Medal of Honor recipient Sued for flying Flag

[hornadylnl]

Yes, it's a book about fictional characters. And the author gets to set what happens.

It's easy to "win" an argument if you get to write both sides, which is exactly what Rand did.



And it won't matter squat if the primary problem is not fixed.

The primary problem isn't the system, or the "corrupt politicians" or even the 1/3 to 1/2 that you say support "communist ideology." It's the people who do at least nominally, support the idea of a free society who abandon the system and leave it to those others.



Term limits, like most other panaceas, is a chimera that won't do what folk think it will. But that's beside the point. What makes you think you're done once you get someone elected to Congress.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That means that once you get that guy elected you ride herd on him. You have his replacement ready if he "goes astray" and you make sure he knows that just like you put him in office, you can replace him with someone else.

The problem of reform movements getting their candidate in office is covered in "Take back your government." It's not a new phenomenon. And anything you "replace" the current system with will have the exact same problem. The only fix is not a panacea but constant, ongoing citizen involvement.



I don't buy that analogy. The Constitution is still there. Let's say you write a new one. What makes you think that people will pay any more attention to that one than they do to the current one. You'll still need constant vigilance and effort to make sure the new one is followed. And if you're going to need that constant effort any way, then why not apply that constant effort to the current Constitution and save yourself the extra effort of trying to reinvent the wheel?



You may accept the label "terrorist." I don't. And what makes you think that Pelosi (or whoever) would pay any more attention to any new Constitution you might come up with?



Well the 1/3 to 1/2 numbers were pretty constant from before the revolution up through the final victory. There's a reason that Samuel Adams said, "It does not take a majority to prevail, just a tireless, irate minority eager to set brushfires of Freedom in the minds of man." It was because he never had a majority.

But when you cede the field to the looters and moochers, you have only yourself to blame that that's all you find.



"I'd say." And the basis for that other than that it fits your conception of the world?



Then it's fortunate that you don't need "most Americans" you just need a half dozen or so to start an organization. Then you need a couple hundred to do the actual work.

Greater Indianapolis has a population of about 800,000, 400,000 adults. You only need 1 in 20 of those adults to cinch the primary election and get a candidate on the Republican party. 1 in 20. You don't need a "great majority. Just 1 in 20. And, once you've done that, if you can't put on a better show than Campo did you'll only have your self to blame.



Again, you don't need an "overwhelming majority." In fact, that most people can't and won't be bothered by politics is what makes it possible for folk like you and me to have such a strong effect. The left is saddled with the same problem. Just getting your own vote energized is often (usually) enough to win elections. If the numbers of people who didn't vote leaned one way or the other in approximately the same numbers as those who voted, there were enough people out there who if they had voted would have voted for Campo over Carson to have reversed that election.

People talk about the vote fraud wrt ACORN, but of far more import was the "legitimate" tactic of getting people that support them registered and get them to the polls. One of the things Heinlein suggested is offering to drive people to the polls to vote, anything to get more of your supporters into the polls.

Elections are won by votes and votes are in the precincts. The Democrats lately have paid more attention to that simple fact than have the Republicans with the results we have seen.



And here's the biggest problem with too many people who work on politics today: they concentrate entirely too much on the "big" elections and not enough on the small ones.



Basically, then, yes, you just leave the field to the moochers and looters and then blame the victims for them being the only influence around.

Cheryll Brooks didn't die because she was a looter or moocher or had the "A is not-A" attitude of the looters and moochers. She died because all hope had been systematically extinguished--and John Galt was a major snuffer of that hope.

"It's not my responsibility" is one characteristic that Galt shares with the Looters and Moochers. Rand conveniently elides over that in the book.

You can wash your hands of everything around you if you wish, and that's your choice. And I can sit here and point out that people doing that are a direct cause of the current situation.

How do you think we got where we are except by people not taking responsibility for making things better? "It's not my fault." "There's nothing I could do." "It was beyond my control." "I can't help it." Even in Atlas Shrugged, which side was the one making that claim the most?

Dagny took a different view from Galt. In the end, Dagny failed. But a large part of the reason for that (aside from authorial fiat) is that Galt was systematically knocking the props out from under her.

If someone is standing at the edge of a cliff and you knock the ground out from under them, you cannot then turn around and say that falling was their own fault.

