening to some, it seems to me that he was only trying to express his desire to defend himself, his loved ones and his property. He did not actually harm anyone. He did not initiate any violence against any person or group of persons. He did not go out looking for trouble but merely stayed on his property and challenged the feds to come after him. Unfortunately, federal agents don’t take kindly to having their authority challenged and would rather risk their lives, the lives of their men and the lives of innocent people apprehending someone who has merely brought into question their legitimacy rather than just leaving well enough alone and allowing people to live as freemen and keep the fruits of their labor.

This latest trial was nothing but a show trial, an effort to show those who would try to protest taxes and their enslavement to the federal government that those in power mean business. The same kind of thing was happening in the eighteenth century when the British would arrest American colonists for similar victimless crimes and protests. The Browns were assigned lawyers that are beholden to the system, as all lawyers are. They have no money to hire their own because the government took it all. Even if they did, how can anyone expect to get a fair trial challenging the authority of the government when everyone involved with the justice system has a vested interest in making certain the government’s veneer of legitimacy is maintained?

Those involved with prosecuting the Browns have tried to paint them as dangerous. I don’t believe that Elaine Brown was a danger to anyone and the only people who Ed Brown may have been dangerous to are the ones who threatened him in the first place. The federal government’s legitimacy is crumbling. They have stepped far outside their mandates and pried themselves into the business of the people where they don’t belong. They have stepped outside the bounds of their constitutional authority, to the point which some have even started to question the legitimacy of that document in terms of human freedom. The courts may be able to bully individuals like the Browns and silence them, but there are many questions left unanswered and many grievances that have yet to be redressed. Sooner or later, these concerns must be addressed by those who wish to exert control over the masses as the inherent intrusions upon our freedoms created by these issues become more obvious for any thoughtful human to see. Throwing people in prison for tax violations is not a proper reaction to a request for clarification.

The courts in this nation were supposed to be set up to protect the individual from the powerful. It has not worked out that way. It seems to me that the courts have become more interested in supporting the state than defending individuals against it. Cases like this one where the Browns question the legitimacy of the income tax should be seen as an opportunity to forge new frontiers into issues concerning individual freedom. Instead they uphold practices that laud state power over the individual and a system that reflects more a collectivist mindset than that of an individualist, or a voluntary type society envisioned by this nation’s founding fathers. One can only hope that such cases help bring these issues to light regardless of how the state would like to keep us in the dark over such matters.

A Slave By Any Other Name Would Still Be Owned

Do you believe you own yourself? If so, you may come to believe differently by the time you’re done reading this article. If not, do you believe you ought to own yourself? These are fundamental questions that many have pondered over the millennia. They are basic to the principles of liberty.

I happen to believe I own my own body. I happen to believe that my thoughts are mine to contain, conceal, express or disseminate as I see fit. I believe that the knowledge I’ve obtained through my life’s experiences, education and observations is mine to apply in any way that benefits myself or others and that any compensation others may give me for such an application of knowledge is well earned and mine to keep. I believe that the labor capabilities of my body are mine to sell to others as I see fit and that any compensation freely given or previously agreed upon for the products and/or services produced by said labor is also well earned and mine to keep. I believe that anything I pay for in full with compensation that has been well earned is mine to keep and any successful attempt to forcefully or stealthily remove it from my possession should be considered theft. I believe that the concepts outlined above should be considered basic private property rights that all humans should enjoy and everyone should give respect to others in regards to those rights as they would expect others to do for them.

If you happen to believe the above statements as I do, then it will probably come as no surprise that there are many who don’t believe as we do. Indeed, there are many who believe that they own us. There are many who believe they own the things we may consider are rightfully ours. Not only do they feel this way, but they have created a reality that better reflects their point of view than ours. These people are best known as government officials and bureaucrats, but some would argue that there are secret and not so secret moneyed and special interests that will also make the claim of their ownership of humanity. These people will likely do anything to make certain that their belief system is upheld and strengthened and make sure ours is never realized.

It could be and has been argued that these people do, in fact, own you. If you don’t believe that, just try not paying your taxes and see what happens. They will eventually send men with guns to your door and throw you in a prison cell if you try to exert your freedom and make the claim that you have the right to keep the fruits of your own labor. They will prove that they own you. They will claim that you owe them a portion of your labor for services they provide, even if you don’t use their services, even though they hold a monopoly on certain services, and even if you might find some services offered abhorrent. This happens because most people allow it to happen. Most people just grumble as they accept their fate and pay to keep the wolves from the door. They suffer in silence and do nothing because they have the perception that nothing can be done.

Not only do these people own you, they own your progeny. They have taken money they do not have and given it to their elite friends with the promise that future generations will pay with their taxes. They use the promise of easy money to enslave and they use fear of the mindless enforcers and obedient courts to prevent the masses from so much as questioning their legitimacy. They have used the media to build an illusion that they are invulnerable and so the individual’s spirit gives up. They use public schools to indoctrinate the youth so the system perpetuates itself. They own you, and your children, body, mind and soul; lock, stock and barrel.

At one time, perhaps this wasn’t so bad. At one time, perhaps when I was younger, perhaps before I was born, government was at least responsive to the people. We were prospering and so it seemed to many that giving a small portion of our wealth to Washington DC and the rich political elite wasn’t such a bad thing. Oh, there were things going on that people didn’t like, there were protests and the like, but those in charge seemed to pay attention to the people. At least there was still some amount of freedom in this country. At least there was representation of the common folk. At least there were free markets and the government stayed out of our business for the most part. Well, maybe not, but it seems to me that government has gotten a hell of a lot more blatant about the fact that they own you lately and have been turning a deaf ear to the demands of the people more than ever over the past couple of decades.

Now government and their corporate cronies wish to put the final screws to you. Now they want to remove what little semblance of freedom you may perceive you have left. They moved quickly to bailout the banking elite despite more calls and emails from their constituents against such measures than any other bill has ever generated. They moved just as quickly to bailout and in essence take over auto manufacturers over the objections of the tax payers whose money they were spending. They use the excuse that they are trying to save the economy, but the common folk are the economy. They have proven their disdain for the ordinary citizen. They don’t care what you have to say or what you think because they consider you a slave. They are not saving the economy, they are saving their ability to control it, and their positions as masters.

Still, this is not enough for them. Still, the power brokers in congress wish to extend their reach into every man’s life. Last Friday the congress voted to impose a huge cap and trade bill upon the populace of these United States of America despite popular opposition to the bill. This is yet another massive bill that has not been read by the majority of congress members, if indeed it was read in its entirety by any of them. This bill is yet another government intrusion into the free market. It’s just another tax scheme passed under the guise of trying to “save” the environment. It’s funny how congress is forever trying to “save” something by spending our money. It will increase energy prices. It will increase the amount of taxes you pay, albeit in a less obvious way than increasing your income taxes. The common man, as always, will pay for this legislation, not the wealthy elite who can afford to pay off congressional members. Once again, the political elites manage to solidify their positions as masters.

Do not think for a moment that this government apparatus will stop there. For some time now there has been chatter prevalent amongst the political class that will increase the servitude quotient of significant segments of the population. With the new regulations that are being suggested in health care, doctors will quickly become some of the most slavish people in our society. They will not be able to charge (or not charge) for their services as they see fit, but will be paid as mandated by government decree. As a result, the consumer will lose options he currently has. Doctors will not be allowed to offer certain medical services unless those services are okayed by a governmental medical bureaucracy. Doctors will be under the watchful eye of Big Brother and will have to document all procedures carefully and be sure to remain within bureaucratic guidelines or they may lose their ability to legally practice medicine. They will be forced to service even those who may not require medical services and they will be forced to accept whatever compensation the government deems appropriate, not what the law of supply and demand, nor even the individual doctor’s capacity for human compassion, determines is appropriate.

Doctors are already over regulated. They already have too much oversight by the few health insurance companies that remain in business. Many doctors have been retiring early because of these conditions. In many places there is a shortage of doctors and those who remain in business are overworked. Further government regulation will only make the problems worse. Who would want to be a doctor if it means you become enslaved to government mandates?

Those in favor of more government regulation in health care seem to believe they should be able to determine compensation for the application of the doctor’s knowledge. They think they should be able to determine how to apply that knowledge to best benefit others. They seem to believe that they are best able to determine the labor capabilities of doctors. They will argue that everyone has the “right” to health care without realizing that saying such is tantamount to claiming someone has the “right” to force another human to provide services simply because that other human obtained a bit of knowledge. If they can do this to doctors, it won’t be long until they will try to force everyone to provide labor at compensation levels determined by government mandate.

Indeed, further down the road we can see what is being called “national service” coming into vogue. For now such a system is being set up to be voluntary, but one can imagine that making it mandatory is just around the corner. Already there is talk of creating such coercive measures as not allowing children to graduate high school unless they “volunteer.” It has also been suggested that the carrot of money for college be offered to those who take part in this system. It is not volunteering if you are compensated. Mandatory service of any kind, national or otherwise, for any period of time, is just indentured servitude. I would have thought that by the twenty first century mankind would have gotten past such measures.

It is time we started living once again as freemen. It is time we started calling a spade a spade and to stop pretending that we own our bodies, out labor or our knowledge when in fact we don’t. In order to live as freemen, we need to act like freemen. We need to show that we are not afraid of the whip. The political elite in this country has shown that they don’t care what we think. They have shown they will spend our money as they see fit, so why should we continue to pay taxes and why do we continue to let them print money and keep us indebted? As long as we pay and allow them to print money, they will remain our masters.

Dissidents, Hate Speech, Free Speech and Propaganda

I saw Glenn Beck the other day talking about the shooting at the holocaust memorial. On this particular program he wasn’t so much reporting the facts of the case as he was regaling us with his opinion. It appears as if this man James von Brunn has set a tempest upon us with his despicable action. One man kills another and mainstream media personalities are suddenly condemning entire groups of people numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not the millions. One crazy, paranoid, violent old man, perhaps suffering from who knows what kind of brain disorder, takes it upon himself to murder someone in cold blood and suddenly he is not responsible, but shadowy groups of hate mongers must have been pulling his strings? One tragic incident and suddenly I’m hearing rumblings that one of humankind’s most cherished birthrights needs to be monitored by those in power, thus tarnishing the memory of thousands who died in defense of such rights.

Mr. Beck made a statement something to the effect that he felt “9/11 truthers” were dangerous, potentially violent people. He’s been saying things like that for some time. James von Brunn is a racist, angry, violent man whose actions may be judged as that of a madman. Mr. Beck used that man’s individual actions as an excuse to condemn many who are nothing more than peaceful activists or those trying to express a point of view that may seem unacceptable to the majority. Any affiliations James von Brunn may have had, be they with the 9/11 truth movement or with some kind of white supremacist organization, are incidental. Just because he went out and decided to initiate violence against others doesn’t mean that everyone else in all the organizations he was affiliated with are going to go out and start doing the same.

Glenn Beck isn’t the only voice raised against so called hate groups after this incident. I’ve read many a commentary calling for laws making hate speech illegal. All these commentators seem to believe that if people spewing forth hateful rhetoric were forced to remain silent by threat of fines, imprisonment and even violence then hate crimes would no longer occur. They seem to want to put the blame not on the individual who carried out a despicable action, but on people he never met who he happens to agree with on certain issues. These people who want to subvert the right to free speech by outlawing hate speech have missed the point on why the right to free speech needs to be honored and preserved no matter how hateful, vile or disgusting that speech may be.

On the surface, hate speech laws might seem like a good idea to many, maybe even to a majority of people. In fact, I would say the vast majority of people don’t want to hear someone spewing hatred and would disagree with what was being said. There are, however, some things many people might not have considered. First, unpopular speech is the very speech that needs protecting, for speech that most people agree with is in no danger of being censored. Second, who is going to decide what constitutes hate speech? I can tell you this, it doubt very much it will be you or me.

