Re: Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal

[mfidelman]

I expect quite a few of us in the Northeast would be happy to join with 
Canada.  It might be problematic that DC went blue :-)




On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, R.A. Hettinga wrote:

> 
> 
> HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE: The National Conservative Weekly Since 1944
> 
> Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal
> It's Time to Reconfigure the United States
> 
> by Mike Thompson
> Posted Nov 3, 2004
>  [From the author: This is an essay I've been working on for the past
> several weeks, updated moments ago with what appears to be Bush's final
> number of victory states (31) once the nonsense of provisional votes in
> Ohio is overcome.
> 
>  As an admitted "modest proposal" (a la Swift's satiric story of the same
> name), it is nevertheless serious in pointing out the cancer that continues
> to threaten our body politic.]
> 
>  Branded unconstitutional by President Abraham Lincoln, the South's
> secession from the American Union ultimately sparked "The Civil War" (a
> name that was rejected by Southerners, who correctly called it "The War
> Between the States," for the South never sought to 1] seize the central
> government or 2] rule the other side, two requisites for a civil war).
> 
>  No state may leave the Union without the other states' approval, according
> to Lincoln's doctrine--an assertion that ignores the Declaration of
> Independence, which was the vital basis for all 13 American colonies'
> unilateral secession from the British Union eight decades earlier.
> Lincoln's grotesque legal argument also disregards a state's inherent right
> of secession which many scholars believe is found in the Ninth and Tenth
> Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
>  Meantime, America has become just as divided as it was a century and a
> half ago, when it writhed in Brother-vs.-Brother War. Instead of wedge
> issues like slavery, federal subsidies for regional business, and high
> tariffs, society today is sundered by profound, insoluble Culture War
> conflicts (such as abortion and gay marriage), and debate about our role
> abroad (shall we remain the world's leader, or become an unprincipled chump
> for the cabal of globalist sybarites who play endless word-games inside the
> United Nations and European Union sanctuaries?).
> 
>  For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders
> (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the
> vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won't
> even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral
> stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely
> the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of
> civilization's core decency and traditions.
> 
>  Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by
> the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political
> discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays,
> concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly
> traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing
> another golden Oscar into Michael Moore'sfat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11
> jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and
> Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name.
> 
>  When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud,
> liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel
> conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It's as if
> the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth.
> 
>  As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the
> Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and
> courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of
> vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day.
> 
>  The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. If
> you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine
> the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a
> government-booted foot stands permanently on your face.
> 
>  That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red
> States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at
> least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John
> Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession
> of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to
> do it.
> 
>  Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of
> Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is
> not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50)
> must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt,
> let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," t

Re: corporate vs. state

[mfidelman]

On 26 Mar 2004, Frog wrote:

> Harmon Seaver wrote:
> 
> >  If a "voluntary association" injures me, 
> 
> Associations - corporate or otherwise - are abstract, intangible
> entities.  They don't perform actions.  People do.

Corporations act as "legal persons" - they can enter into contracts, own 
assetts, sue people, etc.  

The problem emerges when a corporation enters into battle with an 
individual - it's pretty hard to fight a lawsuit when the "person" on the 
other side of the table has billions of dollars, thousands of lawyers, and 
is willing and able to protract the battle over dozens of years.  It's 
even worse when your opponent has the resources to lobby to change laws.

Can you say RIAA?

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

[mfidelman]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:

>Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights.

Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say 
otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the 
slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to 
corporations.

Re: Computer Voting Expert, Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, Ousted From Elections Confer...

[mfidelman]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> And somebody should work on producing an alternative hybrid voting
> machine that is hard copy paper verifiable. I think we have to give
> these local governments a viable alternative, a machine that can't be
> used for Machiavellian machinations.

I think it's called an OCR reader.  Not only is the audit trail created as
part of voting, but it's easy to do an audit/recount - ideally different
software than used for the initial count.

Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?

[mfidelman]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Bill Frantz wrote:

> I have had one case where taking the train was a big win over driving.  I
> was consulting in San Francisco, about 60 miles from my home.  I found that
> if I rode the train, I could work as I rode, and turn my travel time into
> billable hours. I also avoided the ruinous parking charges in downtown.
> Given those facts, I would have taken the train even if the ticket price
> hadn't been subsidized.

My favorite has always been the overnight train from Boston to Washington
(a trip I used to take fairly often).

To make a morning meeting the choices were (are):

- leave home around 6 for an 8pm or so flight, get in late, deal with
airport transportation, stay at a hotel

- leave home REALLY early in the morning to catch the first flight out

- go into Boston, have a nice dinner, take the train leaving around 10pm,
pay for a sleeper, wake up and watch the sunrise over Chesapeak Bay, have
breakfast brought to my compartment, get into Union Station around 7am,
hop the subway (note: you can also get off at BWI airport, if you have
business north of DC)

It's a great time-saver, and the cost ends up being about the same as a
plane, plus hotel, plus cabs or a rent-a-car.