Uncategorized

that I will support and defend the Constitution

 I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

I have taken this oath three times in my life. When I enlisted in the military at age 18, when I reenlisted in the military at age 22, and when I was sworn in at my current employer. (Of course the one from my current employer was a little different.) Each time, I considered the Oath I was taking as not just some words that I repeated. I took this oath as a solemn promise that I swore to uphold, even to the point of giving my life to keep that promise. 

The Oath Keepers is an organization that swears to uphold that promise. They are not a militia. They do not advocate committing crimes. They simply make these ten promises:

  • We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
  • We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
  • We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
  • We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
  • We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
  • We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
  • We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
  • We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”
  • We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
  • We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

 In other words, they are agreeing to live up to their oath of office. Our elected officials, who take a similar oath, should take this to heart. As unlikely as some of the above items are, how cold anyone be threatened by the statements being made above? The only way they could take these statements as a threat, is if they had some plan in place that would cause oath keepers to refuse their orders.

This is why it surprises me that a young man who calls himself an oath keeper has reportedly had his child taken away by child protective services because of this oath. Apparently, taking the oath of office required. Actually following it is cause for your child to be taken from you.

By Divemedic, ago

Who should Alan pay?

I got the following message today, in reference to my statements and rants against the fraud being committed by our banks:

Look, If someone isn’t paying for something, is it really theirs? I have a real hard time with this whole “free house” shit. I understand there are some complex issues to do with the paperwork, etc. but bottom line, if people aren’t paying for the house, WHY DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE THERE? And if so, why the hell should anyone else pay their mortgage?

 What I am talking about here is not about giving a person a free house. What I am talking about here is the banks using fraud to take a home that they do not have the legal right to take. Let me break it down:

Alan loans $100 to Bob, who agrees to repay him $150 in 10 payments of $15. He uses his television as collateral and signs an IOU. The thing is, Alan doesn’t have $100 to spare for the next 15 weeks, so he tells Charlie about the deal, and says, if you pay me $110, I will give you all the money that Bob pays me. Charlie agrees, essentially taking Alan’s word that Bob is good for it. Alan pockets $10 just for making the deal. Charlie has assumed all the risk, but makes $40 on the deal.

Things go well, until Alan figures out that he can loan out that same $100 a hundred times, and sells the IOUs to Charlie. Alan’s money making scheme relies on him continuing to make loans to people over and over, and soon he runs out of honest guys to loan money to, so to keep the cash train going, he begins to loan money to everyone, whether they can pay it back or not. Who cares, Alan thinks, getting them to pay is Charlie’s problem. Alan pockets the $1000 in profit.

Charlie is now the holder of $10,000 worth of paper, but has $1500 a week coming to him. The problem is that he doesn’t have the cash to pay Alan, so he gets 10 of HIS friends to loan him $1,000 each using the notes as collateral, and agrees to pay them $1200 a week. Charlie pockets the $300 a week in profit. The investors split up the IOUs, and split the weekly money. They are promised a total profit of $200 each for the loan. In the shuffle, no one really knows who owns which IOU, but this is not a problem.

Until people stop paying. Now, Bob owes money to someone, no one disputes that. Who does he owe the money to? Who has the right to take Bob’s television? What if Charlie comes forward and has a photocopy of the note, and demands the television? Is that good enough proof for Charlie to take the TV?

What happens a week later when David (one of the investors, or so David claims) produces a copy with a signature on it that says, “Pay to the order of _______, signed Charlie”? David states that the original was destroyed when he washed his pants, but he has this copy to prove that he is the rightful holder of the IOU. The problem is that Alan won’t give anyone the television unless they can prove that he is paying the right guy, so now who gets the money or the TV? David decides to solve the problem and sends a friend over to break into Bob’s house to steal the television. After all, SOMEONE owes David money, right?

Then, to complicate things further, Edward comes forward and has the ORIGINAL IOU, and sues Bob. So, how do we untangle this mess? Bob has lost the TV, and now has three different people, each with a legal claim to the $150 he owes someone. Who gets the money, who gets the TV? Who gets the shaft?

That is what we are dealing with, but on a much smaller scale. Imagine that this is not 100 loans of $100 each, but 60 MILLION loans averaging $200,000 each. While my example is hard to follow, the real one is much harder.

Just because a homeowner owes SOMEONE money, it doesn’t mean that he owes that particular bank money, and before a bank can take your home, they should have to prove that they are the one who is entitled to it. The problem is that the banks can’t do it, because through dishonesty and ineptitude, they have created a paperwork mess. There are 600,000 pending foreclosures on backlog right now in Florida, a state of 16 million people. In some counties, one in ten homes is in some stage of the foreclosure process. Some of them are cases where more than one bank is foreclosing on the  same home, using the same mortgage and promissory note as evidence.

By Divemedic, ago

Sometimes I amaze myself

I am giving myself a pat on the back. I posted about the fire department in Tennessee this morning. Uncle posts about an attack on Libertarianism at this site here. In this site, the blogger posts:

This fire is a the result of libertarian land. In libertarian land, collective action is forbidden so taxes cannot pay for fire departments. Without taxes, you must rely on the voluntary subscription to services (or after the fact fees, but for something like firefighting that requires a large and constant maintenance cost, after the fact fees aren’t going to be enough to keep a fire department active). If you must rely on a voluntary subscription service, then you must discourage free loaders. If you must discourage free loaders, then you must let the homes of the poor, or unlucky or plan stupid burn to the ground.

 To which, I posted this reply:

Of course, you have the alternative: You turn the $75 fee into a property tax, and anyone who doesn’t pay has his house foreclosed on and taken away by the taxing authority to pay the taxes.

This taxing authority also needs staffing, and so hires personnel to handle the taxes. With this new overhead, the previously voluntary $75 fee is now a mandatory $150 tax.

If you do not pay, they take your house. When they send the sheriff to your house to evict you, if you resist, he activates the SWAT team, and they gun you down. Then they raise the tax to $250 so they can cover the expenses of the SWAT team.

Isn’t that much better?

Yes, the Libertarian way is heartless and cruel, and the collectivist way at least insured that the house didn’t burn down. The owners are dead or homeless, but at least the house didn’t burn down.

Edited to add: This is an email response to this post:

No. The police in Europe will never kill you, in Europe we don`t do that any more, you Americans probably do. You Americans just don`t get it do you; You can`t run a whole country the same way as a McDonalds restaurant!

Ok, I guess Americans know best, you have the best systems and don`t need to be lectured by anyone about anything. You are simply the best, right? 

 This guy doesn’t understand that there are only two ways to conduct any sort of business: By force, or by voluntary cooperation. If I refuse to pay my taxes, how else can the government force me to pay, except through force? If I resist their force with force of my own, do you think the cops are going to give up, or will they increase the force they employ until I submit?

By Divemedic, ago

People are too greedy for libertarianism

There is a lot of buzz on the internet about the South Fulton fire department. In case you haven’t read it, this is the town fire department who provided fire services to the surrounding area, if the homeowner paid a membership fee. In this case, they allowed a house to burn down because the homeowner had not paid the fee. I am no going to discuss this particular incident, as I agree with Firefighter, who has posted an excellent analysis here.

Instead, I want to talk about a more general issue. The people commenting here say that Libertarianism will never work because it is cruel. They are wrong, the real reason why the Libertarian philosophy will never work is that people always want the power to make others give them what they want, but never want to pay for it. Everyone has their issue: the homeless, healthcare, Fire service, whatever.

There are only two ways to get people to do things for you: voluntarily, or involuntarily. Do you think that people should interact voluntarily? If so, then you must allow people to set the standard by which they will provide that care.

If the doctor says that he will only provide care for money, and the patient has no money, then there are only four options:

A. You pay the bill on the other person’s behalf (voluntary donation)
B. You force the provider to provide the service/product for free (forced compliance- slavery)
C. You allow the provider to turn the non-paying person away (voluntary noncooperation)
D. You force others to pay the bill (forced donation- legalized theft)

Libertarians believe that the only fair and proper answer is A or C.
Socialists believe that the only proper answer is B or D.

For those who believe that we have a responsibility to feed/clothe/care for people who cannot pay, just how do you think that the people providing the service will provide it?

How will the hospital pay its staff? How will the fire trucks get fuel? How will restaurants get food for the homeless? How much of your own money have you given to the cause? Do you allow a homeless man to live in your spare bedroom?

If you are not willing to use your own money and resources to provide that service or product, then why do you get to compel me to use mine? Giving away other people’s money and possessions is not charity. One post there said:

The measure of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. Libertarians demand that the US score exactly zero.

That is incorrect. Libertarians are not against voluntary charity. They are simply against “charity” at the point of a gun. A tax that takes money from one person and uses it purely for the benefit of another is not charity, it is theft.

By Divemedic, ago

Banks illegally entering homes

The banks have been unable to win foreclosure lawsuits, because they do not have the proper paperwork. So what do they do? Kick in your door, change the locks, throw your possessions out into the street, and lock you out- even though they have not foreclosed on the house. 

As one of the owners of a company who specializes in “securing” or “winterizing” properties was recently quoted in the Palm Beach Post said, “Lawsuits don’t phase us anymore.”

In this 911 call, JP Morgan Chase hired people to break in to this woman’s house and change her locks.

Lawsuits may not phase you, but I bet buckshot will. If you are breaking into a house that isn’t yours, I don’t care how much money I owe you, you are sill committing burglary.

By Divemedic, ago

Speaking of Deficit spending

Microsoft has announced that they will discontinue support for the software called “Money.”  This loss of support has been coupled with the reduction of the functionality of the software. This included my Money software informing me that the software was expired, and I could no longer use it unless I renewed my subscription.  I have used this software to keep track of my checkbooks for the last 8 and a half years, and these changes have forced me to transition to Quicken. Needless to say, this is causing a few issues.

One issue became apparent last month, when I found out that reconciling the software with my bank statement is not as seamless with Quicken as it was with Money. Another problem became apparent this morning, when I went to close out September by reconciling Quicken with my September bank statement. Apparently, Quicken failed to download a transaction earlier in the month, and this caused me to overdraw my checking account. Since I pay all of my bills at the beginning of the month, my checking account was overdrawn by $75.

Luckily, I have my savings account linked to my checking, and the bank thoughtfully transferred the funds to cover the overdrafts. For a fee.

By Divemedic, ago

Another trillion, down the drain

October 1, 2009. On that date, the Federal Debt was $11.9 trillion. Here we are, the beginning of the new fiscal year, and the national debt is now $13.6 trillion. This means that for FY2010, the Federal Government spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in.

For those keeping track, the Obama administration has borrowed $3 trillion in the 20 months that he has been President. The records keep being broken:

Carter borrowed $300 billion in 4 years Broken by Obama in just 2 months
Reagan borrowed $1.8 trillion in 8 years   Broken by Obama in just 13 months
GHW Bush borrowed $1.6 trillion in 4 years Broken by Obama in 11 months
Clinton borrowed $1.2 trillion in 8 years Broken by Obama in just 8 months
All presidents combined borrowed $3 trillion in 222 years. Obama did it in 20 months
GW Bush borrowed $5 trillion in 8 years  Anyone want to take bets on Obama beating this one?

I know that all of you Obama fanbois keep blaming Bush, but here we are nearing the halfway point of Obama’s presidency, and you just have to ask: At what point does he take responsibility for the mess we are in?

By Divemedic, ago

Gun control doesn’t work

Here we have a man who went on a shooting spree. He was a convicted felon, which means that he could not legally possess a firearm. He had a history of mental illness, also meaning that he could not possess a firearm. Still, he got one anyway.

There are those who say that making guns illegal would keep everyone, innocent and criminal, from obtaining firearms, and thus committing crimes. To those people, I would point out that he had also been convicted of cocaine possession. Cocaine is illegal, and has been for decades, yet no one who wants to buy cocaine has any problems getting it, as this Federal Judge who was just arrested for cocaine, marijuana, hookers, and illegal firearms possession proves.

By Divemedic, ago

The 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the US

Wallet Pop just released the list of the 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the United States for 2010. The local press is making a big deal out of the fact that an Orlando neighborhood made the list, but there were no Los Angeles or Detroit neighborhoods on it. I am not sure why that is, but I do want to look at the demographics of the included neighborhoods:

1 Chicago, Ill. W. Lake St. 97.8% Black 1% White 1% Asian No issue
2 Cleveland, OH  Scovill Ave 98.7 % Black 0.8% White Shall Issue
3 Las Vegas, NV  Balzar Ave 89.5 % Black 6.5% White  Shall Issue
4 Las Vegas, NV  Scovill Ave 66% of the neighborhood does not speak English, 71% calls itself as “other” in the race category Shall Issue
5 Atlanta, GA  Carter St 97.1% Black 0.7% White  Shall Issue
6 Philadelphia, PA  N 13th St 93.7% Black 3.1% White Shall Issue
7  Atlanta, GA  Marietta St 69.5% Black 19.8% White Shall Issue
8 Las Vegas, NV  D St 66.7% Black 12.2% White  Shall Issue
9 Washington, DC L St SE 97% Black 2.6% White No Issue
10 Chattanooga, TN King St 75.5% Black 18% White  Shall Issue
11 Charlotte, NC  N Tryon St 81.5% Black 3.8% White   Shall Issue
12 Memphis, TN  Florida St 96.9% Black 0% White   Shall Issue
13 Charleston, SC  Echo Ave 75.8% Black 1.4% White  Shall Issue
14  Louisville, KY  E Beckinridge St 83% Black 11.2% White     Shall Issue
15 Fort Worth, TX  E Lancaster Ave 64.6% Black 11.7% White   Shall Issue
16 Winston-Salem, NC E 21st St 93.9% Black 1.3% White Shall Issue
17 Atlanta, GA Richardson St 75.4% Black 5.8% White  Shall Issue
18 Chicago, IL 4000 S Federal St 100% Black   No Issue
19 Memphis, TN N Danny Thomas Blvd 86.6% Black 11.5% White   Shall Issue
20 Cleveland, OH Chestnut Pl 98.9% Black 0% White    Shall Issue
21 Galveston, TX Church St 50.6% White 40% Black   Shall Issue
22 Atlanta, GA Humphries St 99.5% Black 0.5% White    Shall Issue
23 Kansas City, MO Independence Ave 61% Black 16.6% White    Shall Issue
24 Cincinatti, OH Moore St 89.9% Black 10.1% White Shall Issue 
25. Orlando, FL Neighborhood: Parramore 70.6% Black 16.7% White Shall Issue

Looking at the list, it immediately strikes you that there is a trend there. You would be called a racist by many if you took note of the fact that, with two exceptions, the top 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in America are at least 65% Black. Yet the same thing is done everyday by anti-gun forces who want guns made illegal, and this is seen as logical, even though the list above shows that there is less of a correlation with gun laws and crime than there is race and crime.

Take another look at the list above: every neighborhood above has a below average income and education. Ponder the cause and the remedy. It isn’t race, and  it isn’t gun control. It is a cultural problem.

Comments calling me a racist are missing the point, and will not be posted.

By Divemedic, ago

It Figures

I am currently taking a class on Administrative Law. That is, it covers the laws and regulations that govern administrative agencies like the FCC, FAA, and local ones like the Fire Department.

We were discussing a situation in class, and our assignment was to find a solution for the problem, as if we were the person in charge. I found one that accomplished the goal, and still respected the rights of the people involved. Another student’s solution was a gross violation of the law, and of the rights of the people involved.

I pointed out that his solution was a violation of the Constitutional rights of the people involved. His reply to me was “So what? Let the lawyers worry about that. The broke the rules, they need to accept whatever happens.”

Guess where he works? Homeland Security.

By Divemedic, ago