Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Juegos políticos: la estratagema de Tom Pérez

December 6, 2017

¡El presidente del Comité Nacional Demócrata, Tom Pérez, está jugando el juego de la política engañosa y haciendo que los votantes de Alabama vean las cosas!

Yo predigo que si Doug Jones, el Demócrata, gana esa elección especial, no escuchará ni una pía más sobre otros demócratas con asientos seguros que “renuncian”, ¡incluso si Al Franken finalmente lo hace! Los demócratas no se centran en nada más que en seguir siendo un partido político viable. Están leyendo las hojas de té, ya que su base está empezando a ver la luz y aumenta el desgaste en los concursos de 2018. Por lo tanto, veo sus llamadas de indignación como no de sinceridad sino de estrategia. No se ocuparán de expulsar a “los suyos” en distritos y estados que sean “seguros”. ¿Por qué deberían ellos? ¡Tampoco oirás ni verás a los Demócratas continuar limpiando la clase de donantes de los moralmente desagradables personajes y globalistas de su propio partido!

Están jugando la “Carta justa” ahora solo para la carrera de Alabama para incitar a todos los cristianos y aquellos con “moral” a votar por Doug Jones o quedarse en casa y no votar. Esto da a un votante neutralizado la opción de reclamar un “terreno elevado” nebuloso al decir: “¡No me culpen, hice lo que me dijo y no votó por Moore!”

¡Esta es una de las tácticas más antiguas de la política! “Haz que las fuerzas de tu oponente no voten”. ¡Para neutralizarlos, para desmotivarlos por cualquier medio necesario! “Esta es una guerra masiva de propaganda y contra-trabajo y una distracción de primer orden.

¿No debería esperarse que todos los representantes elegidos, ya sea en la Cámara o en el Senado, voten de acuerdo con la Constitución? ¿No hacen un juramento para hacer exactamente eso y solo? Por supuesto, debe considerar otros factores en su decisión, pero es muy poco probable que un representante que vota claramente de conformidad con la Constitución sea un poco de alcohol, mujeriego, droga -pullido, Califato promocionando ateo que trafica en kiddy-porn!

Personalmente, no me importa si el representante es homosexual, femenino, negro, asiático o marrón. No me importa si son feos, gordos, flacos o altos, con las melenas o el cabello anaranjado. Realmente no me importa si prefiere relajarse en sus “horas libres” fumando un porro y escuchando música hillbilly.

La diferencia que hace la diferencia es cómo votan en la legislación. ¿Están haciendo su trabajo, como una extensión de sus Juramentos?

La restauración de esta república se basa únicamente en los votos emitidos en el Congreso que son consistentes con la Constitución – ¡punto! ¡Por favor, corríjame si estoy equivocado! ¿Dime cómo elegir a Doug Jones (un verdadero clon de Hillary Clinton) es una opción superior a los votos que probablemente emitirá Roy Moore?

Advertisements

Political Games: The Tom Perez Ploy

December 6, 2017

Democratic National Committee Chairman, Tom Perez, is playing the game of deceitful politics and pulling the wool over the eyes of Alabama voters!!!

I predict that if Doug Jones, the Democrat, wins that special election, you will not hear a peep more about other safe-seat Democrats “stepping down”, even if Al Franken eventually does!  Democrats are not focused on anything but remaining a viable political party.  They are reading the tea leaves as their base is beginning to see the light and attrition increases going into the 2018 contests.  So, I see their calls of outrage as not one of sincerity but one of strategy.  They will not concern themselves with ousting “their own” in districts and states that are “safe”.  Why should they?  Nor will you hear or see the Democrats continue to clean its own party’s donor class of morally unsavory characters and globalists!

They are playing the “Righteous Card” now solely for the Alabama race to goad all Christians and those with “morals” to either vote for Doug Jones or stay at home and not vote.  This gives a neutralized voter the option so claim some nebulous “high ground” by saying: “don’t blame me, I did as you said and didn’t vote for Moore!”

