Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Is martyrdom and the Justice of heaven the only hope “We the People” have?

To whom it may concern
  I am at loss; I have been fighting this evil for more than 7 years now.  I am not sure how much longer I can hold on.  I have contacted you before, not sure you are listening or if you even care. 
Please let this letter stand as proof that for one brief shining moment there was a man who stood up to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL, criminal, corrupt, malicious, incompetent, venerated, en-Nobled, conspiracy of Black Robed, Royalist Judiciary, even though he carried no weapons.


President Barack Hussein Obama               Chief Justice John G. Roberts
The White House                                                Supreme Court of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.                 One First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20500-0001                        Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Is martyrdom and the Justice of heaven the only hope "We the People" have?
Dear Barrack and John,
You AGAIN apparently did not take me seriously in my prior communications addressed as above, dated Thursday, January 13, 2011 and Wednesday February 23, 2011, Re: Jeep v. Obama, et al.  I am DEAD serious the EVIDENCE of your corruption is online.
You want to say you have bigger fish to fry with the Earthquake in Japan, balancing the budget, the unrest in Libya and the Middle East, and Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (No. 10-98) "USA Patriot Act", Kentucky v. King (No. 09-1272) "Searches" and Connick v. Thompson (09-571) "DUE PROCESS" already on the docket.
        BUT I SAY TO YOU, "Justice is the end of government.  It is the end of civil society.  It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until life and liberty be lost in the pursuit."[1]  Immunity by definition is diametrically opposed to Justice and the Rule of Law.  The "Absolutely Immune" person cannot be brought to Justice!!!!!!!!!!!  The "Absolutely Immune" person cannot be brought to heel by the Rule of Law.
We need to learn from mistakes and make remedial efforts to correct them rather than obfuscate and COVER-UP mistakes with the UNCONSTITUTIONAL corrupt, malicious and incompetent veneration and en-Nobling of the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have literally nothing left to lose!!!!!!
If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
"Time is of the essence"
by U.S. Mail, Wednesday, March 16, 2011
David G. Jeep
cc: a select group of e-mail favorites
      file - Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 16:33:22 PM
enclosure
      Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society.


Justice is the end of government.
It is the end of civil society.
"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."[2]  To pursue Justice "We the People" democratically established our Constitution, The Bill of Rights and laws.  "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."[3]
Justice by means of the protection of the laws was, is and should be an inviolable right in any civilized democratic country of free and equal persons.
Yet we do not have Justice in America today.  We do not have the protection of the laws in America today.  We are not even pursuing Justice by means of the protection of the laws in America today.  "We the People" are forced by ministerial rule to venerate and enNoble our government officials with "Absolute Immunity" "for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[4]  EVERYONE in the venerated and en-Nobled Government of "We the People" in America today, from the traffic cop to the President of the United States with quasi-judicial authority under color of law, has "Absolute Immunity" "for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[5]  Our venerated Government has no enforceable responsibility to "We the People" to provide "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[6]
"Absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[7] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[8]
That is the governing ministerial rule in the United States of America today.  "Absolute Immunity" for all, empowers all those acting under color of law to disregard "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[9] and supercedes the expressed intent of the Constitution and Statute law.
That seems contrary to what Alexander Hamilton had in mind with The Federalist Paper #78 in 1788:
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative (judicial or executive) act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid..."[10]
The Supreme Court created their ministerial rule in 1868, just post Civil War.  If "we subject the established courts of the land to the degradation of private prosecution, we subdue their independence and destroy their authority. Instead of being venerable before the public, they become contemptible." Randall v. Brigham,  74 U. S. 539 (1868)
At the behest of President Ulysses S. Grant during reconstruction in the post Civil War south, the Klu Klux Klan was asserting seemingly overwhelming power, congress discussed judicial liability in debate as documented in Supreme Court precedent,[11]  the Congressional Record[12] and then passed The Civil Rights Act of 1871
"Representative Shellabarger, the author and manager of the bill (The Civil Rights Act of 1871) in the House, explained in his introductory remarks the breadth of construction that the Act was to receive:
"I have a single remark to make in regard to the rule of interpretation of those provisions of the Constitution under which all the sections of the bill are framed. This act is remedial, and in aid of the preservation of human liberty and human rights. All statutes and constitutional provision authorizing such statutes are liberally and beneficently construed. It would be most strange and, in civilized law, monstrous, were this not the rule of interpretation. As has been again and again decided by your own Supreme Court of the United States, and everywhere else where there is wise judicial interpretation, the largest latitude consistent with the words employed is uniformly given in construing such statutes and constitutional provisions as are meant to protect and defend and give remedies for their wrongs to all the people."[13]
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 § 1 -- the forerunner of § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights unchanged was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate then signed into law by the President Ulysses S. Grant as proposed.  It has remained unchanged:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…"
The Supreme Court responded later that same term, over the legislature's assertion of "Every person ('s)" liability,[14] with their ministerial assertion of judicial immunity in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) :
"It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"
"This provision of the law is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of ("We the People" being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to (act without regard to our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United states of America) exercise their functions with independence, and without fear of consequences." -- and the leave was refused." (non-italic parenthetical editing added for emphasis)[15]
This ministerial rule was based on the 264-year-old Royalist's English common law RESULT in Floyd and Barker (1607), the Judge was excused.  Absolute Immunity is not what Lord Coke described in his record of Floyd and Barker (1607).  The Judge, per the Supreme Court, was excused because of the supposed excerpted assertion, "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice."  The Supreme Court for self-serving reasons in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) gave no credence to the exception noted in Lord Coke's textual record in Floyd and Barker (1607); "but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."  The Supreme Court gave no credence to the assertion of judicial culpability addressed by Lord Coke in Floyd and Barker (1607) and in the legislative debate[16] at the enactment of The Civil Rights Act of 1871:
"It is said that, at the time of the statute's enactment, the doctrine of judicial immunity was well settled, and that Congress cannot be presumed to have intended to abrogate the doctrine, since it did not clearly evince such a purpose. This view is beset by many difficulties. It assumes that Congress could and should specify in advance all the possible circumstances to which a remedial statute might apply and state which cases are within the scope of a statute.
"Underlying [this] view is an atomistic conception of intention, coupled with what may be called a pointer theory of meaning. This view conceives the mind to be directed toward individual things, rather than toward general ideas, toward distinct situations of fact, rather than toward some significance in human affairs that these situations may share. If this view were taken seriously, then we would have to regard the intention of the draftsman of a statute directed against 'dangerous weapons' as being directed toward an endless series of individual objects: revolvers, automatic pistols, daggers, Bowie knives, etc. If a court applies the statute to a weapon its draftsman had not thought of, then it would be 'legislating,' not 'interpreting,' as even more obviously it would be if it were to apply the statute to a weapon not yet invented when the statute was passed.""[17]
If "we subject the established courts of the land to the degradation of private prosecution, we subdue their independence and destroy their authority. Instead of being venerable before the public, they become contemptible"[18] and would be "harassed by vexatious actions"[19]
I have to agree, if we subject anybody or anything to "the degradation of private prosecution" we degrade them, "we subdue their independence and destroy their authority." 
That is begging the question, a logical fallacy, petitio principii, "assuming the initial point".  They assert that "private prosecution" is always "degradation."  "Private prosecution" when consistently and judiciously directed is not degradation but remedial and edifying.  "Private prosecution" is "vexatious" "degradation" when it is maliciously, corruptly, haphazardly or incompetently applied.  Since Judges are the ones to apply it.  Are Judges incriminating themselves with their assertion, "private prosecution" is always "vexatious" "degradation???"
We need to force our Judiciary to accept the limitation of their humanity, give up their malicious and corrupt assertion of veneration and en-Noblement and do the bidding of "We the People…" JUSTICE under the law
"To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid..."[20]
"Chief Justice Cockburn long ago (1869) disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges:
"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of.
While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged." Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110 (1869) (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting)."[21]
"A judge is not free, like a loose cannon, to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he announces that he is acting in his judicial capacity."[22]
"Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official's actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. To criticize section 1983 liability because it leads decisionmakers to avoid the infringement of constitutional rights is to criticize one of the statute's raisons d'etre."[23]
We need to learn from mistakes and make remedial efforts to correct them rather than obfuscate and COVER-UP mistakes with the UNCONSTITUTIONAL, criminal, corrupt, malicious, incompetent, venerated, en-Nobled, conspiracy of Black Robed, Royalist Judiciary.
There is no dispute on the facts of Jeep v. United States of America.  Judge Goeke, Commissioner Jones and my ex-wife, knowingly over my timely motions and objections, acting in a criminal conspiracy held me to answer an infamous charge with out any "probable cause."  Officers Little and Taylor gave false testimony, knowingly over my timely motions and objections, on the Stand UNDER OATH on an infamous charge.  Judges Bennett and Collier acting in a CRIMINAL conspiracy with Prosecuting Attorneys Ledom, Rives and Icenogle to DEPRIVE me of exculpable material,[24] knowingly over my timely motions and objections, on an infamous charge.  The Missouri State's Attorney General, Governor of Missouri, United States Attorney, FBI, USMS and the ENTIRE Federal Court System, District to Supreme, has let it stand, KNOWINGLY, over my constant PROTESTATION the uncontestable PROOF of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL, criminal, corrupt, malicious, incompetent, venerated, en-Nobled, conspiracy of Black Robed, Royalist Judiciary.
I have endured nearly 7 ½ years (2,690 days +/-) of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[25] (where I was humiliated with the denial of the most basic of liberties - regularly and repeatedly subjected to strip searches), two psychological examinations, and 3 ½ years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America. [26]
Do I have to light myself on fire in the street to get your attention, like the Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi?  It is only a matter of time, if not me then someone else.  We are not the CRAZY people.  Those that would venerate and ennoble the Royalist Black Robed Judges beyond their human capabilities in a constitutional democratic Government that specifically prohibit titles of Nobility.[27] 
"We the People" do not have any enforceable individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[28]  We still in the time of Jim Crow and Jane Crow when the Police, the Prosecutors and the Judges all conspire with a depraved deliberate indifference to rights e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process.
DGJeep "The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/), Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 16:33:22 PM

[1] "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" The Federalist No. 51, Wednesday, February 6, 1788, by James Madison.
[2] "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" The Federalist No. 51, Wednesday, February 6, 1788, by James Madison.
[3] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163
[11] "The position that Congress did not intend to change the common law rule of judicial immunity ignores the fact that every member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that the words of the statute meant what they said, and that judges would be liable." William O. Douglas dissenting in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 561
[12] ibid.
[14] "The congressional purpose seems to me to be clear. A condition of lawlessness existed in certain of the States under which people were being denied their civil rights. Congress intended to provide a remedy for the wrongs being perpetrated. And its members were not unaware that certain members of the judiciary were implicated in the state of affairs which the statute was intended to rectify. It was often noted that "[i]mmunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374. Mr. Rainey of South Carolina noted that "[T]he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." Id. at 394. Page 386 U. S. 560 Congressman Beatty of Ohio claimed that it was the duty of Congress to listen to the appeals of those who,"by reason of popular sentiment or secret organizations or prejudiced juries or bribed judges, [cannot] obtain the rights and privileges due an American citizen. . . ." Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 559 (1967)
[15] (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868) Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349)
[16] "The position that Congress did not intend to change the common law rule of judicial immunity ignores the fact that every member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that the words of the statute meant what they said, and that judges would be liable." William O. Douglas dissenting in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) @ Page 386 U. S. 561
[19] Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868) Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872) @ Page 80 U. S. 349)
[21] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 565 (1967) Justice William O. Douglas dissenting.
[22]  MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL and MR. JUSTICE POWELL join, dissenting in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) Page 435 U. S. 367.
[24] "Brady v. Maryland - DUE PROCESS."
[26] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America "Opposed to Immunity" currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk's office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[27] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity," Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph  "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Fw: The Modesty Manifesto

Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 5:48:30 PM
Subject: The Modesty Manifesto, Op-Ed Columnist, By DAVID BROOKS Published: March 10, 2011 New York Times 

Re: The Modesty Manifesto

"Perhaps the enlargement of the self has also attenuated the links between the generations. Every generation has an incentive to push costs of current spending onto future generations. But no generation has done it as freely as this one. "

Didn't we have a balanced budget under Clinton???  Given two wars, a banking crisis the result of 30 years of REPUBLICAN banking deregulation I take issue that Baby Boomers as a GENERATION "push costs of current spending onto future generations."

That being said, I would also contend that once we get a hold on GROWTH again, we can and will grow ourselves out of the current budget issues.   I am a realist not an American Exceptionalist.  The low hanging fruit is all GONE.  We will have to compete in the world market.

It was not the City on the Hill that made the USof A DOMINANT  in years gone by, it WAS THE HILL. 

I am not a pessimist either  , I am realist, we will take our place in the world and succeed but not DOMINATE as we have in the past.   Switzerland succeeds and maintains THE highest standard of living, but they never DOMINATED. 

DGJeep

Thanks in advance,
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO63103-2316



Posted Washington Post BLOG Monday 2/28/11

Supreme Court confronts conflict between constitutional rights and protecting children

Posted Washington Post BLOG Monday 2/28/11


None of us has "the protection of the laws."   Immunity of ANY kind is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the Rule of Law. "We the People" i.e., government of the people, by the people, for the people have established the Rule of Law, the Constitution, as the supreme Law of the land.  Yet we do not have the "the protection of the laws," Constitutional rights.  The Judiciary enforces their ministerial law granting Absolute Immunity for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" and denies "We the People" "the protection of the laws," "the essence of civilization."  "Absolute Immunity" a ministerial policy adopted, supported and enforced at the highest ministerial levels of the Executive and Justice Departments is repugnant to Rule of Law, the Constitution and statute law, Civil and Criminal.

"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 Page 5 U. S. 163


Thanks in advance,
"We live in a Lawless Society...
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is of the essence"
David G.Jeep  
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316


The Current Issue with Public Service Worker Unions


The Current Issue with Public Service Worker Unions
"I think we are looking at the future of the labor movement being defined in rotundas in several states."
HARLEY SHAIKEN, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

The Current Issue with Public Service Worker Unions is not a Union Problem it is Management's Problem.  Unions in our liberty based, FREE ENTERPRISE economic system are supposed to represent their members and get for their members the BEST DEAL possible.  To now say they got too good of a deal is not their problem.  The problem is that the Politicians that let the deals were not culpable for their BAD management, i.e., beyond being ousted from office.  If the system is to work government officials need to utilize the information and the authority of their OFFICE and they need to be held accountable to the best of their ability and our information.  They need to be able negotiate just like any BUSINESS based on the government's ability to pay.  A Mayor, a County Commissioner, a Governor that signs and or negotiates a labor agreement with his constituent employees needs to be held criminally culpable for the bad deal, as audited by the Government Auditors.  If they "buy" votes by letting sweetheart deals to the constituent it is every bit as criminal as letting construction contracts to their cronies for monetary gain.  We need to utilize government services Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (or PBGC) to assure that the commitments made are being kept.
"We the People" are to some degree responsible.  But if there is not enough money and "We the People" refuse to cover the expense with new taxes.  "We the People" need to allow our States, Counties and Municipalities to go BANKRUPT, just like GM, Chrysler and our bad banks.  That gets us out of the current dilemma.
If a Public Service Worker Union wants more money, there has to be more money in the public trough to pay for it.  If there is no money in the till, "We the People" within reason can not be asked to raise taxes to put it there.  If we are going to have cost of living raises on government salaries, we need to have cost of living raises on all our taxes ALSO.
The G.O.P. made a big deal out of reading the constitution at the start of this legislature session.  John Boehner, the Majority Leader, made a big deal out of a rule that all new federal legislation in the House of Representatives was going to require a Constitutional reference authorizing its enactment.  That sounds reasonable, if not completely necessary; virtually anything can be explained by it being "Reasonable and Customary" for the "General Welfare."
If the G.O.P.'s House Speaker John Boehner wants to truly live up to his party's conservative, fiscally responsible mantra, a better rule would be to require all new federal legislation to be accompanied by funding and not just crossing ones fingers and hoping for the best. 

On a separate note, I would contend that we do not have any individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of rights; but that is another story.

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)

Thanks in advance,
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO63103-2316



Fire in the cave And Nuclear Power in the Modern World



Fire in the cave
And
Nuclear Power in the Modern World

"Lastly, we have to rethink the price we pay for fission power. Faust, for example, was the mythical figure who sold his soul to the devil for unlimited power. Are we willing to make a Faustian bargain?"[1]

I appreciate Mr. Kaku's "Faustian" analogy but I think a more accurate analogy would be the cave person's discovery of Fire.  Imagine the trouble the first cave person would have had bringing "Fire" into the cave.  It smoked, it burned, it killed, but its rewards were irresistible. 

Exploitation of Nuclear power is not a bargain with the devil it is a learning experience.  Nuclear Power while somewhat new and un-explored on this planet is the natural SOURCE of ALL POWER in the universe.  I stress it is NATURAL!

We are currently burning up our fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate.  The proposed "safe" green energies… wind, geothermal, tidal and solar all have their source in the nuclear power of the Sun.  The distance from the source consumes efficiency and sometimes the inefficiency makes them inefficient to the point of economically problematic.  They consume more energy than they produce.  We need to get to the source to better exploit the potential. 

Look at fire today, if we had not become accustom to the sometimes deadly effects of fire today, think of how in our all too insulated world it would be viewed, the cooking fires, car fires, house fires, forest fires. We would never have been ale to exploit our fossil fuels without the real yet accepted risk of fire

We have to get past the fear of Nuclear power.  Look at Japan today, the only country to have ever survived a tactical nuclear weapon attack.  Look specifically at Hiroshima and Nagasaki; they have redeveloped, they are safe, people are living at GROUND ZERO today.  Nuclear Power in Japan is utilized effectively, efficiently and safely to power their production based economy. 

Yes the recent earthquake has overcome their first line safety designs, but they will overcome.  They will learn from the accident, just as we have learned how to contain fire in our caves with chimneys, fireplaces, ovens and stove-top-burners.

We need to see the potential for Nuclear Power.  America is in the dark ages of Nuclear Power utilization.  We need to have the courage of the cave person to bring the "fire" of nuclear power into our caves so we can utilize it to create the virtually unlimited power of the "Faustian bargain" without the unfounded irrational so called supernatural fear of the devil.  Nuclear Power is the source of all energy in the universe.  If we are to sustain ourselves beyond our fossil fuel reserves we have to learn how to utilize it safely.  There will be risk, there will be losses but in the end we will have an unlimited source of power that can feed our ovens, our computers centers, and our hydrogen fuel cells FOREVER. 

The potential is there.  We can overcome our fear.  We need to learn from our experiences both with nuclear weapons and civilized nuclear power for the betterment of mankind. 

We overcame our irrational fear of FIRE; we can overcome our irrational fear of NUCLEAR POWER.

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.  Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.” Marie Curie (1867 – 1934 Polish and naturalized-French TWO TIME Nobel Prize Winning physicist and chemist who conducted pioneering research on radioactivity.)

We need to start to think outside the box… "Fire in the Cave and Nuclear Power in the Modern World" 

On a separate note, I would contend that we do not have any individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America e.g.,  "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process"; but that is another story.

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Monday, March 14, 2011, 5:38:05 PM



[1] Faust and Fission Power, NYTimes March 13, 2011, Michio Kaku holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York. He is the author, most recently, of "Physics of the Impossible."

-->
Thanks in advance,
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"

David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO63103-2316



Controlling Heath Care Cost In a Free Market

-->
Controlling Heath Care Cost
In a Free Market

How do you control health care cost in a free market?  Is it a free market if it is government regulated?  If regulation is viable, is inactivity a subject to regulation?

Free Market versus Health Care, the free market defined by Adam Smith and the bible for his supporters does not conceive of the current Health Care Cost Crisis.  Adam Smith advances a simple theory that supply is regulated by demand.  Health care does not fit that model; there is no way for supply to satiate demand without death panels.  On our deathbed we are going to be asking for anything and quite literally everything to sustain us.  There is no limit to what can be done for a dying patient.  Demand is not affected by supply in our healthcare system today.  We have to do this via Government Regulation; the natural laws of supply and demand have no credible affect in this equation. 

The cost of that healthcare is effected by two factors, the demand for it, as I have stated earlier is unlimited, and the supply of healthcare professionals.  The supply of Healthcare professionals in our system today is HIGHLY regulated, but MARKET forces do not regulate it.  The supply of Doctors is regulated by access to Medical School.  Matriculation at Medical Schools in America today is regulated by many things, the admittance process aspires to be all about ability.  But in actuality it is a business and to get around it you have to learn how to exploit its weaknesses.  There are some 580,304 applications for 18,668 places, 31 applications for every admission.  Now virtually everyone of those 580,304 applications has met the basic ability requirements, the grade point average, the test scores the decision comes down to the intangible elements and this is where the corruption of legacy, nepotism and personal contact comes into play. 

If Medical School Admissions are to be truly market regulated we have to open MORE medical schools so that most if not all of those that meet the basic grade average, and test score requirements can find a school.  Currently this is not happening, medical schools are not free markets they are Good Old Boy networks. 

We do not have Free-Market Healthcare today.  We could never and would never want to sustain Free-Market Healthcare.  The demand for healthcare is naturally and instinctually insatiable.  We have to regulate Healthcare.  To make it as FREE-Market as possible we have to regulate cost.  To regulate cost we have to establish a system that brings all participants into the market, no one can be allowed to just sit on the side limes and let an emergency regulate their participation. 

The Democratic Process produced "Public Law 111–152 - ''Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010" let's call it by its name and not try to utilize the logical fallacy, ad hominem, [1] of calling it Obamacare.

Now is the "Public Law 111–152 - ''Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010" constitutional.  The purpose of our Union was to exploit the economy of scale.  We are a UNION.  We are a UNION of states yes.  The intent of our constitution was to limit Government, yes. 

The preamble to the constitution, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What "We the People" too often forget is our purpose, "to form a more perfect Union."  Our founding fathers were intent upon taking advantage of the economy of scale with "a more perfect Union."  The issue of States Rights v Federal Rights is a fabrication.  In 1789 we were a Union of independent Sates.  We were the developed world's first attempt at a United Nations. 

Two Hundred and Twenty years, a Civil war and the 14th Amendment later we are ONE Nation.  We no longer consider ourselves independent Countries joined by a common constitution.  Thus the idea of States rights has no basis. 

Today there are anarchists among us who oppose any authority.  They claim to be defenders of States Rights, when in fact they are anti-government anarchists.  They do not care what the issue is, they oppose the imposition on their liberty, even if it is a democratically established "more perfect Union.

The question comes down to individual liberty versus a democratically established "more perfect Union."  In any Union the individual gives up some Liberty for the sake of the Union.  The question has to be is the denial on INDIVIDUAL liberty that The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029) imposes beyond the reach of a democratically established "more perfect Union."

The Congress shall have Power To… provide for the… general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In that we have to do something "To… provide for the… general Welfare of the United States": health care is out of control.  Health care costs are inflating at an unsustainable rate.  We have this right to do this because of the economy of scale inherent in the democratically established "more perfect Union."  We are after all in it to "promote the general Welfare" as we democratically establish a "more perfect Union."  The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029) seems "necessary and proper" to the current majority of representative and democratically elected government.

On a separate note, "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process"; but that is another story.(http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)
Monday, March 14, 2011, 5:39:18 PM


[1] An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]
-->
Thanks in advance,
"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO63103-2316