People in power would be the ones determining what constitutes hate speech. People in power are people with agendas. People in power are people who have a tendency to want to take care of their own interests and the interests of their friends and supporters first and consider what’s best for the general populace second. There is often found, on close examination, conflicts of interest between legislation being considered and the interests of those who would vote on that legislation. People in power are people who have biases. In short, people in power are fallible human beings who can make mistakes and do the wrong thing, knowingly or unknowingly, just like anybody else. Perhaps more importantly, people in power today may not be in power tomorrow. The best policy, in my humble opinion, would be the policy of I won’t censor what you have to say and you don’t censor what I have to say.

I suspect that if a hate speech law were to go into effect, it would not be long until dissenters would be imprisoned for speaking out against government policy. In fact, it seems to me this is already happening. The recent articles I’ve written about imprisoning journalists are examples of government curtailing free speech. A law prohibiting hate speech, or any kind of speech for that matter, is just another step toward legitimizing the attempts to silence criticism of government, for it is government personnel who would be determining what hate speech was and it is not hard to imagine that they would soon consider legitimate criticism as hate speech.

One does not even have to dig very deep or look very hard to see how easily such a law could be abused. A good example would be the disturbing thoughts and words of Glenn Beck. He has not hidden his hatred for the 9/11 truth movement. He has made accusations against them that in my opinion are unfair and unfounded. He has called them crazy and dangerous and yet I have never heard these groups officially advocate violence, nor have a seen it reported that they have. Perhaps some individuals who claim affiliation with these groups may have made some questionable comments or threats, I don’t know. If so, then those particular individuals should be chastised, exposed and held responsible for their words and actions. I am fairly certain, however, judging from comments he’s made, that if Glenn Beck could have his way he’d throw anyone that questions the official story of 9/11 in prison just for their beliefs.

It seems to me that many of the people involved with the 9/11 truth movement simply want a valid investigation into the incident. I don’t blame them considering the make up of the 9/11 commission that undertook that investigation nearly a year after the incident. They seem to me to simply want unbiased answers to questions that fester to this day. It seems to me that they are only asking for justice concerning a crime for which perhaps the wrong people were punished. It’s too bad that Mr. Beck seems to have developed a personal grudge against this group of people, which includes a large swath of the population, but he should know better than to condemn an entire group because of his perception of a few of them.

Mr. Beck has accused “9/11 truthers,” along with white supremacists, of wanting to destroy the country. He has unfairly equated in a very subtle way people questioning the official 9/11 explanation with racists. This is a card that has been overused and abused by far too many powerful people in the media. In the same breath he condemns people who may want to see certain elements in the government prosecuted for crimes they may have committed with wanting to destroy the country. It seems to me that Mr. Beck is far too caught up in group think to be considered libertarian, as he likes to call himself.

The last thing that perhaps Mr. Beck hasn’t considered is that he himself may be engaging in hate speech, or that at least his words could be construed as hate speech. Other media personalities calling for the enactment of hate speech laws are just as guilty of not considering this. If the “9/11 truthers,” or the white supremacists, or some group sympathetic to them were to gain power, they could conceivably use these same hate speech laws so many are clamoring for against the very people who want them enacted. Can you see how slippery the slope is here? Can you tell how easily laws such as this can be abused? One need look no farther back in history than the last election to see how power changes hands and laws abused by one group of people can be quickly used against that same group when the tables are turned. The real purpose of hate speech laws would not be to stop hate crimes from occurring, it would be to stifle dissent.

Finally, Mr. Beck expressed his fear that he felt there was going to be a witch hunt. I agree with him on that point, but unlike him I don’t think the witch hunters are going to go after Jews and conservatives. Witch hunts are started by people in power with an agenda, not by marginalized individuals spewing hatred. I think that perhaps he is trying to start and spur on a witch hunt of his own against people in the 9/11 truth movement and perhaps other dissenters who may have differing ideas than his of what is truth, how to try to make people aware of their point of view, and how to go about trying to bring change to our broken system. If history is any indication, then if ever a real witch hunt does take place in this nation, it will likely be one launched by the government, it will likely be used to snuff out those trying to expose a truth that some power does not want known, and likely powerful media outlets will help it along by spreading misinformation and propaganda.

Free speech is an ideal that should not be compromised. Do not let those who oppose it fool you into believing that they are trying to produce a more secure society. A government that can imprison people with impunity for one form of speech, can imprison people with impunity for any form of speech.