This is one of the oldest ploys in politics!!! “Get your opponent’s forces not to vote. To neutralize them, to demotivate them by whatever means necessary!” This is a massive con-job and propaganda war and a distraction of the highest order.

Shouldn’t every elected representative, in either the house or senate, be expected to vote according to the Constitution?   Do they not swear an Oath to do just that and that alone?Of course, you should consider other factors in your decision, but it is highly unlikely that a representative that clearly votes in accordance with the Constitution will be some alcoholic, womanizing, drug-peddling, Caliphate promoting atheist that traffics in kiddy-porn!

Personally, I don’t care one bit whether the representative is a homosexual, female, black, asian or brown. I don’t care if they are ugly, fat, skinny or tall, hair-lipped or has orange hair. I really don’t care if he prefers to relax in his “off-hours” by smoking a joint and listening to hillbilly music.

The difference that makes a difference is how they vote on legislation.  Are they doing their job, as an extension of their Oaths?

The restoration of this republic relies solely on the votes cast in Congress that are consistent with the Constitution – period!  Please correct me if I am wrong!  Tell me how electing a Doug Jones (a veritable Hillary Clinton clone) is a superior choice over the votes that will likely be cast by Roy Moore?

Is It Racism or SOMTINGEX?

November 24, 2017

In their closing segment, Crowder & Co. make some great points about how people rise or fall to “their” level around you by what you tolerate and the example you set. They are specifically talking about the statistics often cited on the topic of “today’s rape culture”, as it supposedly exists on U.S. college campuses.

We all have heard that birds of a feather flock together.  We are then taught, especially in relationships, that opposites attract. Both are components of and byproducts of human nature and survival instincts. They aren’t necessarily contradictory, but one of them, or some other significant decision drivers compel our greater natural tendency to live among those we do as well as where and with whom we do!  Let’s explore some possibilities.

Human behavior patterns are not something that government can dictate because these patterns are ingrained and are further learned and shaped by our human experience.
For instance, is it an indication that a society is racist when all the asians, blacks and whites live mostly in communities dominated by their respective races? No, not at all. It’s not proof of racism in each of the groups. When people are free, and sometimes even when they are not, they will still tend to feel more comfortable and secure in themselves if they hang around those most similar to them in several different ways. Race seems to be one of those natural determiners. Economics seems to be another. Education level seems to be another. This is why you will find “communities” of varying sizes that naturally segregate themselves into groups most similar across all three segments.

Poor people don’t live among rich people for fairly obvious reasons. When a poor person becomes rich, do they bulldoze their ghetto house and build a mansion in its place and remain among their former class? Not that I have observed anywhere on the planet!

Rich people of any race do not live among the poor people of their same race. Why?

Do those with higher education levels such as doctors, engineers and successful business owners live in communities of ignorant, unschooled or undisciplined people? Again, no! Not usually.  Does government force them to separate from their lower class brethren or is it a more natural tendency?

Do people of similar religious beliefs tend to congregate into communities of “similar” faiths? Again, yes! Is this because of “religionism”? [Religionism would be defined as “religious” racism or religious superiority if you prefer]  No, not necessarily.  That, it would seem, would be about intellectual comfort.

Why are there whole communities that have a higher than average makeup of “interracial couples”? Is this, again, more about safety and comfort than anything else?

Survival, safety and mental/intellectual comfort are the ruling motivators of our human actions. Not racism! Not snobbery! Not superiority!  Could these play a part? Yes, I think so.  How much do you think those considerations influence these patterns? Share your comments below!

The bottom line is fairly clear. When anyone can move away from bad behavior, unsafe and uncomfortable conditions, we generally do! This leads to “natural segregation” or if you prefer, natural “aggregation”. Even wealthy criminals don’t live among poor criminals, regardless of race. Monetary and intellectual factors seem to me to be the larger factors that fuel our steps to seek safer, more comfortable “surroundings”.  Not “racism”.

[Title clue: You might be too young to remember the marketing slogan: “Is it live, or is it MEMOREX?”  Back in the days of cassette tapes and reel to reels, just as in today’s products, companies sought to “stand out” and push their “superior” product line to increase market share. SOMTINGEX translates to “SomethingElse”]

Political Correctness Produces Pusillanimous People

December 30, 2016

Perhaps the more reasonable among us can deal with the exengencies of survival and the often useless emotional expressions while still moving forward.

I hope so!

Pusillanimous means exactly what you think it means. Decades of political correctness has produced people who can’t handle anything that challenges their vision of the world, makes them feel …

Source: Political Correctness Produces Pusillanimous People

2012 Factional Divisiveness Prevents US Restoration

May 18, 2016

June 29, 2012

 

If one thinks that the GOP leadership is the problem, the solution it seems, would be to replace them via the only means provided for within the law and their charter! It would require we solve the disconnect that seems to exist: ­ not enough numbers of educated and involved voters in the political process.

While we are all on the same side for smaller federal government, and generally smaller government everywhere, it is very clear that our numbers are both still too small and scattered. Our greatest virtue is our individualism but that also is at the root of our disunity and splintering. Think about the die­hard Libertarians, Christians who’d rather go with the Constitution Party, Independents who often refuse participation altogether, honest progressive types who support Ron Paul but again refuse to “become Republicans” and participate.

It looks to be too late in the game to nominate Dr. Paul in August, we should not abandon him or his advice to affect change within the GOP, not now, not ever!

With the greatest respect to all my brothers and sisters in this movement, each committed to their “jersey”, I offer the conclusion that our own divisions, sourced in petty differences and pride, is at the core of why we haven’t been more effective at winning the necessary primaries or dominating the GOP delegate process and completely taking over the GOP this election cycle. I blame the Libertarians the most, then many Democrats who agree with us on civil liberties and are against war and those “wars” not declared at all. Then you have those darn “independents” who hopelessly remain disengaged from any party. While many Libertarians did switch their registrations to Republican, not enough did! The same thing applies regarding the Dems. Same with the Constitution Party, etc, etc. If you will step back and do some real numbers, those who could have easily followed Dr. Paul’s recommendations early on but didn’t are just as much at fault for our present division. And here we sit arguing among ourselves over “where do we go from here”? Yes, it is frustrating.

The greatest inherent challenge that men of principle have is their ability to rally around a set of core principles, on which we can all agree, and leave the petty issues off the table for the sake of the greater common good. Realizing that war contains little good, opens the debt window wide, kills the youth of our nation, destroys buildings, property and lives of countless innocents and makes enemies out of many of our previous supporters, one would “rationally” expect a mass coalescing,  fleeing our respective affiliations, flooding the GOP with anti­war and anti­-undeclared war folks that the party leaders and platforms would have been completely replaced by virtue of sheer numbers. But that did not happen for reasons I have touched on but will not explain here.

Apart from the shallow minded troublemakers and deliberate shills for collectivism, who insist on petty divisiveness, we have much to be thankful for! Our numbers are growing in all areas and the general population is far more responsive to our message than we might think. There are expanding numbers of blacks that are vocally on our side and breaking from the “Uncle Tom” labels hurled at them. Great strides have been make in taking the GOP back to its traditional views and constitutional stances.

The assessment of our present position regarding the movement as a whole is not altogether a bad one. Progress is being made beyond the choir here. The quite literally hundreds of thousands of liberty minded people around the world active on the internet is having a positive impact. Though our numbers are still too few, our victories under the radar, our forces still too divided and lacking funding… we are gaining on the “rascals”!

That should encourage all of us to continue educating and for all informed voters to participate in the political process. Question: Would I like to see all the aforementioned persons totally abandon their “jersey” for 10 years and flood the GOP with our “troops”?

Yes! But that won’t happen due largely to pride.

The Mysterious Results of Liberal Policies.

October 5, 2015

Source: The Mysterious Results of Liberal Policies.

