Recent comments

  • GregL's picture
    GregL 3 years 8 weeks ago
    The Oslo Attacks
    Web link Westernerd
    Geoffrey, What I've seen written so far about the Oslo killings mostly suggests that Breivik acted alone, so your conjecture about it being a team effort provides some good food for thought. It will be interesting to see how this story develops. On a different subject: I responded to a post you wrote a few weeks ago about OpEgypt in which you mentioned "Liberty Pools". In case you didn't see my response, I'm curious as to whether you have any opinions about what impact Bitcoin and Tor might have regarding ""Liberty Pools". - Greg
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 3 years 8 weeks ago
    The Oslo Attacks
    Web link Westernerd
    Full court press by "Morris the Wise" on this guy who is the Norwegian Martin Bryant (although Bryant was a bit of a goofball, and there's no evidence of that in Breivik's history). Same thing is happening over at Zerohedge, with recent registrants pouring reams of 'look at the lone nut' material into Oslo-related threads. As I said elsewhere, for a solo shooter to kill 80 people using light infantry weapons is as near to impossible as makes no odds. As the survivor testimony makes clear, people on the island clearly had cellphone signal - they sent messages and Twitter updates... so they are likely to have called police, too. So whoever did all that killing would have know they had a limited time budget. A man who has never killed, becomes a better life-taker than a professional JSOC/SEALTeam6 sociopath? Sorry, no sale. This has the hallmarks of a team effort - to get that kill count you would need five well-trained experienced killers, and twenty minutes or more (people run like fuck when crowds get fired upon, and moving targets are VERY hard to hit with assault weapons - even if it's not your first kill).
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul: "As we get older and naturally shed such obligations (<== child rearing, etc), we can afford to become more hard-core about these things. One of the few benefits of getting old is that you don't have to back down. **************************************************** Excellent point, Paul -- and congratulations on a very well-written essay. I can "afford" (I'm 75, grandpa 23 times, great grandpa of 5) to spout off, refuse to get drivers' license, etc.; to "be a sovereign state". I can rant and I can rave against "government" -- but I must maintain empathy and respect for those I love. Thankfully, 3 of my 7 children are homeschoolers, shielding 13 of the 23 (soon to be 24) grandkids from government ("public") school's harm. I can take credit for cheering them on in that pursuit, but it's the kids' "doing". It's important for me to remember that. I'm aware that they still have to interface with state school officials in submitting to testing (all grandkids test far above mean "normal" scores), allowing "inspections", etc. Two of my sons are "at the helm" -- active in Ron Paul's "campaign" -- and I support their efforts (with my mouth shut for the most part). They've both quit haggling me to get involved or "vote" (although they insist a vote in the "Iowa Straw Poll" wouldn't be considered an "act of violence"), and they know I respect Dr Paul and them for supporting him. I'll help with the younger grandchildren during the upcoming straw poll -- and I'll restrain myself from negativity. Sam
  • morristhewise's picture
    morristhewise 3 years 8 weeks ago
    The Oslo Attacks
    Web link Westernerd
    Evidence will show that the Oslo shooter was politically confused. He was suffering from a childhood trauma due to being sexually abused by an elderly housekeeper. His motive for the shooting had nothing to do with politics but only by a desire to become famous.
  • morristhewise's picture
    morristhewise 3 years 8 weeks ago
    The Oslo Attacks
    Web link Westernerd
    Many want fame and fortune but fortune is difficult to come by. The sociopath at Oslo had no other motive except to become famous and he was successful. His political views were strong but his desire to obtain fame was stronger.
  • Paul the cab Driver's picture
    Paul the cab Driver 3 years 8 weeks ago
    All Sail And No Anchor
    Web link Westernerd
    Yup. he was right. The only solution for this horrible choice between the chaos of democracy and the tyranny of despotism is the elimination of coercive government.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Thank you for your response.
