Tuesday, September 8, 2015

“The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
 www.archives.gov September 8, 2015 
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Monday, August 31, 2015

Numbers Game

Out of the eye springs dudette to gaze unto self and see beauty. The eye is pleased and loves dudette, and dudette loves the eye, playfully naming it dude. A 'year before', the eye is sad and lonely. Two years later, dudette makes the eye a pair. Four years before, the pair complain they cannot hear. Eight years later, dudette makes the ear. 16 years before, the ear complains it is a minority among eyes. 32 years later, dudette makes the ears a pair.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Newsvine Discussions


A discussion I had with a friend on the vine:

Not wrong. I stand by previous statement. I conflate for the purpose of communication. Decisions about right or wrong are personal. I take issue with your earlier statement
providing is a specific subset of promoting.
that "provide" is sub of "promote". Provide is a specific statement that can stand alone. Promote is relative in context depending on subjective analysis. Do we agree? We are responsible for providing our general welfare, not our government. The "Nanny Government" decides for you and in the case of health insurance, we have a choice as long as we make the  "right choice".
I don't care about splitting hairs, but certain circumstances, misquoting the Constitution for example (and I understand you did not misquote), demand scrutiny. It's important to know the original text because the wording evolved through careful consideration, and changing one word may change the concept. The Preamble provides context only, no power to legislate.
Requiring us individually to purchase health insurance (or health care), conflicts with the domestic tranquility statement. I am my health care provider. If the government really wants promote my general welfare, they can send me a voucher that I can use to pay for my health care. I would agree to a health care system based on such vouchers as long as the tax base can support it. Current tax base will not. I would use my voucher to purchase exercise equipment, whole foods, and nutritional supplements.
I own life insurance because I want it. I own dental insurance because I want it. I don't own any health insurance because I can pay as I go.
If the value of nuts goes up, plant more nuts!
for fruitcakes of course ;)

Friday, September 23, 2011

Impression after Reading NOVA Transcript "Why the Towers Fell" April 30, 2002

"Why the Towers Fell"

My friend on Newsvine told me I need help because I'm a 911 truth seeker. I had provided a link to 911 review, which he said had been debunked. So I asked him for more information. He sent me to NOVA. So I read the transcript. Most of the "facts" are presented by the narrator. The experts are ambiguous. It just looks like another Op-Ed piece.

They (NOVA) didn't put a lot of effort into introducing the players in the interviews. So I decided to help them out a little.
MATTHYS LEVY (Author, Why Buildings Fall Down) -- Matthys Levy is an author, for certain, but so much more.
W. GENE CORLEY (Structural Engineer) -- From Wiki: "served as the lead investigator on the FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study, following the September 11, 2001 attacks"
JAKE PAULS (Building Safety Analyst) -- Has a great website, but I'm not sure what he had to do with the official investigation.
LESLIE ROBERTSON (Engineer, World Trade Center) -- Speaks for itself.
CHARLES THORNTON (Structural Engineer) -- I don't know. This site may belong to him.
JONATHAN BARNETT (Professor, Fire Protection Engineering) -- PROFESSOR OF FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING AT WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

Then I divided the facts into statements by the narrator and the experts as follows.
The narrator makes authoritative statements:


NARRATOR: These pictures show that the South Tower fell away from the impact wall and toward the side where the fire had concentrated. To the team, this suggested a particular mechanism for the collapse, which the video helped confirm.The plane slammed along the eastern wall, starting a fierce fire in the northeast corner and severely damaging many of the steel columns in this area. The heat of the fire would have softened both the floor trusses and the outer columns they were attached to. When the steel became weak, the trusses would have collapsed. And without the trusses to keep them rigidly in place, the columns would have bent outward and then failed.
NARRATOR: The team now believes the North Tower collapsed in a different manner than the South. The main clue lies in what happened to the TV antenna, which rested directly on top of the core.



NARRATOR: The reason the core failed first in the North Tower can be explained by the way it was hit. The 767 had smashed through the outer wall and impacted the inner core directly, damaging or destroying essential load-bearing columns and their fire protection.In this scenario, the fire would have softened the already weakened core columns to the point where they could no longer carry weight from above. When these columns finally failed they immediately precipitated another progressive collapse.Knowing how the towers collapsed does not fully explain what specific components failed. For that, the investigators needed to examine the remains of the buildings.
NARRATOR: The plane sliced into the South Tower at an angle to the right. Unlike in the North Tower, the core was not hit dead on. But in one crucial respect the South Tower was hit in a far more damaging way than the North. It had been struck far lower down which meant the wounded section was having to bear a far heavier load.