Los Angeles Gun “Buyback” An Epic Fail

December 27, 2012

Los Angeles Mayor’s Gun “Buyback” An Epic Fail

12/27/12
By: Gary Hardee

Original CBS story: here

Anyone who has been observing the political left since the 1970’s is not surprised in the slightest at the predictable knee-jerk response to the recent high profile tragedies at Sandy Hook Elementary School and the Aurora, Colorado theater.

The well entrenched minority of international collectivist elites will stop at nothing to deprive their targets of the means to resist them. “Useful idiots”, as the communists call them, are abundant. Let any crisis, real or imagined, occur and the pressure from above begins and the cannon fodder masses, feelings close in tow, bow in unison to calls that defy history’s lessons and surge headlong into the lion’s teeth.

In this CBS propaganda piece, such conclusions are easily reached. We see no attempt to balance the sympathetic actions, though rewarded with money for guns, with hard facts about the clear disconnect with crime statistics and the massive number of guns in the hands of the public at large. Instead, we see a most tortured rant against guns and the over glorified and totally ineffective childish turning in of guns for cash.

If 2,500 guns are expected to be “turned in” in this drive and 8,000 guns since 2009 have been turned in, that makes a total of 10,500 guns. Assuming only one gun per person is turned in out of at city with a population of 3,819,702 – the participation rate in this “most successful drive ever” is .002748, or a non-participation rate over 3 years of 99.997251 percent of the city’s population.  Good for you Los Angeles. Your intelligence is not given any credit by CBS or the Mayor of your city.

According to a Gallop Politics article from October 2011, 47% of adult Americans own a firearm. Admittedly, these figures are not exact, but if just 20% of L.A. adults own one gun, that’s 1,963,940 guns in the city.

10,500 guns is only 1/2 of 1 percent of the total. This media piece makes it sound like the 33% reduction in crime from 2009 to date is due to the gun buyback program involving just 8,000 guns. If just turning in 8,000 guns has resulted in a 33% reduction in violent crime then with just another 16,000 turned in it would eliminate the other 67% of violent crime in L.A. It is the gun grabbers that are making the firm connection so one must surmise they are blaming just 8,000 guns for previous higher rate in violent crimes. How does one honestly connect those 8,000 guns, not now in the hands of the citizens, with a reduction in violent crime unless it was those very guns that committed the crimes?

A non-thinking person is lead therefore to conclude that just 24,000 guns are responsible for all violent crime there. If this were true, why call for the disarming of the 99% of guns that are not responsible for crime? It is also mathematically and statistically insane to conclude that zero violent crime will only occur if all guns are banned and confiscated when by their own implied logic only 24,000 guns cover all violent crime.

The more you slice the media hype the more ridiculous their claims become.

What percentage of L.A.’s violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, parolees, early parolees, or the criminally bent gangs or gangbangers? Nothing is said about the number of would-be violent acts that are thwarted by a citizen with a gun or what will likely happen when only the unstable and criminally inclined have them.

The second amendment’s purpose is to preserve a “free state” against all enemies, foreign and domestic, against tyrannical agents and authoritarianism emanating from our own government. History shows that authoritarianism is best achieved with a disarmed citizenry.

The high degree of non-participation in this “buyback” scheme tells me the collectivist propaganda is largely falling on deaf ears as it should. Just watch out for and defeat local, state and federal infringements that are surely forthcoming!

We all share great sympathy with the victims and their loved ones so maliciously deprived their young lives it still does not justify a course that will only leave more people even more defenseless. This is not good government or good policy, it is lunacy!

I too would like to live in a world free of crime and violence. Not all crime is violent and not all violence is criminal. But what we all know, understand and accept is that evil, unethical, and immoral actions will never be stopped, even in the most authoritarian system imaginable. Under such systems, crime does not cease, it becomes enshrined and emanates from those in power.

Considering the wide array of “criminal activity” that has befallen mankind, the real question becomes; When actual threats to your life, liberty or property come calling at your doorstep, what means of defense against the aggression should you be deprived of or denied by your own government through laws? What tools of aggression do you think the criminals will be denied because of those same laws?

It is unethical of me to deny you your preferred means of defense. Forcibly denying you makes me responsible for your full safety – an impossible task!

