Oct 28, 2011

Fiat Currency and the Milkman

"This is my favorite family to deliver milk to..."

Imagine a milkman who, in delivering his normal route, notices a sudden increase in demand for milk.  Perhaps normal customers are asking for more supply, as well as potential new customers who would purchase this milk if it were available.  Unfortunately, the milkman only has the capacity to create X gallons of milk, and knows he is risks losing market share unless something is done to increase the supply of milk.

There are several courses which the milkman can pursue to satisfy this demand.  He could invest in more cows and/or more or higher quality equipment could be purchased to increase efficiency.  An arrangement can be made with another producer who has excess milk .  Or, unscrupulously, the milkman could dilute the milk with water to make more product.  Only the integrity of the milkman can dissuade him from the tantalizing prospect of more profit without real input.

Let's say the milkman does decide to dilute the milk to satisfy this increased demand.  If the milk is diluted to account for a 5-10% increase in demand, it is likely most customers will not notice.  However, a few are suspicious even at this point, as the human pallet is quite sensitive to differences in a known product.  This, of course, leads competitors to the market who produce undiluted milk.

In the face of this competition, the milkman has a few courses of action to satisfy the customers:  He can offer a lower market price for his diluted milk.  Buying more cows, efficiency, and contractual agreements with other producers could be applied, as before, to increase his supply of actual milk, thus allowing him to fill the demand without diminishing the product (or the market price) as much or at all.  Or, unscrupulously, the producer can attempt to force the competition from the marketplace altogether.

Let's say the milkman is able to seize the market, and become the only legal milk producer in the area.  Now, with 100% market share, the milkman is essentially able to dilute the supply ad infinitum.  The only recourse the consumer has now is to find an underground producer, produce the milk themselves, or illegally import milk from outside the area.  Those who place more value in having undiluted milk than the repercussions of buying illegal milk will do so- the level of diluiton will directly affect the number of consumers who choose to skirt or break the law.  These people will likely be mostly good, upstanding citizens when judged by any other standard.

There is, of course, only one place the milkman can go to make buying or selling other brands of milk illegal- to literally force other brands off of the market.   This is, of course, the State or one of it's tentacles- the arbiters of force in our society.  These inter-relationships are never without "justification"- usually preceded by some crisis or sudden public concern, and the inevitable slew of propaganda that comes from the State and it's sympathizers.

Seriously...why don't we just use these things?

This scenario parallels the story of money.  The banking cartel producing endless fiat currency is no different than the monopolistic milkman who will ultimately be driven to produce milk so thin you can read your emails through it.  When supply dries up, these producers will always be compelled to dilute- the latter uses liquid, the former "liquidity."  The loser is always the consumer, who incrementally experiences the undermining of the product- and can do nothing about it.

There is probably no issue that affects people on a day-to-day basis more than the integrity of the money they use.  The value of money is relevant in every monetary transaction- it determines how much labor people are willing to exchange per unit, as well as how many units one will exchange for a product or service.  Finally, the value of the currency affects savings, investment, and retirement- and how much products or services will cost in the future.  Clearly, a sound currency is crucial for anyone working, spending, or saving- i.e. everyone.

If we are to break ourselves of this cartel on money creation, we first have to face the fact that they are illegitimate counterfeiters and have no integrity.  We, of course, cannot forget the badge and the fancy suit behind the cartel- the State, which forces us to behave as if this cartel is legitimate through law.  To eliminate the monopoly enforced by the State in the market for money is, thus, allow consumers to choose which producer has the most scruples.

An effect of this awakening, and presumably a return to competition in the currency market, would be the ability for consumers to choose something other than the cartel's monopoly money.  If history is to repeat itself, precious metal commodity money will likely emerge as the currency of choice, namely gold.  People tend to choose gold because it's value can only be diminished when more actual substance is mined and minted.  Thus, runaway inflation due to endless fiat money is practically impossible in a constitutional gold and silver commodity money economic setting.

Also, because a finite amount of gold exists in the market at any given time, interest rates can only be moved by the actual activity of the market- i.e. spending and saving.  Because of this relationship, a gold currency can provide a real picture via the intrest rates of what the true market conditions are.  When the interest rates are relevant, a vivid indicator exists to signal investors as to what the risks the market presents.  For, interest rates are supposed to show investors whether or not there are significant savings in the market to back up a risk they are about to take.  This is a much more stable platform for a society to operate on than a cartel that manipulates interest rates at it's whim.

When interest rates are controlled by the central bank, investors are rendered blind to risk and prone to malinvestment.  Look at our society today- we have an extreme lack of savings and high debt.  But, the major complaint is a credit crunch!  With no savings to back it up the risk, investors should not be borrowing right now, they should be waiting for savings to build up support the projects they are considering.  Instead, we have a central bank who insists on keeping the rate of borrowing low, prodding the investors to back projects with no future.

It is no wonder that as we have seen more money flow toward these masterful failures, we have seen more antagonism from the general public.  They are the losers who have to suffer through currency devaluation, inferior products, and lost opportunity as the "experts" decide what is best for the rest of us.  Our masters may promise us utopia, but they ensure it for themselves.

A sound currency is the true hedge against central banking. While we can never live in a perfect world, we should at least be able to see it for what it is.  Just as our milk should be open to competition, so should be our currency.

The video below explores the issue: "What is money?"  The lecture is part of a series dealing with the money issue with subsequent lectures coming entitled "What is Constitutional Money?" and "What About Money Causes Economic Crisis?"  I cannot wait for these to come out, as the presenter is quite thorough in covering a subject critical for each of us to understand.

Oct 26, 2011

Happy Birthday Mom!

Today is my Mother's birthday, and I would like to thank her for providing a setting where I could always have an open mind.  In many ways this setting was the genesis for Liberty Study, and all of my previous and future pondering.  Thank you, Mom....and Happy Birthday!

Oct 25, 2011

Raw Milk Renegades

Milk comes from this.

Check out this press release  from the Weston A Price Foundation:


In response to the recent raids and armed assaults on our wonderful farmers, a group of raw milk activist has come together to create the Raw Milk Freedom Riders!  On November 1, a caravan of mothers will drive to Pennsylvania, legally acquire raw milk, and return to Maryland with our milk--to the FDA headquarters in Silver Spring-- where we will distribute raw milk to our families.

Now is YOUR opportunity to be one of the Raw Milk Freedom Riders!

We need a few more brave mothers who can ride in the caravan across state lines with raw milk.  There is some, though minimal, risk involved in this so please be willing to take some risk if you want this amazing opportunity to be in the caravan.

The caravan of mothers will include embedded reporters to broadcast what we are doing and why—to shed light on the FDA’s violent and failing policies.  We have also informed the FDA of our intentions and have invited them to the party.  Whether or not they show, it will be very interesting.

Food freedom heroes Joel Salatin, Kristin Canty, Max Kane, David Gumpert, Mark McAfee and many others dedicated to raw milk freedom and food freedom will join us for a rally and peaceful demonstration at the FDA headquarters.

We have asked the FDA repeatedly for dialogue.  They have refused.  Their only response is guns on our farms and economically destroying our farmers and buying clubs.  It is time to challenge them on the law that turns mothers into criminals for bringing raw milk home to their families if it involves crossing state lines.

If you are interested in being one of our freedom riders, please contact Liz Reitzig LizReitzig@gmail.com

We welcome EVERYONE to join us at the rally and make a HUGE statement to the FDA on our support for food freedom!  Any questions, please email FarmFoodFreedom@yahoo.com

It is so funny, I have been writing about the milkman for a few days now, and then this!

The FDA enforces regulations regarding pasteurization that effectively have rendered our milk nutritionally impotent.  This process destroys living enzymes which are key to absorption of nutrients, and preventing an allergic reaction from our bodies.  Why would the producers of milk do such a thing?

Working in a grocery store, I have gained a unique perspective about this subject.  We have two types of milk: pasteurized and ultra-pasteurized.  The "ultra" has a much longer shelf life (up to 1 1/2 months), so it is much preferred for a store who doesn't want product that is constantly expiring.  (The pasteurized milk we get can range anywhere from 1 1/2 weeks to 3 weeks.)

Pasteurization is preferred by the industry in general because the process allows a much greater room for error in the production process and eventually all the way to the store shelves.  The fact the product doesn't deliver to the consumer the essential vitamins and nutrients and makes some sick matters not!  For the industry, this fight is about protecting against loss due to spoilage.

The blunt tool used to force consumers to drink pasteurized milk legally or criminally consume raw milk, is the State.  Those standing up to protest this ridiculous rule are fighting for the simple ability to eat and drink whatever we choose.  At the same time, they are standing up for the right for small producers to market products to their customers.  The gallantry shown by these self-proclaimed "moms" for facing the State- in all of its consumer crushing, farm raiding glory  horror- is to be commended.

Good luck to them.

Raw Milk Freedom Riders

Oct 21, 2011

Robert Pape and the Doctrine of "Off-Shore Balancing"

This post is an analysis of the work of Dr. Robert Pape as seen in this video:

(Parts2-4 link from this video)

Dr. Pape gives a very persuasive presentation here that suicide terrorism is the result of one fundamental factor:  foreign occupation.  This is clear when looking at the data he presents- and I believe him when he says the database is quite substantial.  This data is merely a reflection of logic- it seems anyone taking a serious look at the what this policy inevitably entails- heavily armed foreign troops affecting daily life- would conclude it will result in a catastrophic increase in attacks on occupiers.  I think one only has to imagine Chinese troops in Kansas dictating and enforcing different laws, statutes, policies, etc. to get the picture...

The interesting aspect of this phenomenon is the suicide aspect.  Why do these people use suicide terror as the vehicle to carry out their sacred mission?  It cannot be said that "they are just kooky religious."  Pape addresses this- proving it has nothing to do with religion at all.

One cannot remove the suicide from suicide terrorism, just as the self cannot be negated when discussing "self immolation."  In fact, the two phenomena are ideologically parallel, except the former chooses to directly attack the perceived enemy when performing the final act whilst the latter chooses to harm no others.  Both suicides are likely driven by the same factor- outrage relating to outside control.

I found the data gathered vividly connected suicide terrorism to foreign occupation.  My contention with Dr. Pape arises in his analysis of the solution to this problem.  One first has to examine the presumption embedded within the policy that we have to protect "strategic interests and obligations."  Then, we will move on to the actual policy solution offered (and accepted) of "Off-Shore Balancing." (OSB)

Strategic Interests

"Strategic Interests" could be read as "Corporate Interests."  This has been well outlined in the John Perkins book, The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man  These concerns have absolutely no place in foreign policy of the government, as the funds needed to pursue these interests are extracted from the citizen- who has no profit in the enhancement of the select corporations who benefit from this welfare.


"Obligations" is a confusing term, as it can be read two ways- moral obligations or perhaps economic obligation.  

The moral obligation for intervention is rooted in the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism" which says we are really, really great and every one should be like us- if they are not, we will force them to!  This is at best a misguided fallacy, and at worst a facade to justify infinite horrors on the world.  Ironically, as we stumble further and further into domination, we undermine the "moral" value of the doctrine itself.

I also wonder if Dr. Pape was referring to a financial obligation when he said this.  He never clarified, but I could see that being a possibility-especially considering the debt crisis we are facing.  This, of course, relates to our "interests" referenced above.  If "outside forces" are allowed to use financial leverage to control policy (again, compelling citizens to support this), it would be tantamount to blackmail on a continual basis.  We are not obliged to this! 

Off-Shore Balancing (OSB)

Off-Shore Balancing (OSB) is, in short, a policy of removing the "troops on the ground" and instead using a combination of economic policy and so called "off-shore" tactics (such as air strikes) to create the conditions necessary to achieve our strategic interests and obligations.

OSB is fundamentally flawed in that it recognizes the frustration of a people who are unable to choose their destiny because an outside force is affecting their lives to such a drastic degree, but merely changes the mechanism through which the force is applied.  Certainly, this will reduce the suicide attacks on our troops who are currantly in other countries because they will simply no longer be there!  (Much like legalizing drugs would drastically reduce drug crime.)  However, these people are not just blowing themselves up because of foreign occupation, per se- it is the atrocities committed by the occupiers that moves these individuals to suicide terrorism.  What will happen when these radicalized people are affected with atrocities via off-shore balancing, yet have no "occupiers" to blow up?

The answer to this question is what people in this country should fear the most.  For, OSB will have the effect of inviting terrorists to attack us at home.  These attacks will be far fewer, but much more deadly-as they are directed by suicide terrorists willing to travel from far away.  These folks are not likely to go all that way to merely walk off the low diving board for an uneventful sploosh.  Rather, they will be doing a cannonball of the high dive trying their best to get everyone wet.  OSB is, thus, an immoral strategy as it shifts the target of terrorism from warriors to civilians and from far away countries to our own backyard.

Only when we embrace a policy of non-intervention can we truly achieve morality.  Debating the nuances of a policy of "on-shore" intervention vs. "off-shore intervention" misses the fundamental point- intervention leads to terrorism.  Ultimately, no foreign power can assert authority over a sovereign nation.  The degree of the response will vary depending upon how obtrusive the foreign intervention is, but since the late '70's the inevitable response is terrorism.  OSB would be back to the future- inviting another terrorist attack here at home whilst our defense forces are hopelessly entangled around the globe.  This is a disaster.

Although I am extremely critical of the analysis Dr. Pape draws from this research, I highly recommend you watch the video.  The research is very important, and we do indeed need to find the proper cause in order to find the proper remedy.  We ignore it at our peril.

Oct 18, 2011

Stunning Speech by Conscientious Objector David West

...And not some "namby pamby" type, either.  The army said he was tough enough for Ranger.  Watch as West discusses the dissolution he experiences as he moves from enlistment through actual combat and finally to the only moral position- Conscientious Objector:

I wanted to highlight my favorite parts of this speech:

@ 3:33
"(I began to wonder)...why most of our missions boiled down to the borderline door-to-door enforcement of draconian Iraqi gun laws.  How could I claim to believe in the right to keep and bear arms, while depriving another human being of that right?"

@ 7:37
"They offered me a job working in the mail room and promised I would never deploy if I accepted it- but I refused.  To me, discharge seemed the only logical choice for someone who was actually interested in his oath to defend freedom."

@ 8:41
"I've seen behind the curtain.  I know that Washington (D.C) and it's lackeys-the banksters and the military industrial complex- pose a greater threat to America than any illiterate, third-world tribesman with an AK-47 ever could."

@ 9:28
" I want to encourage everyone here to strive for a society forged not with the hammer of government- but through the voluntary cooperation of individuals.  A world ruled not by Machiavellian plans of an oligarchy, or the dictates of the masses- but by the idea that individuals are free and sovereign, and that we have the right to life, liberty, and property."

"So, before I leave, I would like to leave you with a piece of advice: #1- Never initiate the use of force- even when you think it will have a greater good...it won't.  #2- Live, think, and trade freely.  #3- A collective can never have more rights than the individuals that comprise it.  #4- ...Never compromise- not even in the face of Armageddon."

I can think of no better person to be labeled "conscientious" than David West.  He was more than ready to "defend freedom" through work in the military, but his experiences proved to suppress rather than elevate this ideal.  When he finally came fully to grips with this reality, West could no longer go on.

Unfortunately for West (and all the rest of us), the hawks in the Government have no conscience when it comes to war: they will sell it to the people as a "liberation" or "fighting for freedom."  Then, it will turn around and seize any and all freedoms possible- and, importantly, this means the freedoms of it's own citizens.  A state of war anywhere is certainly the most direct threat to liberty everywhere.

Thank you, David West, for your courage, honor, and sacrifice.

Oct 17, 2011

The Rule of Law and Civil Society

The recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, both US citizens, have set on the table for discussion the notion of the rule of law when it applies to terrorism.  The State has proclaimed if you are deemed a terrorist by the President, it can kill you.  This has come to the delight of the neo-cons and the scattered applause of the progs, but many in the political spectrum have called in to question the impact on the concept of the "Rule of Law."

The impact is nothing short of devastating:  Consider a game of basketball, where the referee starts to show obvious favoritism to one of the teams, allowing them to foul, travel out of bounds with the ball, and have six or seven players on the court at a time.  The other team is abiding by all of the rules we are accustomed to, and loses mightily!  What are we to expect the fans to do?  Would they allow such a flagrant disregard for the established rules of the game?  Certainly not...but how long until these same fans are getting searched from the ankle up under the guise of "preventing terrorism" like their NFL brothers and sisters?  Not long, I predict...

Are you at least going to take me out to dinner?

Predictable, also, was the State defending the executions and the subsequent effect on the "Rule of Law"  as "we got the bad men....I mean did you read their names?!"  This tribalistic "logic" has been used over and over to constantly change the way life is in America, and in also places that many have never seen on a map since high school!  The effect will be, of course, the same for the State as it was for the boy who cried "Wolf!"- the complete and total destruction of legitimacy.

It is never more important than in a time of war to preserve liberty- for wartime is when the citizens are most likely to let go of their rights to be patriotic (for the common good) and because they are terrorized (in case the enemy is among us.)  When the State is at war, liberty is most at risk.  However, when it comes to preserving rights- sacrifice should be sacrelige.

In contemporary society, the State is engaged in the "War on Terror."  Terrorism is a concept- not a person, not a nation.  When the war is "on" an idea, this is naturally a perpetual war, as ideas are bulletproof, and enemies of ideologues are endless.  The "War on Terror" will be as wildly successful as the 40-year "War on Drugs."  Unfortunately, the effects on civil society since 2001 have been much worse than the previous thirty years.  We have regressed from people having relative privacy and, if accused of a crime, a day in court to a society where you will be literally executed on the whims of the State.

The "Rule of Law" defines civilization.  Therefore, if the State is acting against the "Rule of Law," it's actions can only be characterized as "uncivilized."  This regressive path toward despotism leads to further dehumanization, enslavement, death.

Indeed, as the contemporary "model" State, the US, has ignored human dignity, caused unbelievable death and destruction, and buried its citizenry in debt that could never be repaid.  The concept of "American Exceptionalism" insists we never stop until all nations share our "values."  If these people are looking for "civilization," they had better look elsewhere.

Oct 8, 2011

What I'll be advocating

Wow!  Come to find out the Occupy movement has come to Wichita....I am really interested in checking this out...was going to go tonight, but it is raining and I only have the motorcycle at the moment...and I wrote my brilliant speech on a napkin...OK, enough excuses!  What I will advocate when I do make it out there is the following:

End the Fed.  People are in the streets; we are clearly at a crucial moment.  We are focused on the snake, when we have an actual chance to cut it's head off!  Without the central bank and fiat currency, the corporatocracy's engine of oppression is left without gas in the tank.  Also, no market intervention from the Fed means institutions that make bad decisions will no longer be bailed out by us- the taxpayer.

My proposition:  Nullification of the Federal Reserve Act at the State level, and revoking the Act at the Federal level.

1.  Draw up petitions to bring back to our communities.  All activists can participate.  These petitions will say I will not vote for you unless you draw up and/or support legislation that nullifies the Federal Reserve Act in Kansas.  All other issues are set aside.

2.  The same applies to legislators representing us in the House of Representatives or Senate.  Their job is to repeal the Act at the Federal level, either drawing up legislation as such or supporting such efforts, or no vote.

Knowing we stand behind the legislators will help them have courage to stand up to the powerful interests, and corporate money at that point becomes irrelevant.  If they fail to deliver, we will elect new representatives.  Fundamentally, this forms a political climate favorable to candidates who are not beholden to special interests- empowering them while simultaneously rendering big corporate influence meaningless.  We will be watching!

As another point of business, I would like to propose second idea:

Occupy Wichita Exodus...

