Oh, thank you for saying exactly what is in my mind. All I can add is that I hope you reach many, many more people.
I asked a neighbor once,”How many laws are enough? When do the elected ones finally throw up their hands and declare the job done? How heavy a burden of legislation must we carry in our lives ’til they’re satisfied that we’re protected from our own follies sufficiently?” The neighbor had no answer.
Your article was of great interest to me and I wish more people would have that attitude in their heads to just say no to all this nonsense.
However, you and I are approaching this “federal” problem from two different points of view and I’m hoping that you will give some thought to my approach because from reading your article, it appears that you believe that the Constitution is alive and well but just being violated.
When honest weights and measures (gold and silver) were removed from our monetary system the Constitution was replaced by Maritime Law. We are no longer under the Law of the Land; we are under Maritime Law which deals with Treaties, Contracts and Trusts. How does one know this? Because to be under the Constitution, the Law of the Land, there would be many, many people in jail for treason at this time. When we contract to various activities/benefits with the ‘federal” government by our signature, we give them credence for their unlawful activities and put ourselves under their thumb. Take the Constitution into any court today for your defense and you will one of two remarks from the Judge. He will either tell you that you may not bring the constitution into his court or he will say GUILTY, because you never argued the point of “show me the contract that I signed that gives you jurisdiction over me”.
Instead of just saying NO, let us stop signing our lives away to them and after withholding our signatures from licenses, contracts, etc., we will no longer be giving them “federal” jurisdiction over our lives. It’s time to get back to the States and let this “federal” nonsense disintegrate into the very small place of power they were given originally.
Joyce
Joyce,
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written, but Just Say NO can just as easily apply to “licensing, contracts, etc.” as it does to anything else.
So rather than two different points of view, we merely wrote about two aspects of the same view.
Our poor kid has suffered with the terrible service and misdiagnosis of his computer. He just gave it back to them. Now here you are with another horror story about Dell.
My girlfriend refuses to even talk on the phone with Dell. She has the people come out by doing the Southern helpless belle and gets the thing fixed in short notice. Interesting.
Thanks.
Gloria
Gloria,
That series was written seven years ago, in 2002.
From what you write, I guess nothing much has changed since then.
However, that piece was published in 2002 and in the seven years since then, things have gotten worse for those who believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility.
Perhaps now that the major media has finally realized their half-century-long dream of partnering with committed socialists in the White House and leading both houses of Congress, the masses you speak of will wake up one day to find an America that is far different than the utopia they were promised…and then do something about it.
But honestly, Randy, I’m not betting the house on it. There’s just too darn much for them to watch on TV.
I enjoyed your article a great deal and your conclusions about the Constitution not authorizing the current governmental train wreck are spot on.
But you failed to mention some small but important items — that officialdumb possesses far more ordinance than the entire populace combined.
All of the mice agree that the cat needs a bell…but who is going to tie it on him?
You might consider some remedy thoughts in an article some time. At some point the opposition strategies will devolve to confrontation. If that is to be non-civil war then strategies must be developed ahead of time that avoid violence. A very tall order since officialdumb is fond of violence.
Pulling all money out of banks and closing accounts en masse would cut the most tender flesh on the statists. Or a state banking system such as North Dakotas. (They have $1.5 billion in surplus state budget funds. Who else has that?) So would going to barter systems. So would pulling kids out of public schools. And of course, states rights laws which actually have teeth would make great tools. there many options, but all require citizen cohesion.
I have spent decades on this line of thought. It is fairly easy to create chaos that leads to civil war that leads to some Stalin character that rules for 80 years to ruin. It is far more difficult to stage non-violent opposition that wears down the elites to the point of departure so that statesmen can take office. Jesus said, “Consider the unrighteous judge…” A great plan. Elites love the best seats at the feasts, greetings in the market and titles. That is why they want the office. Booing and rotten tomatoes and disrespect make them pout and go home. Look at the current Town Hall Meetings and the reaction of the bloated toads.
You write well. Perhaps you could tell us all how to do things that work without our homes being burned to the ground by the New World Order troops. My great concern is that without such plans, the end result will be just that, only an iron fisted dictator will hold the power.
Great piece – I enjoy the tongue in cheek approach.
But what if the environmentalists really are at fault?
Remember back in the 70’s when they were crying about the coming Ice Age. But then they got the EPA to clamp down on coal burning, especially for electrical generation. Soon enough, don’t you know it, the skies cleared up from all the soot and next thing we’re experiencing Global Warming.
Of course that might also mean that increased industrialization, especially of India and China, is responsible for the decline and reversal of Global Warming over the last 10 years.
Wouldn’t the watermelons* hate to admit that?
Phill Osborn
Hagerstown, Md.
*watermelon – green on the outside but red on the inside
I must first preface my comments by saying that I am somewhat of an agnostic regarding this whole global warming issue. While I believe the problem is real, I am still not convinced of it’s seriousness or whether we can realistically do anything to stop it. Nor am I a blind faith-based global warming denier. So, I will stick to the particulars of the theory you have proffered.
Your explanation of what causes wind and how it works is largely correct, in that the energy in the wind comes entirely from the sun, as the sun sets up convection currents between warm and cool areas on the earth’s surface. The kinetic energy in the wind eventually dissipates in the form of low-level heat as the result of friction effects when the wind comes in contact with the irregular surface of the earth (and to a lesser degree, as the result of turbulence within the wind stream itself). Because the sun continues to shine and continues to set up convection currents, a steady state is achieved, which is why the wind continues to blow.
First off, even if wind power were built out to some total conceivable maximum, the combined swept area of all the wind turbines would represent but a tiny fraction of a percent of the total area of all the obstacles on the surface of the earth that the wind would normally encounter. Furthermore, as the rate of global deforestation continues to increase, we are very likely decreasing the amount of obstacles to the free flow of wind, despite the building of wind turbines. In other words, for every wind turbine built, there are probably thousands of trees over a hundred feet high that have been cut down, thus providing a smoother path for the wind than it had when the trees were still standing.
Second (and this is far more subtle), being that the earth is a rotating sphere, and the wind a fluid moving on the surface of that sphere, the motion of the wind is far from uniform and takes on the form of distinct circular patterns (e.g., the ‘trade winds’ etc.) that interact with each other in complex ways. Thus, for every unit of wind-induced momentum transfered to the earth in the direction of the earth’s rotation, there is somewhere on the earth’s surface an equal amount of wind-induced momentum transferred in the direction opposite to the earth’s rotation. It can probably be mathematically proven that these have to cancel out (just don’t ask me to do it), and result in no net transfer of momentum to the earth.
Anyway, it’s a very interesting theory. You ought to look into it further, as I strongly suspect that somewhere in the geophysical literature someone somewhere has analyzed just this sort of thing.
Sincerely,
Edmund Dohnert
Wilmington, Delaware
Sorry, Edmund, but I’m going to take a page from the Liberal Handbook and stick with my theory despite all the facts and evidence to the contrary.
It’s new world of hope and change and I’m going to be a good citizen and get with the program. I’m going to hope the laws of nature will change so I can be right.
And even if they don’t, perhaps I can get my congresscritter to introduce new legislation revising the relevant natural laws so my theory will be correct.
I mean, if they can revise the “natural laws” of economics and business and banking, why not those of other inconvenient things like physics?
Undoubtedly many people have already written to you, explaining the fallacy of your argument about windmills and the speed of the earth’s rotation. But I couldn’t restrain myself from adding this email to the list.
The fact is that the earth as a whole – together with all its windmills and everything else – has a certain amount of angular momentum which, according to the principle of the conservation of angular momentum, on its own remains constant. The fact that the angular momentum of the earth is changing is due to the effect of the moon on the earth. The moon’s gravity gives rise to the tides in the oceans, resulting in a not perfectly symmetrical gravitational attraction between the earth and the moon. The result of this is that the earth slows down rotationally, while the diameter of the orbit of the moon gradually increases. That is to say, both the length of the day and also the length of the month are becoming longer. By studying the rings on fossilized mussels, this phenomenon can be verified. Another effect is of course the fact that the extra movement of the water in the oceans given by tidal currents converts a tiny amount of the kinetic energy of the earth-moon system into heat in the earth.
However despite all this, it is equally obvious that the arguments of the “global warming” enthusiasts are also false. While your article causes only amusement, the fallacies of the global warming people are causing very real suffering in the world.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Hemion
Geoffrey.
The whole idea was so foolish, I thought, as you did, that many people would write to dispute it, or at least curse me for making fun of the global warming wackos. It was not to be. Maybe they figured I was too much of a wacko to bother with…and maybe they’re correct.
I did notice that, right about the time I put that online, I started hearing less and less about global warming and more and more about “climate change.” Perhaps Al Gore finally thought to check and discovered the planet has been cooling recently. Perhaps if this cooling continues for a few more years we can look forward to a new Gore movie about glaciers reaching the equator if we don’t do whatever he thinks we should do. Hmmm…I wonder if he’ll start buying back all those carbon credits his company has been selling?