The best way to contain or eliminate all types of crime is the universal collective threat of a bullet between the eyes.

US Gun Statistics:  http://rense.com/general62/gns.htm

What’s This Talk About Secession?

December 16, 2012

12/16/2012
by: Gary Hardee

Some may wish to be a ward of the state, receiving from it gratefully the crumbs of what are their natural rights, bowing low to accommodate the will of the “collective” and yield to the pervasive “group think” that now haunts the thinking of our citizens… but where does it end?

Perhaps you are married “till death do us part”. Does that rule out a divorce from a totally out of control marriage that is clearly violating its foundational tenants? Why do laws allow for divorce in the face of that voluntary vow of monogamy and other expected normal functioning of a married loving couple?

Isn’t it funny how we apply situation ethics when we find the ends to our liking? Are there times when extreme irreconcilable conditions exist that justify ones public appeals for peace, harmony or justice?

We forbid involuntary servitude and rightfully object to taxation without representation but let one person get serious with their clear defiance to such treatment and threaten to divorce themselves from the oppression, harming the union, and they all of a sudden become the threat? Is there no relief for an injured and abused victim? Elections you say? Become a democracy you say? Let 51% rule the other 49% you say?

We can peacefully decent but not too much, right? How and why does loyalty and patriotism to your nation’s founding principles become widely viewed as insurrection?

“Separate but equal” is the often criticized term, wrongly accused of being rooted in racism when it is more clearly rooted in our own individual rights. Under our union of states we are and were meant to be separate but equal. “Equal” in the eyes of the federal government, is to show no favoritism to one state over another in adjudicating disputes between them. Yet they are sovereign, free to otherwise compete with one another, their people freely moving about in support of that state that most reflects our preferred conditions for happiness.

Is it not proper, that we can enter into a contract and it become null, if breached by the signers, and seek court enforced remunerations against the violating party? By this measure, is it not also proper that upon decades of merciless violations of the Constitution which they alone approved would seek relief as sovereign members from that union? When if not under such circumstances are states superior to that which they created? It defies logic that parties to a contract creating something cannot also de-create that something when it no longer serves the agreed upon best interests of the parties that created it, or as they say, “no longer functions as the founders intended”.  The concept of willful consensual participation in an atmosphere of unilateral and widespread abuse only goes so far. Redress of grievances was one of the reasons we declared independence from Great Britain.

So, while I am not at all in favor of secession or any dissolution of our republic, I am totally in favor of reviving the contract as it is written and amended “from time to time”.

The “republic” that Benjamin Franklin alluded to is too sadly remote from the knowledge and hearts of her people. The 17th amendment struck a horrible blow to that republic and has resulted in the erosion of the states’ voice in checking and balancing the easily fanned emotions of the people. We are suffering from its approval and will re-balance when it is repealed.

Even the great capitalist favoring business magazine (Forbes) would not remain in an oft violated contract with anyone without seeking firm relief and justice under repeated violations.

Injunctive relief is the larger motive behind recent calls for secession. While the citizens’ general knowledge of our union is severely lacking, it may compel the states to act, being one of the guardians and responsible parties to the pact.

As long as our states elected legislatures operate within the confines of their respective state constitutions and seek that injunctive relief through state calls, we may yet curtail and retract the unauthorized actions of the federal government that brought us to this stage. It is not to bring about harm by the secession calls, quite the contrary! Saying that the union will be harmed or damaged is to rule out the attainment of due relief and balance that more properly existed and heal the nation by again putting the horse in front of the cart. The people’s natural rights are the source of authority for the states, and with the states, are the higher authority of the federal government, and in that order.

May we accomplish the objective of re-balancing post-haste! Then and only then will be see a free nation produce to its potential.

Let’s Play the Loop Game Again, Shall We?

September 3, 2012

Join the political “Loop Liberation Movement”!

