Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Wake-up!

Politics / Re: Government Approval of Everybody . . .
August 29, 2016, 11:29:27 AM
Thank you for your reply!

In response to the Oathkeepers, you said, "I am absolutely in agreement with each item and I would publicly pledge support for these principals." Excellent! I realize this is a public forum, albeit one that appears to have limited viewing. Will you repeat your statement of support in speaking engagements you have before the election (assuming you have some additional political 'rallies' coming up)? Will you also provide your public support in the weekly Prairie Star just as you have here?

Regarding CSPOA Resolution, Item 5; would you speak in more detail on 'reasonable suspicion' versus 'probable cause'? Just what determination separates the two? When does the former become the latter? Who defines 'reasonable'? How would you, as Sheriff, insure that officers under you strive to be consistent in distinguishing between the two, and acting accordingly?

Thanks for your time.
Politics / Re: Government Approval of Everybody . . .
August 28, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
Since Mr. Cordell has responded to this posting, I have several questions for the Sheriff's candidate, questions for both candidates actually, if they would both weigh in. Are you a member of Oathkeepers? If not, would you make a public statement of support before the election? See   See their list of ten things they will NOT support.

Are either of you a member of CSPOA? That's Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers Association. They have a 2014 Resolution that is similar the the Oathkeepers' mission. See    Would you make a public statement in support of CSPOA before the election?

Some of us in Elk County would 'sleep easier' knowing the next sheriff will be honoring ALL unalienable rights; and will, without fail, place those rights above the dictum of DC or Topeka.

I, for one, will not cast a vote for a candidate who does not support one or both these organizations. And I would encourage other county residents to likewise withhold their support for a candidate, or both candidates, under these circumstances.
I'm a newbie here, residing in the State just under five years. I haven't investigated State or local regulatory code. That being said, there should be some sort of 'referendum' process that makes a vote of the people over-ride local regulations (like that old California 1% initiative). Maybe it is just a petition process to require something like a local tax 'rollback' on the ballot. There must also be a local process to recall county officials who fail to act in the interests of those they serve.

Unfortunately, those suggestions all call for the residents to become activists. It's difficult to activate people when they have a microwaved meal of dead food in front of them, and their favorite reality show on the flat-screen. You are fighting an uphill battle. I hope your best intentions win-out.

BTW, I like they way you copy and highlight text you are responding to. What buttons do I push to make that happen?
No, I can't share any such laws with you. But words on paper aren't really necessary to make something mandatory. It is more about attitudes (possibly similar to the ones that prompted your escape from Independence). When I was in third grade an old spinster teacher used an 18-inch wooden ruler to to compel her 'children' to stand and pledge. After several 'hits', I stood and pledged. I'm reasonably sure that such antics don't occur in public schools much anymore. But I bet school administrators have found other ways.

It isn't always about my choice to stand and pledge or sing either. Even if I do not, I still have to hear it. That is mandatory, and I do not know why. Is it a law that every professional football and baseball game will play the anthem, or the Star Spangled Banner? They do it without missing a beat. Misguided patriotic malarky, in my opinion. I have occasionally attended games of both sports in the Pacific Northwest. I have had the following happen: 1) while seated during the anthem, I've been jerked up from behind by some redneck; 2) I've had beer spilled over my head by an equally red neck; and 3) I've been escorted out of the stadium by 'security' for sitting, talking to friends, and drinking beer during the anthem, forfeiting my $150 seat (the seat had been a gratuity, so I wasn't out any dough). Laws are not needed when ignorance and coercion prevail.

Governance exists so the few can control the many, and extract their wealth, whether that governance is secular or religious; whether that governance is elected or the mafia. The governance that is the biggest, the baddest, the most corrupt, is the one that prevails over all the others. The central government of these States has prevailed over all others since WW1, maybe earlier. Washington DC is not fighting the NWO, it is the NWO. Or at least a significant part of it. When massive debt and uncontrollable masses bring down Washington DC, the NWO's size and power will diminish significantly. When it all falls apart, I do not think we will need to fear the NWO, but we may need to fear some of our regional neighbors who still want coercion, and control of the resources where we live. We may also need to fear the State-controlled police forces, even the local ones that have elected sheriffs who believe their military experience qualifies them for the job.

NGO's ??? Thanks,
I would like to know what changes you saw in Indy in the 60's that made you 'flee'. The changes I saw in the 60's in the midwest were the antiwar movement and the civil rights movement. Both of those proved to be a net benefit for all Americans, IMO. And we saw the State resist those changes for many years, before they altered the dialog.

I agree that some harsh changes are coming to this country, regardless of the next election. However, I tend to agree with Red that a ridiculous Pledge of 'unity and one nation' (under God, or not) can and should be abandoned as a mandatory ceremony (even though the article is apparently a hoax).

I'm actually excited about Hillary's impeding victory and ascension. In my opinion, her Presidency will be the quickest path to end socialism for many of us. Central control in China under Mao had devastating effects; and it was nearly as severe in the old Soviet block. Those of us with open eyes are seeing the same effects in this country. Her election will open more eyes. We will see a large increase in the number of States and State Representatives talking about secession. We may actually see Texas vote itself out of the US. We will see a huge increase in individuals pursuing personal secession by just simply dropping off the grid and engaging in self rule. Secession will bring an opportunity to end socialism for most of us. I say most because I have little doubt most of the New England and eastern seaboard population will try to maintain it, believing falsely a world can exist on entitlements.

