TME Radio Facebook Page

Published by:

Keep your eyes (and ears) peeled as The Micro Effect is making changes and up dating! Look forward to a new look on our network home page, our new facebook page and much more… many changes to come and hopefully changes that will benefit YOUR radio station. LISTENERS make all this happen. We could never accomplish all of this by ourselves. You are all part of the family here at the Micro Effect. Your participation and on-going support is key to keeping us on the air. Without you, we have no platform to inform and educate people as to what’s really happening in a government overstepping their bounds…


Waco Coin Drawing

Published by:

Waco 1

The Waco Coin Drawing will be held March 14, 2014. To enter, give a minimum $5 donation. $1 per chance with no limit to the amount of times you can enter.

Waco 1

Donate here with your debit/credit card or

PayPal account for the Waco coin drawing

Border checks electronic copy all data from smartphone and other devices

Published by:

I was at the Canadian border, headed toward the freedom that exists a few feet beyond the last security check. I was gently waved down a side corridor.

Ninety minutes later, I was let go, but not before something truly alarming happened. I’m pretty sure that the Canadian government captured a mirrored version of my smartphone — which pretty much holds the whole of my life.

I’ll explain precisely how this happened in just a bit — in the hopes that perhaps you can take precautions that I did not. But let’s first establish that this practice is not unusual. According to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, this has become the standard backdoor method of search used today by governments around the world.

At border crossings, governments have discovered that they can get away with seizing and searching electronic devices from smartphones to laptops to tablets. The reason is that it is standard practice that border officials can ask you anything. Anything at all. You have to answer. They can make you empty the full contents of your brain and check for even the smallest misstatement. You can refuse to answer, but then you can expect detention for untold amounts of time. So of course, you comply.

If this is standard practice, it makes perfect sense that there is not anything they are not entitled to know. This is why they have begun to profile people based on their devices.

Maybe there was nothing I could have done to stop it. Maybe I was somehow fated to be among the 15 that were hit with this. But as I look back, I realize now that I was far too nonchalant in my whole approach. I’ve crossed that border dozens of times and never had any trouble. I expected no trouble this time.

The problem began at passport check. I was coming into Canada just to visit friends, but my dress suggested business. An official later confirmed to me that this was the first point that caused me to be flagged. Then, in stating my traveling route to get to that point, I flubbed a bit on the cities I had been in (some I entered by car and others by plane). I just wasn’t focusing, and I was just a bit too chatty and casual.

As I became increasingly flustered, the agent apparently marked my customs form to indicate that I should undergo a secondary screening. I didn’t know this had happened. As I casually presented my form to the last agent in the line, he signaled for me to follow a different path. I did so. There were no agents around. There were no officials. I just walked and walked until I found myself in a long and nearly empty room.

I realized that I was going to be there for a few minutes at least, and that I was in some kind of lineup. I was, essentially, under arrest. Unguarded, but arrested. There was nowhere to go. I could not go forward nor could I go back. There was no one to protest to.

I asked the people ahead of me how long they had been there. Forty-five minutes. I pulled out my laptop and starting watching an episode of Breaking Bad to pass the time.

After about an hour, I was called up. At first, everything seemed fine. The official wanted some clarification about whom I was visiting. They wanted the phone number in particular — a startling demand, but one never knows for sure when one should comply or refuse. Of course, I didn’t have the number memorized.

This was (I think) when I made my fateful decision. I reached into my pocket. I pulled out my smartphone. I unlocked it. I pulled up the contact information. Instead of reading it out loud, I showed the agent the number. She calmly took the phone — which I thought she was doing so she could see the number better.

In an instant, she was gone. She went to some back room somewhere. I stood there at the counter, completely unguarded. My heart started to race. My palms grew sweaty. I began to fidget. After all, my whole life was suddenly in the hands of a government official. My emails, my phone calls, my Facebook messages, my contacts far and wide, my financial information, my browsing history — even my diet and exercise routines were there.

And incredibly, I had unlocked it all and handed it over.

I stood there in this vulnerable situation for 30 minutes. Next to me, a man was being interrogated about the contents of his own smartphone. He had claimed that he had no family in the country. But officials confronted him with evidence that he had sent an email only 30 minutes earlier to a family member in Canada.

“You lied to us. Why did you lie to us?” they kept pressing. And the only reason they knew this was that they had read his email. It is almost unbelievable to me that this whole scene was taking place, almost as if there are no protections at all in place for a normal understanding of privacy and human rights. All is fair in love, war, and border crossings.