By: Gary Hardee
July 24, 2012

It is an irrefutable fact that Jimmy Carter filled his administration with members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission (CFR/TC).  It is they who are responsible for the failings of administrations in which they dominated.  Not understanding this group’s immense influence within administration after administration keeps you right where they want you; ignorant, programmed and obedient.

These organizations and their affiliated front groups are overwhelmingly internationalist in their mindset. They view our US Constitution as the greatest hurdle toward global governance, which they openly tout!

They are decidedly opposed to any of the aims of Presidential candidate Ron Paul. This is the entire reason the Establishment Insiders and their member/surrogates in the media beat him up, black him out and otherwise bash his ideas and proposals even while he, and almost he alone, has been accurate in his future predictions of 9/11 and the bursting of the housing bubble, among others, years ahead of their happening.  Do any Ron Paul detractors, who claim to be “conservatives”, disagree with my assessment of Jimmy Carter and his administration?

However, just as Jimmy complained about the “insiders” while campaigning: “The insiders have had their chance and have not delivered. We need new faces and new ideas.”, so too did Reagan! Wasn’t the outcome of electing Jimmy Carter just more of the same or worse? More CFR/TC members, more domestic regulations, more international sellout, giving away our Panama Canal, communists allowed to ravage central America and I could go on and on. With their members holding the highest positions within Carter’s Cabinet and throughout his administration, should we not hold them accountable or to blame for the outcomes? Did the “insiders” become outsiders or was it all a lie to deceive a gullible public?

Reagan, prior to the New Hampshire primary, condemned the TC by name and took New Hampshire by storm, 50% to Bush’s 23%. George H. W. Bush, was required to resign his CFR Directorship while running against Reagan or while “in public service”.  Bush was the Director of the CFR from 1977-1979 when he resigned.
See:  http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/appendix.html

As just one example of his super-internationalist views; the following is taken from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)
“A pivotal point came with Bush’s September 11, 1990 “Toward a New World Order” speech to a joint session of Congress. This time it was Bush, not Gorbachev, whose idealism was compared to Woodrow Wilson, and to Franklin D. Roosevelt at the creation of the UN.” Please note the date! 9/11/1990! Oddly, 11 years to the day prior to the 9/11/2001 WTC attacks. Now, that could be a coincidence I’ll admit, but it is very strange.

You see, many still yet do not understand or acknowledge who we are fighting against. You are the victim of what in the computing world is called a “repeating loop”, normally requiring “debugging” or correcting.  Every command line inside the loop is performed until it reaches a command to return to the first line and repeats itself over and over.  The interesting thing is that the output of the loop is different each time but only within a range of acceptable values set by the programmers within that loop. Just before the loop repeats, the names of the known “X”s and “Y”s are changed to “A”s and “B”s but the formulas and their outputs are the same.  Many being none-the-wiser are all too content to think that this loop is a wonderful example of our democratic two-party system in action. If so, you have become a captive of the loop!

Activists and supporters of the “liberty movement” are largely familiar with the “loop game” and are attempting to expose and change the command lines of the loop and break the loop all-together in time.  I have dubbed this effort the “Loop Liberation Movement”(LLM).

Education is the only thing that will expose the “loop game” and how the masses are trapped in it. To understand the current command lines and how the loop game is played, you must watch this video. When you have carefully watched it, please return with your comments. But until then, I must hold onto my hope that humans can still muster the character and willingness to learn things that they currently do not know or that they insist on denying at their own peril.

For this presentation in written form, click here: The Insiders!

Keeping it Real and Open – the Internet!

September 1, 2012

Like many of you around the world, I like the animating contest of freedom over the slavery of restrictions imposed on me by others. The lack of knowledge, even by the willful rejection of the truth, empowers enslavement ends. The ignorant and willfully ignorant are far more apt to swallow the deceptions of tricksters, con-artists, crooks, tyrants and collectivists.  “The truth shall set you free” is a well-known and accepted axiom, but for it to be fulfilled, it requires us to want truth and have the willingness to accept the transforming impact that comes along with it.