NARRATOR: Although the path of the impact did not compromise the core as severely as in the North Tower, here the plane acted like a snowplow, pushing office contents and debris into the northeast corner and starting a raging fire at that spot.



NARRATOR: Clark and Praimnath were two of only eighteen people to escape the towers from the impact zones or above.
Less than a quarter of an hour after it had been hit, all the conditions for the collapse of the South Tower were in place. The huge weight of the top third of the building was bearing down on the weakening structure. Analysis of the steel from this part of the building reveals that the fire here reached 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature that would definitely have caused the steel to buckle.
Inside, the fire was weakening the floor trusses. Some were starting to soften and sag, pulling on their bolted connections to the columns.
NARRATOR: As they searched the visual record for the precise moment and trigger for the South Tower collapse, engineers Gene Corley and Bill Baker found crucial evidence in video shot by a nearby firm of architects. It reveals that much of the central core remained momentarily intact when the outer walls fell.
If the core remained standing, something else must have triggered the collapse.
NARRATOR: These pictures show that the South Tower fell away from the impact wall and toward the side where the fire had concentrated. To the team, this suggested a particular mechanism for the collapse, which the video helped confirm.
The plane slammed along the eastern wall, starting a fierce fire in the northeast corner and severely damaging many of the steel columns in this area. The heat of the fire would have softened both the floor trusses and the outer columns they were attached to. When the steel became weak, the trusses would have collapsed. And without the trusses to keep them rigidly in place, the columns would have bent outward and then failed.
NARRATOR: This footage shows the process in action. A line of columns in the outer skeleton snaps. The top of the building then lurches outwards and falls. As it does so, it dislodges many more floor trusses. Once the trusses fail, the floors they were holding cascade down with a force too great to be withstood. The result is what's called a "progressive collapse," as each floor pancakes down onto the one below.



NARRATOR: The reason the core failed first in the North Tower can be explained by the way it was hit. The 767 had smashed through the outer wall and impacted the inner core directly, damaging or destroying essential load-bearing columns and their fire protection.
In this scenario, the fire would have softened the already weakened core columns to the point where they could no longer carry weight from above. When these columns finally failed they immediately precipitated another progressive collapse.
Knowing how the towers collapsed does not fully explain what specific components failed. For that, the investigators needed to examine the remains of the buildings.
NARRATOR: From the evidence found at the steel yards, and from computer modeling of applied forces, the team now believes the truss connections probably did fail from the force of the impact, the heat of the fire, or both. But the study concludes that there was a more fundamental reason for the overall collapse.

Comments from the experts:

MATTHYS LEVY: It was very much like a controlled demolition when you look at it, because the building essentially fell almost vertically down, as if someone had deliberately set a blast to take place to cause the building to fall vertically downward.

GENE CORLEY: I have looked at now two major terrorist attacks, and I never want to look at another one in the future. I want the findings that we have obtained from these studies to be used to develop buildings that will provide more safety for those who are in those buildings.

LESLIE ROBERTSON: It was really a young person's project. It took a huge amount of energy. Did a lot of things that I don't think an older engineer would have bothered to do, because he would have had confidence in the work that he'd done in the past. And I was charging down a different highway.


LESLIE ROBERTSON: We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is, to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up.



LESLIE ROBERTSON: With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could have been considered.
CHARLES THORNTON: They didn't have the mathematical models in the computers to model a fire as a result of the fuel in a 707. I was asked in 1986 what would happen if a plane flew into the Trade Center. And I said it would not knock the building down from the pure physics of the mass hitting the building. But we...none of us really focused on that kind of a fuel fire.

MATTHYS LEVY (Author, Why Buildings Fall Down): As the steel began to soften and melt, the interior core columns began to give. Then you had this sequential failure that took place where it all pancaked—one after the other.


CHARLES THORNTON: They had two 5/8-inch bolts at one end of the truss and two 3/4-inch bolts at the other end, which is perfectly fine to take vertical load and perfectly fine to take shear loads, but once the floor elements start to sag during a fire...okay...they start exerting tension forces because it becomes a catenary, like a clothesline, and those two little bolts just couldn't handle it.


LESLIE ROBERTSON: I think the structures were stalwart, but they were not that stalwart. There was no fire suppression system that could even begin to deal with that event. Nothing. Nothing. So I didn't know whether they would fall or not fall.


CHARLES THORNTON: As you start to lose the lateral support due to the floors, the exterior just crumples like a piece of paper. Or if you took a sheet of cardboard and you put some weight on it and you take out the lateral supports it will just bow right out.