Our Constitution was ratified September 17th, 1788. Name for me any 20 year period where we have had a net gain of freedom. We have done nothing but move to socialism and communism. At no period have we ever been more free than on September 17th, 1788.

We've been trying your method for 221 years and have been losing the battle ever since. Someone said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. My method has only been tried twice in this country and we have had a 50% success rate. Your method of elections has been tried 110 times counting congressional elections and how many of those have we been successful at? The Republican revolution of 94 lasted a whole what, 4-6 years? Did government ever get smaller as a whole during that time?

Again, I'm a firm believer in property rights. What I go to work and earn every day is mine. Not yours, not my neighbors, and not the welfare queen down the road. To say that I have a responsibility for anyone other than myself, wife and daughter is to legalize theft of my property. Our constitution laid out the few powers that the federal government has to collect taxes from me. Everything else is unconstitutional.

I figure our constitution made it about 70 years before we put it on a ventilator. Our founders new that our republic would never last if the government was left unchecked. Please name 1 instance where voting has returned our rights. Getting out the vote isn't the answer either. We have too many people voting now who shouldn't be. Our founders wanted voters to be educated on what they were voting for. Now, we have homeless guys voting to get a free carton of cigarettes. If you have to go pick someone up and take them to the poles, then they have no business voting. If they can't get off of their dead arse and drive or walk to the poles than they shouldn't be voting.

As far as giving the country over to the looters and moochers. If you haven't noticed, they already control this country. To continue to break your back for these people so they can continue to demand more and more and let you keep less and less is to commit suicide. Half of Americans will pay no federal income taxes this year. That number grows every year and will only get worse. How much of your income are you willing to let the looters have before you decide enough is enough? In 2005 or 6, I worked over 500 hours of overtime. I haven't worked any in over 14 months and plan to never do it again. I don't have to have the extra income so I'm not going to work just to give it to the state.

For 2008, my adjusted gross income was $86,017 due to cashing out some annuities. I had already had $4,968 with held and had to write out a check for $2,886 on top of that for a total of $7,854. That is married with 1 child. Wrap your mind around that number if you never had to pay that much in taxes. 2 welfare queens got my total taxes back in their earned income credit handouts.

For 2006, my adjusted gross income was $43,599 and after my refund, I only paid a total of $1,551 in total federal income tax. So for twice the income, I had to pay 5 times the taxes. Those evil rich people making $250k or more are paying astronomically higher taxes than I paid last year.

I say all of this to show you the house of cards is (not if) going to come tumbling down. Sooner or later, Galt will win out because us producers are going to get tired of paying the bill. Add all of the crap like this HOA is doing, it is no longer worth being a productive member of society.

The only way to defeat an enemy is to beat them so badly that they can no longer fight. If we take back the house and senate next year, those 50% on the left will still be there working to take back control in 2012. Socialism is a cancer and you can't "live with" it. And no, I'm not advocating any violence whatsoever against those on the left. By going Galt, we can let them defeat themselves with their own ideology and we never have to fire a single shot.

I'm sure Col Barfoot and many others (myself included) are wondering why we ever bothered to put a uniform on. So we could hand over our country to the looters and moochers?

 

[dburkhead]

By going Galt, we can let them defeat themselves with their own ideology and we never have to fire a single shot.

Can you point to any time in history that such an approach has ever worked? "It's not been tried" is no defense. Lack of evidence, for whatever reason, is not evidence.

The Looters and moochers (in the form of the Communist Party) had control of the Soviet Untion for 70 years, and the result now is little if any better than under Kruschev, Brezhnev, et al. There's no particular sign of things improving any time soon.

So how long are you willing to wait for the looters and moochers to "defeat themselves"? The dark ages lasted centuries. You good with that?

The idea that folk can "go Galt," things will collapse, and the producers will come around and pick up the pieces and live happily ever after is nothing more than wishful thinking. There is zero evidence to support that it will actually work as advertised. And that's leaving aside the extraordinary human cost of that approach.

 

[Fletch]

For the most part I agree with you, but...

Please name 1 instance where voting has returned our rights.

The concealed carry revolution has been one such thing. It hasn't been a complete return of our rights, but it has been better than nothing.

 

[combat_commander]

I left a message. Didn't get to talk to anybody at the law firm, probably a good thing too. This just makes me sick! He is a brave war hero who should have nothing but respect and salutes sent his way. I almost teared up when reading this. It is truly sad. EVERYBODY keep harassing the law firm!

