The Untimely Death of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Meg McLain Can't Get Home

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

2. Ninety-four year-old stands for her patdown

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

3. A terminal cancer patient is forced to remove her adult diaper

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

4. Bladder cancer survivor humiliated and covered in urine

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

5. Oops, your breasts are exposed. Good thing we have video

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

6. Removing nipple rings with pliers

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

   7. 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."
      

   8. 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.
      

   9. 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.
      

   10. 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.
       

   11. 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.
       

   12. 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.