GENE CORLEY: Looking at the films of the North Tower, it appears that the antenna starts down just a little bit before the exterior of the building. That suggests the core went first.


CHARLES THORNTON: Had the floor system been a more robust floor system with much stronger connections between the exterior and the inside, I think the buildings probably would have lasted longer. Would they ultimately have collapsed? Maybe not.


GENE CORLEY: We found that the types of fireproofing that were used were damaged by the aircraft hitting them. If the fire resistance of the building was increased so that the material in there could burn out before a collapse occurred, then you could come back in quickly afterwards, stabilize the building and save it from collapse.


JONATHAN BARNETT: We have a long history of successful steel construction in this country and, in fact, the world. And one of the great successes is that under normal fire conditions we don't have building collapse. In fact, until 9/11, I was unaware of any protected steel structure that had collapsed anywhere in the world from just a fire.


GENE CORLEY: It was the combination of the impact load doing great damage to the building, followed by the fire, that caused collapse. We need to look for types of fireproofing that can take the impact and can stand up to the impact and stick to the steel after the impact.


I place the authoritative comments from the experts here to separate the opinions from the facts:


CHARLES THORNTON: They had two 5/8-inch bolts at one end of the truss and two 3/4-inch bolts at the other end, which is perfectly fine to take vertical load and perfectly fine to take shear loads, but once the floor elements start to sag during a fire...okay...they start exerting tension forces because it becomes a catenary, like a clothesline, and those two little bolts just couldn't handle it.
MATTHYS LEVY (Author, Why Buildings Fall Down): As the steel began to soften and melt, the interior core columns began to give. Then you had this sequential failure that took place where it all pancaked—one after the other.


Other than the authority of the Narrator, I have two facts from the experts, Charles Thornton and Matthys Levy. Now to the NIST report.


I think this is the final report.


An October 25, 2002 Report "of interest" (not a suspect)

In this report, the study concludes it was not a failure of the trusses, but a failure of the columns in both towers.
The report exonerates the floor trusses for the collapses. "Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," it says. Studies by Hughes Associates and ARUPFire led the team to conclude that tower floors survived the initial impact of the planes, suffering only localized damage. On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell. Additionally, the engineers claim that computer modeling shows that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors explains the collapses.
If I could pull up the NIST report, I might find another explanation. The NIST site is behaving peculiarly, and I'm tired, so I'll save the rest for later. I'm not a 911 truth-denier or conspiracy theorist. I'm a critical thinker. I was disappointed when I caught my dad playing Santa Claus. Wait, that's not true. Mom and Dad gave us lots of cool toys. I guess I became a skeptic, but I liked the toys. So if I had to choose between Santa and no toys, I would choose Santa. Today we have a different set of problems. I don't believe the official story, and reading from different sources, gathering opinions, I see that the answer is still unknown, which is not a theory.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?

I had an interesting exchange of ideas with Jonathan:

My views follow, would like to hear from others.

Jonathan, you make many good points. I don't disagree with much of what you say. I define SS as a Ponzi Scheme because it pays current beneficiaries from subsequent and current contributors. Since it is law, the part of the definition you refer to is nullified unless the debate ventures into a separate domain. Illegal laws are illegal. I don't see the debate leading in the direction of the Constitutionality or legality of SS in our discussion. SS is by the nature of its mechanics Ponzi. I say again, I see no rational argument to the contrary. But I do acknowledge that a scheme implies illegal activity, therefore, you win the argument by narrowing the definition.

I request a broader scope. The danger exists, regardless of legality, that when subsequent or current contributions can't support current beneficiaries, the system/scheme is not viable. I think this event, the collapse, is the most obvious indicator that the Ponzi Scheme creator should be identified and punished accordingly, and we have the right as victims to sue the culprit. But in this case, we would be suing ourselves. The other option is to educate ourselves to avoid Ponzi Schemes. Social Security has been referred to as insurance. I agree that insurance policies have similarities to SS, but today I have a choice whether to buy insurance. Indeed, I own some good quality whole Life Insurance. I assume the risk that the company may die before me, and that I or my beneficiaries may receive no benefit. I also receive an annuity from the US Government in the form of military retirement pay. I entered voluntarily into a transaction with our government and in return the government has honored its part of the bargain. I would like to believe this will continue, but in light of the recent alleged budget crisis I have my concerns which are probably best reserved for another thread.

My final point is that these other Ponzi-derivative opportunities are voluntary and rely heavily on personal bias as to whether or not they are a good risk, whereas Social Security was placed on me involuntarily and is becoming a bad risk, a mal-investment. I will lose my investment if there are not enough current and future contributors. I am not given a choice, unless you consider the right not to work. Even when I was self-employed I had to pay additional self employment tax which I don't foresee being able to recover.

BTW, your reply is so full of interesting points of view. If you don't have a blog, please start one, if you do, please send me there!

Empirical Data


I was taught Keynesian theory at Campbell University. It is a system of monetary control disguised as an economy. Its science is invalid because it cannot take into consideration variables in human behavior, which is what defines a truly free market. Instead Keynesians apply Empirical Data all historical of course. It's like predicting the weather. Meteorologist use all sorts of Empirical Data, satellite photos, wind speed, pressure readings, etc. all historical, and obviously the best predictor is having the most recent data available. My feeling is that you just stick your head out the window.

The problem with that system is it doesn't consider the "people variable". This variable is what happens outside the box of historical data. For instance, if I'm looking into buying a stock, I want certain historical data, and I want it to be as up to date as possible. I can do all my "homework" and yet the unforeseeable still may happen, which distorts the equation. Thus the result is "none of the above" or actually a non-result because the outcome doesn't fit one of the multiple choice answers required in Keynesian theory. In my view, I'm either willing or not to assume the risk that an earthquake or war or whatever may change the outcome. In Keynesian theory, the system of control, risk is minimized by nanny government. Although risk exists, the negative effects are externalized. In other words, as in recent examples, corporations are "too big to fail", they take stupid risks, and externalize the damage by passing the debt to someone who doesn't know any better.

I'm no expert in Austrian economic theory, but I have a gut reaction. Let the market adjust as it will. Assume market risks and act responsibly. No entity is too big to fail, in fact an indicator of imminent failure is bloat. It is appropriate for markets to fluctuate, and too big to fail probably means a company went too far for too long.

There are many examples of recent activities in our markets that smart investors would have avoided had they felt the need to act responsibly. The so-called mortgage crisis is a fine example where "investors" bought worthless derivatives as "investments", and knowing they were worthless, bought insurance against loss. They bankrupted the insurance company because the losses were too sudden and too great. And who will eventually pay the bill? I'm guessing the European Union is paying for those mistakes today. They hold an empty bag of debt that they're trying to pass on with no takers. France, England Germany are on the list of future collapses. My understanding of the empty bag is a debt of 600 trillion dollars plus (debt with no resource to justify it) which our central bank somehow managed to pass on to Europe, and you've heard about Greece, Portugal Spain, Ireland, possibly now France "austerity measures". It seems these people must cut back on their living standards to foot the bill for central bank errors.

Friday, September 9, 2011

911 Truth Seekers

At first, I was shocked at seeing the huge, commercial airliner hit the tower. I was driving a load of steel to Miami that day, or actually resting from picking up my load the night before. My wife woke me up by turning on the TV set, and there it was, smoke pouring out of WTC #1. Then, "There goes another one!" as the second plane struck. Or so we thought. I saw Michael Moore's documentary ridiculing then President Bush's reaction to the news and thought it was funny.

I borrowed a DVD from a friend, can't recall the title, but it was one of those DVDs you get when you buy a new TV/sound system that shows off the capabilities of your new system. There were building demolitions, and someone made the comment, "Looks like the World Trade Center". Hmm. So I started looking around on the internet and found all these conspiracy theories on the internet saying it was all a hoax. I became a 911 Truth Seeker.

It's not that I decided it can't be true. I don't trust this government, but my first reaction is like so many others, how could a cover up this large be accomplished without somebody talking? Tonight I stumbled into an article I find amazing. And then the comment from one of its viewers.


Request for Due Diligence to Editorial Board of Veterans Today:
Please achieve positive identification of all objects in the following photograph …
I saved the picture and zoomed on it a couple times, trying to figure out what this guy was trying to tell us. I didn't know what I was looking at. So I decided to check out his link:
I read the Executive Summary, and halfway through I believed this guy was a 911 debunker and that  maybe someone has done some hardcore research that I can use to put this thing to rest, for myself of course. But if you can believe this report to be legitimate, it's quite the opposite.
"Nevertheless, coupled with other, secondary evidence
of which I am aware, some of it admittedly circumstantial,
we have informed the U.S. Coast Guard of our conclusions
that an unmanned, remotely controlled A-3 Skywarrior
hit the Pentagon, immediately after an air-to-ground ("AGM")
missile was launched from under the port wing, in order to
soften an entrance hole for the A-3's main fuselage."

This seems incredible. I feel like I'm being bullshitted, but at the same time it's like the feeling I had when I saw that plane run into the side of WTC #2. I just couldn't believe it. So does anyone have an opinion about this? Is this real, or am I just another sucker?