  • morristhewise's picture
    morristhewise 3 years 8 weeks ago
    The Oslo Attacks
    Web link Westernerd
    The massacre at Oslo has awakened all peace loving people. Never before has society become aware of the triple threat that is challenging its sanity. Mad bombers, mad shooters, and mad rapists have been showing their ugly heads. Unfortunately the police are not mind readers and these sickos cannot be detected and stopped beforehand. But thanks to the long hands of justice this insane trio will be caught and punished.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Suverans, please see tzo's response below, starting with "When coercion is used..." I couldn't have said it better. I don't particularly disagree with your point about fear of loss of material wealth; in fact I have advocated disengaging from government as much as reasonably possible (note the qualification). I don't agree with Molyneux's view that one should not inconvenience oneself at all (thereby justifying any and all compromise with the state). I think Atlas should shrug. On the other hand, there are limits to this stance. For example, if one has a family, one has an obligation to defend it. Checking off a box on a sheet of paper in order to buy a gun is philosophically obnoxious, as is getting a permit to carry. But one is sometimes forced to make unpleasant choices to get one's most important obligations taken care of. The point is, government is nothing but a very powerful criminal gang. We do not compromise ourselves by dealing with that reality and keeping our current priorities straight (obligations of child rearing first for example). We have not proclaimed the criminal gang's legitimacy in doing so. As we get older and naturally shed such obligations, we can afford to become more hard-core about these things. One of the few benefits of getting old is that you don't have to back down.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day Paul Bonneau, I've not had a gun put to my head, (and I doubt many here have), but I have had a taser put against my chest directly over my heart, by some no-neck thugs disguised as "peace officers", and I still said, "NO!" "If I have to check a little box that means nothing to me or offends me, to be able to engage in some commerce, I will play their game and check it." ~ Paul Bonneau [Emphasis added] This is not intended as a condemnation of you or anyone else, but as I wrote in a previous post, "(...I perceive that greed, i.e. the fear of the loss of material wealth, is greatest coercive force for many, if not most, of us)".
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Optimism
    Web link Michael Kleen
    I liked this one Michael. I could use a little optimism after hearing about Norway. There is a right way and a wrong way to effect change.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    My prescription exactly. Add to that the mental preparation to go to war if war is brought to one. Fred Reed wrote an excellent article about disengaging here: http://lewrockwell.com/reed/reed210.html BTW seeds are taking root all over the place, these days.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks John. See my other articles, listed here: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001979944563#!/note.php?note_id=105937936152694
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Yeah, that's my reading too. And even if it wasn't, Suverans, you ignore the implicit coercion in the question. If I have to check a little box that means nothing to me or offends me, to be able to engage in some commerce, I will play their game and check it. It does not negate the reality, which is that they are illegitimate. They are putting a gun to my head, and contracts where a gun is on the table are not valid. I bet if they pointed a gun at you and asked you if you were a citizen, you'd say "yes" too.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Actually, the first person I always called was my dad -- where I was they don't even let you look at a phone book. My point was that speed dial doesn't do you any good in jail; the longer they can hold you without anyone knowing where you are, the more damage they can do. And doing damage is what they do best.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Most of the time I spent in court I spent wondering why the judges even botrher to show up. The prosecutors run the courts and the police run the prosecutors. Seriously, is there anything the cops CAN'T do?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    What is amazing is that the cops have no interest at all. Sure they're tight on resources now but still...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    "The science of mine and thine --- [the natural law of man] the science of justice --- is the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person. It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other." ~ Natural Law by Lysander Spooner ________________________________________________________________________________ "Nowadays, the study of natural law virtually has been banned from the training of lawyers. What remains of it in the academic curriculum of most law schools is no more than a little bit of 'intellectual history', which is devoted mainly to the works of a handful of ancient, medieval and early modern writers and philosophers. Often, students get the impression that natural law is something that can be found only in books (in the same way that statutory law, the verdicts of courts and international treaties are mere texts). They are led to believe that the natural law is nothing but a collection of theories of natural law. It is not. Nor, of course, is the physical universe nothing but a collection of theories of physics. The practice of natural law also has been eliminated almost completely by the legal profession. Very often, the study and the practice of natural law are scorned if not ridiculed." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law. [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Yup, the ones with no video or audio equipment on board.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Of course at the end it sounded as if he got to enjoy a ride in one of those police elevators I became very familiar with before I quit drinking 30+ years ago. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    You've pulled out the essence of the lengthy article and used it as an excellent summary. Sam
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    The relationship between entities (cause and effect) is determined by the characteristics of the entities involved. This is no less true of human entities than any other. Even a cursory look quickly reveals that imposition upon personal preference by initiation of force and/or coercion produces the effect of resentment and hostility. It logically follows that if peace and harmony is the objective, refraining from initiation of force and coercion is the natural law means to achieve and sustain this end. How can any truth be more visible and irrefutable? ~Delmar England   
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Thanks.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Very good, Sam. Did you hear that agent, "...we are allowed to lie in interviews"? The rule is, if their lips are moving they are lying. So, other than identifying who you are, keep your mouth shut...unless of course you are like the Articulant Motorist.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    "...memorize your attorney's phone number..." ~ rita Memorize this, rita, "your attorney", whether (s)he is appointed by the court or paid for by you, is, first and foremost, an officer of the court.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    And remember this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=player_embedded Sam
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    You had pointed out this paper a few days back, and I buzzed through it rather quickly. I think there's a lot of good things there, and I agree that it needs some editing, but it will need a more careful reading on my part, which I plan on doing. I think I want to like it. :>
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    Tzo (comment): "...If there are enough damaged people, then damage seems normal..." I've been rereading an essay, "Insanity As The Social Norm", by Delmar England: http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_insanityasthesocialnorm.htm It is 24 pages in a single space "Word" document. I've tried to edit my copy to produce more easily understood reading -- it does need work. England's main critique is the tendency in those of us professing anarchy to ignore "is" individual (the subjective definition we all have) in deference to "ought" individual (the objective definition), creating a subservient mentality. For instance, where you might say..."everyone gets to interpret the 'facts' of the world in his own way and draw his own conclusions"...England would insist: Everyone DOES interpret the 'facts' of the world in his own way and draws his own conclusions" -- the problem being those "conclusions" are sullied by "the confused and complex lies" with which s/he has grown up. England's very last paragraph: ...I do not propose to engage in such a futile effort (<== defining 'anarchism'). Suffice it to say, it is only by recognition of the truth of “is” individual without the subservient “ought” adornments of “morality” and “rights” that the real objective identity stands as a common frame of reference in unification, not division. In seeking freedom, peace and harmony, all else is folly... by Delmar England It's a good read for those wishing to expand this "objective, ethical rules" topic further. Sam
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    Yes, it's a bit like arguing that sunlight to a plant is neither good nor bad. Who can say? Everything is subjective. Well, if you do a bit of objective science, you will discover that sunlight is objectively good for the plant. The need and desire for love, justice, respect, and cooperation are built into us, and just like a plant's chlorophyll, we have a mechanism to manufacture energy out of these ingredients in order to thrive. And anyone who demands to see proof of this hasn't really looked at the world that surrounds him very closely, or can't evaluate the data accurately because he has been damaged by lack of love, justice, respect, and cooperation. If there are enough damaged people, then damage seems normal. Unfortunately, I think this is the case in this society and is what makes it difficult to get these kinds of points across.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    I think so. The belly-button thing covers the All Men Are Created Equal part, where everyone gets to interpret the "facts" of the world in his own way and draw his own conclusions. And I am happy to call all this personal interpretation subjective, as everyone will come to different conclusions about all kinds of "objective" things. The Just Society part is merely allowing each individual to live as he chooses and is able, as long as he does not hinder anyone else's ability to live likewise. This is the only way to preserve AMACE and to create a just society. So given the caveats, which I believe most people will agree to, then the entire objective ethics thing is done and done. It's that simple, and not really *subject* to much interpretation in any rational manner.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Try it here, rita. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEb666Szs8s&feature=player_embedded#at=482
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "Disengage from the government." John deLaubenfels Precisely!! DISENGAGE, v.t. [dis and engage.] ...4. ...to withdraw... 6. To release or liberate from a promise or obligation; to set free by dissolving an engagement ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Anyone who believes that "convicted of" always means "guilty of" is woefully ignorant of how our travesty of justice system works. Over 90% of felony cases in this country are settled by plea agreements, arbitrated behind closed doors between prosecutors who see more convictions as their tickets to stardom and court appointed "defense attorneys" who are, at best, overworked and indifferent. And have you SEEN the inside of a prison? Education? Health care? Oh, please! You're right; America's justice system is broken. And it's people like the person who wrote this article, like the ones even now screaming for Casey Anthony's head on a pike, people who believe that accused always means guilty -- those people are already in charge.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    My computer says: "Critical error. The remote server has returned an error. Forbidden." I'm not paranoid or anything . . . or am I?
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Forget speed dial; memorize your attorney's phone number, because if there's one thing the cops fear more than people with guns, it's people with cell phones.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    Wow! A terrific approach and VERY well done. (And so brief and concise! I'm impressed at the signal-to-noise ratio you've attained). I understand Samarami's point but disagree with it: civil society (that is, any society widely characterized by love and freedom, or compassion and liberty, or emotional health and laissez-faire -- depending on the wording you prefer) can be objectively described and does provide objective results that, as it happens, can be shown, scientifically, to be healthier and better (in terms of any number of important criteria) than what you get from a NON-civil society. So I'm in your corner on the objective rules thing, Tzo. Millions of people THINK various Statist schemes are in the best interests of all, but they're wrong -- and you've hit the nail on the head about it. Those who are sincere in wanting "justice, cooperation, freedom, and equal human rights" would be well-served to read your column. Not many will, but those who do may actually learn something important.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    Clever, Tzo. Anybody who knows me would be disappointed if I did not announce at this point that we've already organized society -- and declared statehood no less. I use "we" loosely -- so far I'm the only member but "we" have a sovereign state. I am Head of State, as a matter of fact -- the most powerful man in the world. Of course the world revolves around MY belly-button -- not yours. My world. What makes me the most powerful man in the world is the knowledge that YOUR world revolves around YOUR belly-button -- whether you admit it or not. That gives me a lot of power, because I can know with certainty if you disagree with me over a matter it's not because there is something wrong with me -- or that you got up this morning attempting to find a way to screw me over. It's only that in your world the facts are defined differently. How's that for "objective, ethical rules..." Am I gettin' there yet??? Sam
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    I would say there are two things we can do: . Sound off. Spread the word. Sure, it's frustrating to be confronted by ignorance, and many times it will prove a waste of time to try to counter it, but occasionally a seed will take root. . Disengage from the government. Attempt to live our lives out of its sight and away from its greedy, grasping hands.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    For those who thought I was too hard on Lew Rockwell and his acolytes in this article, here he is again (following his overriding interest) at the following link, praising empire and Catholicism when they are linked to Austria. There are 3 magic words at lewrockwell.com, and when they occur in close proximity, it becomes catnip to the Lewciferians: Catholic + Empire + Austria = Good as in this link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/91524.html Note how he gushes over the imperium when it touches upon a female empress to be, as he says himself in the post about the burial of the son of the Austrian Emperor, Otto von Habsburg: "His Body Interred in Austria, His Heart in Hungary...My favorite newspaper these days, the Daily Mail, has its usual stunning photos of the funerals of the great Catholic liberal Otto von Habsburg. Don't miss Otto as a boy, and if you want to know what a real queen-empress looks like, see his wife to be." While it is true that Hoppe has made a good case that private governments have a tendency to act more responsibly than democratic governments (Democracy: The God That Failed), this is yet another example of paleolibertarianism run amok. This is particularly sad because Lew does so much good, but then he paints a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    For those who thought I was too hard on Lew Rockwell and his acolytes in this article. Here he is again at the following link, praising empire and Catholicism when they are linked to Austria. These are the 3 magic words of his sect at lewrockwell.com, and when they occur in close proximity, it becomes catnip to lew. Note how Lew drowns his brain in the holy water font in the following equation: Catholic + Empire + Austria = Good as in this link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/91524.html He clearly gushes over the imperium when it touches a female imperial parasite, as he says himself in the post about the burial of the son of the Austrian Emperor, Otto von Habsburg: "His Body Interred in Austria, His Heart in Hungary...My favorite newspaper these days, the Daily Mail, has its usual stunning photos of the funerals of the great Catholic liberal Otto von Habsburg. Don't miss Otto as a boy, and if you want to know what a real queen-empress looks like, see his wife to be." Can he gush any more fully over the empress? While it is true that Hoppe has made a good case that private governments have a tendency to act more responsibly than democratic governments (Democracy: The God That Failed), this is yet another example of paleolibertarianism run amok.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day tzo, Touché! Your parallels are apropos, my friend, regardless of the fact that they may be a bit "overboard". So, now that we know that there is no "lawful" contract, that we have been "tricked" into it, what do we do about it? Do we succumb to the fear of "coercion", (though I perceive that greed, i.e. the fear of the loss of material wealth, is greatest coercive force for many, if not most, of us), and just sit around complaining to each other? Or, do we stand up for what is right, and "pledge...our lives, fortunes, and sacred honour" to the great and honorable fight for freedom? "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom..." ~ Samuel Adams
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Cops breaking the laws they enforce against the people? What a surprise.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Suverans2, When coercion is used, it is difficult to accept that there is an implicit contract based on the behavior and actions of the coerced. If the threatened party elects to interact with the thug because he believes he will be better off than by not, then this is merely self-interest, and is action taken under duress. To claim that a government has some ethical claim to being a valid party to a contract because it successfully threatens or tricks people to interact with it just can't process in my brain. Every armed robbery in history where the victim acquiesced peacefully was legal because there was no objection, thereby creating tacit consent which made the "interaction" a contract? Every fraud and theft is legal because the unaware victim fails to object as the event is occurring, which creates a valid contract based on tacit consent? I'm sure I went overboard with my parallels in the previous paragraph, but I'll need you to point out how they fail in comparison to "contracting with government."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day tzo, Express and implied. An express contract is an actual agreement of the parties, the terms of which are openly uttered or declared at the time of making it, being stated in distinct and explicit language, either orally or in writing. An implied contract is one not created or evidenced by the explicit agreement of the parties, but inferred by the law, as a matter of reason and justice from their acts or conduct, the circumstances surrounding the transaction making it a reasonable, or even a necessary, assumption that a contract existed between them by tacit understanding. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 323 ________________________________________________________________________________ TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Unfortunately, complaining to the other servants does not count as "objection or opposition".
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Valid contracts imply "a meeting of the minds," where all parties are informed on all points. The old argument about signing away your rights because you said you were a citizen in order to get a social security card in order to get a drivers license in order to get a job just doesn't work. How many of you have done a one-click agreement online in order to make a purchase or join a website? What if it said in the seventh paragraph of stipulation number 437 that you hereby relinquish your first born child?
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Excellent column! The Higgs reference is probably my favorite from an author I much admire. This point needs to be driven home, "I do not consent!" "I did not sign that B***S*** contract!" I've got a domain, govNotLegit.com, that I need to flesh out. When I get time... I'll be sure to include a link to this column.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    I don't think so. The questions being asked in these cases are, "Do we classify you as a U.S. citizen" and "Do we classify you as a resident (not citizen) of the state of Wyoming". To reply truthfully is not to pledge any fealty whatever to any institution, legitimate (ha!) or otherwise.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Just curious, Paul Bonneau, how many times have you checked the "yes" box, to either of the following two questions, and signed it? Are you a U.S. citizen? Are you a citizen of the State of Wyoming? If your answer is once, or more, (like I had), have you rebutted the presumption that that answer, or those answers, and signature created; the presumption that you have expressly consented to be a citizen, i.e. a subject, of a State government or, of the United States government?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Discovering True Laws
    Page Bob Wallace
    Natural law is "a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independent of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people,' [are] 'discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and' [are] 'found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution". ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 2ND c. 1910), pg. 804 "Nowadays, the study of natural law virtually has been banned from the training of lawyers. What remains of it in the academic curriculum of most law schools is no more than a little bit of 'intellectual history', which is devoted mainly to the works of a handful of ancient, medieval and early modern writers and philosophers. Often, students get the impression that natural law is something that can be found only in books (in the same way that statutory law, the verdicts of courts and international treaties are mere texts). They are led to believe that the natural law is nothing but a collection of theories of natural law. It is not. Nor, of course, is the physical universe nothing but a collection of theories of physics." "The natural law and the positive law are not alternative systems of rules that apply to the same thing. The natural law is the law of natural persons and positive law is a law of artificial persons." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.
  • Guest's picture
    crisJ (not verified) 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I'm not against the security check in airports since it's just only for our safety but doing security checks by the agents should be careful and gentle that the one being examined is not feeling being abused or assaulted because it's just normal for the public to react violently about these security checks when they are feel like being assaulted already. I remember the news about what happened last Saturday when a mother from TN was detained for objecting when TSA workers tried to pat down her daughter. The female allegedly became belligerent and was arrested for disorderly conduct. Recently, the TSA altered its policy on pat downs of children. This incident comes after that policy change. The proof is here: Woman arrested for scene when TSA attempt to pat down her daughter. I think if the TSA agents just explained the change in their policies with the woman and the woman just made a proper approach to the TSA agent, the situation would not come to the point of arresting her. This is the only thing that both parties must understand and consider.