She returned finally, and with a new countenance. I was free to go. I said to her, in the most gentle possible way, “You know, I was really alarmed that you took my cellphone. I was just standing here for 30 minutes, and you had my cellphone the entire time. Was that necessary, really?”

She answered that she had to take it, to or else I might have made phone calls to people and ruined their investigation.

What could I have done but nod my head and go on my way — shaken, but feeling like I had narrowly escaped some unknown fate.

What did I learn?
1.Never approach the passport window without being extremely clearheaded about what you are going to say.
2.Don’t ever reverse your story in light of questioning. Tell necessary truths, but never volunteer unnecessary information.
3.Put all your digital devices away deep in your bags. Do not pull them out at any point in approaching any border. And if you ever get a secondary screening, prepare to have all necessary information stored in some place other than your live cellphone.

I can’t guarantee that if I had done this, all would be well. They could have searched my bags (which they did not!) and found all my devices. One way or another, they might have had their way with me. But I didn’t have to make it so easy.

Live with Leviathan and learn as we go. We have no rights. We are all one tiny step from formal incarceration. But in many ways, the whole of society is already in jail. All we can do is keep plotting our escape.


Jeffrey Tucker

Want To Be Free Of The Impending Obamacare Outrage?

Published by:

Like other federal mandates, the Obamacare mandate hinges on the use of federal privilege

Educated Americans know that even though it is easily-mistaken as a tax on “all that comes in” (and that such mistakes are deliberately encouraged and viciously exploited by revenue- and power-hungry governments which have designed the tax law to be confusing and to conceal its true nature), the income tax is actually a Constitutionally-harmonious tax of limited application, which has nothing to do with simply earning money and which mandates nothing at all unless one chooses to engage in a narrow class of specialized activities.

Every single American can and should be doing the same. Contrary to the deeply-rooted mythology cluttering the minds of most Americans– even those otherwise well-versed in understanding of original intent and of other areas of the Constitution as drafted and as amended– there is no coercive federal tax on individual Americans.

The Founders had no tolerance for such demented, illiberal notions, and allowed no such tax. Our grandparents’ generation was no more moronic than the Founders in this regard. They, too, never allowed for such a tax– absurd, government-promoted mythology to the contrary notwithstanding. CtC-educated Americans know all this, having studied in-depth information and authority on every aspect of the federal tax structure, and having put that knowledge into practice personally for years now.

MORE, THESE EDUCATED AMERICANS KNOW that like the income tax overall, the Obamacare “individual mandate” and penalty only apply to folks who, in any given year, receive more than the exemption amount of the specialized kind of gains that qualify as “income” within the context of the tax. Thus, CtC-educated Americans know that the mandate and penalty simply don’t apply to most of them, and how to stop it from being imposed on them unless they choose to switch from their untaxed economic activities to the narrow variety subject to the tax.

Here is how the Obamacare “individual mandate” and “penalty” law reads in relevant part (with helpful emphasis added):

26 USC § 5000A – Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage

(a) Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage

An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

(b) Shared responsibility payment

(1) In general

If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3), fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).


(d) Applicable individual

For purposes of this section— (1) In general The term “applicable individual” means, with respect to any month, an individual other than an individual described in paragraph (2) [Those enjoying state-approved religious exemptions], (3) [Individuals not a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States], or (4) [Incarcerated individuals].

OK, what we see so far is that the “applicable individual” subject to the “individual mandate”– and the penalty for failing to comply– is a “taxpayer” who is not covered by a religious exemption, is not “not a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States” or is not incarcerated. BUT WAIT! Let’s not forget that little qualifier we saw in section (b)(1) above: Except as provided in subsection (e):

(e) Exemptions

No penalty shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to—

(2) Taxpayers with income below filing threshold

Any applicable individual for any month during a calendar year if the individual’s household income for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is less than the amount of gross income specified in section 6012 (a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

SO, ACTUALLY, THE OBAMACARE MANDATE ONLY APPLIES to someone whose household “income” for the year is equal-to or greater than the amount of gross income specified in 26 USC § 6012 as the amount prompting a filing requirement:

26 USC § 6012 – Persons required to make returns of income

(a) General rule

Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:


(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount [this is followed exceptions to this rule]

And THAT means, when all is said and done, that the Obamacare mandate and penalty do not apply to anyone with less than the exemption amount of “income”– which is most of us. Like most federal mandates, the Obamacare mandate only applies to the minority of Americans making use of a federal privilege.

OF COURSE, THE ONLY AMERICANS WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS FACT and be able to unilaterally opt out of the mandate without penalty are those who have learned the truth about the tax like those good folks in the CtC-educated community…

Maybe YOU should become one of those good folks.

Maybe YOU should learn what you’ll discover is pretty-much the most important thing any American can know– even without regard to the “Obamacare” outrage of trying to treat everyone as a subordinate of the state able to be ordered to buy products for the benefit of favored political interests.

Maybe YOU should…

Ah, never mind!

What am I thinking!

Lew Rockwell, the Tea Party Express, Townhall and the Liberty Crier have just posted more great batches of grouse-articles!

Better you should just read (or write) about how bad things are getting, bitch and moan like an adolescent schoolgirl, and keep hoping someone else actually gets up and does something about it all…

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.

-Voltarine de Cleyre



Four IRS Workers Allegedly Connected To Targeting Tea Party Members

Published by:

As many as four people may be the first Cincinnati Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees to face disciplinary action, and possibly even criminal charges, for allegedly targeting Tea Party and Liberty groups applying for non-profit status. 

On Wednesday, the IRS announced that it had pinpointed two employees at the agency’s Cincinnati office for being ‘primarily’ responsible.

In addition, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller resigned his position, revealed by President Obama on Wednesday.

“Secretary Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting commissioner of the IRS, because given the controversy surrounding this audit, it’s important to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward,” said President Obama in a statement on Wednesday evening.

Prior to his resignation, Steven Miller called the two Cincinnati employees ‘rogue’ and ‘off the reservation,’ adding that they were ‘overly aggressive’ in handling the requests from those conservative groups over the past two years.

Miller also added that those two employees have already been ‘disciplined’ by the agency.

Read More Here:


Newtown or Everytown

Published by:

After sensitive and caring dialogs, a self-described “anti-gun woman legislator” writes to me as an expert, for the fifth time, asking, “You still haven’t explained to me why anyone needs a gun that shoots multiple bullets in a few seconds.” This, as if it’s my job to explain to her howlife works, or how guns work, or why police prefer these guns, or why people do too for the exact same reasons as police.

I grow weary answering her, but like so many other confused Americans she does motivate me. I write this for her, but also for some fellow countrymen, knowing their sudden concern is not fired by a compelling interest to understand, but by an emotionally charged rage.

It is rage driven by innocent children murdered weeks or months ago by a madman. It is still being promoted, yes promoted, by a twisted “news” media, once again promoting its decades-old agenda to curtail America’s unique civil right to arms*, using tragedy as the motivator. I summon strength and reply:

“You have been shown the murderer’s face 100 times a day as if it is somehow news — but it is propaganda in every sense of that word. It conveys no news, it advances the story in no way, it simply disgusts, enrages, and motivates you to write to me and your Congressmen, and push the agenda the media — as if by magic — coincidentally is pushing.

“You are being manipulated by that face. No, those faces. They promote many, reaching back for years to images now iconic, they’re good at their craft. The media and their political handlers know it all too well, and you are being managed like the proverbial useful idiot. They are forcing Kool-Aid down your throat, and you get no mouthwash. I know that may not sink in, but maybe you’ll get it when I’m through.

“On the same day those people were murdered, another 80 died in their cars in senseless horrific death. Just as bloody or even more so, it was just as tragic. Families torn apart, women and children ripped from us without warning. Entire families lost at a single gory stroke. Four times more loss, on that single day. Not in Newtown. In Everytown.

“But you don’t care about them, because the ‘news’ media isn’t promoting them to you. Clearly — devastating human loss isn’t the issue, and neither is unspeakable tragedy. You are concerned with how many bullets because that’s what you are being told to care about, even though you think you care only about tragic loss. And here’s the kicker. You, and we, suffered the same bloody 80-person loss the next day. And eighty more the next and the next and every day since.

“Little kids, and their moms, and people who said, ‘See you later honey,’ and never came home. You are being manipulated about how many bullets in how many seconds in what kind of black black gun, on one single day now long ago, by making you focus on isolated loss. You are being sucker punched for someone else’s political goal, and it is a perverse goal of civil-rights denial, as bad as the race riots of the 1960s. Can you see that? OK, let me get more specific about your question.

“You ask about the need for such guns. This is hard for a lot of people. Piers brags that he doesn’t get it. Are you ready? In a free country like ours, ownership of property is not based on need. That’s the communist model.

“To each according to his need, and someone in government decides how much or what you need, and that is all you’re allowed to have. We reject that approach to life in every aspect totally and implicitly.

“You don’t need ten pairs of shoes, or a refrigerator the size of a closet. That’s not how we do it here, and that’s why we’re a free nation, the freest the world has ever seen. When ‘the government’ (which is just other people), or some loudmouth on a throne can dictate what kind of gun (or anything) you ‘need,’ your freedom for guns (and everything else) is washed away. That’s a pretty big picture view, and many people cannot grasp that. I hope you can.

“The small-picture answer is simple enough — why people want such guns. That’s easy. For the exact same reasons you want your police to have them, and why your police want to have them. You want your police to have the most powerful guns, with the highest-capacity magazines that work well, and all the ammo they can carry, to defend against some really evil criminals they must face — who will be carrying the same. Bad guys always use the deadliest weapons they can — whatever cops have, or more — law doesn’t stop them. That’s why you need equality. Your police do too.

“But you need it even more, because you are the first responder — police are always second, a fact you always witness on TV, but that the narrative always lies to you about. The so-called first responders always show up second. Read that sentence again. The so-called first responders always show up second. Shame on the ‘news’ for always getting that wrong and never issuing a correction. Police parade around for the cameras in their riot gear after the incident has ended.

“Think about how powerful the media is that you’ve watched that a thousand times and never got it until now.

“The really big picture issue though is this: why do people in this country have guns at all? And for that you need to understand what the Second Amendment is really all about. It is not about self defense and crime control, the topics of the day, although those things are important (and it’s certainly not the hunting, target practice or sport distractions the left has injected into this). The right to keep and bear arms is about balance of power. Where is that in the so-called ‘news’? How well do you understand that concept? If you were educated in government schools, probably not at all.

“Our Founders understood that if there wasn’t a counterweight to government power, there was no way for the nation to maintain the freedom we invented.

“Yes, invented. The idea that the people are the sovereigns and the government is the servant was invented here. To make this happen, we the people need — there’s that word — to be armed in the same manner as the government in the street. The people need power, and power, as the communists, all tyrants and our Founders well knew, comes from the barrel of a gun.

“Public school not only doesn’t teach this, it hides this, spewing ignorance where education is supposed to go. As arms developed, we the people naturally possessed arms equivalent to what we provided our troops. And we have throughout our history done this, maintaining a rational balance of power. To maintain freedom. The government and the public progressed together in harmony from flintlock to cap and ball, cartridge to self-loaders, to where we stand today.

“Now that’s a (very!) simplified version, and I’m not getting into the dangers of standing armies (which we’ve sort of reached), disparities of force or reductio ad absurdum and shooting at tanks or F-16s attacking Cincinnati. Let’s just note that, unlike virtually every country in Europe and the world, our government has never turned on its people and slaughtered them, (except maybe for disarmed black folks and Indian savages long ago) because it can’t, and it knows that. This is good.

“This is why America is the linchpin of freedom on the entire planet. This is why people are willing to walk through 30 miles of blazing snake-infested desert to get here. They don’t do that in Japan or England or Zambia or any other country ignoramii like to compare us to. It’s those guns that can shoot just like any police guns can shoot. If the left really wants to fantasize about shooting at tanks, it needs to think a whole lot bigger than AR-15s.

“Those are the kinds of guns the Founders expected us to have — equivalent to whatever government forces of the time have. Parity. Look it up, like I have. The Founders understood this balance of power thing. You’ll find it’s true. It’s in their writing and thinking. Should it be in yours? Do you trust your government under, say, Bush, or whoever’s next, to have all those dangerous guns?

“Many of the 300 million guns that 100 million people keep in 60 million households here are pretty much properly capable of firing a lot of ammunition quickly.

“And those people — your neighbors — who want to have them, and therefore do, they keep and bear them responsibly with no harm done, no victims, no problem for the most part. The public’s guns provide safety. Where is that in the fair and balanced ‘news’ mix?

“Virtually none of the guns held by the public or police have ever killed anyone — despite vitriolic verbiage about killing machines — these arms simply stand ready to protect, their core and legal function.

“There is always room for improvement. The accident and problem rate in the gun community makes the shooting sports one of the safest pursuits in America. Every last one of us would support gun-safety training and marksmanship classes for school children. Why don’t the so-called gun-safety advocates of the left ever propose anything like that — safety classes — if they’re really for gun safety? They never do. Only the pro-rights people do.

“Now let me ask you a question. If you could trade all the accidents, and all the crime, and all the suicides we experience as an armed nation, for the tens of millions killed in government-run genocides in unarmed or disarmed nations over the past century, would that be a fair trade? Would you be willing to make it, or risk it?

“The 20th century saw 262 million government-run civilian deaths, not war deaths, ‘democides,’ according to reliable U.N. stats. Hundreds of millions! Crime and accidental gun deaths here are in low five figures — not a half percent of that! If public gun ownership can prevent government slaughter in Third World or developed nations, with a ratio like that, it is totally worth the cost. What are we waiting for if human life has value? This gets zero sunlight in the ‘news.’

“What’s even more chilling is that almost all the gun crimes America sees happens in ghettos — a word we aren’t even supposed to say anymore. Are you even willing to look at that? If you subtract the carnage sponsored by the government run WAR on some drugs, we’re safer than any country you care to name. Is that subject on the table?

“You may believe we live in a violent society, but have YOU actually seen any of this violence today, yesterday, last year, ever in your life? You, reading this, you eat your meals, go to your job, shop, with all these horrible guns out there. It’s peaceful as can be in your own experience, isn’t it. You’re like almost everyone. The only violence most Americans ever see is on TV, where it’s non-stop. You are being lied to. And it works.

“Americans buy between five and nine billion rounds of ammunition every year, and virtually all of it goes into peaceful purposes, the shooting sports. Have you even heard that term? The shooting sports are the number two participant sport in the nation, a billion dollars a year ahead of golf (and golf makes the ‘news’ all the time).

“You didn’t know what I’ve just told you, because the ‘news’ media is not fair and balanced. It is on a campaign that disinforms the innocent people who didn’t do anything. It hides news from you. Even most news that says it is on your side — you haven’t heard any of this have you? They’re just interested in getting you all fired up by showing you those few murderers over and over again. The propaganda part. Go ahead. Switch on your TV. They’re probably on right now.

“So the suggestion that government, in its benevolence, should limit us to only the small slow gun or two it has decided we ‘need,’ with only a few small bullets, that can’t be fired quickly, well, I might be for forcing that on criminals, if you can figure out how. Forcing that on the general public is such a bad idea non-starter that of course it meets the stiff resistance you see from the entire breadth of this great nation. Thank God so many people do understand this.

“It is not due to the vilified NRA, the largest civil-rights group in the country, the one that does all the gun-safety training for, well, everyone. It is those 60 million safely armed American households that get it.

“The legislators who suggest disarming us, or taking away any guns based on brand name or size, things we still retain the right to own, they violate their oath and deserve to be removed from office. They violate the absolute prohibition on such a thing in the Bill of Rights itself. You cannot overrule the Bill of Rights with a majority vote. A schoolchild knows that. Or should.

“In the name of crime control, and with the help of a compliant media, politicians have invented and are promoting ‘gun control,’ are calling infringement ‘restrictions,’ and are compromising our very freedom. Some people say that is their purpose. Now THAT’S a scary thought.

“Does that answer you question?”


Alan Korwin, Author, Gun Laws of America
The Uninvited Ombudsman

*The right to arms is indeed a unique civil right. America is the bastion of freedom on Earth, the birthplace of individual liberty in a world once dominated by kings and tyrants. It is the one place where all other nations learned the concept of a Constitution and individual rights, where this one right to arms stands out as the palladium of liberty, assaulted constantly, where an armed public stands up to the slings and arrows of those who steal it away.

 Taken from

Kentucky Sheriff Vows To Uphold 2nd Ammendment

Published by:

Part 1

<iframe width=”400″ height=”225″ src=”″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

Part 2

<iframe width=”400″ height=”225″ src=”″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

Part 3

<iframe width=”400″ height=”225″ src=”″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

2013 Gun Ban requires all owners to be fingerprnted and biometric face scan

Published by:

Dianne Feinstein To Introduce Sweeping Gun Control Bill On First Day Of Congress

December 28, 2012

in Front Page, U.S. Constitution

Dianne Feinstein

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., plans to introduce sweeping gun-control legislation at the beginning of the congressional session in January.

“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession” of certain weapons, the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

The senator describes the proposal as a version of the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Feinstein’s legislation ban scores of firearms, including military-style “assault” weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It also calls for the creation of a federal register that would require millions of gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed.

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.