Creating the Game Changer..
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
by the way..
I copy and pasted the posts to you VIA PM and asked you to repost them with the links. Did you not see it?
show me the way .. my friend..
does not exist..
describe penned..
fun is for fouls..
if it was missed..
a lesson learned..
put it back.. my friend..it does not apply..
To what realm you dwell..
As you may have heard..
The U.S. is putting together a constitution for Iraq..
Why don't we just give them ours?
Think about it .. it was written by very smart people..
It has served us well for over two hundred years..
And besides..
We're not using it anymore..
~Jay Leno~
The Tonight Show host..
Independent self-reliant people (would be) a counterproductive anachronism in the collective society of the future...
where people will be defined by their associations..
~John Dewey~
1896 . educational philosopher .
proponent of modern public schools .
Saving Private Ryan..
What first impressed me with this movie is the way that the title was advertised in the newspaper ads..
The title was not spelled in all capital letters. Indeed, the title was in all lower case letters as in: “saving private ryan”..
That title in lower case says it all..
There should be no need for the movie review..
This is a situation many of you may applaud. But here goes. I cannot believe that director Steven Spielberg is giving us so much truth..
In this film he is telling you to get out of the democracy..
This is your warning! The plot is simple. Four brothers are in the United States army during the Second World War. Three of them have been killed in action within several days of each other during the D-Day invasion of France. The remaining fourth brother, Private Ryan, is presumably still alive with the American paratroops scattered somewhere behind enemy lines in France..
The task assigned to eight soldiers is to locate Private Ryan and safely escort him so that he can be returned to his mother in civilian life before he too is killed..
The story is a fiction. It is based in part upon a letter that President Abraham Lincoln sent to a mother who lost all five of her sons in the Civil War..
In the letter, it was stated that no mother ought to have to give up all her offspring to a war. This theme was woven into Saving Private Ryan. But the movie has more depth than merely an antiwar movie or a movie based upon patriotism and bravery in action for one’s country..
Who is “private ryan”?.
Is he the title of nobility individual who is a member of the military community during time of war and owes a duty to the military establishment?.
Is he the civilian (private capacity) man on the land who has all his unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that are granted by God?.
This film really asks the deep question as to who private ryan really is and where does he have a duty in life..
The American army invasion forces of World War Two, in the movie, are a metaphor for the Democratic Military government society we live in today..
A Democracy is a military establishment..
One has no “private” capacity while in the military. You are a 24 hour a day and 365 days a year “Private” (rank) soldier always on call. Likewise, in a Democracy, you have no “private” rights..
All the titles to all your belongings belong to the government by legal title. You are left with a mere possessory interest at the pleasure of the Democracy. You live and die for the job. Your life is not your own..
As Spock would say on Star Trek, “The needs of the many out weight the needs of the one..”
In contradistinction to the military existence of a Democracy, the Republic is composed of “private” rights to individuals protected by public laws for the protection of those rights..
These rights set one at liberty to pursue one’s “private” goals and desires. The four Ryan brothers represent the things of the world for the Ryan family. (Four is the number of the world..)
In common law, a family’s Lawful inheritance of property was passed on through a direct male heir of the family. The loss of all male heirs in common law was equated with termination of that families titles in the soil..
If there were daughters, the estate of the family might be passed on to another family. If there were no daughters, then the titles to the land might escheat to the state..
Is the real concern therefore, in this story, that if the last Ryan brother dies, that the family estate and property rights will be lost forever?.
Then there will be no “private” Ryans in the future rooted on the soil by the family estate..
Three brothers dying is representative of completion. (3 is completion.) So is this story trying to tell us to get out of the military (Democracy) and into the private Republic before it is too late and we are all civilly dead?.
At one point, the squad of eight soldiers looking for Private Ryan are hold up in a bombed out church. They are surrounded by the enemy. It is dark outside. Every so often, flashes of light are entering the dimly lit church where the men are resting..
The flashes are from either a storm outside, or from artillery guns blazing away in the background. Several of the soldiers in the squad are discussing the mission to find Private Ryan and send him home before he can be hurt..
The squad is composed of eight soldiers (symbolic of new beginnings). The soldiers are upset that they should be sent on a mission to save one man.
It is likely that all eight men in the squad will die before they find and save Private Ryan..
The question is asked: “Does it make sense for the military to send eight soldiers into a suicide mission in order to save one man?” And: “I can understand that Private Ryan’s mother has sacrificed three sons already and will be devastated if her fourth son dies also. But what about our mothers? They will also be devastated if we die in trying to save Private Ryan..”
In the flashes of light entering the church (a place for deep spiritual reflection), Captain John Miller, played by Tom Hanks, sets forth a brilliant flash of mental light..
He informs one of the soldiers that the issue is whether “The man is the mission or the mission is the man..”
What is the purpose of an army or a military?.
Does it exist merely to exist in itself and to conduct war for profit and gain and honor?.
Or is the military a tool used of necessity to protect the “private” rights of the citizens and people of the nation that the army defends from all enemies, foreign and domestic?.
If the army is a tool to protect “private” rights of civilians, then is the goal to save “Private Ryan”, the military man, or to protect “private ryan” the man temporarily in the army and to restore him back to a civilian life?.
To put the question into a higher prospective today, is the military Democracy a permanent entity where each subject of that Democracy is permanently ensconced in that mode of life and has no unalienable private rights left, or is it time to set aside the military Democracy and to restore the people to the Republic where they are restored to their “private” inheritance?.
Are we living to serve the military government today, or is the military government (Democracy) a temporary entity that is going to restore the Republic?.
The prologue and epilogue set the framework..
The question is asked..
Do the “private ryans” of the nation have the capacity and understanding to lead a quality “private” life under a Republic if they save themselves..
Or must the nation continue under a Democracy (military government) because there is no understanding and discipline to operate in a “private” capacity?..
Eight civilians in the prologue and epilogue are the right number (new beginnings) to answer this question in the affirmative..
The questions posed and the insight prevalent in this film are timely and urgently presented for consideration by those who can grasp their meaning..
BullNBear52..I never said you were..
here is a link that may help you out..
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1414936
Slavery and the eight veils..
Over the last several years I have evolved and discarded several theories in an attempt to explain why it is that most people cannot see truth .. even when it smacks them in the face..
Those of us who can see the conspiracy have participated in countless conversations amongst ourselves that address the frustration of most peoples' inability to comprehend the extremely well documented arguments which we use to describe the process of our collective enslavement and exploitation..
The most common explanation to be arrived at is that most people just don't want to seewhat is really going on..
Extremely evil men and women who make up the world's power-elite have cleverly cultivated a virtual pasture so grass green that few people seldom, if ever, bother to look up from where they are grazing long enough to notice the brightly colored tags stapled to their ears..
The same people who cannot see their enslavement for the pasture grass have a tendency to view as insane conspiracy theorists those of us who can see the past, the farm and into the parlor of his feudal lordship's castle..
Finally, I understand why.
It's not that those who don't see that their freedom is vanishing under the leadership of the power elite don't want to see it .. they simply can't see what is happening to them because of the unpierced veils that block their view..
All human endeavors are a filtration process..
Sports is one of the best examples..
We play specific sports until we get kicked off the playground..
The pro athletes we pay big bucks to watch just never got kicked off the playground..
Where millions of kids play little league each spring, they are filtered out until there are about 50 guys who go to the World Series in October..
Behind the first veil..
There are over six billion people on the planet..
Most of them live and die without having seriously contemplated anything other than what it takes to keep their lives together..
Ninety percent of all humanity will live and die without having pierced the first veil..
The first veil..
Ten percent of us will pierce the first veil and find the world of politics..
We will vote, be active and have an opinion..
Our opinions are shaped by the physical world around us..
We have a tendency to accept that government officials, network media personalities and other experts are voices of authority..
Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without having pierced the second veil..
The second veil..
Ten percent of us will pierce the second veil to explore the world of history, the relationship between man and government and the meaning of self-government through constitutional and common law..
Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without having pierced the third veil..
The third veil..
Ten percent of us will pierce the third veil to find that the resources of the world, including people, are controlled by extremely wealthy and powerful families whose incorporated old world assets have, with modern extortion strategies, become the foundation upon which the world's economy is currently indebted..
Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without having pierced the fourth veil..
The fourth veil..
Ten percent of us will pierce the fourth veil to discover the Illuminati, Freemasonry and the other secret societies..
These societies use symbols and perform ceremonies that perpetuate the generational transfers of arcane knowledge that is used to keep the ordinary people in political, economic and spiritual bondage to the oldest bloodlines on earth..
Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without having pierced the fifth veil..
The fifth veil
Ten percent of us will pierce the fifth veil to learn that the secret societies are so far advanced technologically and in the means of brainwashing and controlling the actions of people that their members do as offhandedly as we tell our children when they must go to bed..
Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without having pierced the sixth veil..
The sixth veil
Ten percent of us will pierce the sixth veil where the dragons and aliens (Satan) we thought were the fictional monsters of childhood literature are real and are the controlling forces behind the secret societies..
Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without piercing the seventh veil..
The seventh veil..
I do not know what is behind the seventh veil..
I think it is where your soul is evolved to the point you can exist on earth and be the man Ghandi was, or the woman Peace Pilgrim was .. people so enlightened .. they brighten the world around them no matter what..
The eighth veil?.
Piercing the eighth veil probably reveals God and the pure energy that is the life force in all living things..
Which are, I think, one and the same..
If my math is accurate there are only about 60,000 people on the planet who have pierced the sixth veil..
The irony here is too incredible..
Those who are stuck behind veils one through five have little choice but to view the people who have pierced the veils beyond them as insane..
With each veil pierced, exponentially shrinking numbers of increasingly enlightened people are deemed insane by exponentially increasing masses of decreasingly enlightened people..
Adding to the irony..
The harder a sixth or better veiler tries to explain what he is able to see to those who can't..
The more insane he appears to them..
Our enemy, the state
Behind the first two veils we find the great majority of people on the planet..
They are tools of the state..
Second veilers are the gullible voters whose ignorance justify the actions of politicians who send first veilers off to die in foreign lands as cannon fodder .. their combined stations in life are to believe that the self serving machinations of the power elite are matters of national security worth dying for..
Third, fourth, fifth and sixth veilers are of increasing liability to the state because of their decreasing ability to be used as tools to consolidate power and wealth of the many into the hands of the power elite..
It is common for these people to sacrifice more of their relationships with friends and family, their professional careers and personal freedom .. with each veil they pierce..
Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945), author of Our Enemy, the State (1935), explained what happens to those who find the seventh and eighth veils..
What was the best that the state could find to do with an actual Socrates and an actual Jesus when it had them?.
Merely to poison one and crucify the other, for no reason but that they were too intolerably embarrassing to be allowed to live any longer..
Conclusions
And so now we know that it's not that our countrymen are so committed to their lives that, they don't want to see, the mechanisms of their enslavement and exploitation..
They simply can't see it as surely as I cannot see what's on the other side of a closed curtain..
The purpose of this essay is threefold..
1. To help the handful of people in the latter veils to understand why the masses have little choice but to interpret their clarity as insanity..
2. To help people behind the first two veils understand that living, breathing and thinking are just the beginning..
3. Show people that the greatest adventure of our life is behind the next veil because that is just one less veil between ourselves and God..
The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307
Email: observer@coldreams.com
Web: http://proliberty.com/observer/
By the way PHIL..
That was not a copy and paste you eradicated..
One..the board is only as strong..
as it's weakest link..
BullNBear52..are you a BUREAUCRAT?.
WHY BUREAUCRATS MAKE SO MANY REGULATIONS..
by James Robertson, July, 1995.
Why do bureaucrats make so many regulations?
One reason is it gives justification (in their minds, at least) for their jobs and their existence. In their warped way of thinking, they engage in Value Destruction while calling it "beneficial regulation." Leave it to bureaucrats to impede Human Progress, while calling such Value Destruction "beneficial." We, the true Value Creators, understand the true nature of Wealth Creation in business organizations and personal networks.
Another reason is that most bureaucrats would probably feel "lost" in a world with few regulations. They don't understand the true nature of what Creates Value; instead, they think that "regulation for the sake of regulation" is a moral and practical good. Obviously they have no understanding of what it means to engage in productive, voluntary, mutually-beneficial Value Creation without force or coercion. They feel "lost" if there aren't enough regulations. Their knee-jerk reaction is: "There ought to be a regulation against that!" Of course, you and I know that most often the human activity they impede results in a terrible Waste of your time and everyone's time. Even worse than the waste of time is the tremendous Value Destruction that occurs as bureaucrats seek to destroy business networks, personal relationships they don't approve of, financial arrangements, and other True Values. Not a surprising result at all, I suppose, coming from Criminal Minds!
Another reason is that most bureaucrats feel personally powerless. Lacking much personal power, bureaucrats exert their need for power in a warped way (i.e., using force or threat of force against others). As the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu noted, paradoxically this makes bureaucrats weak - because using force, or threat of force, against others is not a valid or correct exercise of genuine personal power. Genuine personally-powerful people do not need to initiate force or threat of force to accomplish their creative life purposes. Making or enforcing "regulations for the sake of regulations" is one way that bureaucrats use force, and threaten to use force, against those they disapprove of.
Another reason is that most bureaucrats actually derive psychological pleasure from trying to control others by force or threat of force. Obviously they operate at a very low, animal-like mentality for this to be true. As they see it, the more regulations they make, the more they have a chance to control human beings by force or threat of force.
Which brings us to one of the most insightful passages I've ever read concerning the true nature of bureaucrats and their regulations. The author is Ayn Rand. These quotes are from page 411 of my edition of Atlas Shrugged. Basically, Value Creator Hank Rearden has been accused of breaking some regulations the bureaucrats have made about Rearden's steel business having to do with how much or little steel he may produce, when, and to whom he may sell or not sell.
Says the bureaucrat Floyd Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later . . . [and break one of our regulations] . . . this is just what we wanted."
Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?"
Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?"
Continues bureaucrat Ferris: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." [emphasis added]
Ayn Rand here writes one of the most brilliant expositions I've ever seen about the core of the bureaucratic mentality.
Only if you feel GUILTY about your Value Creation can bureaucrats truly control you. When you admit and confess to yourself and to others that your Value Creation is morally wrong, you are psychologically defeated. This is precisely what they want. Only by making you yourself feel like a criminal about your Value Creation can they defeat you.
[Even if you yourself do not think you've done anything morally wrong in Creating Value and Maintaining Value (Maintaining Value includes protecting your assets), it's very important for the bureaucrats to maintain a Public Spectacle of guilty regulation-breakers. So, at the very least, the bureaucrats almost always try to obtain a "plea of guilty" so that they can control as many "self-confessed criminals" as possible. Another point is that such "self-confessed criminals" seem quite similar to the "self-confessed criminal witches" the Puritans conjured up in 17th-century Masschusetts.]
With bureaucratic regulations concerning taxes alone taking up entire rooms filled with regulation books, the bureaucrats feel pretty powerful when they can call anyone they wish a "criminal."
Indeed, Ayn Rand is correct when she implies that bureaucrats really don't particularly care what regulations are followed or not. Bureaucrats like to operate on "bureaucratic whim" and do what they like.
[Frederick Mann: The above are some of the methods of how the government bureaucrats create a nation of "law breakers" they can control through indoctrination, stultification, stagnation, fossilization, identification, enumeration, classification, accreditation, regulation, complexification, obfuscation, confusion, diversion, deception, misrepresentation, fabrication, falsification, prevarication, perversion, exaggeration, coercion, inspection, compulsion, prohibition, frustration, confrontation, taxation, extortion, inflation, destruction, aggravation, humiliation, supplication, addiction, polarization, suppression, oppression, corruption, incorporation, annexation, admonition, condemnation, persecution, prosecution, conviction, confiscation, incarceration, extradition, expulsion, decimation, annihilation, termination, and execution!]
You are morally justified in taking many, many steps to protect yourself and your assets from these vermin.
Realise that you are free. The bureaucrat-infested system is corrupt through-and-through. It's not on you to change a sewer-system such the roach-infested nest of bureaucratic vipers. Go with us, as we create our own systems and relationships. We as freedom lovers can fully concentrate on Creating Value in business organizations and personal networks with like-minded individuals. The bureaucratic vermin are largely irrelevant to your most productive relationships. It isn't even necessary to go to a hidden valley as they did in Atlas Shrugged.
It is a pleasure to deal with you, the true Value Creators!
one declares so many things to be a crime..
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws..
who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?.
what's there in that for anyone?.
but .. just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted..
and you create a nation of law-breakers..
and then you cash in on guilt..
now that's the system..
and once those that are supposed to..
understand it..
they will be much easier to deal with..
BullNBear52..must be one of those DSP's..
DSPs.. Dangerously Stupid Persons in the War on Board Etiquette..
History and reality say it'll happen -- and it'll look very familiar when it does.
July 24, 2002
If you were a conscientious citizen and you saw the makings of a bomb on someone's work bench or a plan for a terror attack on a computer screen, what would you do? Most people would report their suspicions to someone who could do something about them.
If that's what sensible people would do -- on their own -- then why does the Bush administration believe it needs an organized network of citizen-informers, controlled from Washington, D.C.?
The TIPS program (Terrorism Information and Prevention System), run by the Office of Homeland Security and the U.S. Justice Department, officially gets underway this summer. Using unions and large employers, it aims to recruit millions of delivery drivers, cable installers, utility repair people, mail carriers, and others who have access to your home or business. The federal government wants them to spy on you.
Now the truth is that the police have quietly used such people for decades. Investigators without enough evidence to get a warrant might arrange a convenient power outage so a friendly technician can be sent into your home. There he might "just happen to spot" evidence that you've been growing medical marijuana or collecting "illegal" weapons. In the small town where JPFO is located we've personally seen the sheriff go to the counter and ask for information on suspects. (The clerks never say, "Show me your subpoena"). Postal clerks have also been required for years to report various kinds of "suspicious" activity, mostly involving purchases of money orders.
So in that sense, TIPS is nothing new. And don't believe it if a Postal Service spokesperson says her agency has declined to participate. The P.O. changes its position daily on TIPS, it seems, but the fact is, postal workers are already spying on you.
DANGEROUSLY STUPID PERSONS ON PATROL
But think about what happens when millions of men and women with access to American homes are actually recruited and encouraged to spot "suspicious activity" everywhere they look. Think about what happens when the government creates a giant secret club with the meter reader as a member and you as an outsider.
Think about the TV-addled thousands who've always thought it would be cool to wear a badge and kick down doors but who didn't have the brains to get the job. Think about busybodies. Think about people who don't like you, your lifestyle, or your politics. Think about people who lead lives of quiet desperation, starving for the kind of drama and celebrity they normally get only from the National Enquirer. Think about well-meaning but misdirected Barney Fife's feeling responsible for the nation's "security." Think about people who are just plain, hysterical fools without an ounce of sense in their heads.
These are all DSPs -- Dangerously Stupid Persons. They may be harmless when left to their own devices. But when a government actively encourages them to fulfill their fantasies -- watch out.
Suddenly, these folks get to see themselves as Junior G-Men, Official Deputized Tin-Star Agents of the Guys in the White Hats.
And YOU are Bonnie and Clyde and Pretty Boy Floyd and Machine-Gun Kelly, all rolled into one. Not to mention Osama bin Laden and the head of the Cali cartel.
If you've enjoyed airport security checks conducted by arrogant, semi-educated, quasi-official agents of the government, just think how you're going to love it when they bring their "I'm with the government, I'm here to do whatever I want" act into your home or office. These people don't understand the Bill of Rights. They weren't taught about in their government schools. And they don't care two cents if they violate it -- or violate you.
YOU MIGHT BE A TARGET IF ...
Is there a reloading press on your work bench when the furnace repairman arrives? Does the telephone technician recoil upon seeing a shelf full of books from Loompanics or Paladin Press? Does the UPS driver get spooked by a disassembled AR-15 you're cleaning at the kitchen table? Does the mail carrier think you're getting too many military surplus catalogs? Do you fiddle with electronic equipment, homeschool your children, practice a non- mainstream religion, have unconventional political views or an unusual sex life?
Then you'd better be aware, beware, and be wary.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union (hardly a friend to gun owners) has pointed out that something as innocuous as possessing a gun magazine or a copy of the Koran could cause a TIPS volunteer to denounce you.
You may still think TIPS sounds innocuous. But what's being introduced now is just the TIPS of the police-state iceberg. Remember this axiom: If it's a government program, it grows.
The income tax was never going to take more than a few percent from the very richest people. Social Security was a fully funded insurance program for workers. The Great Society was going to spend a few billion dollars to wipe out poverty. And on and on.
Here's one familiar escalation example. First the government asks us nicely to wear a seatbelt. Then officers ticket you for being unbuckled, but only if they've stopped you for some other offense. Then being unbelted becomes a stopable offense by itself. And then they start throwing a few people in jail for failing to belt up. (See The State vs. the People, pps. 66-67) What next? Seize your unbelted children and throw them into foster homes?
Need more examples? Just ask a cigarette smoker where he's allowed to smoke these days. Ask a parent what happens if you don't believe in vaccinating your child. Think about the folks now angling to make it more difficult for you to buy an SUV or eat fatty foods. Or the school administrators who've had children not only suspended, but in some cases arrested, for pointing fingers and saying "bang."
This is what happens when government fosters and encourages hysteria "for your own good." This is what will inevitably happen with TIPS. But it gets even worse.
DSPS WITH GUNS
Others have noted that the TIPS program establishes a Stasi- like network of informers. (In Communist East Germany so many people were denouncing each other that the shelf space required to hold the information was measured in miles.) This is true. TIPS is the stuff of a police state.
It's also fairly obvious that thousands of foolish tips could overload investigators and cause them to overlook the next real threat.
But the most immediate danger is simply from DSPs. DSPs with badges. And DSPs who fantasize about having badges.
If you want to see a preview of the War on Terrorism, U.S.A. under the TIPS program, just look at the War on Drugs and the way drug warriors misuse informants.
In Houston, a drunk trying to save himself from being busted, tells police he can show them the home of a big drug dealer. Without further investigation, the cops smash in and kill Pedro Oregon Navarro, an innocent man. (See The State vs. the People, pg. 216)
In Dinuba, California, a rural town with a SWAT team but very little crime, an informant tells police a weapon used in an attempted murder might be in a certain house. In the middle of the night, Dinuba's finest burst in and machine-gun 64-year- old Ramon Gallardo to death. The informant was lying. (See The State vs. the People, pg. 309)
We could recount incidents like these all day -- incidents in which police act without checking, without good sense, and without mercy, egged on by self-interested, self-glorifying, payoff-seeking citizen informants.
Now think about what happens when TIPS expands to pay citizen informants for providing evidence of terrorism (as is now done in the Drug War and by the IRS, among other notorious instances). Think about someone who doesn't like you or who wants to make a buck planting evidence in your home or on your computer. Think about some repairman spotting a controversial item in your possession and shaking you down ("Hey buddy, a hundred bucks and I'll forget I saw a thing.") Think about some busybody selling information about you to the police or FBI. History and reality say it'll happen -- and it'll look very familiar when it does.
War on Terrorism? War on Drugs? Who cares what you call it, as long as it beefs up the budgets of law enforcement agencies, builds government power, demolishes that pesky and inconvenient Bill of Rights, and pumps up the egos (and perhaps eventually the wallets) of a nation of citizen-informants.
AND WAIT'LL THEY GET BOMBS AND AIRCRAFT
Now the Bush administration proposes to junk, or at least weaken, the Posse Comitatus Act, the 124-year-old law that keeps the military out of domestic law enforcement (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1503195). The major difference between the military and the police is that police are trained (at least in theory) to protect and serve citizens while soldiers are trained to kill the enemy. Remember Kent State?
Consider what happens when TIPS is combined with domestic military operations. You don't have to look far. Just look at Afghanistan.
U.S. airstrikes in that sad country have killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Last month an airstrike wiped out 50 people at a wedding party. This isn't merely a tragic, but unpreventable, side-effect of war. This is a combination of the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality and the uninformed use of informants. One Afghani warlord with a grudge comes to the Americans and tells them, "Oh, big Al Quaeda operation going on here" -- when in fact it's merely a rival warlord's family reunion. Boom! The Americans roar in with full firepower.
Shall we say, "Coming soon to a neighborhood near you?" It might if the Bush administration gets its way on Posse Comitatus and someone has a grudge against you or misinterprets your actions.
TIPS ON TIPS: EDUCATE YOURSELF TO REDUCE YOUR RISK
Whether your greatest fear is short-term danger from deputized busybodies or the long-term (and ever increasing) danger that your beloved country is becoming a police state, TIPS is a step in the wrong direction.
Even if the program is officially killed by Congress, chances are, it won't go away. To avoid falling victim to some Junior J. Edgar, cross your fingers, use a lot of common sense, and take simple precautions like these:
Don't buy a lot of money orders for cash (at the post office or any financial service company)
Clean house regularly. Don't leave cartridges, controversial books, firearms, political pamphlets, religious tracts, knife collections, electronics, storage foods, or anything more controversial than a picture of your Aunt Nellie in plain sight -- or hidden where a repair person might stumble across it.
Become as energy self-sufficient as possible so utility workers will have little reason to come to your home.
Install your own phone lines so the phone company has no reason to be on your property.
Receive mail and packages at a post office box or mail service so no delivery person ever has to come to your home.
Behave yourself with impeccable discretion in all public places, including on public transportation, in taxis, and .... well, everywhere.
Do maintenance checks on your home and replace old or faulty equipment to reduce the need for emergency calls to plumbers, electricians, firefighters or anyone else.
It isn't pleasant to have to live this way. But as long as DSPs are turned loose upon the nation by government mandate, sensible people have to act extra sensibly to survive.
Unfortunately, things may have to get much worse before they get better. As long as Americans can fool themselves into believing that unjust accusations, midnight raids, detentions without charges, and all abuses of freedom happen only to "the other guy," they'll tolerate anything. Only when their own ox is gored -- as the TIPS program may eventually gore it -- will a majority stand up and demand restoration of a Bill of Rights culture.
As Ben Franklin said, we have a republic -- if we can keep it. We should all look in the mirror and ask ourselves how much we really want to keep it and what we're willing to do to prevent it from being taken away by DSPs and their government handlers.
-----
To learn more about TIPS, visit JPFO's Unpopular Speech Page (http://www.jpfo.org/unpopularspeech.htm). Scroll down and read "I'm Happy to Spy for America," by Charles Laurence, "Yes, A Million Tipsters Can be Wrong," by J.R. Labbe, and "Monitor Thy Neighbor," by Rep. Ron Paul.
To get the big picture on what's happening to our once-free America, read The State vs People by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman (http://www.jpfo.org/tsvtp.htm)
"Are the FBI's New Guidelines Police-State Policies?" Consider the article by Richard W. Stevens, attorney at law, and decide for yourself. (http://www.jpfo.org/fbirules.htm)
Did our parents fight fascism so we could establish a police state on our own shores? Read "An Open Letter to Our Fathers and Grandfathers: You Won the Battle but Lost the War." (http://www.jpfo.org/veterans.htm)
America is in distress! "The Upside-Down Flag" shows one way you can alert your friends and neigbors to our danger. (http://www.jpfo.org/alert20020628.htm)
What would America be like if it had a real Bill of Rights culture? Hope by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith will inspire you. (http://www.jpfo.org/hope.htm)
The Liberty Crew
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20020724.htm
History and reality say it'll happen -- and it'll look very familiar when it does.
too much time spent policing..
not enough conversing..
Too bad the posts were eradicated..
Some must have feared..
what they contained..
who would have thought small minded..
dwelled on this board..
onebug..agreed..
of all men's miseries .. the bitterest is this ..
to know so much..
and to have control over nothing..
~Herodotus~
The problem..
Part 1: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/silent1.pdf
Part 2: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/silent2.pdf
please don't go any further if you have not read the above..
Does God Believe in Gun Control?
By David B. Kopel
"You are doing God's work," Brady Bill sponsor Charles Schumer remarked to Sarah Brady at one Congressional hearing. And perhaps one could argue that if it took God seven days to make the world, people shouldn't be able to buy a gun in any less time.
But did God really endorse the Brady Bill? One would certainly think so, given the huge number of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious organizations that endorsed the Brady Bill, and which endorse virtually every other gun control proposal. God's anti-gun army is prominent not just in Washington, but also in the state legislatures.
This year, for example, as legislatures have debated laws allowing licensed, trained citizens to obtain a permit to carry a handgun for protection, some of the most vocal opponents have been religious groups. Now the state chapter of the National Council of Churches does not show up at legislative hearings armed with criminological data. Instead, persons claiming to testify on behalf of "the religious community" come to express their "moral" opposition to the use of deadly force against criminal attack.
This same worldview is at the heart of the federal ban on so-called "assault weapons," which attempts to distinguish good "sporting" firearms from bad "antipersonnel" weapons. It likewise motivates the stated long-term agenda of Sarah Brady's organization Handgun Control, Inc.--to outlaw firearms possession for self-defense. Within the gun control movement, one does not have to dig very far to find the strongly-held and sanctimonious belief that the NRA and its ilk are moral cretins because they believe in answering violence with violence.
But is hostility to the lawful use of force for defense the only morally legitimate position? The moral authorities relied on by most Americans suggest otherwise. The Book of Exodus specifically absolves a homeowner who kills a burglar. (Exodus 22:2, "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguiltiness on his account.")
The Sixth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" refers to murder only, and does not prohibit the taking of life under any circumstances; notably, the law of Sinai specifically requires capital punishment for a large number of offenses.
A bit earlier in the Bible, Abram, the father of the Hebrew nation, learns that his nephew Lot has been taken captive. Abram (later to be renamed "Abraham" by God) immediately calls out his trained servants, set out on a rescue mission, finds his nephew's captors, attacks, and routs them, thereby rescuing Lot. (Genesis 14). The resort to violence to rescue an innocent captive is presented as the morally appropriate choice.
Most gun prohibitionists who look to the Bible for support do not cite specific interdictions of weapons (there are none) but instead point to the general passages about peace and love, such as "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5: 38-39); "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5: 43); and "Do not repay anyone evil for evil." (Romans 12: 17). None of these exhortations take place in the context of an imminent threat to life. A slap on the cheek is a blow to pride, but not a threat to life.
Reverend Anthony Winfield, author of Self-Defense and the Bible, suggests that these verses command the faithful not to seek revenge for evil acts, and not to bear grudges against persons who have done them wrong. He points to the passage "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with everyone" (Romans 12: 18), as showing an awareness that in extreme situations, it might not be possible to live in peace.
Further evidence that the New Testament does not command universal pacifism is found in the missions of John the Baptist and Peter, both of whom preached to soldiers who converted. Neither John nor Peter demanded that the soldiers lay down their arms, or find another job. (Luke 3: 14; Acts 10: 22-48). John did tell the soldiers "Don't extort money, and don't accuse people falsely," just as he told tax collectors "Don't collect any more than you are required to." The plain implication is that being a soldier (or a tax collector) is not itself wrong, so long as the inherent power is not used for selfish purposes.
Of course most gun prohibitionists do not see anything wrong with soldiers carrying weapons and killing people if necessary. But if--as the New Testament strongly implies--it is possible to be a good soldier and a good Christian, then it is impossible to claim that the Gospel always forbids the use of violence, no matter what the purpose. The stories of the soldiers support Winfield's thesis that the general "peace and love" passages are not blanket prohibitions on the use of force in all circumstances.
Is an approving attitude towards the bearing of arms confined to professional soldiers? Not at all. At the last supper, Jesus' final instructions to the apostles begin: "When I sent you without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," the apostles answer. Jesus continues: "But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." He ends by observing "what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The apostles then announce, "Lord, behold, here are two swords," and Jesus cuts them off: "That is enough." (Luke 22: 36-38).
Even if the passage is read with absolute literalness, Jesus was not setting up a rule that every apostle must carry a sword (or a purse or a bag). For the eleven, two swords were "enough." More importantly, Jesus may not have been issuing an actual command that anybody carry swords, or purses, or bags. The broader, metaphorical point being made by Jesus was that the apostles would, after Jesus was gone, have to take care of their own worldly needs to some degree. The purse (generally used for money), the bag (generally used for clothing and food), and the sword (generally used for protection against the robbers who preyed on travelers, including missionaries, in the open country between towns) are all examples of tools used to take care of such needs. When the apostles took Jesus literally, and started showing him their swords, Jesus, frustrated that they missed the metaphor, ended the discussion. The metaphorical interpretation is supported by scholarly analysis, and seems to best account for the entire conversation.
Even when reduced to metaphor, however, the passage still contradicts the rigid pacifist viewpoint. In the metaphor, the sword, like the purse or the bag, is treated as an ordinary item for any person to carry. If weapons and defensive violence were illegitimate under all circumstances, Jesus would not have instructed the apostles to carry swords, even in metaphor, any more than Jesus would have created metaphors suggesting that people carry Ba'al statues for protection, or that they metaphorically rape, rob, and murder.
A few hours after the final instructions to the apostles, when soldiers arrived to arrest Jesus, and Peter sliced off the ear of one of their leaders, Jesus healed the ear. He then said "No more of this" (Luke 22: 49-51) or "Put your sword away" (John 18: 10) or "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26: 52). (The quotation is sometimes rendered as "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.") Jesus then rebuked the soldiers for effecting the arrests with clubs and swords, for Jesus was "not leading a rebellion."
The most immediate meaning of these passages is that Jesus was preventing interference with God's plan for the arrest and trial. Additionally, Jesus was instructing the apostles not to begin an armed revolt against the local dictatorship or the Roman imperialists. Jesus had already refused the Zealots' urging to lead a war of national liberation.
Do the passages also suggest a general prohibition against drawing swords (or other weapons) for defense? The versions of the story recounted in Luke and John do not, but the version in Matthew could be so read. If Matthew is analyzed along the lines of "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword," the passage is an admonition that a person who centers his life on violence (such as a gang member) will likely perish. On the other hand, a translation of "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" could be read as a general rule against armed violence in any situation.
The best way to understand the Bible, most theologians would concur, is not to look at passages in isolation, but instead to carefully study passages in the context of the rest of the Bible. If the single line in Matthew were to be read to indicate that to draw the sword is always wrong, then it would be difficult to account for the other passages which suggest that drawing a sword as a soldier (or carrying a sword as an apostle) is not illegitimate.
Looking at the passage of Matthew in the context of the rest of the Bible would, therefore, look to the passage as a warning against violence as a way of life, rather than as a flat-out ban on defensive violence in all situations. A 1994 document produced by the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace states: "In a world marked by evil and sin, the right of legitimate defense by armed means exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community." The document notes that "the right" to armed defense "is coupled with the duty to do all possible to reduce to a minimum, and indeed eliminate, the causes of violence."
The Catholic Church recognizes people as saints because (among other reasons), the lives of saints are considered to worthy of study and emulation. February 27 is the feast day of Saint Gabriel Possenti. According to The One Year Book of Saints, as a young man in 19th-century Italy, Francesco Possenti was known as the best dresser in town, as a "superb horseman," and as "an excellent marksman." The young man was also a consummate partygoer, who was engaged to two women at the same time. Twice during school he had fallen desperately ill, promised to give his life to God if he recovered, and then forgotten his promise. One day at church, Possenti saw a banner of Mary. He felt that her eyes looked directly at him, and he heard the words "Keep your promise." Possenti immediately joined an order of monks, taking the name Brother Gabriel.
The main incident for which Saint Gabriel Possenti is remembered was this: "One a summer day a little over a hundred years ago, a slim figure in a black cassock [Possenti] stood facing a gang of mercenaries in a small town in Piedmont, Italy. He had just disarmed one of the soldiers who was attacking a young girl, had faced the rest of the band fearlessly, then drove them all out of the village at the point of a gun....[W]hen Garibaldi's mercenaries swept down through Italy ravaging villages, Brother Gabriel showed the kind of man he was by confronting them, astonishing them with his marksmanship, and saving the small village where his monastery was located."
Saint Gabriel Possenti's "astonishing marksmanship" was displayed after he had just disarmed the soldier. The mercenaries' leader told Possenti that it would take more than just one monk with a handgun to make the mercenaries leave town. The saint pointed out to the mercenaries a lizard which was running across the road. Possenti shot the lizard right through the head, at which point the mercenaries decided that discretion was the better part of valor; they obeyed Possenti's orders to extinguish the fires they had started and to return the property they had stolen. They then fled the village, never to be heard from again.
Jewish law comes to the same conclusion as the Vatican Pontifical Council: "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first," commands the Talmud. Bystanders are likewise required to kill persons who are attempting rape. As Columbia University's George Fletcher explains, while there is a duty to self-defense, the duty to defend others is seen as prior.
The view that forcible resistance to evil attack is itself evil has serious implications: Patrick Henry and the other founding fathers were wrong to urge armed resistance to the British Redcoats; the Jews who led the Warsaw Ghetto revolt against Hitler were immoral; Jeffrey Dahmer's victims would have been wrong to use a weapon to protect themselves; Saint Gabriel Possenti was a paragon of evil; Abraham should not have rescued his kidnapped nephew; and police officers who fire their guns to protect innocent people are sinful.
Consider the situation of a mother in a rough Los Angeles neighborhood, moments after an escaped psychopathic murderer has broken into her house. The woman has good reason to fear that the intruder is about to slaughter her three children. If she does not shoot him with her .38 special, the children will be dead before the police will arrive. Is the woman's moral obligation to murmur "violence engenders violence," and keep her handgun in the drawer while her children die? Or is the mother's moral duty to save her children, and shoot the intruder?
The view that life is a gift from God, and that permitting the wanton destruction of one's own life (or the life of a person under one's care) amounts to hubris is hardly new. As a 1747 sermon in Philadelphia put it: "He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself."
Whatever their disagreements on other matters, the natural rights philosophers such as Blackstone, Montesquieu, Hobbes, and Locke who provided the intellectual foundation of the American Revolution saw self-defense as "the primary law of nature," from which many other legal principles could be deduced.
As the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: "We shall have lost something vital and beyond price on the day when the state denies us the right to resort to force..."
Leading 19th-century criminal law scholars emphasized a less philosophical, point: that victims protect the entire community when they kill a dangerous criminal rather than leaving him free to prey on others. As Frederick Pollock summarized the views of James Bishop and of Sir James Stephens, "Sudden and strong resistance to unrighteous attack is not merely a thing to be tolerated ...as a necessary evil [but is] a just and perfect" right. A good citizen attacked has "a moral duty" to use all force necessary to apprehend or otherwise incapacitate criminals rather than to submit or retreat.
Janet Powell, speaking for Australia's Anti-Gun Lobby, Incorporated, insists that a person should never use a gun for self-defense, because of duty to the community. But what kind of decent community would prefer that an innocent member of the community be harmed instead of the harm being suffered by a conscious predator?
John Crook, the head of Gun Control Australia, stated that any woman who would defend herself with a firearm is "selfish." But a Psychology Today study of "Good Samaritans" who came to aid of victims of violent crime found that 81% "own guns and some carry them in their cars. They are familiar with violence, feel competent to handle it, and don't believe they will be hurt if they get involved." Are these people selfish, inferior beings?
Having been through the Bible several times, I still can't find the parts where God (or even a minor prophet) endorses a handgun waiting period, one-gun-a-month, or any other item in the litany of the anti-gun lobbies and the religious groups that endorse them. (Nor, of course, is there anything in the Bible implying that there is anything immoral with any of these proposals.)
But the idea that pacifism in the face of violent attack against one's family or oneself is some kind of moral imperative that should be enforced by the state is not only missing, it is contrary to common sense and the Western religious tradition. Making it illegal for citizens to own firearms for defense of home and family may or may not be a good idea from a criminological viewpoint--but it is certainly not God's work.
David B. Kopel is an associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute, and research director with the Independence Institute, a think-tank in Golden. His most recent book is "Guns: Who Should Have Them?"
This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6535 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org
http://www.njguns.com/godnguns.htm
31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service..
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
“I Love the Union and the Constitution, he said...”
There was a time when the states knew how, when to delegate..
By: Charley Reese
Jefferson Davis, the last American president to preside over a constitutional republic (the Confederate States of America) had this to say about the Constitution and the Union. “I love the Union and the Constitution,” he said, “but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”
I would guess many Americans have no idea what Davis meant, because they have no idea what the original intent of the Constitution was. Many today, I suspect, think that the Constitution is what allows people to burn flags and dance naked in bars. In fact, the Founding Fathers had a rather more serious purpose in mind.
The first step in understanding the original intent is to recall that Colonial America existed for about 169 years before the American Revolution; these colonies existed separately and independent of each other. When they seceded from the British Empire, they did so separately and independently.
The Declaration of Independence is clear on this point. It states, “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America,...solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States” (note the plural) “...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all the other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do...”
They called themselves the United States because of the Articles of Confederation. Article II of that document states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”
Many people today seem to think that the federal government created the states when it was the reverse. The states created the federal government as a stronger form of confederation by delegating certain of their powers to it. Thus, the purpose of the Constitution of 1787, like the Articles of Confederation, was to create a voluntary union to accomplish specific purposes, mainly to ensure a domestic free market, to provide for the common defense of the states and to deal with foreign countries with one voice.
In the original Constitution, people were not American citizens per se but were instead citizens of their respective states. The Constitution stipulated that each state would grant to the citizens of other states the rights and privileges it granted to its own. It’s difficult t understand the War Between the States without understanding the loyalty Americans – North and South – felt for their respective states.
But what is relevant for us today is that the people in the American Republic (1787-1860) understand that the powers of the federal government were strictly limited to those spelled out in the Constitution and that the Constitution would be interpreted literally and narrowly. And, most important, that the states themselves would be the final judge of the federal government’s actions.
In the North, however, there arose new feelings of nationalism and a belief that a strong central government should provide economic benefits – protective tariffs and infrastructure, for example. Southerners disagreed; hence the split. Because the North prevailed and amended the Constitution to expand the powers of the federal government, that’s what we live under today.
But Davis also said that questions that are settled by force and violence remain forever unsettled and will arise again. And so, today, we are seeing more and more people object to an unlimited central government. It seems sometimes that human “progress” travels in a circle rather than a straight line.
2nd Amendment challenge ends in a draw, sort of .. for now
Denver businessman accepts electronic shackle, fine; lives to fight another day..
Rick Stanley, Constitutional Activist, former U.S. Senate candidate, enemy of the state, and self avowed extremist on the order of our forefathers of America, is one of the most dedicated, happy and well-adjusted soldiers for truth, justice and the American way this country has ever produced. Almost a year ago, Stanley, owner of Stanley Fasterners and Shop Supply in Denver, was charged with carrying an unconcealed firearm. He used this case to orchestrate a 2nd Amendment challenge that was accepted by the county of Denver. Though the Colorado District Federal Court denied Stanley's petition to remove the instant case to federal court, Stanley's vows his conviction, as described below, will be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
DENVER, August 14, 2003 -- Rick Stanley was ordered to court today at 8:30 a.m. in Denver County Court with an order to appear for sentencing. Stanley was convicted last year for “openly” wearing a weapon.
A previous order to appear at a hearing set for June 26, 2003, was quietly brushed off as a “clerical” error and vacated by Judge Patterson, as was the Bench Warrant he issued for Stanley when Stanley refused to appear June 26.
Stanley believes Judge Patterson was wiling to correct his procedural errors to placate his new boss Mayor John Hickenlooper who was inaugurated July 21.
The mayor appoints municipal and county judges in Denver. The threat of a “Mutual Defense Pact” militia action should Stanley's rights continue to be vlagrantly violated was imminent and could result in Denver being put in the spotlight for judicial and police abuse activists across the country. Over 600 armed defenders were preparing to come to Denver should Stanley have been attacked by any unconstitutional threat to his person (see www.stanley2002.org).
SWAT exercise at Stanley
A “practice demonstration” by the city of Denver that included a Swat team truck, two fire ladder trucks, one ambulance, and three police vehicles was held at 4:45 p.m. July 17, 2003, at Stanley's business at 6280 E. 39th Ave. in Denver.
Upon arrival of the assault team, power was cut off to Stanley's 22,000 square foot building and an employee was prevented from leaving. Curiously, within 10 minutes of arriving with sirens blaring and police blocking traffic in front of the business, the assault team abruptly drove off in silence; the employee was allowed to leave and power was restored.
The next day, Judge Patterson signed an order on July 18, 2003, vacating the June 26 hearing that had triggered the bench warrant, which also prompted an “armed and dangerous” report to be filed in Stanley's case to warrant the assault team. Stanley also learned that he has been under investigation by the FBI.
Stanley speculated that the FBI was investigating and recording phone conversations and emails because of his Million Gun March Petition and Mutual Defense Pact Militia, which can be found at Stanley's Constitutional Activism website: www.stanley2002.org.
The new mayor, John Hickenlooper, was installed on the next business day of Monday, July 21, 2003 and probably was responsible for the cooler heads prevailing by doing the right thing by Stanley. This consequently spurred an Internal Affairs investigation for the Denver Police Department with David Quinones questioning Stanley as to how he came into the possession of the interdepartment memo, detailing the Armed and Dangerous report and the FBI information of their investigation.
Stanley declined to comment, but did say that no Denver Police employee gave him the report, clearing several Denver Police officers from any wrongdoing. Stanley said that he was pleased by the decision of the judge to vacate the hearing and bench warrant as Stanley and Denver police officers lives were needlessly put in danger by the unlawful actions of Judge Patterson and his unlawful calling of the original hearing and subsequent unlawful bench warrant for Stanley's arrest.
At the Aug. 14 hearing Judge Patterson ignored the fact that the case is back on appeal at the Denver District court, and the filing had not been acted upon by that court at the time of the hearing. Judge Patterson violated the Colorado Rules of Procedure by ignoring this filing and imposing sentence upon Stanley.
In addition, Mr. Stanley had filed a VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN DENVER COUNTY COURT FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 65 F.R.Civ.P. and an EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 USC 1443 and COMPLAINT WITH SUPPORTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF regarding this misdemeanor criminal action, in Denver District Federal Court the day before.
As of the hearing in Judge Patterson's courtroom, no ruling had been made by the federal court, but Judge Patterson proceeded with the sentencing.
Stanley was sentenced to serve 30 day home detention with ankle bracelet, pay a $629 fine and court costs and 75 hours community restitution. Judge Patterson ordered Stanley to report immediately to arrange his community service or he would impose a 6-month jail sentence immediately.
Stanley was followed by three sheriffs deputies at all locations in the courthouse after sentencing. While paying his fine and arranging to have his $2,500 bond returned, Stanley was summoned back to the court for an additional hearing.
Stanley was threatened again by Judge Patterson with a 6-month jail sentence instead of the other sentence if he did not sign a “new” form with whatever Judge Patterson decided to put on it.
Judge Patterson was very upset that his clerk had crossed off the following sentence from the form that Stanley must agree to and sign or face 6 months in jail:
“Important Notice: Having been granted probation you may be required to participate in a “treatment” or “education” program. Any costs resulting from that treatment are your responsibility.”
Stanley then pointed out that Judge Patterson had not imposed this upon Stanley at the sentencing hearing, nor had it been mentioned in the order for initiation for sentencing hearing, that had preceded the new hearing. Stanley also pointed out that he was uncomfortable with any “treatments” the city might decide to give him, either medically or physically and would not sign away this right.
Judge Patterson said Stanley must sign and agree to anything he puts on the signature form or Stanley will go to jail immediately for 6 months.
Stanley said nothing for about 15 seconds, and the judge lost control and told the deputies to get him to sign the form or take him to jail.
Stanley voluntarily walked to the clerk, picked up three identical forms, signed all three and handed them all back to the clerk.
The clerk returned two of the forms to Stanley with instructions as to how he can comply with the Judges new instructions.
Stanley smiled at the clerk, thanked her and wished her well, then left the courtroom.
Note: The entire odyssey of Stanley's 2nd Amendment challenge is memorialized at www.stanley2002.org. Through his site you can learn about his Million Gun March, the Mutual Defense Pact and several other proactive measures this committed American has put in motion.
Through his website one can also sign up for the Stanley Scoop -- a sometimes daily digest of information that is of tremendous interest and importance to pro-American activists.
Stanley's case has brought to light some issues he plans to take to the Supreme Court.
Home - Current Edition
Advertising Rate Sheet
About the Idaho Observer
Some recent articles
Some older articles
Why we're here
Subscribe
Our Writers
Corrections and Clarifications
Hari Heath
Vaccination Liberation - vaclib.org
Make money, help your country and support The Idaho Observer at the same time by signing up as a NORFED Redemption Center.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307
Email: observer@coldreams.com
Web:
http://idaho-observer.com
http://proliberty.com/observer/
Want to here something really scary?.
Colorado GUN-GRABBER, Diana "da, da, doesn't get it" DeGette shows solidarity for Nazi-like Gun Controls for law-abiding Americans, because of the miniscule numbers of so-called "Assault-Weapons" that criminals use while supplying Democrat voters with illegal drugs, that are also banned???
The reporters, dignitaries and innocent bystanders packed into the room (we wouldn't want Colorado Rep. Diana Degette, standing in 'lockstep' with fellow-gungrabbers, in the foreground, to get hurt, now would we?) were too ignorant to be terrified as Feinstein swept the crowd with the muzzle of the Hungarian AK-47, bolt closed, finger on the trigger, with a high-capacity 75 round drum magazine locked in place!
San Francisco resident William A. Levinson wrote a certified letter to Mayor Willie Brown, Jr., demanding legal action against the blatant gun safety violations of the illustrious “Ms. Gun Control,” who holds a rare California concealed weapons permit.
Do as I say, not as I do...
When Sen. Feinstein was asked earlier why she carried that .38 Smith & Wesson concealed in her purse while promoting gun control for the rest of us, Feinstein answered, “I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”
Yet, she's too much of an elitist Democrat hypocrite to admit that VERY FEW Californians are given 'permission' to protect themselves as Feinstein has the elite privilege of having!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be sure to view a mini-video of Dianne Feinstein's vision of 'Gun Control' for Amerika:
http://www.cphv.com/fl_legacy.htm
Make sure you keep clicking on the "NEXT" boxes after the text appears & it's best if your computer has a sound card for the "FULL EFFECT"!
WDIK??
ben..you survived..
while another is battening down the hatches in bermuda..
be well..
my friend..
help get US out.. of the United Nations ..
http://www.getusout.org/index.htm
we can practice love..
and still understand what goes on around us..
it is making those that we love .. aware ..
to what is happening .. around them ..
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BIBLE&read=40916
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere..
We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality,
tied in a single garment of destiny..
Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly..
.. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Letter from the Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
(1929-1968), US civil rights leader
THE REMEDY..
To enslave the American people, the World Elite used a slowly implemented plot based on International Law with the main legal factor being "consent."
Since all of this has been implemented under our very noses, it may be appropriate to include more "philosophy" from another World Elite training manual:
"Those who will not use their brains are not better off than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jellyfish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same." /1\
Such is what THEY think of the American people at large.
You must understand that you have become enslaved by the hidden enemy's weapon of Materialism. To set yourself free, the most important thing to understand is that God is your Master. You can only serve one master. If you do not believe in God you then believe in man. And, as all men are sinners you then are in deep trouble. If you let this most important factor be forgotten, then THEY will tacitly enslave you.
To remedy the tacitly induced situation exposed herein:
1. You can not be a registered voter (and, you better not be voting).
2. You must claim one of the several American republics as your nation.
3. You must put your faith in God and His word.
Accordingly, said actions will allow you will gain back your natural rights which are preserved under the organic (real) constitutional system.
Such initiative will remove you from the control of the private laws as set forth by the Marxist federal government; moreover, from most of the private laws of any chosen American republic, as they currently only represent United States citizens and nationals.
Pursuant to this, it is the paramount goal of the People's Awareness Coalition to assist you in Reprogramming yourself.
As this task is not a easy one, it will take a lot of study (Legal and Scriptural).
If you chose not to take the initiative to free yourself . . . We understand.
It has been said that only about 5% of the American colonists fought in the American Revolution. Your subversive masters also know this, and they care not because they know that you will remain in servitude to them by the doles they offer. As Benjamin Franklin, a wise man, fittingly stated:
"Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you."
And fittingly, Thomas Jefferson (another wise man) stated:
"We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
Mr. Jefferson was apparently against Socialism . . . For Obvious Reasons.
If you are an atheist, you have been programmed to be such by your hidden captors (for the reasons disclosed herein). Accordingly, you are excepting government to be your keeper, as THEY have planned; consequently . . . you are theirs. . .
God save you !
REMEMBER- Natural law under the guidance of God will set you free. Which brings us to a close, and thus a fitting statement by a man of great insight:
"THERE IS NO ONE SO HOPELESSLY ENSLAVED AS HE WHO FALSELY BELIEVES HE IS FREE. . . ." Goethe /2\
IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS..IT'S SLAVERY!!
To complete the Sequence..
Take the Red Pill
Page Footnotes
/1\ From the training manual- Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars.
/2\ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. 1749-1832. German writer and scientist.
THE COMMODITY..
Before you are told the whole truth, Mr. Riegon (Cyper) believes that Ignorance is Bliss. If you do not want to know the whole truth, Agent Smith will assist you in returning to OZ. You may exit..
It's time to explain what this is all about. Before the Civil War, the middle class was primarily composed of self-sufficient landowners who was not a useable resource to the World Elite. THEY devised the Communist Manifesto as a means to enslave the middle class and tap their usefulness, i.e. exploit their wealth and labors.
Witness that today, the middle class is categorically working even middle class women). Accordingly, in this Part the final PRODUCT is disclosed. In other words, we will unveil the World Elite's final desired output.
In the past several years you may have noticed that the phrase
"Human Resource Department" has replaced "Personnel Department" in the work place.
You may have also noticed that throughout America the term "Company" has generally been replaced by the term "Corporation." You may be saying to yourself, So what. What's the difference?
Actually there is a big difference. The former is private, while the latter is controlled by government.
Corporations are "Creatures of the State," whereas companies are generally private; consequently, the owners of companies enjoy the absence of government intervention.
This conversion should be a strong indicator of what has transpired; however, no one thinks or cares anything of it (because they are programmed).
In the past, labor was privately based; today, however, labor is controlled by the government. Accordingly, "Corporations" are creatures of the State, and so are "Human Resources" (as they are called). Americans are simply looked at as a commodity. See the term commodity defined below:
commodity. Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage; An article of trade or commerce. /1\
And (Human) Resource:
resource. The total means available for economic and political development, such as mineral wealth and labor force; The total means available to a company for increasing production or profit, including plant, labor, and raw material; assets. /1\
And now the documented legal evidence will be presented to demonstrate what is really occurring.
If you look in Title 13 of the United States Code (The Federal Law) under section 1, which defines the Bureau of the Census, you will find the following information:
(a) As used in this title, unless the context requires another meaning or unless it is otherwise provided:
(1)"Bureau" means the Bureau of the Census;
(2)"Secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce;
The individual in charge of the de facto "Census" is the. . .
"Secretary of Commerce!"
So what does this mean? The government (The State) is simply keeping track of its economic commodities. Pursuant to this fact, look at the following definition:
SLAVE. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component. /1\
The changing of terms from "Personnel Department" to "Human Resource Department" means THEY have reached their goal and now have control. Americans are simply "Slave Components" being controlled by the "Government Machine" for the Economic Wealth of the Elite.
It is estimated that the federal government has its hands in nearly 50% of the Gross National Product (GNP). Said figure has increased by over 40% in the last 25 years. In other words, Communism, under the guise of a Free-Market Capitalist System, is now the day-to-day reality in America. /2\
So-called communism is just a way to establish central control of people so they can be dictated to and controlled by a central source for use by the unseen hand.
