Safe…

There is an ongoing thread, that I have been reading. Today I posted this on it, in response to Sargent Mac, a police officer, somewhere in the USofA. Due to the 1000 character limit on the comments, the post is broken into a bunch of little posts. Sargent Mac is in bold at the beginning. My posts follow.

The whole thread can be found here…

OK, so if I, as a police officer (which you’re not AT ALL fond of), want to speak to you and say, “Excuse me, sir, could I speak with you a minute?”, would any of you consider that an attack upon your liberty?

How about, “Stop!”?

And, if so, how much force do you believe you’d be justified in using to “defend yourself?”
Sergeant Mac | 12.31.04 – 4:50 am | #

“OK, so if I, as a police officer (which you’re not AT ALL fond of), want to speak to you and say, “Excuse me, sir, could I speak with you a minute?”, would any of you consider that an attack upon your liberty?”
Not if you peacefully accept my decline.
“How about, “Stop!”?
And, if so, how much force do you believe you’d be justified in using to “defend yourself?”"
Then “you” would be guilty of initiation of force. It then, simply becomes an escalation/response senario. I ignore you. You grab my arm to restrain/detain me. I push it way, you put your hand on your sidearm and unsnap your holster. I do the same. You initiate a quickdraw, I respond in kind. The results will be based on practice, preparedness and, a little bit, on luck. Feeling lucky?
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 6:55 am | #

Feeling Lucky?

Understand, Sargent Mac, I, and most of those on this thread, wish you no harm. And there are some problems with the scenario I just laid out. I’ll get to those in a minute. But, libertarians and other freedom loving people are tired of the authoritarian intrusions on our lives. It starts at the federal level, then more from the state. These two levels can be ignored to some extent, in that they are mere legislation actions that have no effect until enforced or applied at the street level.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:00 am | #

Now, when it gets down to the street level is where it involves you and me. If you approach me in a polite manner and explain what you are doing, what you are interested in and how you think I can help you, you might find that I am all too willing to help, if I can.

If, however, you decide to try to use an assumed authority over me, you will find me resistive. If you then escalate the scenario as above, don’t be surprised to find me responding, in kind.

You have no right to my time, my property, or my cooperation. If I decide to give it willingly, that is one thing. But don’t think you can take it by force. Won’t happen.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:09 am | #

Now, to the problems with the scenario;

1. – As soon as restistance is apparent, I know of no officer who is going to backdown to a challenge of his/her authority, even to the demise of his/her investigation or even the possible loss of his/her life.

2. – Most people are aware of problem #1 and have already decided how they will handle the situation.

3. – The officer has no way of knowing what the detainee is prepared to do.

4. – Some, knowing that the officer is likely to escalate all the way to the deadly force level (by drawing his weapon) have already decided that they will not follow the escalate/response scenario above, since it leaves them at a disadvantage in the draw. They will draw first.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:16 am | #

I think this is a serious concern to you, as it should be. What I have gathered from your posts here, is that you would like a more free nation. You would like less government. You would like to not have to play out the scenario above.

Yet, you are unwilling to recognize individual rights. You are unwilling to recognize property rights. And, you are unwilling to stop doing the very things that make this country a police state.

I submit that you make some form of the scenario,…inevitable.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:23 am | #

Now you may pontificate on the law all that you want. You may defend the corrupted courts as the place to seek justice. But I would point you to a work, by Frederick Bastiat, called “The Law”. The laws first duty (and yours) is to protect the natural right of defense.

Something that you would transgress in your attempt at authoriatarian structure.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:30 am | #

From “The Law”:

“Life, faculties, production–in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:31 am | #

“What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right–from God–to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend — even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right.”
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:33 am | #

“If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:35 am | #

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non- intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:35 am | #

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false phil
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:36 am | #

“The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.”

I’ll let youread the rest at your leisure.

But please, remember, few here want to see your death or a civil war. But most here are willing to match your escalation, action for action, and accept whatever outcome prevails.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:39 am | #

I only hope that local police and sheriff’s departments learn this before too many examples have been made.

Then again, those first examples will probably be the worst LE offenders and rogues.

So maybe it will just be house-cleaning.

Let’s be careful out there…

…everybody.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:44 am | #

For additional reading:

http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2002/libe155-20020107-03.html

David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:46 am | #

One more thing…

As someone above menteioned, early in this thread, you will be the one to set yourself up as an enemy of the people.

No one here is going to rifle through your car under pretense of a safety search. No one here is going to violate you house and steal your Doritos. No one here is going to order you to stop or do a “Terry” patdown of you.

We are not your enemy, until you make it so.
David Goodyear | Homepage | 12.31.04 – 7:58 am | #

River: They weren’t cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see the sky and they remember what they are.
Mal: Is it bad that what she said made perfect sense to me?
From the Firefly episode “Safe”

Shindig…

“AS the last Alka Seltzer plink-plonk fizzes you back to the real world, it’s time to start thinking about New Year . . . and all the resolutions that go with it.

Richard Wilson, aka Victor Meldrew, for example, is vowing to cut down on the booze. Richard, left, said at a recent charity shindig: ‘My New Year’s resolution is to try to increase the number of dry days I have each week. At the moment, it’s three. But next year, I want to increase it to four.’

When he heard the news, the owner of his local off-licence gasped: ‘I don’t believe it’ and put one foot though the plate-glass window.”

More here…

“Sure. It would be humiliating. Having to lie there while the better man refuses to spill your blood. Mercy is the mark of a great man. (lightly stabs Atherton with the sword) Guess I’m just a good man. (stabs him again) Well, I’m all right.” – Captain Malcolm Reynolds from the Firefly episode “Shindig”

“You think following the rules will buy you a nice life, even if the rules make you a slave.” – Captain Malcolm Reynolds from the Firefly Episode “Shindig”

Bushwhacked…

“During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.

On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration’s clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.

Vice President Cheney: “Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.”

Cheney: “Yes. The president made the decision … that if the plane would not divert … as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out.

“… It’s a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we’d had combat air patrol up over New York.’”

More here…

Alliance Commander: “Seems odd you’d name your ship after a battle you were on the wrong side of.”

Mal: “May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.” – From the Firefly episode “Bushwhacked”

The Train Job…

“A TRAIN passenger who went “berserk” and tried to open the emergency door while travelling at 70mph has claimed she did it because she was scared of the person she was with.”

Those wacky Brits… More here…

“Do you know what the chain of command is here? It’s the chain I go get and beat you with to show you who’s in command.” Jayne from Firefly episode “The Train Job”

Serenity…

The reviews of Joss Whedon’s follow-up movie to the Firefly series have been very favorable. Read the reviews here…

I am a big fan of Firefly and am looking forward to the release of the movie, that is now scheduled for late next year (it was supposed ot be in april, but movie politics changed that).

“Ten percent of nuthin’ is…let me do the math here…nuthin’ into nuthin’…carry the nuthin’…” Jayne from Firelfy episode “Serenity”

How do you fix a Ponzi Scheme?

The fact is,… you can’t. Ponzi schemes are crimes of fraud precisely because they cannot be made to work on a profitable basis. What can you do about a Ponzi scheme? The first thing is to recognize one when you see it, then simply don’t participate. The second thing would be to go after the operators of such frauds and either exile them or jail them. I prefer exile as it reduces the cost of operating prisons.

That brings us to just one of our governments many ponzi schemes,…Social Security. It is all over the news, that George Delano is going to [negotiate] a fix, with congress, to solve the social security system problems. Don’t kid yourself, this is just another attempt to raise government revenues under the guise of helping the people.

Social Security cannot be fixed. It is a criminal operation, run by criminals. There is talk of privatizing funds in the stock and bond markets.

Bad idea.

On average the stock market barely keeps up with inflation. Once brokerage fees, taxes and dollar devaluation is figured in, you are lucky if you break even. Also, in the stock market it is just like the regular marketplace, there are winners and there are losers. So some of those investing are going to realize even less than they would expect to under the current system.

What they will try to do is take more money from those who are working and payout less to those who are sucking the government teat. Sorry to be so brash, but ‘thems is the facts’. There will be decreases in benefits. There will be increases in taxes (theft) used to fund the operators (criminals, ie. legislators and government agents). Those that insist on living off the spoils of government theft will have to look elsewhere for their livelyhood.

So what do we do?

The first thing to do is to stop paying in.

This would work out for both the employee and the employer. Currently, the money stolen from paychecks for the ponzi scheme is about 14%. 7% of that is lopped right off the employee’s paycheck (check your paystub). The other 7% is paid by the employer, but is actually the employee’s money (he could be paid that same money at no loss to the employer if it weren’t being stolen by the government – this is the same with all payroll deductions).

Now the employee takes 10% of his pay and pops it into silver or gold or some other investment that he trusts to at least maintain it’s value, if not grow, outright. It has cost the employee nothing to do that because he has agreed to keep 3% of the employer’s contribution (it was actually his to begin with but he is feeling generous in his new found wealth and wants his employer to benefit as well) and let his employer keep the other 4%. The employee gets a 10% pay boost and the employer gets a 4%, per employee, cost cut.