...to Kansas City End the Fed protests in solidarity for this cause.  An exodus would be a symbolic shift away from the Occupy (your city here) strategy to an Occupy (your Fed Reserve Branch here) strategy.  This shift will focus the narrative on the head of the snake that is corporatism, with easily definable goals and historically precedented actions at our disposal.

At this point, it is unclear what may happen with the Occupy movement if it remains just an occupation.  I think the police in many smaller cities (and some of the larger cities) are being incredibly restrained.  This is a positive sign- this movement must remain peaceful.  Non-violence from our side of these protests is crucial to maintain moral authority.  Violence is their game- persuasion will be ours.

I know many are calling for an amendment to ban campaign contributions.  Here is the text from Get Money Out:

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

While the motivation behind such an action may be well intended, this amendment would eliminate the right for anyone to petition the government.  Under this scenario, an independently wealthy person would gain an unfair advantage over a candidate of more modest means, as the constituents cannot speak with their dollars as to which one will be the most beneficial. Further, making a monetary campaign contribution- directly or indirectly- is a federal crime at this point.  Can you imagine the multitude of ways indirect monetary contribution can be construed?  

Even if we supported the amendment, and it passed, why are we to believe the government will follow these dictates?  This is the same government that tramples upon the constitution and bill of rights on a daily basis- on both sides of the aisle.  

A solution that is a reduction of liberty makes no sense when we can affect a greater change and enhance liberty with a nullification/elimination of the Federal Reserve.

Oct 7, 2011

Get Money Out of Government

I agree completely...now let's get real!

An interesting theme has emerged from the recent "Occupy (insert place here)" events happening across the country right now.  It is "Get Money Out of Government!"  I submit the only path to liberty is by engaging upon this pursuit until there is not a dollar left in that wicked institution.  Many of the bourgeoisie would surely sigh at this notion, and I am sure the folks who put this together may need a fainting couch:

This is the problem:  The nationalistic, chicken-hawk, warmongering neocons insist on global domination; the anti-humanist posers for the poor proggers insist on a "safety net" that relies on coercion and fosters dependency.  Both have violated not only the "Golden Rule," but economic reality to the point we are as a society bankrupt morally and fiscally, and both use nationalistic fervor to legitimize their agendas.  Indeed, "American exceptionalism" is the most dangerous notion people in our society and certainly the people of the world have ever faced.

The major tool- the blunt instrument used to extract these fundamental moral and physical assets held by our society- is the State.  There is no way to force a stinky hippie to agree to war just as you will never convince some bible-thumper that giving a man a fish today will result in him doing anything other than expecting another handout tomorrow.  Without an institution that has perceived legitimacy and moral authority, there cannot exist the "bi-partisanship" that leads society into that inevitable compromise upon compromise we have all become so accustom to.

This institution in our current scenario is not government per se, rather a collusion of government and cartel central banking via the Federal Reserve.  The government alone could never tax enough or print enough money to pursue the various missions of the sociopaths, and avoids the hurdle of revolution by taking loans from the "untouchable" enabler.  This alliance is "the State" as we know it for the past century, an endowment of human oppression so vast as to boggle the mind.  

Oct 6, 2011

Excellent speech by Lew Rockwell

(Note: Sorry about the weird background on the text here!  Don't know how to fix it!)

I have recently started reading Lew Rockwell's book: Speaking of Liberty.  Absolutely awesome so far.  I visit this man's website lewrockwell.com every day to keep up on different issues of economic and social importance, and always find great stuff there.

Today, he posted a speech he gave on Oct. 1st.  The talk was called The Fascist Threat  I feel it is one of the best examples of Lew's speeches, and perhaps one of the most important considering the place we find ourselves today as people dealing with all of these threats and realities concerning our struggle for "sweet liberty," as Lew puts it.

This speech is not only a complete dismantling of the notion that we live in the society of checks and balances our civics classes taught us, but an illumination on the true nature of the fascist State before us, among us, and within us.  This transformation has been happening incrementally for a very long time, and "youngsters" (ha!) like myself know nothing else.  The debate, as Lew points out eloquently, is simply who the State will coddle and lavish with vast tax breaks, rewards, monopolies, and contracts.  

Who will the State protect and reward?  The producers (entrepreneurs, investors, business owners--large or small) or the producers (labor)?  This false debate is a symptom of the common political paradigm that the State should have any say at all in these issues.  And it ignores the elephant in the room: the consumers!  Even Joe Dirt had the wisdom to understand the importance of this part of the equation: 

That is not to say we as consumers need any coddling from the State.  Both groups of the production equation--investor/owner and labor do a quite satisfactory job when allowed to operate in a true free market, unhampered by State interventions, of responding to consumer demand.  Only by changing our paradigm about the role of the State will we be able to find true liberty economically and socially.

Oct 5, 2011

Why is this topic important to me? -Part 2

Imagine yourself back in 2003 or so...and you have learned your government could have attacked itself?  Certainly, this was not a possibility for almost anyone at the time, and even now many don't believe it could have happened.  Nationalistic fervor is a very powerful thing, tapping into deep instincts like tribalism.  Cognitive dissonance also comes into play because the act of attacking ones own people is so heinous and immoral as to defy belief!

It is for this reason Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ( ae911truth.org ) is so important.  This is a group of professionals who don't believe the official story of what we are told happened that day.  These people are putting their reputations on the line to say the physics does not match the story.  I find their testimony and evidence to be very compelling.  Importantly, normal folks have more trust in someone who can provide credibility and data to back up their position.

I had the pleasure of taking a mountain biking trip in Colorado a few years later, and picked up a copy of The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins to take with me.  This book was an examination of how the US government and major corporations are (and have been for a very long time) using "consultants" to extort, bribe and even topple leaders in an attempt to extract resources around the world.  In about three weeks, I learned of the nature of the power structure of the world as it relates to social changes we see throughout history.  In other words, I learned how the world really works.

So, where do we go from here?  Clearly there is a fundamental flaw in the concept that our government is representing its people.  Instead, the government is acting in the interest and on the behalf of large corporations.

Why is this topic important to me? -Part 1

First, a little background on myself...

My interest in social issues started about as soon as I realized there are other things in the world than nintendo, baseball, and yes, even playing war with sticks.  I didn't know it at the time, perhaps, but I began to value those around me and the interactions we all shared more than the bizarre rituals we were engaging in.

As I grew older I had a chance to participate in the wonderful world of high school policy debate.  This was a chance to dig deeper, and learn quite a bit about different political positions.  It was also a game that sometimes could be won not on the merits of your argument, but on your presentation and depth of evidence.  This taught me quite a bit about how easily people can be persuaded about issues they know nothing or little about.

As I became a young adult, I had the chance to hear many different (more learned) perspectives on the way the world ought to work.  Some of these positions opened my mind to new possibilities, but none like the attacks of September 11, 2001.  At the time, I was just about to become a fully legal adult.  I can remember thinking, "I can't believe we have been attacked!"  And I also remember, "This will change everything..."  At the time, I didn't really know what that meant.  I wonder if it was just youthful ignorance or if others were just as out of touch with the principles "everything" refers to...

Somewhere along the line, I watched a documentary called "Loose Change."  Then I tried to get my hands on anything related to those attacks.  Every where I turned, there seemed to be credible evidence that this attack was an inside job.  Also, it seemed to be a "false flag" operation designed to put in place policy goals that were advocated by very powerful and influential organizations and interests within and outside the government.

This was a turning point in my understanding of what a government is capable of, and ignited a desire to figure out not how the world should work, but how it really does!

Welcome to Liberty Study!

Hello, and welcome to Liberty Study!  

This is the place I plan on using to journal my study of liberty- both economic and social.  I have never done this before, so I hope it is easier than I imagine it to be.  Thankfully, I have a great support staff (my girlfriend) who will probably relish the chance to help me rant virtually...as it will lead to more "quiet time" in reality!

I hope you enjoy reading this blog, and welcome any comments.  Other perspectives are fundamentally important as we consider the world around us.  Only by listening can we learn.