Restoring liberty will not be done from the top down but from the bottom up! Entrenched powers seldom want limits placed on them, but rather, more of the same.  Truth and knowledge breeds freedom, while deception and ignorance breeds tyranny – a tyranny that is sadly asked for by those who have allowed themselves to become dependent to the corrupting “system”.

Once you accept that evil men conspire to advance their personal agendas, that birds of a feather flock together and that those that want insulation from market competition will compromise most principles to have government do their dirty work, you begin to get a small sense of the long entrenched conspiratorial forces that must be vanquished. It is not an easy task, nor is it for the faint of heart. It will for now, likely cause you to lose more friends than gain them. Those you enlighten will forever express their thanks while others may become uncomfortable around you because they know they should be more active in opposing the evil you made them aware of.

To be a “dignitary” one should comport oneself in a dignified manner.  Desiring to assume and wield unauthorized power over the life and property of another makes man little short of a thief and con-artist, or a would-be tyrant.  Collectivists and would-be tyrants cannot qualify as being worthy of the title “dignitary”.

The people of Earth live in truly exciting, if not hard times.  A time in which, thanks mostly to the growing and widespread use of the internet, mankind is more able to communicate with each other. Therefore they are breaking from the old mediums of biased media, prominent collectivist think tanks and book publishers, entrenched left-wing college professors, and the most destructive of all – our national system of “public schools”.

What does inadequate, insufficient and deliberately withheld knowledge give to the solving of any problem?  Nothing! Ignorance contributes nothing to freedom, however, knowledge does.  Ignorant and free can never be.  If you don’t recognize the previous sentence as a famous saying – you may be ignorant.  Don’t feel bad, we are all ignorant (lack knowledge) in some area.  I am not condemning general ignorance but rather the widespread resistance to certain knowledge and vital truths.

Provided that the internet remains open and uncontrolled; a virtual information anarchy, a place where information is made available and shared openly, we will by osmosis learn to think and reason on our own and to throw off preposterous notions and deliberate propaganda. Frauds will be discovered and so will time-honored principles.  The internet’s openness, while chaotic, will be freedom’s salvation if man steps up to influence its destiny.  While “Net Neutrality” and other such schemes to limit or restrict the free flow of communications serve only tyrants, it is readily apparent that putting the technology “Jeanie” back in the bottle will be highly improbable.

I believe we are beginning to see the gradual rising tide of truth and therefore freedom, not just in the U.S. but in Europe and elsewhere. I believe that freedom will ultimately win, even as it exposes certain false “conservatives” of today. The individual will again be respected and contracts upheld. The occasional “dust storm”, while likely, will not be blinding.

The generally accepted concept that there are only two sides to an argument is beginning to be seriously challenged by this open information exchange.  People and belief systems are not as complex as one might think.  No one likes a thief.  No one likes a thug.  No one likes a murderer. We may disagree about what to do, but we are on the same side of the issue.

We know there are liberal-conservatives as well as conservative-liberals for instance. This is not news. What really is news is that because the internet allows for greater unregulated communication, both sides are starting to form alliances to fight for commonly held issues.  It’s not the answer but it is a start.

We know there are “anti-war” Republicans and Democrats that see no sense continuing to wage the “war on drugs” or other politically driven war.  We are discovering and bridging common ground and beginning to grow a backbone for resistance to certain collectivist and authoritarian policies and laws.  The growth of this much-needed “backbone” may be painfully slow, but does have the potential for rapid manifestation as enlightenment spreads.

Robert Welch said in 1958: “All we must find and use and build to win is a sufficient understanding, while there is still time”.  Many citizens, from the 50’s to the 80’s rang the alarm bells and provided resistance to communism, collectivism, fiat money, debt and deficits, globalism and the U.N.’s military goals.  I thank them and honor their sacrifices. Their efforts may not have fully awakened freedom from her “comatose” state but those dutiful citizens may have kept her alive long enough for the internet “defibrillator” of today to play its role.

Any individual, group, leader, agency or non-governmental agency, bureaucrat or politician that favors controls on the internet is not the friend of freedom.


%d bloggers like this: