Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: The Second Amendment Implicatiion to Jessica Lenahan's Human Rights Petition Against the U.S.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    I am transcribing the Jessica Lenahan Human Rights Hearing at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of October 22, 2008. I have transcribed 36 minutes of the 90 minute hearing. When I finish the transcription I will have raw material to develope a human rights argument for the Second Amendment, i.e. the human right for women to protect themselves from abusive husbands and ex-husbands posing serious and mortal threats to them and their children.

    A lot of you harassed me for an abstract of my lawsuit. I refused because I am devoting my time to developing new legal arguments for my Second Amendment case based on human rights treaties.

    The Jessica Lenahan human rights case is a golden opportunity to establisha foothold in international human rights law for the Second Amendment. I have already established such a foothold using the Heller opinion as noted on pages 1 through 4 of my lawsuit. I staked my Second Amendmentclaim at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and further claimed that the Heller opinion impacted Jessica Lenahan's human rights case as a lawful alternative when domestic violence restraining orders are ignored by the targeted offender and by the police in ther refusal to make arrests for violations of domestic violence restraining orders.

    I am baffled why the NRA still refuses to acknowledge my Second Amendment case and its international human rights aspect. There is a valid movement under the "Violence Against Women" bannerall around the world and in the United States. Jessica Gonzales (now Lenahan) was and still is a true victim several times over. The policetreated her more like a criminal suspect than a victim. Jessica's own words at the hearing provides the true reason forthe fundamental right to to armed self defense under the Ninth Amendment and the Second Amendment against domestic violence:

    I was treated like a criminal rather than a mother living her worst nightmare. I felt so deceived. I’d grown up thinking my government was bound by the laws and that it was just and fair. But all of sudden when I needed you the most you turned your back on me and my family.
    Shereferred to the Castle Rock, Colorado Police Department officers who refused to effectively search for her husband, Simon Gonzales, and arrest him before he murder their three young daughters.

    The Second Amendment is not a theoretical right it is aright to protect life from death.Hency my fightto include the Second Amendment in the definition of the "right to life" provision in international human rights treaties.

    For more information:

    http://www.law.columbia.edu/center_program/human_rights/InterAmer/GonzalesvUS

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    I have transcribed 65 minutes of the 90 minute hearing. At 65 minutes I finally have the $64,000 question on the "No Right to Police Protection Doctrine" of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Commissioner FlorentĂ*n MelĂ©ndez (El Salvador) asked the United States Government this question:


    "And with regard to the lack of due dilligence I would like to ask the U.S. Government representatives what are they legally, legally basing their position that the State was not compelled to ack with due dilligence in light of the request of a citizen to offer police protection to the lives of three children."
    I'll post the U.S. Government's answer as soon as I transcribe it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Attached is the my29-page (unofficial) transcription of Jessica Lenahan's human rights hearing on the U.S. Supreme Court's "No Right to Police Protection" Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court in MS Word format.

    The footnotes and other items are my additions to the transcription.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Will the MODERATORS please let this topic stay.

    I spent the last 5 days on the transcript for the 90 minute human rights hearing because it impacts our Second Amendment rights.

    The transcript has the official position of the United States on police protection in regard to domestic violence restraining orders and can be the basis of human rights arguments in defense of our Second Amendment against attacks by the United Nations.

    This is the building blocks to mounting a counter-attack against the U.N.'s gun control agenda.

    Please do not DELETE this topic.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    Poor woman... and the Supreme Court rejected her case, too! What a bunch of robed jerks! Probably turned it away "without comment"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Overtaxed wrote:
    ". . .Probably turned it away "without comment"
    No! Full opinion here:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-278

    TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES, individually and a next best friend of her deceased minor children, GONZALES et al.

    certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit

    No. 04-278.Argued March 21, 2005--Decided June 27, 2005

    Cite as: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U. S. 748 (2005)
    Respondent filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children. The District Court granted the town's motion to dismiss, but an en banc majority of the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that respondent had alleged a cognizable procedural due process claim because a Colorado statute established the state legislature's clear intent to require police to enforce retraining orders, and thus its intent that the order's recipient have an entitlement to its enforcement. The court therefore ruled, among other things, that respondent had a protected property interest in the enforcement of her restraining order.

    Held:Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. Pp.6-19.

    (a)The Due Process Clause's procedural component does not protect everything that might be described as a government "benefit":"To have a property interest in a benefit, a person ... must ... have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it." Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth,
    408 U.S. 564, 577. Such entitlements are created by existing rules or understandings stemming from an independent source such as state law. E.g., ibid. Pp.6-7.

    (b)A benefit is not a protected entitlement if officials have discretion to grant or deny it. See, e.g., Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson,
    490 U.S. 454, 462-463. It is inappropriate here to defer to the Tenth Circuit's determination that Colorado law gave respondent a right to police enforcement of the restraining order. This Court therefore proceeds to its own analysis. Pp.7-9.

    (c)Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes. Cf. Chicago v. Morales,
    527 U.S. 41, 47, n.2, 62, n.32. Against that backdrop, a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication than the Colorado statute's direction to "use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order" or even to "arrest ... or ... seek a warrant." A Colorado officer would likely have some discretion to determine that--despite probable cause to believe a restraining order has been violated--the violation's circumstances or competing duties counsel decisively against enforcement in a particular instance. The practical necessity for discretion is particularly apparent in a case such as this, where the suspected violator is not actually present and his whereabouts are unknown. In such circumstances, the statute does not appear to require officers to arrest but only to seek a warrant. That, however, would be an entitlement to nothing but procedure, which cannot be the basis for a property interest. Pp.9-15.

    (d)Even if the statute could be said to make enforcement "mandatory," that would not necessarily mean that respondent has an entitlement to enforcement. Her alleged interest stems not from common law or contract, but only from a State's statutory scheme. If she was given a statutory entitlement, the Court would expect to see some indication of that in the statute itself. Although the statute spoke of "protected person[s]" such as respondent, it did so in connection with matters other than a right to enforcement. Most importantly, it spoke directly to the protected person's power to "initiate" contempt proceedings if the order was issued in a civil action, which contrasts tellingly with its conferral of a power merely to "request" initiation of criminal contempt proceedings--and even more dramatically with its complete silence about any power to "request" (much less demand) that an arrest be made. Pp.15-17.

    (e)Even were the Court to think otherwise about Colorado's creation of an entitlement, it is not clear that an individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order could constitute a "property" interest for due process purposes. Such a right would have no ascertainable monetary value and would arise incidentally, not out of some new species of government benefit or service, but out of a function that government actors have always performed--arresting people when they have probable cause. A benefit's indirect nature was fatal to a due process claim in O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center,
    447 U.S. 773, 787. Here, as there, "[t]he simple distinction between government action that directly affects a citizen's legal rights ... and action that is directed against a third party and affects the citizen only ... incidentally, provides a sufficient answer to" cases finding government-provided services to be entitlements. Id., at 788. Pp.17-19.

    366 F.3d 1093, reversed.

    =========

    Hence my human rights complaint against the United Statesat the Inter-American Commission for Human rights and my contention that the Second Amendment is a human right component to the "right to life" provision of human rights treaties.

    Yesterday, I sent an email to Chuck Norris, EMAIL:cnorris@wnd.com via WorldNetDaily.com for help.
    embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/chuck-norris-the-nras-black-belt-patriot/

    Note Michelle Malkin's Hotair blog on Chuck Norris
    hotair.com/archives/2008/10/28/video-chuck-norris-and-the-nra/

    If I am fighting for the Second Amendment then why does the NRA ignore me? (Too soon to question Chuck Norris. I emailed him only yesterday. The question is will Chuck Norris answer my email?).

    I am asking everyone to call, write, and email Chuck Norris and the NRA and ask, no, demand that the NRA help my Second Amendment case.

    If ever there is to be a restoration of the Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate, interstate, and maritime travel there must be someone to be the first to break ground in this territory. I am that "first person."

    I am the "first person" to use HELLER as evidence in a human rights complaint against the United States. The NRA and SAF love to use the phrase "next step" in their propaganda. Where is the recognition for me taking the "next step" in the fight for the Second Amendment at the international level? I am ignored. And believe me I am taking the tollfrom this political isolation.

    I need legal help. I know it. But I am treated like a diseased leper by the NRA, SAF, GOA, and everyone else because I am tackling a legal subject that is viewed to be unwinnable because the right to open carry in interstate travel is viewed to be long dead, a relic of the old Wild West.

    Six years pushing a Second Amendment case from a U.S. merchant seaman's point of view while being insulted, ridicule, and harassed, HELL! Even Curtis Stone, alias SAILORCURT, blogger for Virginia Citizen's Defense League (VCDL) chased me off their blog and stalked me to David Hardy's blogand he was the first to comment when David Hardy was kind enough to promote my Second Amendment case there. Curtis Stone's harassing comment triggered an avalanche of harassing remarks. David Hardy removed his posting and all the comments to it at my request. At least David Hardy respected my dignity as a human being.

    I guess you can say I have collected a lot of enemies who hate the sight of my name, "Don Hamrick." Believe me, 6 years of such harassment is taking its toll on me. But I cannot and will not give up my fight for my own Second Amendment rights because it is MY rights that I am fighting for. It may very well be collateral rights with the American people but it is still my rights as and individual. I will not back down just because Internet Rambos and bullies are harassming me.

    My argument for firearms on U.S. flag commercial vessels is primarily for company owned firearms (stored in gun safes or lockers under maritime law) need to be issued to crew members performing security duties because 33 C.F.R. § 104.220 "Company or Vessel Personnel with Security Duties" omits to mention the need of firearms for personal protection and protection of the vessel. It also does not address the liability for personal injury or death resulting from the ommission or implied prohibition of firearms to vessel personnel performing security duties. I guess this will not be addressed until a merchant seaman aboard a U.S. container ship gets injuried or killed by a pirate or terrorist.

    But my Second Amendment fight for seamen's rights also has a home defense component, as in a defense against domestic violence, as in Jessica Lenahan's situation above, May God Bless Jessica for enduringher hell on Earth. In memory of her three little girls: "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: forsuch is the kingdom of God." Luke 18:16, King James Bible.

    To force the issue, to compel the U.S. government to address the matter, someone has to initiate civil litigation in federal or court or initiate a human rights complaint at the international level. Ohh! Wait! I have already done that! I have been pushing the matter in federal court for 6 years and the human rights issue at the international level for 2 years and my cases are still ignored by the NRA, SAF, GOA, JPFO, and everyone else.

    I believe it is because I am pushing, for the lack of a better descriptive, a taboo into the arena of legal and social norms that the very idea of "National Open Carry Handgun" is either offensive or it terrorizes the phobic, even among pro-Second Amendment advocates at online discussion forums.

    After 6 years of hopping from one discussion forum to another and getting banned from each because the message I bring draws weapon fire of insults, ridicule, and harassment like a magnet I presume I have name recognition, "Don Hamrick" as one who is to be "shot on sight" with verbal artillery regardless of the merits of my Second Amendment case. I still have not learned how to counter this type of prejudice. Fight fire with fire has always resulted in getting me banned from the discussion forums for breaking the rules of conduct while the natives (or cronies) of those forums get off scott free because I was the "newbie" on their boards. This is synonymous to mob lynching mentality. The behavior is the same.

    After 6 years of combatting this type of intellectual stupidity I have become jaded and combative myself. My own prejudiced behavior is reflected in my pleadings to the Courts as you can see in the first 10 pages of my newest lawsuit. I intentially prepared my lawsuit in that manner to impress upon the Court that there does exist a judicial prejudice against pro se civil plaintiffs, especially so against those with Second Amendment cases.

    Ihave been combative in reciprocity to the insultingly combative responses to my visits to gun discussion forums over the years. To use an analogy, if these confrontations accorded in person I would probably have been thrown in jail or sent to the hospital in critical condition on numerous occasions because I do not back down from a fight when I am in the right. And as God is my witness I am in the right because I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms and the Ninth Amendment includes the right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate, interstate and maritime travel.

    April 19, 1777 The Battle of Concord and Lexington.


    In 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417, 450-451. "It would give to persons of the African American race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

    On January 1, 1863, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation stated, in part, "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

    In 1868, Fourteenth Amendment ratified. "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    On April 19, 2002 (Patriots Day) the U.S. Coast Guard, a naval authority in terms of the Emancipation Proclamation,denied my application for the National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on my Merchant Mariner's Document.

    On July 4, 2008 (Independence Day)I used HELLER as evidence in my letter to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rightsclaiming that the Second Amendment is a human right.

    By these actions am I not considered a "patriot" fighting for freedom? Or am I to be denied even the dignity ofa human being?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    You were banned under one screen name, and now come back with another, cheeky, real cheeky.

    Just sent this IM to the Moderators.



    DonHamrick has just started back with a new screen name DHamrick.

    If he was banned due to his constant posting of the same subject over and over again, then great, but he needs to be banned under his new screen name as well.

    Thanks

    Decoligny

  8. #8
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    You were banned under one screen name, and now come back with another, cheeky, real cheeky.

    Just sent this IM to the Moderators.



    DonHamrick has just started back with a new screen name DHamrick.

    If he was banned due to his constant posting of the same subject over and over again, then great, but he needs to be banned under his new screen name as well.

    Thanks

    Decoligny
    Why did they ban him? I'm lost on this one. Did I miss something?

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    I was making an assumption on the reason.

    The fact remains that he was banned as DonHamrick and he has the audacity to just create another screen name (DHamrick) and starts posting again as if the owners of this board have no authority to ban someone.

  10. #10
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    I was making an assumption on the reason.

    The fact remains that he was banned as DonHamrick and he has the audacity to just create another screen name (DHamrick) and starts posting again as if the owners of this board have no authority to ban someone.
    Ah. I see your point there.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    OH! WAIT! LOOKY HERE! IT'S "DONHAMRICK!"

    AGAIN, THE JACKASSES PRESUMING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

    I WAS NOT BANNED FROM "THIS FORUM". I WAS TALKING ABOUT OTHER FORUMS.

    The moderators only BLOCK the Private Messages for reasons they refuse to tell me because they cannot refute my citations to their RULE 5 of their RULES OF CONDUCT.

    But it is always fun to libel someone with muckraking lies. Isn't it!

    I hope the rest of you see what I am talking about.

    I have an outstanding cause of action for the Second Amendment and all these idiots are concerning themselves with is playing the "One Upmanship Game" in who can throw the best insult.

    QUESTION TO THE MODERATORS: IS THERE A VIOLATION IF RULE 5 HERE BY DecolignyAND LovesHisXD45?:

    5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer).

    SINCE THOSE TWO ARE REVELLING IN THE NOTION OF BEING BANNED WOULD YOU CONSIDER THOSE TWO AS CANDIDATES TO BE BANNED FOR VIOLATED RULE 5?



  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    CORRECTION:

    It seems that I do not have EDIT privilege to edit my own replies.

    But I do have REPLY privilege.

    AND What offense did I commit? Defending myself against personal attacks warrants restrictions?



    I guess there is no reasoning with idiots.



  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    I often wonder why people take such pleasure in dispensing personal attacks? There is a psychological or even a psychiatric adnormality, the bully mentality,a personality disorderat play here.

    I suggest that JPierce and his moderators reconsider their opinions of me and reconsider the motives of those making personal attacks against me.



  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    Ohhhh! Wait! Now I see the word "Banned" under my name.

    Imagine that! I try to publicize my Second Amendment case. I get targeted with personal attacks and I get banned? But yet I am still able to post replies?

    I guess Rule 5 is only enforced against the newbie victims of personal attacks by long standing regulars. I bit of a double standard here dontcha think?



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    And my TEST reply under the name of "DHamrick."


    Ahhhh! "Not Banned!" Yet!


    And I have edit and Private Message privileges.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    JPierce

    How do you feel about a lawsuit for defamation and libel?

    Better yet, how do you feel about bad publicity if I win either my Second Amendment case in federal court and/or my human rights case at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the media comes asking me questions?

    I will provide a list of online Second Amendment disussion forums that I have been banned from because of my advocacy for open carry nationwide. Your discussion forum is all about open carry. How the hell are you going to explain yourself to the mediabanning me?

    :what:

  17. #17
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    Dhamrick wrote:
    JPierce

    How do you feel about a lawsuit for defamation and libel?
    Please cite some quotes where jpierce personally defamed or libeled you.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Haven't you have heard of a "Rheotirical Question."

    I'm through with you idiots. If stupidity were a disease the CDC would quarantine this forum and then condemn it as unhabitable. I am depressed enough as it is searching for intelligent commentary on forums.Most I run into are morons and idiots. If it weren't for the few good people I encounter on these forums I'd give it up altogether.



  19. #19
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    You seem to have a rather unpleasant attitude. Ever thought that is why nobody desires to engage in "intelligent conversation" with you? I find it rather ironic you call all of us stupid idiots but yet you don't know how to spell "rhetorical". This board does have a spell check after all. I'd go out on a limb and say the reason the members of this forum and others have shunned you is your interpersonal skills need some sharpening.

    Better run away and sanitize yourself before our stupidity infects you and the CDC condemns your house.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    You seem to have a rather unpleasant attitude. Ever thought that is why nobody desires to engage in "intelligent conversation" with you? I find it rather ironic you call all of us stupid idiots but yet you don't know how to spell "rhetorical". This board does have a spell check after all. I'd go out on a limb and say the reason the members of this forum and others have shunned you is your interpersonal skills need some sharpening.

    Better run away and sanitize yourself before our stupidity infects you and the CDC condemns your house.
    Yeah!

    In 2002 I was aniave idiotto think I could get a fair trial in a federal judicial system that was true to the Rule of Law and to the U.S. Constitution. I was naive to think the American people who believed in the Second Amendment would rally behind my Second Amendment lawsuits.

    But the reality is thatthe world is filled with corruption, self-centeredness, don't give a damn, cynical, mean-spirited, cruel, and inhuman people like you. And yes. It is a social disease and I have become infected with the same maladies as this cruel world.

    I devoted my entire income as a seaman to the pursuit of justice for constitutional wrongs done to me by the U.S. Coast Guard and the federal courts. I gambled. Today, I have only a couple of poker chips left in this card game ofjustice waiting for the winninghandin either my federal litigation or my human rights complaint at the international level.

    I have lost everytime in my life. My seaman's pension is inadequate to live onbecause I neglected to contribute to it over the 19 years span. I'm broke and homeless because I would not give up fighting for the Second Amendment. The slim chance of winning damages is the only thing left in my life worth living for. At age 53I have nothing to show for accomplishment.

    Hate rules the world and hate has taken its toll on me. Six years of undeserved personal attacks have taken their toll on me. You vindicative idiots love to impart misery on people. Abuse is part of human nature. You have parents verbally and physically abusing and beating their children, even killing them as in the Jessica Gonzales human rights case at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. You have bad cops constantly in the news beating suspects. Teachers molesting students. The examples are endless.

    Let one man stand up for human rights and theworld falls on that man like a ton of bricks.

    I cannot take much more of these personal attacks.

    YOU WIN!

    I WILL NOT POST ON THIS BOARD AGAIN.

    Recognizing the Need for Change


    Excerpt from:
    Lieutenant Colonel Charles L. Beck, Jr., USAF, Lieutenant Colonel Nina Lynn Brokaw,USA, Commander Brian A. Kelmar, USN, A Model for Leading Change: Making Acquisition Reform Work, Report of the Military Research Fellows; DSMC 1996-1997, Defense Systems Management College, December 1997 [FOOTNOTE 1]

    [FOOTNOTE1]: Pp. 3-5 to 3-6. Footnotes omitted. Published by the Defense Systems Management College Press, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060_5565. (Disclaimer: This book was produced in the Department of Defense (DoD) school environment in the interest of academic freedom and the advancement of national defense_related concepts. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position or policy of the DoD or those of the United States Government). http://www.dau.mil/pubs/mfrpts/pdf/res97.pdf
    One of the most important roles of the leadership is recognizing the need for change. This sounds obvious, since change could not be implemented unless you recognize the need for it, but many researchers point out that this recognition can be one of the hardest aspects of change. The "Boiling Frog" experiment has been used to illustrate the difficulty of recognizing the need for change:

    "The label comes from a classic physiological response experiment involving two live frogs, a pan filled with water, and a bunsen burner. The first frog is placed in a pan of cold water. The pan is then placed on a bunsen burner and the heat is turned up very gradually. If the change in temperature is gradual enough, the frog will sit in the pan until it boils to death. The creature could have jumped out of the pan at any time, but the change in its environment happened so gradually that no response was triggered in the frog and death ensued If we take the remaining frog and place it in a pan of water that is already boiling, it will not sit there but will promptly jump out and survive. We can clearly continue to refine this experiment so that we can discover how great the change has to be in a given time period in order to get the frog to respond, but the analogy is clear." [Tichy and Devanna, Transformational Leader,59 44.] [FOOTNOTE 2]

    [FOOTNOTE 2]:
    http://www.wiley.com/cda/product/0,,...7Cdesc,00.html.
    "How to transform an organization, based on fascinating, inside stories of major industrial companies and service companies (including Fortune 500 companies), aggressive smaller firms, and European companies. Provides insights into the styles and philosophies of leaders and executives who have transformed their companies, whether big or small, and offers practical advice on middle management’s role in transforming large organizations."
    Organizations become boiled frogs because they do not recognize the changes in their environment in time to react. There are numerous examples of companies that have not recognized the need for change. The business news regularly carries stories of large corporations losing market share and profits, while companies in the same line of business are making record profits. The companies that are doing poorly may have failed to recognize the need for change. As illustrated by the boiling frog phenomenon, these organizations are slow to realize that a change is needed.

    The leaders of the organization must recognize and believe in the need for change before it is too late. The senior leadership may not be the first to recognize the need for change, but they must be sold on it and make a commitment to its support. Mr. William J. Trahant of Coopers and Lybrand expresses the need for a clear reason for change: "No organization changes, absent a business imperative for the change. Without this business imperative, the organization can implement a lot of organizational good ideas, but these become training exercise, without resulting in measurable change. This training is good, but will not result in change."


    Levels of Urgency for Change
    Recognition of the need for change is tied in to the level of urgency for change. The less urgent and obvious the need for change, the harder it is to see that change is needed, as was illustrated by the boiling frog analogy. Organizational change theorists are in general agreement that there must be a justifiable reason for change, and that the reason must be communicated to and believed by the workforce. However, there is disagreement as to the level of urgency that must be conveyed. Some researchers feel that successful organizational change can only occur if there is a strong sense of urgency. Others lean more toward a "business imperative" to generate change. Regardless of the level of urgency they advocate, almost all researchers agree that the less urgent the need, the harder it will be to recognize and convince others of the need for change. Using Lewin’s model, the less urgent the need, the harder it will be to create the dissatisfaction with the status quo that will unfreeze the organization.

    Reclaiming Our Values: Lessons From a Tragedy
    Robert L. Veninga, Ph.D., Professor, Shool of Public Health, University of Minnesota delivered a speech to the National Public Health Leadership Institute in Atlanta, Georgia on October 21, 2001 titled Reclaiming Our Values. In his speech he presents six lessons of leadership resulting from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    His Lesson #1: "It’s best to be prepared for the unexpected" mirrors 1782 George Washington’s "If we are wise let us prepare for the worst."

    In Lesson #2: "Nothing Substitutes for outstanding leadership." Is it outstanding leadership to perpetuate the disarming of citizens with 68 years of gun control laws and 20 years of anti-militia laws to the extent that national security is weakened enough to encourage terrorists to coordinate the attacks of September 11, 2001?

    In Lesson #3: "There is a generous spirit in the hearts of most people, waiting to be claimed. When the call for volunteers went out, government officials were overwhelmed with expressions of support. The response was so great that New York City officials had to put out word that no more volunteers were needed. Volunteers to the armed forces nearly doubled as young mean and women went to recruiting stations to sign up for active duty." Where is the channeling of this generous spirit of volunteerism towards the traditional unorganized militia service for the security of a free State as mentioned in the Second Amendment or in the resurgence of State Defense Forces when the National Guard is federalized and deployed in foreign countries?

    In Lesson #6: "Faith matters." We are indeed fighting a War of Faith, a Religious War. The politically correct will vehemently deny this assertion. But the facts bear this assertion as true.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    You seem to have a rather unpleasant attitude. Ever thought that is why nobody desires to engage in "intelligent conversation" with you? I find it rather ironic you call all of us stupid idiots but yet you don't know how to spell "rhetorical". This board does have a spell check after all. I'd go out on a limb and say the reason the members of this forum and others have shunned you is your interpersonal skills need some sharpening.

    Better run away and sanitize yourself before our stupidity infects you and the CDC condemns your house.
    nsl - I wouldn't argue with him. Look at his other posts where we were asking for him to sum up his lawsuit and he told us to read the TOC and started attacking us. I gave up then on him...

  22. #22
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    One thing I would say here is that if you want your posts on any blog to be read, understood, and taken seriously by the common person (who is he who pulls the voting lever) then you cannot put out a 27-paragraph Doctoral thesis full of convoluted legal theory and argument. Sufficient legalistic argle-bargle, flapdoodle and gobbledygook exists without anyone's adding more to the pile. Whoever you are and whatever your point is, do not tell me to look up www.youtube/whateveritis or bring up some obscure point of case precedent. Write as if you were sitting around a cracker-barrel at the General Store and you will make your point much more effectively; or at least most people will be able to read it and understand it before their eyes glaze over.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    REBUTTAL TO Alexcabbie

    Been there. Done that. In the last 6 years of trying to get my Second Amendment case publicized via online forums I have tried every tactic and approach from nice guy to *******, from simplistic to legalistic. The reaction has always been the same because I was always the newbie bringing shocking news. National Open Carry Handgun. The reaction was always personal attacks, insults, and ridicule. People do not want to listen to a newbie spouting off about a throwback to Second Amendment freedom of 150 years ago.

    So I get banned from those forums because people "can't handle the truth."

  24. #24
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Listen??? Don, I never heard of you nor read your postings under eithe name until just now and believe me, you need but organize your thoughts a bit and consolidate your arguments. I tried reading your postings and I find that (1) I have NO IDEA WTF you are talking about and (2) I work for a living and do not have time to rtry and figure it out. As to the Second Amendment it is written in plain English and all the obfusication about the "Militia Clause" is just that. Is that what you are trying to communicate?? If so, I just did it for you. Thank me very much.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    Read Part 12 or 19. Read the Part challenging the Coast Guard's Final Agency Action.

    The lawsuit is a compression of 6 years of obstructed litigation.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •