On Marco Island: Independent Reporting, Documenting Government Abuses, Exposing the Syndicate, Historical Records of Crimes Against the Environment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

eLibrary - All Crimes and More Recorded!
Click this BIG button for ... All the evidence in one place! The documentation in pictures, documents and video of what was done to Marco Island .. and more!
Today is: Click here:Today's Meditation

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Radicalism vs. Kumbaya

Dr. William Bennett’s seminal work “The Book of Virtues” explored the tenets of integrity, honesty and morality from Plato until the present time in ways that provided both a sense of comfort from, and finality to, the goodness of man. And in that implied constant struggle there is no doubt that compromising any of these principles is no virtue. Assuredly, this is a radical approach in the age of “can’t we all just get along?”

And if justice is the venue by which a civilized society deters deviation from integrity, honesty and morality, then the virtuous should be uncompromisingly incessant in demanding justice from those institutions that theoretically we have empowered to govern
for us.

Hence many throughout this great land became understandably indignant when the “new Lincoln”, B. Hussein Obama proclaimed his foreign policy tact to meet with the world’s darlings, the likes of Ahmadinejad, Castro (I or II) and Kim Jong-Il. For after all, these murderers are uncompromising - therefore the onus would fall to America (again) to compromise on some virtue or to moderate its pursuit of justice for human rights and democracy for all peoples.

But why should we become indignant when the “new Lincoln” will compromise America’s principles and moderate her pursuit of justice, and yet we are resigned to compromise our principles and moderate our pursuit of justice with the “new” council?

Namely, why should those that were indignant before the landslide as to the transgression of our rights, our laws and our environment now be any less demanding on law enforcement, fiscal accountability, protection of our environment and safeguarding our way of life just because the governing deck was shuffled?

It is not as if the “new” council will address these wrongs, their capacity to act tempered by their handlers and consumed by intellectually pressing issues such as regulating rental properties, appealing a court ruling so that a handful of rich people can park their yachts near rich people’s mansions and enabling canines to defecate in city parks. Even the looming budget death-knell is approached one-dimensionally, the cost-cutting/more taxes juggernaut venue seemingly the only tactic available to the rulers.

For those of us that actually exercise the First Amendment, we know that it is our right and obligation to petition the government for a redress of grievances. For you see, the less you exercise these liberties, the more authority the government has over you. And since Jeffersonian democracy has morphed into a kleptocracy, governing agencies today are but shills for the syndicates of special interests – none of which represent the individual. Ergo we radicals, namely those that repeatedly exercise their duty, are the last vestiges of a true representative form of government dedicated to reversing the ominous metamorphosis.

Clearly, ours has been a Sisyphusian task, the mountain being a government sold and bought by special interests, the boulder being the vast bureaucracies we pushed, begged and deplored to uphold the law. Every incursion into the netherworld of law enforcement was met with an odd combination of acknowledging the crimes while expressing remorse for not prosecuting same – except for the localized policia since they were in on the scams.

But that does not mean we should quit. Or similarly that we should waste the only resource we can not buy by singing Kumbaya to the “new” council, and therefore implicitly support the continuation of past practices albeit more pleasantly. Sans a sound plan by which to further one’s beliefs, the next best course is to do nothing, the absolute worst course is to support those that further the slide away from virtue, honesty and integrity in upholding all tenets of our waning constitutional freedoms and protections.

It is unclear as to what those that now “support” the new council are supporting. It is unclear what is being praised by those that are now crooning Kumbaya. It is unclear exactly what has changed (post the landslide) in quantifiable terms that not only addresses past transgressions but ensures that they never recur. It is unclear what we are compromising and why. It is unclear why we all need to “just get along.” Namely, it is unclear why we should “support” the new council.

Convince yourself that “If we are surrounded by the trivial and the vicious, it is all too easy to make our peace with it.”

As the French sociologist Gustave Le Bon aptly noted, countries have an inherent penchant to surrender their traditions thereby self-destruct by creating chaos in the process. This tendency comes from drowning their moral compass via crowd-think so anything goes because now the goal is “compromise” and “reach across the aisle” and “let’s just put it behind us” and “work with the new council” – as opposed to … how about upholding the rule of law by demanding a forensic audit and demanding an independent investigation and demanding an environmental impact study and demanding the prosecution of civil rights abuses and demanding that toxic substances never be introduced into our environment ever again and … and … and …?

And since the latest deal from the shuffled deck won’t do these things voluntarily or otherwise, then exactly why are we intoning Kumbaya?

You compromise on the rule of law, especially with those that took it for a ride and you are finished – literally. Just ask any immigrant from a communist country lest you doubt the finality of compromising virtue and moderating the pursuit of justice.

Is one a radical for being uncompromising and intolerant for not moderating one’s beliefs and therefore for not bowing to the temporary inhabitants of the mecca at 50 Bald Eagle Dr.? Absolutely, and proudly so.

For after all, in the words of Barry Goldwater “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

So, other than demanding to do the right thing from those whose interests are appreciably regulated by the syndicate, where do we go from here? Where do we go without compromising virtue, honesty, integrity, without giving up on demanding the rule of law and never backing away from the extremism that is our duty without moderation in pursuit of these demands? Namely, what do we do until satisfied that all transgressions of the near past are vetted?

Let’s try this tact from the sage of the ages … “The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are!”

The untroubled spirit will derive such initiatives as an economic revitalization plan, a property tax abatement initiative for all residents, an initiative to recover the approximately $40 million a year of the island’s residents’ money that vanishes in the abortion that is the public school system, an environmental protection commission, a high school for educational excellence with free adult continuing education for all residents, and, and, and, … and a plethora of other initiatives that could be worked on concurrently by qualified citizen volunteers.

As we know them for who they are, those temporarily empowered by the latest election will not conceive such strategies nor drive these initiatives.

For after all, they are being serenaded with Kumbaya.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Friday, April 18, 2008

Florida's Jurisprudence

(As Related to Marco Island)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Monday, April 14, 2008

Scam Alert

As if the events of the last years were not enough to disgust you and send you screaming from the Island for good, the following true story should finally convince you as to the basis of the exodus that is making the Egyptians proud.

There is a health care “professional” – no not a D.O. for you syndicate lovers – that scams unsuspecting patients using the following technique.

You seek health services from this health care “professional” (HC”P”) and as part of the “new patient” routine the HC”P” asks for your insurance card. You naively and innocently provide the card but alert the HC”P” that your insurance does not cover the services of this type of HC”P”. The HC”P” responds with “no problem, we just need it for our records – it’s the law!”.

In light of the fact that your insurance does NOT cover the services of this HC”P”, the HC”P” requires that you sign a form that states quite clearly “PAYMENT IS DUE WHEN SERVICES RENDERED”. Naturally, you sign the form.

So now you go to the HC”P”. Every time you visit the HC”P”, you are presented with a bill, which you pay. Regardless of the amount, you pay what you are asked to pay every time you visit the HC”P”.

No problem, right?

Well, after about a year or 18 months you get either a demand letter or a lawsuit. For what?

Well, the HC”P” has billed your insurance company – you know, the insurance company that does not cover this type of HC”P” – for the difference of what you have paid and some utterly arbitrary amount. The insurance company – that you may or may not still have given the time that has gone by – correctly denied the charges. Now the HC”P” is coming after you for the difference.

You protest. You argue that you signed a contract that states “PAYMENT IS DUE WHEN SERVICES RENDERED” and paid anything and everything presented to you. You argue that you informed the HC”P” that your insurance company does not cover the services of the HC”P”. You argue that it makes no sense as to why the HC”P” kept treating you for years when you owed so much money? Then you recall that you NEVER SIGNED THE AUTHORIZATION – as required by law – for the HC”P” to bill your insurance company! Aha!! You shout – you got ‘em! But the HC”P” completed the authorization form for you – “as a courtesy to our patients” they claim. But, but, but, but, … “its not signed by me” you scream – the HC”P” had no authority to charge your insurance company, thereby proving that it was all a fraud. And by the way, you inquire, from where did these arbitrary amounts come from – why weren’t you provided with a rate sheet? You argue the account stated legal doctrine. You argue the estoppel legal doctrine.

Irrelevant – all irrelevant. You could argue these facts with the HC”P” or with Collier County trial judges until the asbestos damage manifests itself or the hydrogen sulfide effects have dissipated or until the syndicate gets indicted (never) – its all I.R.R.E.L.E.V.A.N.T.

Incredibly, what is clearly a scam is all legal! If you don’t believe that it’s legal then you haven’t been paying attention for the last two-plus years as to the corruption and ineptitude of the Collier County “justice” and their cohorts in several state agencies. Recall that anyone directly or indirectly associated with the syndicate is above the law. And if you don’t play ball with the good ‘ol boys, forget about seeking justice – you’ll have a better chance obtaining justice in Tibet as a Buddhist monk.

Protect yourself from this scam from the unscrupulous HC”P”. When you visit a HC”P” and your insurance does not cover that type of “service”, pay by cheque and on the back of the cheque write “Payment in full for any and all services rendered on (date goes here). No other monies due.”

Or think of yourself as an Israelite and join the exodus.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Friday, April 11, 2008

How Negative

Imagine the gall of this establishment - to go out of business after the majority electing a slate with no vision (economic or otherwise) other than to "be positive"! And to claim that they are closed "for ever" - how un-positive!

Couldn't this business - and many others like it and many more to come - just "be positive" and hung around despite losing money?

Why can't these business and individuals fleeing Syndicate Island simply understand that by just
"being positive" there are no problems, there is plenty of commerce, there is Shangri-La?

Seriously, is losing money that important, is doing business in a one-dimensional market with a zero-dimensional government, that bad?

How negative of some people.




(click to enlarge - images from a local {former} establishment)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Friday, April 04, 2008

The Ultimate Oxymoron

As related to the parking lot fiasco, the ultimate oxymoron ...

A gentleman's agreement with Rony Joel

4 Comments:

  • Yes I would have to agree, the doctor is not much of a gentleman.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:42:00 AM  

  • Yes, anonymous, and you are ignorant of high school English. But that's the way it is with lying politicians. The way the original comment was written Rony Joel is the referred
    to "gentleman" in question. And you know it.
    H. Sarlo

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:09:00 PM  

  • H. Sarlo, just what does a gentleman's agreement between the good doctor and the city have to do with Mr. Joel. It was the doctor who broke the gentleman's agreement not the city and definitely not Rony Joel.

    So again, "I would have to agree, the doctor is not much of a gentleman."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, April 06, 2008 9:48:00 AM  

  • There was not is still is no Contract with the Doctor by the City. This man donated a very valuable piece of land to make it possible to build this police building with it,s new Council Meeting Place. We owe it to him to try to have the Council work out some fair contract with him about using his parking lot during evening meetings without filling his parking lot during the business hours that all of the doctors in this building require for their own patients. Did the City build this building without enough parking for the public at their meetings ?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:03:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home