Again, the following political rhetoric was a just a method to implement what is now in place, i.e. Tacit Servitude:
"Democracy is indispensable to Socialism." V. I. Lenin
"Socialism leads to Communism." Karl Marx
Again, it was said by a very wise man:
"Under bad governments, this equality is only apparent and illusory: it serves only to keep the pauper in his poverty and the rich man in the position he has usurped. In fact, laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing: from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all have something and none too much." Jean Jacques Rousseau
America is just one big Economic Machine generating wealth for the World Elite through the guise of "The State". . .
. . . And accordingly . . .
. . . YOU ARE A SLAVE !
You are not only a slave component, but because you are voting you are literally in servitude due to the criminal activity induced by the fourteenth amendment. In truth, you are a slave pursuant to the insurgents' thirteenth amendment. /3\
The 14th amendment not only creates a police state (socialist state=police state); but it also allows the easy redistribution of "Human Resources" throughout America for use in industry by the Elite, as required by "The Machine."
Moreover, this plot allows government[s] administrative agencies to seize property without the due process provided by a real court proceeding (communist dicta).
The current de facto legal system is a far cry from the de jure (rightful) legal system established by the real Constitution.
However, there is..THE REMEDY..
Page Footnotes
/1\ American Heritage Dictionary.
/2\ For information on how your tax money is being squandered by government[s], contact: Walter J. Burien, Jr. and ask for an information packet on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports . Also visit www.cafrman.com .
/3\ See the new governmental system's 13th Amendment .
The Top 10 Reasons The Fourteenth Amendment Of The Constitution Should Be Repealed..
10. The 9th And 10th Amendments Of The Constitution Would No Longer Be Just A Decoration..
9. The American Peoples Could Be In Control Of Their Own State Legislatures..
8. The Thought Of Real Money Looks Pretty Good At This Point..
7. The 2nd Amendment Would No Longer Be A Privilege Granted By Government..
6. The President Of The United States Would Lose The Dictator Status..
5. The American Peoples Would No Longer Be Deemed Criminals By Their Own Countries..
4. Police State?. Who Needs It!.
3. The United States Congress Would Have A Lot More Time Off Work..
2. Hey!. The Founding Fathers Think The Work Of Karl Marx (Moses Mordecai Levi) Has Been Utilized Long Enough..
And the Number 1 Reason the 14th Amendment should be Repealed is. .. .
.. SOCIALISTS WOULD HAVE TO GET A REAL LIFE ..
While the Union survived the Civil War..
The Constitution did not..
In it's place arose a more promising basis for justice and equality..
The 14th Amendment..
Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall , May 6th 1987
Applying Equal Protection..
Of the cases in this court in which the 14th Amendment was applied..
During the first fifty years after its adoption..
Less than one half of one percent invoked it in protection
of the Negro race..
And more than fifty percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations..
Justice Hugo Black
It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and degrades them all..
Recently, a special entitled April 1865 appeared on the History Channel..
http://www.historychannel.com/1865
It is ventured why these people only report some of the information that surrounds the so-called Civil War..
In example, it is interesting why they would leave out this statement (in part) by President Andrew Johnson in regard to the proposed Reconstruction Act by the R U M P Congress..
...Here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people at once..
It is based upon an accusation so vague as to bee scarcely intelligible and found to be true upon no credible evidence..
Not one of the 9,000,000 was heard in his own defense..
The representatives of the doomed parties were excluded form all participation in the trial..
The conviction is to be followed by the most ignominious punishment ever inflicted on large masses of men..
It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless, from the rank of freedom to the condition of slaves...
...That the measure proposed by this bill does violate the Constitution in the particulars mentioned and in may other ways which I forebear to enumerate is too clear to admit the least doubt...
...I am thoroughly convinced that any settlement of compromise or plan of action which is inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution will not only be unveiling, but mischievous; that is will multiply the evils, instead of removing them...
Of course Johnson vetoed the unconstitutional act, but the radical Congress pushed the act through anyway..
It should be noteworthy that Johnson referred to the soon-to-be disenfranchised Southerners as slaves..
The act later formatted into the Fourteenth Amendment..
Little do Americans know that the Fourteenth Amendment created a new governmental system which overruns the original Constitution..
Accordingly, the people that are participating in the Fourteenth Amendment system have disenfranchised themselves..
Implementing the statement of Andrew Johnson in logic, the participants are slaves legally referenced to as US citizens..
So, you do not think the Constitution has been overrun and/or ignored?.
An example.. can anyone explain this one..
United States Constitution, Article I - section 8: The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years..
It seems that there is now a STANDING ARMY run by the United States..
What is its purpose?.
It appears the United States did not stop at the Civil War, does it?.
Just food for thought, but it is obvious that there is some kind of plot to keep the truth from being told by the people that run the major broadcast programming..
Why?.
THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE THREAT THAT IS POSES TO OUR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.
I have a sincere concern for the future of our form of government in times of great national economic stress, resulting from the legal precedents established by the irregular procedures attending the adoption of the 14th amendment. Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, and others did not become dictators without the widespread support of many short-sighted people..
--Pickney G. McElwee, South Carolina Law Quarterly-Volume 11
Many of the Acts which Congress passed to carry into effect its reconstruction policy were palpably unconstitutional, but the attitude of the Radicals was well expressed by General Grant [1] when he said of the legislation that: "Much of it, no doubt, was unconstitutional; but it was hoped that the laws enacted would serve their purpose before the question of unconstitutionality could be submitted to the judiciary and a decision obtained.."
[1] Grant, Ulysses Simpson. Originally Hiram Ulysses Grant. 1822-1885. The 18th President of the United States (1869-1877) and a Civil War general. After his victorious Vicksburg campaign (1862-1863), he was made commander in chief of the Union Army (1864) and accepted the surrender of Gen. Robert E. Lee at Appomattox (1865). Grant's two-term presidency was marred by widespread graft and corruption. American Heritage Dictionary [footnote added]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LB Bork Comments:
I have read the law review which the above quotes are from. As you can see, the members (including the R U M P Congress) of the so-called "Union" (really the "United States" [aa]) were of questionable character. As you can see by the comment of Grant they are simply criminals.
Although I have come to the conclusion many years ago that the 14th Amendment is truly evil, the evidence that is noted in the review proves-without a doubt-that the current state governments are UNLAWFUL. And because of the operations of law that are set forth under the Fourteenth Amendment are on-going, there is no way that doctrine of prescription can apply in this case.
Moreover, after the Fourteenth Amendment was implemented there were 2 Planks of the Communist Manifesto (Department of Education-Plank 10 and Department of Transportation-Plank 6, later evolved into COMMIE[AM]-TRAK) that were implemented by acts of the R U M P Congress. Of course Plank 2-Income Tax-and Plank 5-the likes of the Federal Reserve-came later. All Planks are applied in some way shape or form.
The noted law review further references that the states have the absolute authority to establish who elects the legislatures of the State governments (Breedlove v Suttle, 302 US 277 (1937)). This later decision somewhat contradicting the operations set forth by the post Civil War (so-called) amendments (14, 15, 19 and 26). This is the kind of fraud and/or doublespeak that is being perpetrated by the governments/courts. Hence it should be surmised that anything they say is highly questionable.
In short: Anyone that is participating in the governmental system under the Fourteenth Amendment is a communist and a criminal: http://www.pacinlaw.org/inside/at_criminal.htm
Copies of the herein referenced law review are available on request for a small donation. Also, another is available which contains the same information with additional references.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[aa] Here is what it is all about: A SELECT FEW.
In Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 (1833)), the Supreme Court of the United States stated the following about a certain provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:
The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by THE PEOPLE of the United States for THEMSELVES, for THEIR own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to THEIR situation and best calculated to promote THEIR interests..
--Chief Justice Marshall [emphasis mine]
So you see.. We the People is not YOU nor I..
It was a select few that created the New World Order under the guise of the American union..
It is a matter of law that the people means the rulers, not the commoners or citizen/subjects..
And, every place that phrase is used in the Constitution (Bill of Rights included) means the State.. [ * ]
The 14th Amendment did nothing more than bring the citizens of the several States into the control of the federal government; this so they can be used as chattel property by the beneficiaries of the New World Order (see above statement by the Supreme Court) under section 4 of the 14th Amendment to fund THEIR enterprise, see: http://www.pacinlaw.org/inside/tu_s_servants.htm
[ * ] The failure of any instrumentality of the state to enforce a law may never estop THE PEOPLE to enforce that law either then or at any future time.. 2 Amjur 2d section 194 [emphasis of 'The People' is mine]
No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege..
license it..
and attach a fee to it..
Murdoch v. Penn., 318 U.S. 105
WHY BUREAUCRATS MAKE SO MANY REGULATIONS..
by James Robertson, July, 1995.
Why do bureaucrats make so many regulations?
One reason is it gives justification (in their minds, at least) for their jobs and their existence. In their warped way of thinking, they engage in Value Destruction while calling it "beneficial regulation." Leave it to bureaucrats to impede Human Progress, while calling such Value Destruction "beneficial." We, the true Value Creators, understand the true nature of Wealth Creation in business organizations and personal networks.
Another reason is that most bureaucrats would probably feel "lost" in a world with few regulations. They don't understand the true nature of what Creates Value; instead, they think that "regulation for the sake of regulation" is a moral and practical good. Obviously they have no understanding of what it means to engage in productive, voluntary, mutually-beneficial Value Creation without force or coercion. They feel "lost" if there aren't enough regulations. Their knee-jerk reaction is: "There ought to be a regulation against that!" Of course, you and I know that most often the human activity they impede results in a terrible Waste of your time and everyone's time. Even worse than the waste of time is the tremendous Value Destruction that occurs as bureaucrats seek to destroy business networks, personal relationships they don't approve of, financial arrangements, and other True Values. Not a surprising result at all, I suppose, coming from Criminal Minds!
Another reason is that most bureaucrats feel personally powerless. Lacking much personal power, bureaucrats exert their need for power in a warped way (i.e., using force or threat of force against others). As the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu noted, paradoxically this makes bureaucrats weak - because using force, or threat of force, against others is not a valid or correct exercise of genuine personal power. Genuine personally-powerful people do not need to initiate force or threat of force to accomplish their creative life purposes. Making or enforcing "regulations for the sake of regulations" is one way that bureaucrats use force, and threaten to use force, against those they disapprove of.
Another reason is that most bureaucrats actually derive psychological pleasure from trying to control others by force or threat of force. Obviously they operate at a very low, animal-like mentality for this to be true. As they see it, the more regulations they make, the more they have a chance to control human beings by force or threat of force.
Which brings us to one of the most insightful passages I've ever read concerning the true nature of bureaucrats and their regulations. The author is Ayn Rand. These quotes are from page 411 of my edition of Atlas Shrugged. Basically, Value Creator Hank Rearden has been accused of breaking some regulations the bureaucrats have made about Rearden's steel business having to do with how much or little steel he may produce, when, and to whom he may sell or not sell.
Says the bureaucrat Floyd Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later . . . [and break one of our regulations] . . . this is just what we wanted."
Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?"
Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?"
Continues bureaucrat Ferris: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." [emphasis added]
Ayn Rand here writes one of the most brilliant expositions I've ever seen about the core of the bureaucratic mentality.
Only if you feel GUILTY about your Value Creation can bureaucrats truly control you. When you admit and confess to yourself and to others that your Value Creation is morally wrong, you are psychologically defeated. This is precisely what they want. Only by making you yourself feel like a criminal about your Value Creation can they defeat you.
[Even if you yourself do not think you've done anything morally wrong in Creating Value and Maintaining Value (Maintaining Value includes protecting your assets), it's very important for the bureaucrats to maintain a Public Spectacle of guilty regulation-breakers. So, at the very least, the bureaucrats almost always try to obtain a "plea of guilty" so that they can control as many "self-confessed criminals" as possible. Another point is that such "self-confessed criminals" seem quite similar to the "self-confessed criminal witches" the Puritans conjured up in 17th-century Masschusetts.]
With bureaucratic regulations concerning taxes alone taking up entire rooms filled with regulation books, the bureaucrats feel pretty powerful when they can call anyone they wish a "criminal."
Indeed, Ayn Rand is correct when she implies that bureaucrats really don't particularly care what regulations are followed or not. Bureaucrats like to operate on "bureaucratic whim" and do what they like.
[Frederick Mann: The above are some of the methods of how the government bureaucrats create a nation of "law breakers" they can control through indoctrination, stultification, stagnation, fossilization, identification, enumeration, classification, accreditation, regulation, complexification, obfuscation, confusion, diversion, deception, misrepresentation, fabrication, falsification, prevarication, perversion, exaggeration, coercion, inspection, compulsion, prohibition, frustration, confrontation, taxation, extortion, inflation, destruction, aggravation, humiliation, supplication, addiction, polarization, suppression, oppression, corruption, incorporation, annexation, admonition, condemnation, persecution, prosecution, conviction, confiscation, incarceration, extradition, expulsion, decimation, annihilation, termination, and execution!]
You are morally justified in taking many, many steps to protect yourself and your assets from these vermin.
Realise that you are free. The bureaucrat-infested system is corrupt through-and-through. It's not on you to change a sewer-system such the roach-infested nest of bureaucratic vipers. Go with us, as we create our own systems and relationships. We as freedom lovers can fully concentrate on Creating Value in business organizations and personal networks with like-minded individuals. The bureaucratic vermin are largely irrelevant to your most productive relationships. It isn't even necessary to go to a hidden valley as they did in Atlas Shrugged.
It is a pleasure to deal with you, the true Value Creators!
Which Recent President Was the Most Dishonest?.
Take the poll and help determine who's the biggest fibber..
http://beliefnet.com/story/131/story_13121_1.html
Frankensteins in the Pentagon..
DARPA Bioengineering Program Seeks to Turn Soldiers Into Cyborgs..
Where are we going with this??
http://www.newsinsider.org/cgi/printable.cgi/seal/frankensteins_in_the_pentagon.html
The Quisling Effect..
Government is not the only destroyer of freedom..
By Claire Wolfe
Miller Smithton* is a federally licensed firearms dealer. When he wanted to give his own son a hunting rifle for his birthday, he had to run a criminal background check on the young man. "I felt like a worm," Miller told me. "Like a traitor to my own values and my own family. But what else could I do?"
K.J. "Cage" Linton* is a 911 emergency dispatcher and a man concerned about the creeping loss of freedom and privacy in the world. If you call him because your father is having a heart attack or your daughter has broken her leg playing soccer, Cage will calmly ask for your full name, date of birth, and other information. (This is aside from what already appears on his computer screen from the E911 service.) You, in your urgency, give him the information. And this freedom-loving man, without informing you of a thing, enters you into a law-enforcement database. Cage works in a rural county, where he has routinely entered his own friends, neighbors, and family members into this database of crooks and creeps. He knows that all sorts of government employees have free access to the database and use it as a juicy source of both local gossip and leads for investigation. But he's got to stick you in it. It's his job.
Juan Fuentes was just a man minding his own business. On the morning of August 23, 2000 three neighbor children, Jessica, Anna, and Vanessa Carpenter, rushed up pounding his door. Anna was bleeding from dozens of puncture wounds. All three were desperate. A naked intruder had broken into their home and was at that moment savaging their little brother and sister with a pitchfork. The girls begged Fuentes to get his gun and save the little ones' lives. But Fuentes said no. It wasn't that he was afraid to confront the intruder; with his rifle he could easily have dropped a pitchfork wielder. No, it was the government he was more terrified of. They'll take my gun away if I do that, he told the desperate girls, whose brother and sister were dying horribly at that moment. To compound the horror, the girls' own father, John Carpenter, had locked away the family pistol in obedience to California's "child-safe" storage laws. All five Carpenter children knew how to shoot and how to handle guns safely, but because their father feared the law more than he feared an armed intruder, they couldn't save themselves or each other.
We've all heard about the frog in the kettle. Turn the heat up under him gradually enough and he'll sit there until he boils to death. It's become the most common metaphor to describe our gradual loss of freedom.
We never ask, "Who's turning up the heat under us froggies?" because the answer is so obvious. It's government, of course. And it is.
But there's something else that's causing the heat to rise and freedom to evaporate into air. It's going on in all three stories above and in daily life around us. Call it the Quisling Effect.
Most everybody knows what a quisling is: a turncoat, a Judas, a Benedict Arnold. Specifically, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "a traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country."
The word "quisling" has a naturally slimy sound. Even if you didn't know what it meant, you'd know it was something unsavory, undesirable, or at best, something weak. Not many people realize that (as with martinet, sandwich, and boycott), the word came to us from a man's name.
Vidkun Quisling was a twentieth-century Norwegian politician and head of Norway's home-grown form of Nazism, the Nasjonal Samling (National Unity) Party. He went so far as to urge Hitler to invade his country in hopes of becoming Norway's supreme leader. Hitler did. And Quisling did -- for exactly five days. The Nazis quickly placed him in a figurehead position while one of their own actually ran the country. Within months of the war's end, Quisling got his just desserts. He was executed by firing squad. And a new word entered the dictionary, not only in English, but in many other languages.
The identification of Quisling with dirty deeds is so strong that when I encountered an article that mentioned humanitarian acts Quisling had committed in the 1920s, it was as if I'd just read, "Ted Bundy heroically feeds the poor in Calcutta," or "Jeffrey Dahmer rescues kitten from burning building."
But maybe Bundy did send a few bucks to Mother Teresa. And Dahmer, by many accounts, wasn't entirely a horrible guy, aside from that inconvenient penchant for murdering and eating his lovers. And yes, before he entered the dictionary so odiously, Quisling was actually a respected man.
Even the blackest of us is not all black. And it doesn't take a long look into our own hearts to admit that the whitest of us look more like the pile of laundry that was washed 10 times in Brand X than the pile that was laundered with the good stuff in the old commercial.
In each of the three incidents that open this article, people made pragmatic decisions that went against their own better principles. They did so for all the ordinary, perfectly excusable daily reasons -- because they feared to break the law, because it was their job, because they didn't want to make waves, because it was a compromise that got them through the day. When their actions were done only to obey a law, they could, with justification, claim the government "made" them do it.
Except in a rare tragic case like the deaths of the Carpenter children, the negative consequences are miniscule and life goes on.
But it isn't only "the government" that is causing freedom to boil away around us. Though major and minor manifestations of The Quisling Effect, we sell out our own freedom and the freedom of our children, our neighbors, and our friends. Gradually. Oh, so gradually. But sell it we do. We are participants, willing or otherwise, in our own destruction. Businesses -- those proud products of our allegedly free market -- also sell out freedom. And they are bigger culprits than we. Sometimes they do it because corporations, by their very structure and nature, have a lot in common with the state. As one friend of mine always put it, "Every corporation wants to be a government when it grows up." Businesses often help condition us to daily regimentation, to trading our privacy for perks, and to going along to get along. That, I suppose, is an unavoidable, unintended (?) consequence of the post-Industrial revolution.
But businesses increasingly manifest The Quisling Effect for the very same reasons we private people do: to avoid making waves, to be allowed to do business as usual under the eye of an ever-stronger state, or to appease the real or imagined demands of the "authorities." (In the latter case, it might be more apt to apply a different WWII analogy, and accuse them of The Chamberlain Effect; but that's another story.)
How typical is this? Your ISP meekly enables all e-mail and Web activity to be easily monitored by the FBI, not because the law says they must, but because the FBI unilaterally decrees that they should. Online commerce companies, led by the 800-pound mine canary eBay, announce that they will turn over any customer record to any law enforcement agent, without asking for a subpoena, search warrant, or even an explanation of probable cause. Saks department store sends a notice to charge account customers, saying it will no longer accept more than $350 in cash payments. Even though that amount is far, far below the federal government's own "suspicious" cash reporting limits, Saks is scared, Saks has decided to be overly cautious. Saks' lawyers have no doubt advised the company to prepare for a future in which even $400 is a sign that a loyal Saks customer is a terrorist or drug dealer.
Banks demand detailed information about you and the origins of your deposits. Following 9-11, one supermarket chain, in a "patriotic" gesture, even turned over its entire database of customer purchasing records to the federal government for "anti-terrorism" records. (And yes, the type of food you buy and how you buy it really is part of the government's profiling of your terrorist potential.)
In some cases, the thousands of companies who do such things really are bowing to the law (even when the law isn't constitutional). But in most cases, they're merely complying with fishy agency interpretations of regulations or cravenly, pathetically trying to look compliant and cooperative in general so that they themselves won't become targets of the FBI, IRS, or Department of Homeland Security.
It must have been a lot like this in Stalinist Russia. But nevertheless, in each case, these businesses are following their own momentary self interest -- just as we are when we run a background check or enter a caller's name in a database. In relationships with "security scared" businesses, your legal rights, or for that matter their own long-term self interest (assuming freedom is in the long-term interest of every private enterprise), are easy casualties.
Saks doesn't care about your freedom. Nor should it have to, in the best of all worlds. Its main concern is with its own survival, as it should be. In a free market, its survival would depend largely on how well it served customers. In this world, survival depends more and more on how well a company kowtows to regulators or law enforcers. And like virtually all corporations (and most individuals), Saks' little hive-mind will simply adapt to present conditions in whatever way it thinks will best ensure its own survival.
(The very concept that the federal government has a right to order private businesses to do anything is another matter. But we've long ago accepted that state of affairs as normal, however abnormal and unfree it really is.)
If this is the way institutions behave, then we can't expect much better from individuals who, no matter how much they love freedom and still want a nice, uncomplicated daily life. In fact, Miller Smithton, my gun-dealer friend, pointed out that there's even a corollary to The Quisling Effect in which we not only make conscious decisions that trade away freedom, but we begin adopting the psychology of the unfree in our daily lives.
For instance, Smithson told me he finds himself sneaking his perfectly legal machine guns from his house to his car and back so that his yuppie neighbors won't see him. He's not doing anything wrong, owning and using these machine guns. Nor is he hiding the guns because he's afraid his neighbors are going to steal such valuable stuff. He just doesn't want to cope with the almost-inevitable suspicion -- complete with reports to the ATF -- that being seen with absolutely legal weapons might bring down on him.
So, he submits. Not only in his rational choices, but in his attitudes and way of life.
Go back for a moment to the definition of a quisling: "a traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country."
If you believe that the behemoth now squatting on the banks of the Potomac is constitutional or in some other fashion legitimate, then the definition of quisling doesn't apply to anyone who bows to that government's will -- even when, by bowing or "complying," we diminish our own and our children's freedom. By those terms, the loss of freedom itself is "legitimate," and heaven help us all.
But if you believe that the ever-consuming, ever-growing creature now spreading itself across the land is, rather, an alien living off the traditions of freedom as it destroys its own host, if you believe that the security state, the surveillance state, and the control state are truly occupying forces that don't belong in this land and aren't good for it, for you, for your progeny, or for the future ... then clearly all who cooperate with it manifest The Quisling Effect. Some of us bear a large responsibility for selling our own freedom. Some a lot less. But hardly anybody walks among us who isn't responsible in some way for cooperating with the freedom-consuming occupier.
Unfortunately, there's no solution -- for the moment, at least. There is no incentive for your banker or your ISP to stand up and say, "Hey, wait a minute, this is wrong and we're going to fight it." And for both businesses and individuals, there is almost no motivation, beyond sheer stubbornness and increasingly archaic principles, to do anything else but comply.
If froggie is getting hotter in the pot, government is ultimately at fault. If froggie stays in the pot instead of jumping out, froggie is also responsible. But with millions of quisling froggies out there helping turn the heat up and up and up ... where, really, is the most sincerely freedom loving froggie to go, even if he decides to take the giant leap? Straight from the boiling pot into a world of hot-hot burners.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/columns/wolfe0307.html
LAW IS FORCE, LEGALIZED..
G. Edward Griffin, The Grand Design, 1968
The nationwide organization known as the Junior Chamber of Commerce (Jaycees) has a written creed to which all members subscribe. Referring to our nation's basic system of government, one of it's articles holds, "We are a government of laws, not of men." This particular statement expresses a clear choice between a republic and a democracy.
The government we inherited from our forefathers is indeed a government of laws, not of men. It is a Constitutional Republic (the rule of law), not a democracy (the rule of an unrestrained majority). Because it is a system built on the recognition of the rights of the individual, its laws are directed at controlling government, not the people. The wisdom it contains has generated for Americans the greatest amount of personal freedom in all history.
A DIFFERENT RULE OF LAW
In 1960, while he was serving as Vice President and campaigning to become President, Richard Nixon issued a statement supporting the idea of international law. He straightforwardly stated that whenever disputes between nations arose, he hoped they could be solved by negotiation. But if they weren't settled by talk, he contended that "the only alternatives left are to settle them either by force or by law." He encouraged international law under the United Nations, and he suggested it as an alternative to force.
Mr. Nixon, of course, is not the only advocate of such a direction. Over the years, scores of U.S. Senators and Representatives have associated with an ad hoc group known as Members of Congress for Peace Through Law. Its absolute purpose has been to "strengthen the United Nations" and bring about peace under "enforceable world law."
The objective of a UN directed rule of law has been praised over many years by a host of organization from the World Federalists to the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, to virtually every pacifist or peace advocate of world peace through international law.
Independence minded Americans are totally opposed to any international rule of law. Yet they are just as totally in favor of the rule of law codified in the United States Constitution. It is, therefore, worth considering the fundamental differences between what are obviously two completely different types of the rule of law. What makes one type praiseworthy and the other frightening? Why is one rule of law embraced by Americanists and the other feared?
THE AMERICAN SYSTEM
The underlying premise of the American system is the booming statement in the Declaration of Independence that "all Men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Because they are endowed with rights, the Declaration reasons, men have the power to protect their rights collectively. In other words, they have the power to form a government. The government they create is to have as its sole purpose the protection of the God given rights of the individual. Government is not to be the distributor of wealth, the regulator of the law abiding citizenry, or the ruler of the people.
The United States Constitution gave us a government based on these fundamental principles. As practically all of its provisions mandate, THE GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED, NOT THE PEOPLE. God given rights are even enumerated in the outstanding Bill of Rights. These are not granted by government or derived out of thin air. They are God given! Hence, the underlying relationship between government and the rights of the individual is clearly given in the first five words of the First Amendment. There we read that "Congress shall make no law..." regarding a whole series of rights. According to those who started this nation, all rights of the individual transcend any power of government, and government shall have nothing to say about them.
A fundamental point about the American system must be stressed here. Whenever Americans lapse into making reference to a "First Amendment right," or a "Second Amendment right," they are playing directly into the hands of those who are determined that we shall have no rights except, perhaps, those bestowed by government.
Our rights to, publish, practice religion, etc., are not "First Amendment rights." Our right to keep and bear arms is not a "Second Amendment right." Instead, these are God given rights PROTECTED by the First or Second Amendments. This point cannot be overemphasized; it is fundamental to understand the American system. Rights are not derived from the Bill of Rights; they are given by God and merely guaranteed by the amendments.
UNITED NATIONS TURNS IT UPSIDE DOWN
To begin a discussion of the way the United Nations treats rights, consider that at the United Nations there is no recognition of God's existence. Therefore, there can be no recognition of God given rights. According to the United Nations, men cannot be endowed by their Creator with any rights; there is no Creator.
Where then, according to the United Nations, do men get their rights? Interestingly, the point is never raised by the United Nations. The world body's basic documents presume either that rights exist of themselves or they are granted by government. But, if rights come from government, then it logically follows that it is government's prerogative to qualify, limit or even abolish those rights all in the interest of peace and harmony.
The second paragraph in the United Nations Charter contains the following statement of purpose for the organization:
To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small...
Note that there are none of the Declaration of Independence's references to a "Creator," or to "Nature's God," or to "Divine Providence." As we shall see, there is a immense difference between holding that men's rights are "fundamental" or "human" and insisting that men "are endowed by their Creator" with them.
It took over 20 years for the United Nations to promulgate its International Covenants on Human Rights. On December 16, 1966, the United Nations finally got around to publishing its equivalent of our Constitution's Bill of Rights. As we shall see, the differences are truly remarkable.
In the United Nations's International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (one of the three covenants addressing the overall topic of "human rights"), we read in Article 18:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
At first, that statement appears to include the age old dream of mankind to be free from suppression of religious belief. (Remember, if it is not included, it is excluded.) But, within the very same Article 18, we read:
Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary...
In other words, the right to freedom of religion can be subordinated to United Nations decreed limitations. The world body maintains its right to pass a law that cancels freedom of religion. When we recall the First Amendment's insistence that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." the differences between the United Nations and American systems become strikingly obvious. In several additional articles, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights repeats this pattern of acknowledging the existence of a right (but not its source) while proclaiming the United Nations' power to qualify it out of existence.
Article 19 discusses "freedom of expression," and notes that it may be "subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary." Article 21 acknowledges the "right of peaceful assembly," except that restrictions "imposed in conformity with the law" may be forthcoming. And so it goes: The United Nations acknowledges the existence of rights but insists that it has the power to qualify them out of existence. What a departure from our Bill of Rights where "Congress shall make no law..." is clearly and unequivocally proclaimed.
The United Nations ignores God's existence and establishes the framework for a world government in which power for the organization both to grant and to suspend rights is presumed. On the other hand, the United States acknowledges God as the source of men's rights and prohibits government from passing any law regarding them. The United Nations turns the American system completely upside down.
THE PURPOSE OF LAW
The American system establishes a system of law to govern the government. It holds that individual rights are above any power of government and that individuals form governments only to protect their rights. The rule of law in America is neither feared nor opposed by anyone except those who seek to have government dominate the individual. Under such a system, government is clearly the servant, not the master.
But the United Nations system establishes a rule of law based on the faulty premise that government is above individuals and should therefore be excepted to control them for the benefit of the United Nations. At the United Nations, rights are not above the power of government; they exist instead only at government's behest. Under this type of system, government is supreme and can be expected to become the master instead of the servant. Based on a reading of human nature, the kind of corrupting power possessed by a United Nations style government will, without question, lead to its being wielded to impose tyranny.
Which brings us back to the statement headlining this discussion:
"Law is force, legalized." A law without force backing it up is meaningless. Who would send hard earned funds to the I.R.S. on April 15th (April Fool's Day) if the threat of force did not compel the transfer of the funds. Law indeed is force.
Those who claim that the world needs international law instead of the force of arms to settle disputes are not posing alternatives; they are offering the same alternative twice. International law, like any law, is merely an exercise involving words unless there is force to back it up. Whether they realize it or not, champions of international law under the United Nations favor the establishment of a United Nations controlled international force.
In order to accomplish the goal of peace without bloodshed, this United Nations force would of necessity have to be more powerful than any other force on earth. If it were not, it would be unable to carry out the mission for which it has been assembled. Once assembled, however, who or what would be able to control it? In truth, it is hard to imagine anything more dangerous to liberty than an all powerful United Nations controlled international force.
The danger to liberty inherent in such a force stems from the thinking that underlies its existence. The United Nations' government that would wield it, places itself above the individual's God given rights. Such a force would be used not to control government on behalf of the individual, but to control the individual on behalf of the government.
Let us here concur emphatically with the Declaration of Independence's assertion holding as "self evident" the truth that individual rights are given by man's Creator. Like Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, we do not see any need to spend time and effort providing what is indeed "self evident."
Once again, then, under the American system, the force inherent in the law is directed at the government on behalf of the individual. While government is created, it is given strictly limited powers, all of which are aimed at enabling it to perform its sole and proper function of protecting the individual even from government itself. And under a system like the United Nations, the force inherent in law is directed at the individual on behalf of government.
THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING ARMED
Let there be no more confusion about law. Whether international, national or local, law is backed up by force or it is meaningless. Law is not an alternative to force; it is itself force legalized.
In the American system, the rule of law is designed to govern government. As with any law, ours is of no value if it cannot be backed up by force. Where in the American system should this force properly live? Not with the nation's military, whose sole function is to protect the nation from foreign threats. Not with a federally controlled police force that should never be allowed to exist. Not with any entity having anything to do with government.
Then where, in keeping with the American system, is the proper repository of whatever force is needed to control government? The answer: WITH THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. If those who wield the power of government are to be controlled made to obey the law by being required to stay within the boundaries forged for them by "the chains of the Constitution" the people themselves, acting alone or through a militia which is derived from their numbers, must do it. And they will preserve their own liberty, as has frequently been noted, "by resorting to the ballot box, or if things really get out of hand, resorting to the cartridge box."
It is highly significant that you will look in vain for any mention of "right to keep and bear arms" in the United Nations Charter in any of the United Nations' International covenants on Human Rights. But you will find it most prominently in the Bill of rights of the United States Constitution. It is this right guaranteed but not granted by the Second Amendment that gives teeth to every other right. If Citizens are unable to oppose a government that is usurping their rights and making slaves out of them, and the use of the ballot box has failed, then there is no way to make government officials obey the law except through the use of force.
The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the rights of hunters, sportsmen and target shooters. It exists because the founding fathers knew that the law they constructed to empower government but to hold it to a strictly limited domain means nothing if there is no force to back it up. And they properly intended that such power be left in the hands of the people themselves. Ultimately, it is the right to keep and bear arms against government that backs up the rights to speak, publish, practice religion, etc.
The mentality that seeks the creation of an all powerful United Nations Peace Force is the same mentality that wants a disarmed American populace. It calls for a different kind of law than that given us by the wise and brave individuals who created this Republic. While we work diligently to preserve freedom for ourselves and for future generations, let us never forget that the rule of law is not the most important consideration. What exceeds it in every detail is its foundation and its purpose. Law is force!
who is the master..
and who is the slave?.
anything wrong with this picture?.