 

[ThrottleJockey]

But there must be something about the board being able to set aesthetic standards, otherwise they'd have no grounds for a lawsuit.

Just because the threat of a lawsuit exists, doesn't mean there are grounds. Even if there is a suit filed, it still doesn't mean there are grounds. There are plenty of lawyers out there that will be happy to file a suit on your behalf, grounds or no grounds, and charge you the $125-$500 per hour in the name of simply making a boat payment, etc.....

 

[hornadylnl]

For the most part I agree with you, but...



The concealed carry revolution has been one such thing. It hasn't been a complete return of our rights, but it has been better than nothing.

Yes you are right on this. I guess I should have worded it to any 1 year period of time. We are seeing small victories in concealed carry but how many other freedoms have slid the other way in comparison? What good does a state allowing concealed carry do when we are getting massive stimulus bills and government healthcare rammed down our throats. In the end, it equals a net loss of rights.

 

[dross]

For 2008, my adjusted gross income was $86,017 due to cashing out some annuities. I had already had $4,968 with held and had to write out a check for $2,886 on top of that for a total of $7,854. That is married with 1 child. Wrap your mind around that number if you never had to pay that much in taxes. 2 welfare queens got my total taxes back in their earned income credit handouts.

For 2006, my adjusted gross income was $43,599 and after my refund, I only paid a total of $1,551 in total federal income tax. So for twice the income, I had to pay 5 times the taxes. Those evil rich people making $250k or more are paying astronomically higher taxes than I paid last year.

I say all of this to show you the house of cards is (not if) going to come tumbling down. Sooner or later, Galt will win out because us producers are going to get tired of paying the bill. Add all of the crap like this HOA is doing, it is no longer worth being a productive member of society.

The only way to defeat an enemy is to beat them so badly that they can no longer fight. If we take back the house and senate next year, those 50% on the left will still be there working to take back control in 2012. Socialism is a cancer and you can't "live with" it. And no, I'm not advocating any violence whatsoever against those on the left. By going Galt, we can let them defeat themselves with their own ideology and we never have to fire a single shot.

I'm sure Col Barfoot and many others (myself included) are wondering why we ever bothered to put a uniform on. So we could hand over our country to the looters and moochers?

+1 to you

In 1993 to 1996, right after I got out of the Army I was self-employed. I grossed 18K one year 26K another year, and 40K the year after that. Because I didn't understand the tax laws, in those three years I ended up paying 20K to the government in taxes and penalties.

Through the nineties, I made 40K to 60K, depending on the year. The past few years, after much hard work by myself and my wife (who has outshined me by far career-wise) we are in a pretty high income bracket. Our taxes pay for an entire government employee's salary. I'm not joking.

It gets utterly outrageous after a while. We are not rich, by any means, and everything we've gotten, we've earned. I grew up a big part of my life in a 12 by 60 trailer, son of a construction worker, and my wife's father is a retired enlisted man from the Air Force. I put myself through college by joining the Army, got a B.A. and M.A. at night. Same thing with my wife - we just finished paying her student loans for her MBA.

People in our bracket pay 90% of all taxes collected. People in the bottom 50% pay none.

BTW, I'd sure like someone to show me how to take advantage of all those "tax loopholes" I hear so much about. My accountant can't seem to find them.

"But you've been given so much!" the Moochers whine.
"We'll see that 'the rich' pay their fair share," the Looters snarl.

My wife and I look at each other and wonder how we got to be the bad guy. And BTW, if anyone finds that guy who handed everything to us, let us know. We'd like to thank him, and find out why the "gift" cost us so much in blood, sweat, and tears.

 

[Fletch]

Yes you are right on this. I guess I should have worded it to any 1 year period of time. We are seeing small victories in concealed carry but how many other freedoms have slid the other way in comparison? What good does a state allowing concealed carry do when we are getting massive stimulus bills and government healthcare rammed down our throats. In the end, it equals a net loss of rights.

Also true. And after my involvement getting CC reform passed in Michigan, I came to realize that gun rights are not the most important rights, and shifted my attention to economic freedom. That has been much slower going, since the average person can't be troubled to understand economic freedom, much less vote in favor of it.

 

[Marc]

why are there so many people in this country that choose to be here but dont support this country and force people to deny them from displaying their patriotism like flying a flag?




I HATE UNAMERICAN AMERICANS

 

[ThrottleJockey]

IMO. this guy earned the right to do just about anything he pleases. If he wants to drive on the left side of the road, so be it, just please use your hazard lights

 

[IndyGunworks]

if you met this man.....

From: CMOHS.org - Second Lieutenant BARFOOT, VAN T., U.S. Army


BARFOOT, VAN T.


Rank: Second Lieutenant
Organization: U.S. Army

Company:
Division: 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry Division

Born: Edinburg, Miss.
Departed: No

Entered Service At: Carthage, Miss.
G.O. Number: 79

Date of Issue: 10/04/1944
Accredited To:

Place / Date: Near Carano, Italy, 23 May 1944

Citation
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.

you could look him in the eyes and tell him this????

When you make an agreement with someone, you are morally bound to honor what you agreed to. When you make a legal agreement with someone, you are legally bound to do what you agreed to. When you refuse to comply with the legal agreement you made voluntarily, the other party's only recourse is to take civil action.

I hate HOAs, and I think that a certain kind of person (busybody) tends to sit on HOA boards. That said, this man made a legal agreement to abide by certain rules. Now he wants to break the rules he agreed to. He is in the wrong, and the other party has no choice but to use legal means to enforce the agreement. Presumably the HOA has lived up to its side of the bargain, this man hasn't lived up to his side.

Also, if the HOA doesn't enforce this provision, they potentially lose the power to enforce other provisions.

The flag is a sacred symbol of our country. So is the law, and the legal and moral contracts between men. The flag doesn't trump that.

 

[dross]

if you met this man.....




you could look him in the eyes and tell him this????

Yes, I could. Politely, with warmth and great respect after expressing my gratitude for what he did for our country. And, as a personal matter, if I were on the HOA board, I would have left him the hell alone.

Yet the principle remains. He made an agreement that he's choosing not to live up to after the fact. Even our heroes, especially them, should live up to their agreements.

 

[Marc]

IMO. this guy earned the right to do just about anything he pleases. If he wants to drive on the left side of the road, so be it, just please use your hazard lights

he is about that age for the driving on the wrong side of the road, but he has definitely earned the right to fly his flag where ever and when ever he wants.

 

[Fletch]

Well, I'm beginning to think this is appropriate...

 

[dross]

Well, I'm beginning to think this is appropriate...

I suppose the horse is dead if you ignore the fact that no one has challenged my argument about living up to your agreements.

 

[Fletch]

I suppose the horse is dead if you ignore the fact that no one has challenged my argument about living up to your agreements.

I mean it in the sense that we've all staked out our positions, and now we're just reiterating them.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I suppose the horse is dead if you ignore the fact that no one has challenged my argument about living up to your agreements.

Did you miss the posts where we highlight the fact that the "agreement" has no provision for flag poles?

 

[dross]

Did you miss the posts where we highlight the fact that the "agreement" has no provision for flag poles?

Yes, apparently I did. I'll go back and try to find that. Thanks.

 

[dross]

Did you miss the posts where we highlight the fact that the "agreement" has no provision for flag poles?

I just re-read the newspaper article. I reverse my opinion. If the guy thought that the board violated their part of the agreement, his only recourse was to erect the pole then let them take action, which they did.

I hope he wins in court.

I do however, still hold to my opinion that everyone, even Medal of Honor holders, should have to live up to their agreements, and his service doesn't trump that, which some people seemed to be arguing.

 

[Fargo]

Yes, I could. Politely, with warmth and great respect after expressing my gratitude for what he did for our country. And, as a personal matter, if I were on the HOA board, I would have left him the hell alone.

Yet the principle remains. He made an agreement that he's choosing not to live up to after the fact. Even our heroes, especially them, should live up to their agreements.

Just like Fletch, you have assumed about a dozen facts not in evidence. You don't know the terms of the agreement; they may not say what the HOA claims or they may be vague to the point where reasonable minds can differ. You also have no idea whether they are void as a matter of law. Somehow, I doubt that the good veteran signed an agreement he knew prohibited him from a freestanding flagpole and now want to renege.

Your "principle" is based upon a ton of assumptions, none of which have any demonstrable basis in fact.

Nevermind the moral argument that what the HOA is doing is flat out wrong. Just because the HOA may have a legally enforceable right doesn't mean that they should or morally can.

Before you go start making conclusions of contract law, perhaps you should actually read the contract and have some sort of education in contract law.


Joe