Human nature being what it is, a Phoenix always arises from the ashes, never before the fire. When that time came for the Soviet block, the Communists voted themselves out of power with the stroke of a pen, after referendums months earlier. Not a shot was fired and the Soviet Union became 13 (?) independent republics. May we be so lucky when 'our' time comes. And it will. And that will be a beautiful thing for freedom.

What would be most 'fun' this election cycle would see the GOP dump Trump, run to little Mittens as the Republican savior, and have Trump run independently. Then, if we could get Hillary, Trump, Mitt, Johnson, a Constitutional Party candidate, a Green candidate, and an American Commie Party candidate on a stage together for a series of debates . . . well, wouldn't that be a three-ring circus?!? And what would post-debate polls look like? Too bad we will never know.

Politics / Re: Consent To Be Governed
July 29, 2016, 04:39:18 PM
Why do we need politics at all?
Politics / Consent To Be Governed
July 28, 2016, 09:36:09 AM
Men (sorry ladies, no women were present) far wiser than today's so-called leaders instituted a governing body to protect their, and our, unalienable human rights. Those governing bodies derived their powers from the consent of the governed. Some 240 years after the fact, just when have any of us consented to be governed by the elitists in Washington DC? Or Topeka, for that matter?

Just something to think about; when have you consented to be regulated as you/we are? I have never given blanket consent to be governed. I doubt if anyone has. I can think of only three instances in my life where I have consented. 1) I signed enlistment papers and spent six years of combined active and inactive military 'duty'. At the end of six years I was discharged from any further military governance. 2) I have a State Driver's License that I signed. That signature acknowledges consent to be governed by the rules of the road. That is all it consents to. 3) I bought a home and property in a small community. I believe the Real Estate Contract I signed is my consent to be governed by the local ordinances in place at the time of purchase. (The issue of Real Estate Contracts versus Alloidial Title to property is a sticky wicket, and possibly another post.)

That's it, outside of several private employment contracts I've signed over the years where I agreed to an employers' terms and conditions. When have you consented to be governed?? And why do we obey regulations we have not consented to? What would happen if many of us simply told those in power, "We do not consent to be governed"?
Politics / Re: Progress - Progressive
July 28, 2016, 08:48:41 AM
I certainly agree that a return to a Constitutional foundation would improve freedom and opportunity for everybody, relative to today's status quo. However, does that go far enough? Jefferson once stated that he thought the new country might only last twenty years. And he thought that just might be all right; that every generation should probably form its own government.

It's also interesting to recall that the Founders were not in agreement. When the Constitution was adopted, many did not want it, they preferred the existing Articles of Confederation, and relented only when promised to have an addendum, the Bill of Rights. Well, we know how that has worked out over time. Would we not have more freedom with less central authority? The southern States certainly thought so when they attempted to throw off the shackles of the central government.

And I agree. My first suggestion, within the political framework that I have zero faith in, is to organize a new Constitutional Convention where States and groups of individuals would have the voice to withdraw from the so-called USA. But, boy, can you see the claws, fangs, and cat fights that would evolve in that process. It would be a true political three-ring circus, way beyond what television has shown us the last two weeks. But freedom might just fall through the cracks in that fracas.
Politics / Re: Progress - Progressive
July 27, 2016, 01:10:02 PM
Redcliffsw, I generally agree with your historical perspective. But I fail to see how reflecting on history or ranting on about Billary offers a path to stop the creep of collectivism in our central government (not to mention many State governments as well). There is not a single politician that I know about that offers anything close to a path to freedom, so I see the political process as completely irrelevant. Does that mean there is no path that leads the correct way? So I come around again to possible approaches and solutions, rather than criticism, no matter how warranted the criticism is. What are the steps we need to take?

Diane, is he really a fascist? Or some modern-day, neo-fascist as the press might label him? Fascist regimes are traditionally one-party dictatorships that promote nationalism and protectionism. The only one that fits Trump, in my opinion, is nationalism. And he will probably be the next president by touting two things, 1) Hillary is a liar (which she is), and 2) Americanism before Globalism. He isn't perfect by any means. I probably wouldn't like him as a next door neighbor, although I say so reservedly because I/we have never seen the private man, just the public one. My motto would be Individualism before Globalism, so I see Trump as a small movement in the correct direction. Slightly so. His willingness to deregulate to promote local economies is not a fascist trait. What I like best about him? He is a business man (yes, one who has taken every advantage he can. Not sure that is bad.), not a stuffed-shirt, coat and tie, bought and paid for political hack.

But, I will vote my conscience.

A blog comment, having only been here two days!! How do I reply to individual comments, rather than reply to the 'topic'? If I can't, why not?
Politics / Re: Progress - Progressive
July 26, 2016, 10:50:30 AM
How do you propose changing the dialog to loosen the shackles? Ron Paul believes education will do the job. Will it? Is a more action-oriented approach feasible? Will civil disobedience become necessary? What is acceptable as progress to you?
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk