Recent comments

  • fmoghul's picture
    fmoghul 6 years 4 weeks ago
    Opinion and Reason
    Page Jim Davies
    Fantastic! great article!
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 6 years 4 weeks ago
    Opinion and Reason
    Page Jim Davies
    Just so, Jim. Thomas Jefferson also argued that one should take all things to the throne of Reason.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 6 years 4 weeks ago
    Opinion and Reason
    Page Jim Davies
    Just so, Jim. Thomas Jefferson also argued that one should take all things to the throne of Reason.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 4 weeks ago
    Why Do We Obey
    Web link Serenity
    THE DEVELOPMENT OF GROUP ATTITUDE Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string, and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment…with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, and then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know, that's the way it's always been done around here. And that, my dear friends, is why most of "we" obey.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 6 years 4 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    From TheFreeDictionary.com : -ery or -ry suff. 1. A place for: bakery. 2. A collection or class: finery. 3. A state or condition: slavery. 4. Act; practice: bribery. *5. Characteristics or qualities of: snobbery. [Middle English -erie, from Old French : -er, agent suff. (partly from -ier; see -er1, and partly from -ere, -eor; see -or1) + -ie, noun suff.; see -y2.] From Urbandictionary.com : Vogons: "Fictitious alien race from Douglas Adam's(sic) Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series of books, television shows and radio plays. Vogons are renowned for their bad poetry, dislike of hitchhikers, bad temper and tendency to blow up mostly harmless planets. Most Vogons tend to become bureaucrats for the galactic government, a profession ideally suited to their unpleasant natures. A prime example of a Vogon is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, captain of the Vogon constructor fleet that demolished the planet Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass." In other words, it was an attempt at humor using an esoteric slice of science-fiction patois. Similar to this post in that it is meant in jest. Frankly, I could think of no more appropriate characterization than Doug Adams' shuffling bureau-slugs when the police chief was interviewed-including appearance. I assumed that Google, etc, would search the root word-it seems they do not, which (almost) spoils the fun.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 4 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    To whoever liked this, what is "vogonery"?
  • fmoghul's picture
    fmoghul 6 years 5 weeks ago Page fmoghul
    Thank you sir. I am honored that you liked it! Best
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    Just watched the YouTube. I have no problem believing this. I have seen more examples that go well beyond this like a woman arrested for stopping her car in a public area and snapping pictures of a helecopter and being immediately arrested, detained, abused, denied her right to a phone call and having her camera destroyed. The arrest of the young lady is mild compared to the woman (she has retained an attorney and sueing the city, department, and officers). I have absolutely no doubt that there are many LEO's whom, if the order to confiscate all private firearms, will shoot law abiding citizens with no hesitation should they refuse to turn over their firearm. There are also scarry bits of research on this issue regarding our young warriors in the military.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    I wish that I could say that such vacuous vogonery was uncommon in these parts-it really isn't. Instead, common sense has become the exception.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 5 weeks ago Page fmoghul
    Thanks Faisal, excellent treatment of the subject. Welcome!
  • Eric Field's picture
    Eric Field 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    I don't even know what to say about this circumstance. The amazing part is the department admitting that she was arrested on a charge that doesn't even exist.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Maximum Salary
    Page Eric Field
    P.S. Economic redistribution would be a tool to accomplish the above in a less hostile manner. What are these people anyway?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Maximum Salary
    Page Eric Field
    I must submit that the whole intent is to place the people of this nation under a totaliarian rule, or to become a sister of facisim wherein the state is the ultimate and everyone should be willing to sacrifice everything, even their lives for the state. That is, in my pers[ective, exactly where we are headed. The U.N. wants to take away the individual citizens rights to possess a firearm. This achieved an easy walk in take over of this property would be easily achieved since there exists enough legislative members whom are interested in these ends as well, believing they will be left alone and keep their heads on their shoulders. Stupid is as stupid does. With humble respect, Glock27
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 5 weeks ago Page fmoghul
    (bobs and weaves) lol
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 6 years 5 weeks ago Page fmoghul
    Hello Suverans2, "If a society adopted the above guiding principle and applied it universally then the government created by that society would not violate that principle, it would only have authority over those individuals who voluntarily chose to violate that principle." I believe the main difference in our points of view is that I don't choose to use the word 'government' for what you described above. Service providers who have a client base of voluntary customers are called businesses, and I see no reason to stretch the word 'government' into a synonym of 'business' any more than I would try to work the definition of 'thief' to include 'being a productive member of a free market.' But I agree that authority of one individual over another can be attained in one of two ways: 1) voluntary delegation, or 2) in response to aggression. Although I think of 2) as more of "By aggressing against me, you treat me like an object, therefore, since we are innately equal with regard to rights, you give me permission to treat you like an object," which kind of gets the same result. Any individual in society has the right to 'claim authority' over an aggressor and so, again, using the word 'government' to imply that perhaps only a few designated humans may exercise authority over aggressors confuses the issue a bit, IMO. (ducks)
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Maximum Salary
    Page Eric Field
    Thank you, Eric. Delightfully clear thinking and writing. $5m cap, indeed. List everyone currently earning more, and assume reasonably that most of them will stop work when they reach that level, since all further earnings would be confiscated. Just imagine what wreckage would be caused to commerce (Atlas will shrug) and innovation (who would invent the next Facebook, if billionaires were enslaved?) and sports (football is dangerous, why bother?) and arts (warts and all, Hollywood's long reign would end abruptly.) Perhaps even more wreckage would result lower down the scale: tens of millions work creatively in the _hope_ of earning a fortune, and knowing that there's no artificial barrier to doing so; put such a barrier in place, that hope vanishes. That would draw a final line under America, the best experiment yet in creating wealth for everyone.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 5 weeks ago Page fmoghul
    G'day tzo, "No one collective of people can function harmoniously without a guiding principle." How about: Don't hurt or kill people, and don't take their stuff. ~ tzo 3. Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator*, and existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language * Atheists may leave out the "established by the Creator" without harming the underlying principle. Natural Law; or The Science of Justice: The science of mine and thine – the science of justice – is the science of all human rights; of all a man’s rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person. ~ The Natural Law or The Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner "If a society would adopt the above guiding principle and apply it universally, they would discover that the creation of Constitutions and governments violate that principle and would forego them if they wished to be consistent." ~ tzo Since we are dreaming: If a society adopted the above guiding principle and applied it universally then the government created by that society would not violate that principle, it would only have authority over those individuals who voluntarily chose to violate that principle. At the slightest sign of government, itself, violating that principle, the individuals making up such a society would begin screaming... The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose, but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law has become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself is guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! ~ The Law by Frédéric Bastiat
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Dear Naomi...
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "Hoplophobics"? My chief resource claims to have "19,500,236 words in 1062 dictionaries indexed" and only ONE of these defined that word, and you claim to be an ignorant individual? Hell, I thought it was a fear of Hopalong Cassidy.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Human Rights ''Alan Dershowitz in his book, Shouting Fire, has a chapter on the origin of human rights. Dershowitz says human rights is the belief that human beings are so worthwhile that regardless of age, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of gender, regardless of social status, or regardless of how much wealth you have, every human being is of great worth and has certain rights that can’t be exploited or trampled upon. Now the question comes, “Why should we believe that?” The first possibility, Dershowitz says, is that we believe that God created human beings and therefore they are sacred; they are made in the image of God. The second possibility is, “Maybe we find this in nature.” If we look out at nature, do we see that human beings as individuals are valuable? “No,” Dershowitz says, because all you see out there is the strong eating the weak. That’s how you got here; it’s called evolution. To believe in human rights is to say everything else in nature is wrong, but why would it be wrong unless you believe in God or a supernatural standard by which to judge? How can you judge that nature is unnatural? Where did you get your idea? The third possibility is that human beings form human rights ourselves. Legislative majorities create human rights. They’re not discovered, they’re legislated. Morality is something man creates, so we created it. Society, through a legislative majority, decided human rights make society work better and therefore it is more practical to believe in human rights. So man creates human rights, but Dershowitz says that will never work. What the argument is advocating is a belief, for example, that genocide is only wrong because man says it is. Therefore if 51% want to vote to take away the rights of 49% and destroy them, nobody can say, “How dare you!” because genocide is wrong only because man says its wrong and now a majority doesn’t say it’s wrong. By this argument, the whole value of rights is to say to the majority “you have to honor the rights of others.” Human rights are discovered. They can’t be created. They don’t come from nature, they aren’t created, they just exist. So if one doesn’t believe in God why does one believe in human rights? The answer would be, “They’re just there. We don’t know why they are there—they probably shouldn’t be there—but they’re there.” So, do human rights prove there is a God? No. The point of the argument is that human rights make sense. If there is no God, human rights don’t make much sense, since one doesn’t know where they came from. If this is true, then a belief in God makes more sense than non-belief. One can’t “prove” God, one can only show that in issue after issue, the existence of God makes more sense than the absence of one. If there is a God, then the idea of justice and injustice and the idea of genocide being wrong make sense. If there is no God, it takes a leap of faith to say, “I don’t know why it’s wrong; I just feel it’s wrong.” It’s a bigger leap of faith to believe in human rights if one doesn’t believe in God than if one does. It is a leap of faith to say somehow human beings are valuable if there is no God, than if there is. So why would one say they do not believe in God? Why is it so hard to believe in God? The reasons would probably be linked to personal, social, and possibly some intellectual reasons. All of the above arguments only takes one through the realm of possibility. It only goes to prove that it is more likely that God does exist rather than not exist. It does not mean one can’t be certain.''~ by Steve Elwart http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/fixnews/545-rights
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Dear Naomi...
    Page Paul Bonneau
    A lightening bolt of clear common sense lacking in hoplophobics. I voted because it was worthy of a vote.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 6 years 5 weeks ago Page fmoghul
    "No one collective of people can function harmoniously without a guiding principle." How about: Don't hurt or kill people, and don't take their stuff. No 2nd Amendment needed. Owning a gun doesn't in itself trespass against anyone's person or property. Same goes for hammers. If society would adopt the above guiding principle and apply it universally, they would discover that the creation of Constitutions and governments violate that principle and would forego them if they wished to be consistent. Taxing (forcefully taking property from a person without his consent) violates the principle.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 5 weeks ago Page fmoghul
    I have voted this piece as a must read. Not that you are already aware of it but to keep it uppermost in everyones mind. Though everyone here dispariages the Constitution, or disowns it, the fact of reality is that this piece of raggedy paper is the paper this nation struggels to operate under (despite the crooked crooks in washington). To point out its errors does not cause me disallusionment but you do have to recognize the forgone conclusion that this is the document the majority of Americans are holding on to for dear life. (The Human Condition has rared its serpent head as the "Tea Party, demonstrating a disatisfaction with the way government is currently operating). Despite all its flaws, the Constitution, it can be fixed. No one collective of people can function harmoniously without a guiding principle. Anyone in their right mind realizes this or we would be in a world of chaos, not that we probably aren't now). Bite me, kick me, drag me through the dirt, abuse me if you must. I am here to learn and learn I will "...the human capacity to start new things calls our natural limits into question" (Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 1958, Chicago Press). I call our government into question for the abuse of the Constitution, call them into question to discover the flaws they suck out of it, forcing it to say things it does not say, making it a bag of hallow bones. I call into question that the framers ment this document to stand as written without change for ever and ever. "...[H]uman beings are merely an animal species governed by laws of nature or history, in the service of which individuals are entirely despenciable." (ibid). The human condition is a condition no one has the power to alter, it will do as it does. Persons are despensible to the Human Condition, the human condition is a part of nature and worms its way into history because of humaness. fmoghul has boldly stepped into the 2nd amendment and I deeply respect him for providing the documentation of the wrongness of disarming Americans to make us victims to the government whims and the criminal rage, and to all the hoplophobes who moronacally believe that the absence of guns will stop criminal activity. Stupidity recognizes no cognitive skill, ignores educational background; it is stupidity that must be enlightened, if possible, but some stupid people will always be stupid people. I rest. Glock27
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Magic 'Money'
    Page tzo
    Everyone make your way to the fire exits slowly...ha! With all of the bankster accounting, accurate numbers take some serious sussing. Even Wikipedia seems to have older numbers (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estimated_ownership_of_treasury_securi...
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Magic 'Money'
    Page tzo
    I probably need to rework that part, one way or another: http://www.cnbc.com/id/29880401/The_Biggest_Holders_of_US_Government_Debt http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/... http://www.zerohedge.com/article/its-official-fed-now-second-largest-hol...
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Magic 'Money'
    Page tzo
    Hi golefevre, I will confess that I wrote the majority of this quite a while ago. I certainly could have made a mistake with the 40% figure, but it would be more interesting if I didn't. :> In other words, China and Japan have drastically reduced the amount of US debt that they hold (at least as a percentage of the total debt), while the Fed has stepped in to buy up the surplus. So even when suckers can no longer be found, the Fed is there to buy up the loans that they themselves hand out. This should make the entire scam obvious to all, but I'm guessing it won't.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Magic 'Money'
    Page tzo
    Not sure about that 40% number for China and Japan. I think they (China and Japan) hold about $2 trilion, about 12.5%. By far, the biggest holder of US bonds is the Fed, about $6-6.5 trillion and also worth mentioning is how this is one of their biggest "tools" for manipulating markets and interest rates.
  • DP_Thinker's picture
    DP_Thinker 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Magic 'Money'
    Page tzo
    Great post! A great book on this subject is by Murray Rothbard - "The Mystery of Banking" One other item to note is that this is the process in which "inflation" takes place. The historical definition of inflation was to inflate the money supply. This in turn directly impacts prices. The more "money" sloshing around the higher prices go. And the banks are the first ones to receive that new money enabling them to keep up with inflation much easier than say ma and pa construction worker...
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I see little difference between the Jarawas and American citizens in relationship to freedom and liberty. Americans are being suppressed at every turne and corner. There are no freedoms only permissions which can be taken away at the whim of a dim witted legislature who has been seated far too long for his own good..
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Anarcho-Statists
    Page tzo
    I've been thinking of this too: http://strike-the-root.com/private-property-vs-your-stuff Rothbard's theory was that land becomes owned when a man mixes his labor in it. This rather dry description does not bring out the essence of the matter. If a man comes into some land via inheritance or by winning the lottery, and the very next day he loses it (e.g. eminent domain), he will relinquish it without a fuss: "Easy come, easy go." However the more he invests time and money into it, the harder he will fight to stay on. This is only natural; people won't easily walk away from something they have invested half their life into. The market will favor such people aquiring modest-sized plots of ground (absent government). Why? Because the larger it is, the harder to mix your labor with it. The harder to keep squatters off. The fewer neighbors you will have to help you defend your claims, and (since you are being a pig about grabbing land) the less likely they will be to do it. The land owners who manage to hold on to their land will have modest-sized plots so their connections to their neighbors will be more frequent and easier and more numerous, and so their "mixing of labor" will be more intense. Such people will be very hard to push off the land.
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    The hallmark of the state to treat people as property or animals. truly is sickening.
  • TheHomeEconomist's picture
    TheHomeEconomist 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I was disgusted by this article. These people are treated like animals in a zoo, or perhaps museum artifacts, not living human beings! The degree to which you deny an individual his liberty is the degree to which you deny him his humanity!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Notice to the PRINCIPAL or AGENT is Notice to the other.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person; for that would imply a right in the first person, not only to make the third person his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still other persons. Any contract to do this is necessarily a criminal one, and therefore invalid. To call such a contract a "constitution" does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to its validity." ~ Lysander Spooner, excerpted from his letter to [CONGRESSMAN] Thomas F. Baynard This is why consent, either express, implied or tacit[1], is deemed necessary to derive "just powers[2]" [authority] over a man. Even a professor should be able to see that what Lysander stated is true. The other thing to consider, Glock27, is whether or not the U.S. Constitution has been successful at protecting our natural rights. "Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Gilmer (c.1816) Again, I use Lysander's common-sense-opinion, on that question, as my own. "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." ~ Lysander Spooner __________________________________________________________________ [1] In the cases of implied or tacit consent, the individual has but to rebut it to take the effect of it away. Rebut. In pleading and evidence, to defeat, refute, or take away the effect of something. When a plaintiff in an action produces evidence which raises a presumption of the defendant's liability, and the defendant adduces [presents, brings forward, offers, introduces] evidence which shows that the presumption is ill-founded, he is said to "rebut it." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990), page 1267 [Bracketed information added] I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR POLITICAL CORPORATION AND I WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS. [2] "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR POLITICAL CORPORATION AND I WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS.
  • deeperpolitics's picture
    deeperpolitics 6 years 5 weeks ago
    Dear Naomi...
    Page Paul Bonneau
    My own response consists of a compilation of material to put things into a completely different perspective. It is titled: Gun confiscation legislation, Staged shootings, Banking fraud, Economic collapse, and Martial law http://www.blissful-wisdom.com/gun-confiscation-legislation-staged-shoot...
  • Michael_Young's picture
    Michael_Young 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link Guest
    It is necessary to think on this aspect and also the drivers are doing their business and thinking about every other alternative to save money. government-grant
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former [the ploughman] will decide it as well, and often better than the latter [a professor], because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr (c.1788) Remember, Glock27: A CONSTITUTION. In American Law. [is] The written instrument agreed upon by the people [voluntary members] of the Union or of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it, and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void.” (Source: Cooley, Const. Lim. 3. ~ A Dictionary of Law [Black's 1st (c.1891)], page 259) As such, it is legitimate; but that's all that it is, and nothing more! It is not the “supreme law of the land”, it is the supreme law over those who wish to govern!! This is why those individuals wishing to govern, intentionally misinterpret it, illegally amend it, and unlawfully ignore it (when they can get away with it)...they hate the Constitution, (“its only a goddamned piece of paper”), because it has restricted their authority for so long; “any act or ordinance of any such department or officer...in opposition to [it]...is null and void”. They began chipping away at it almost from the moment of its creation. They have used, over and over and over and over again, the glaring error making “all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States...the supreme law of the land”; which explains why they threw everything but the kitchen sink at the so-called Bricker Amendment. “The Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the Amendment.” ~ Bricker Amendment by Justin Raimondo
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 5 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    This Makes a great deal of sense. For over two-hundred years this Nation has operated under the ruse that the Constitution is in fact the "Law of the Land", the majority, although academically ignorant as I just presume it to be truth and therefore we "tacitly" conceed until someone comes along and begins to point out the errors which exist. Then there are those who simply plod through this life without question, probably much like our ancestors did until a few got tired of how they were being treated by the British Government at the time. I think these men and women wanted to be free of the oppression they were experiancing; it wasn't a military coue, or one man wanting to be Monarch (although John Adams seemed to desire this), they wanted to be free and constructed something they felt others also wanted (except for a few[a minority presumably]). I think these men were honestly looking to have a free society, but recognized that some order must needs to apply or there would be nothing but chaos and conflict. They unified the separate land masses claimed by such groups as the 13 colonies. From that point forward people must have "Tacitly agreed" to conduct ourselves under those guiding principles. My question now is "Does this extend legitimacy to the Constitution"? If it does, what needs to be fixed to make it operate in a proper manner as a guiding document? I have remained committed to the idea of "What can be done to alter the situation and improve upon it". What is the solution?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 6 weeks ago Web link Guest
    I disagree with the contextual idea that it was a sexy photo. She was a work of beautiful art so unique to women across the world. This was not sexy but sheer beauty looking at the lines, shades, pose, contrast, the sweeping lines that carry you off into a stream of warm, happy feelings.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 6 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Is it stolen money when a majority of the population votes in agreement with whatever the issue is being asked for? If legislators proclaim x number of dollars will come out of the pockets of the public is seems clear then that it is theft.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 6 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Compassion in a free society. Sometimes when I hear this I believe it is a dream, the Utopia many long for. I am not 100% convinced that enough people will honestly step forward, considering the radically, changing values of this Nation of people. Movie producers orient their wares toward corrupting the moral values of Americans, T.V. programing takes the same river of corrupting youth to adult in having strong values and virtue, corperations join the melee with sexually salacious advertisment and sponsor value corrupting programs. Given this peel of humanity it makes one wonder if a compassionate free society isnt being idealistic on such a concept. Please do not take me wrong; I believe what you have presented is a good and proper thought, but I am not convinced of its actual performable in this current state-of-affairs. I also know and understand that the United States Federal Government is corrupt, ignorant, stupid, idiotic, cognitively impaired, selfish, self-interested, self-aggrandizing bunch of misfits and cannot be trusted to perform anything beyond an "F" standard. When they get their stubby, greedy, sticky, dirty hands into anything it seems to always go to hell in a hand basket. This nation has experienced centuries of sexually depraved legislators, deviant, self-centered and what ever else can be attached to them. They have clearly demonstrated that they have no ability to operate a government for the good of the people they are suppose to be protecting. I simply do not have the faith in all of humanity to do the moral and virtuious thing. Their are a small hand full, but I don't believe there are enough to perform what is honestly needed in helping those whose misfortune was to be born with a defect or to become crippled in such a manner that their ability to care for themselves is gone. Yes, I believe every human being has a moral and ethical obligation to provide some level of assistance. Each person must, of their own volition, decide exactly how much and what they are wiling to contribute. My perspective is that everyone should be morally and ethically obligated to contribute to something. I believe George Sorous should contribute an equal amount to charity as he does to organizations that promote his ideology. (That's me). I have a son who is afflicted with inadequate social skills and some physical impairment. My wife and I are fortunate in that the Community Mental Health assists him in being able to live his own life away from home and he has a job (at Pizza Hut) paying minimum wage for the past 12 years with no raise, and he gets SSI benefits, (on his own he manages to roam about the city and fair grounds to collect returnable bottles and cans for additional income. Where he learned this level of responsibility I don't know, but annually he collects $300 to $500). Without the SSI benefits he would be at home (and unhappy) for we could never afford to pay what is necessary for him to have an independent life he is leading now. He would have to live with us. What is happenning with him is not a government or responsibility. But because the benefit is there I avail myself to it so he can live as free as he reasonably can. Jim. It is a wonderful idea which I deeply respect and wish could be a true fact, but given the Human Condition, I fear that it is not something that would happen even in a free society. Exactly how could such a concept enacted for there is a limited number of good hearted people to step up and provide the assistance needed, then there are so many causes how could we ever possibly address them all. When I look at Hollywood and see all the liberals giving piles of money to social progressive, facsist, communist ideologies when it could, to me, be better used in other ways. Exactly how much money does one person really need. Last year Joe Biden donated $5000 to some charity. Whoopie. I donate that much each year just to try and escape the taxes, and it never seems to be enough he. I am being financially raped by the IRS. My motive however, is more centered around avoiding the government from getting Imy money. I put my money where I where I believe it will do the most good, provide the most help. I wonder if I would continue to do the same if I did not have to pay taxes? You have a good heart Jim, and I accept what you say, and want to believe that a free society would be compassionate, but there are just too many examples out their to anecdotally say differently. If anyone can shed light upon my darkness I would love to hear (read) it to clear my negative position toward humanity.
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 6 years 6 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Heroic!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 6 years 6 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "We-ists", I like that! I have to admit I was surprised when I read about that interpretation of legal tender. It's not just Wikipedia either. However now that I think about it, it may be just like so many other things in government. The "law" or "constitution" may say one thing, but the reality may be something else entirely. It's a house of mirrors... The alternative platform already exists in several forms (despite some attacks like the 1MDC and e-gold fiasco). The problem is getting people to use it. But I'm guessing what will happen is that most people will go blithely along until the dollar crashes, and THEN start looking for alternatives. Oh, well...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 6 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "Here’s the Fifth Amendment in pertinent part: “Nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Notice that the amendment does not say: “Nor shall any citizen … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” It says person." ~ Jacob Hornberger Yes, it does say "person", Jacob. But notice, too, that it does not say: "Nor shall any man ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” It says person. person In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. ~ John Bouvier's 1856 A Law Dictionary This word "person" and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition. A moment's reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations. ~ American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910 "A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested…", that "status or condition" is citizen.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 6 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language tacit adj. ...4. Law happening without contract but by operation of law ~ Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition (c.1980), page 1447 Unfortunately, we will spend hours bitching, to each other, that there is no such thing as "tacit consent", but not a single moment actually rebutting the presumption. Why? Because we don't really want to give up our citizenship status, we just want to complain about "the duties which it imposes".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 6 years 6 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Only in fantasy land, does the Fifth Amendment protect anyone. Back here on Earth, the rulers do what they please.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 6 years 6 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Good one, Jim. Our old enemy, the I.R.S., is indeed the root of all evil, as Frank Chodorov instructed. Putting everyone on a tight budget obviously changes the mindset of the givers.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 6 weeks ago
    Newt's Letter
    Page Jim Davies
    Left a P.M. Sauverans2. I can only handly one thought exploding on me at a time. Remember. I am a neophite here. Error, Error! Grunts (slaves, surfs), obey. Interesting. I was never aware of that. Ha! How about that.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 6 weeks ago
    Newt's Letter
    Page Jim Davies
    "Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody..." I may have to disagree with that. CONSTITUTION. In American Law. The written instrument agreed upon by the people [by those who choose to be members] of the Union or of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it, and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void. Cooley, Const. Lim. 3. ~ A Dictionary of Law [Black's 1st (c.1891)], page 259 It is, at least believed, by the majority of individuals belonging to this political association, to be binding on those swearing to "support" it. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. The Military Oaths The Commissioning Oath "I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) The Enlistment Oath "I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). Note, however, that these individuals DO NOT swear to "obey" it, which is good, because virtually none of them ever have or ever do.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 6 weeks ago
    Newt's Letter
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Glock27, Gave you the following on July 31, 2012. "...you want to be bound by a Constitution that said something like this, "...ALL TREATIES MADE or WHICH SHALL BE MADE, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND... Supremacy clause [of your Constitution]. ...all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the “supreme law of the land” and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provisions of a State constitution or law." ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1005 Look closely at Article VI.2 of your Constitution, then take a look at this article about the Bricker Amendment. Here is the the Bricker Amendment in its entirety, if you'd like to read it. Aside from that, I believe Lysander Spooner may have said it best. And, keep in mind, this essay, No Treason ,was written in 1869, ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-THREE YEARS AGO; it has only gotten worse since then. "Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 6 weeks ago
    Newt's Letter
    Page Jim Davies
    For years I have hammered at my federal and state legislators over issues which concern me and unfortunately I am addicted to do so up to this moment and Jim, you are absolutely, 100% accurate regarding the canned replys. At first you get this first blush of "A-h-h-h! I have done something. When you receive about the 30th response it clicks. They say the same thing about everything you write. Hayek is late, Surfdom is pretty much here already. I can't break the habit of writing to them, only my letters are not as polite as they once were, These letters I get little to no response from and I have to believe that my name appears on some subversive list, they probably know I have orderd books on how to make bombs, improvized explosives, resistance, sabatoge and a sundry of other texts formable for guerilla conflict. Little do they know I have these texts for 1) curiosity and 2) to assist myself in learning skills to use in the coming storm to assist in protecting my properties and life. The current progrom of the U.S. government is to enslave the populace. My greatest dispair is that the citizens have not awaken and when or if they do it will be too late. Right now the nation is captured by Patriotism. I am a patriot of the Constitution if and only if it is followed as prescribed. I have read it and pondered parts and try to study it. To me it seems to be a rather reasonable document to use and follow for a mass of people. There are parts which may be questionable, but I don't know what they are. I read some history, trying to get the best possible true renditions. Anyway. Great article. The problem with it is, if it were nationally publicized more than half the country or better would think "Kook", "Nut case". "radical". or some other deragatory term. I try to teach my grandkids that the U.S. government is an enemy to them, and that their legislatures will ignore them but they are too young to care. All they are interested in are friends and getting laid, having girlfriends. It is so sad. If anyone can share the bad parts of the Consstitution I would be very happy to hear. There is so much reading and so little time to accumulate the knowledge necessary.