The employee’s take home is the same, but now he is building a nestegg. The employer is saving 4% per employee and now has the funds to invest in better equipment and tooling for the employees to do their jobs with. His company becomes more efficient and is also able to reduce its prices, making it a hit with his customers.

Everybody wins, except the thieves. They get one-way tickets to Afghanistan as part of the new government-employee exile program.

I like it. Now get out there and start sending any congressman, senator or president, who voted for or signed a budget that included any funding of the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, to Afghanistan.

Now isn’t that a nice Christmas bonus!!!

On this day in history…

…the Wright Brothers conducted the first powered flight of an aeroplane. Click here to learn the steps the brothers took to achieve this incredible feat, as decribed by Orville, in his own words.

The course of the flight up and down was exceedingly erratic, partly due to the irregularity of the air, and partly to lack of experience in handling this machine. The control of the front rudder was difficult on account of its being balanced too near the center. This gave it a tendency to turn itself when started; so that it turned too far on one side and then too far on the other. As a result the machine would rise suddenly to about ten feet, and then as suddenly dart for the ground. A sudden dart when a little over a hundred feet from the end of the track, or a little over 120 feet from the point at which it rose into the air, ended the flight. As the velocity of the wind was over 35 feet per second and the speed of the machine over the ground against this wind ten feet per second, the speed of the machine relative to the air was over 45 feet per second, and the length of the flight was equivalent to a flight of 540 feet made in calm air. This flight lasted only 12 seconds, but it was nevertheless the first in the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised itself by its own power into the air in full f light, had sailed forward without reduction of speed and had finally landed at a point as high as that from which it started.

Click the link. The above quote is taken from the page called “Flight!”.

Counting the vote(s)…?

Some new information has come to light about vote tampering. This is from Judiciary Committee hearings, earlier this week…

At apprx 1p, after a witness had finished, cliff arnebeck — who had given a presentation some time before — interjected and asked to call one more witness. He was given permission to do so. He said he was calling clint curtis.

Some of the audience literally gasped while others applauded. They clearly knew who he was.

Curtis stood at the front of room with arnebeck seated behind him. Curtis was about five to ten feet from the members of congress. At the front of the room, he placed his hand on a bible and was sworn. To my knowledge, he was the only witness sworn.

Arnebeck began a direct examination of curtis with basic questions, name, residence….

Then got to his qualifications.

Then, he asked curtis something like whether voting machines could be hacked. He said yes. Arnebeck asked him on what he based that opinion. He said because I wrote a program that could do it. Arnebeck asked when that happened. Curtis said feeney had asked him to design such a program at yang enterprises.

Jaws dropped. Tubbs jones and waters looked shocked.

Tubbs jones, waters and nadler asked questions. Waters asked him to repeat who asked him to do it. Congressman feeney, he said. Nadler asked him some questions, as did tubbs jones and a state senator.

Curtis was asked what he would conclude if there was such a substantial deviation btwn exit polls and actual results. He said he would conclude the election had been hacked. Gasps. Could have heard a pin drop.

More at Brad Blog Too…

I am adding Riverbend to the Blogroll. This is a blog run by a local woman in Baghdad. She is trying to keep the blog up even though power and comunications are very intermittent.

On this day in history…

…the Boston Tea Party took place. Here is an eyewitness account…

The tea destroyed was contained in three ships, lying near each other at what was called at that time Griffin’s wharf, and were surrounded by armed ships of war, the commanders of which had publicly declared that if the rebels, as they were pleased to style the Bostonians, should not withdraw their opposition to the landing of the tea before a certain day, the 17th day of December, 1773, they should on that day force it on shore, under the cover of their cannon’s mouth.

On the day preceding the seventeenth, there was a meeting of the citizens of the county of Suffolk, convened at one of the churches in Boston, for the purpose of consulting on what measures might be considered expedient to prevent the landing of the tea, or secure the people from the collection of the duty. At that meeting a committee was appointed to wait on Governor Hutchinson, and request him to inform them whether he would take any measures to satisfy the people on the object of the meeting.

To the first application of this committee, the Governor told them he would give them a definite answer by five o’clock in the afternoon. At the hour appointed, the committee again repaired to the Governor’s house, and on inquiry found he had gone to his country seat at Milton, a distance of about six miles. When the committee returned and informed the meeting of the absence of the Governor, there was a confused murmur among the members, and the meeting was immediately dissolved, many of them crying out, “Let every man do his duty, and be true to his country”; and there was a general huzza for Griffin’s wharf.

It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin’s wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.

When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew.

We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging.

We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.

In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.

We then quietly retired to our several places of residence, without having any conversation with each other, or taking any measures to discover who were our associates; nor do I recollect of our having had the knowledge of the name of a single individual concerned in that affair, except that of Leonard Pitt, the commander of my division, whom I have mentioned. There appeared to be an understanding that each individual should volunteer his services, keep his own secret, and risk the consequence for himself. No disorder took place during that transaction, and it was observed at that time that the stillest night ensued that Boston had enjoyed for many months.

During the time we were throwing the tea overboard, there were several attempts made by some of the citizens of Boston and its vicinity to carry off small quantities of it for their family use. To effect that object, they would watch their opportunity to snatch up a handful from the deck, where it became plentifully scattered, and put it into their pockets.

One Captain O’Connor, whom I well knew, came on board for that purpose, and when he supposed he was not noticed, filled his pockets, and also the lining of his coat. But I had detected him and gave information to the captain of what he was doing. We were ordered to take him into custody, and just as he was stepping from the vessel, I seized him by the skirt of his coat, and in attempting to pull him back, I tore it off; but, springing forward, by a rapid effort he made his escape. He had, however, to run a gauntlet through the crowd upon the wharf nine each one, as he passed, giving him a kick or a stroke.

Another attempt was made to save a little tea from the ruins of the cargo by a tall, aged man who wore a large cocked hat and white wig, which was fashionable at that time. He had sleightly slipped a little into his pocket, but being detected, they seized him and, taking his hat and wig from his head, threw them, together with the tea, of which they had emptied his pockets, into the water. In consideration of his advanced age, he was permitted to escape, with now and then a slight kick.

The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable.

– George Hewes

Direct action…taken directly…

Bill of Rights Day…

Today is the 213th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. That happened on December 15th, 1791, when Virginia signed the ratification completing the three/fourths requirement and the Bill of Rights became law.

I would wish you “Happy Bill of Rights Day”, but it seems rather moot given the current police state that we accept, in defacto. In truth, not even the Constitution is adhered to today as the founding fathers had intended. The result is a country deep in moral and financial bankruptcy…with no respect for individual or property rights…a government out of the control of its people.

Most people don’t even know what rights are. This past election we heard about the [sic]‘right’ to vote. There is no such thing. Rights are inherent in a person through simple being. Nothing else is required. No other people are involved. The mere fact that it takes at least three people to vote shows that it can’t be a right. Those people must agree to the concept of the vote and to abide by its outcome. Otherwise the vote is meaningless.

In fact, that brings me to one of my pet peeves about voters. Many of you, out there, claim that if I don’t vote, I have no right to complain (they seem utterly unaware that this would be a free speech violation). I fell for the illogical concept once myself, so I don’t blame you if you did, too. However if you continue to participate in such a farcical premise, after this explanation, you have no one to blame but yourself. The fact is, that when you vote, you have no right to complain. The mere act of participating in the vote means that you agree to accept the outcome, whether it is the one you want or not. Now some things are fine for voting on. Whether to have beef or chicken at the company Christmas party, for instance. Or voting for prom king/queen, or your favorite movie. We can even vote on when we should next get together to…well…vote.

But the one thing you should never vote on is…your rights. They are not up for debate. As soon as you agree to put them on the ballot you have slipped the noose around your neck and are only waiting for the election results to see which hangman gets to drop the trapdoor for you.

When an elected official authors a bill, which infringes on your rights, you should be screaming treason. Each legislator who co-sponsors such an atrocity is also a traitor. Should the bill actually become law by a vote of the houses, all who participated are gulity of treason to the citizens (even if they voted against it – they agreed it could and should be voted on – bad, bad representative…). A president which then signs a law that, abrogates or restricts your rights, is then also guilty of treason.

At this time we have a federal government (as well as most state and local governments) that has found themselves to be above the Supreme Law of the land. They have seen fit to interfere with your right to life; your right to free association, to freedom of religion, to freedom of speech; your right to self defense; your right to be secure in your property and possessions. They have claimed powers that you as an individual did not and could not grant (how can you grant a power that you, yourself, cannot do – like taking money, by force, from another – or invading your neighbors home). They have then used those powers to enrich themselves and their friends, family and business partners. They have lobbed the party bashing balls back and forth, keeping you beguiled by their dexterity, with lies and laws. And yet, you continue to walk into the precincts, eyes glazed over from the daily onslaught of political rhetoric and approve of your next master.

As long as the people continue to put their rights up for a vote, they will continue to lose them.

A piece of paper gets you nothing. It does not grant rights, it acknowleges them. It was part of a contract between the states. It was a simple agreement. The government broke its part of the deal. It means nothing anymore.

You only have the rights you are willing to defend.

Happy Bill of Rights Day.