Free Republic

Mark,
Yes, I am the person that wrote the article. I have now gored the sacred Led Zeppelin horse. Sorry everyone, Zep was great in many ways but today, 40 years later, they are no longer an example of a cool band.....................

MarkL,
Happy to see that you are respecting the free republic rules about not calling names. Your inability to disagree with someone with personal attacks shows how week your grasp of adult discourse is.
I never said that Led Zeppelin wasn’t popular. Being popular does not equal being cool. Yes Zeppelin was cooler than Kiss but not as cool as The Velvet Underground or Iggy and the Stooges.

As for knowing nothing about music you are wildly off base. Since you challenge my competence concerning music I will list SOME of my resume:
Own over 10,000 vinyl LPs, 8000 CDs and have a barn full of 2inch Master tapes from the RECORDING STUDIO I OWN AND OPERATE
aged 7-21 played classical piano and jazz piano
aged 19-23 Disc Jockey (very successful by the way)
aged 20 produced my first record
Aged twenty two - opened my first of three record labels.

All three labels had remarkable successes, including something called “gold and Platinum records”
Toured professionally as a guitarist and organist for about 15 years
produced over seventy records
Study music composition in college ( it was my minor)wrote a few hundred things called “songs” I could continue but I am not sure you are qualified to read the books or would know what “RIAA Rock Producer of the year means.
Since you have mounted the throne of judgment I would love to hear your music qualifications. Let’s hear it buddy....

Deadrock,
Just google Led Zeppelin and plagiarism and you will find enough proof to convince anyone that the band stole the bulk of their songs.

Ok Skypilot I can see that you weren’t old enough to experience Led Zeppelin during the seventies. They were, in fact, just another band. They were great in many ways but there were many other bands that were more influential and more successful. Sorry about the typo. We all make mistakes, even Led Zeppelin made a serious mistake when they claimed to have written all of their songs only to be sued and forced to admit they stole the songs. I’ll admit that I like Led Zeppelin’s catalog. And you are correct Kashmir may not be stolen.

Sorry Skeeter but you are wrong about Led Zeppelin’s being honest about stealing their songs. On all of the original albums they listed themselves as the writers. As a result they were sued a number of times by the original writers/estates and lost. Part of the settlements forced the band to admit they were not the original writers.

Catherine,
Sorry about the acendency thing. I should spell check more carefully.................

A yes, you're unable to criticize without personal ad hominem attacks and name calling. The fact is that I am not a Lady Gaga fan as you suppose. I believe I am fully qualified to cool Led Zeppelin uncool. I spent twenty five years as a professional rock n roll manager, record label OWNER and record producer as well as being a recording artist. I have produced over seventy albums including a few little bands like THE CURE, SUGARCUBES and PHISH. As a result it's likely that I am more qualified to both understand and explain what defines cool music.

I'll start by mentioning that I saw Led Zeppelin at Madison Square garden for two of the three nights during the Song Remains the same. Oh la, ain't I cool. They were good, almost great. John Paul Johns and John Bonham were the voice of the Norse Gods. Page was in top form and Plant couldn't hit the high notes. Those shows were Led Zeppelin in their prime. What most of the later generations of music fans don't seem to understand is that Led Zeppelin was just another band. They were not the Beatles. They were not the beginning and end of rock. I have seen hundreds of rock shows. Led Zeppelin was just another band, in fact, they stole every song they recorded.

Today's headlines has the humiliating news that ex President (thank the lord for that) Bill Clinton attempting to step in to use his "influence" to pressure Led Zeppelin to reunite to play a benefit to aid the victims of hurricane Sandy. The band said no. I imagine, and I have a strong reality based imagination, that the band laughed themselves silly. Bill Clinton is not cool. He has never been cool. Well, he may have been considered cool by legions of nerds and mainstream Americans that are, in themselves, not in any way cool. Bill Clinton isn't cool. His supporters aren't cool and in many ways Led Zeppelin is no longer cool.

The more interesting point is Bill Clinton's inability to accept that the proper thing for an ex President to do is fade into the background. Since he is a rampant narcissist he naturally assumes that in addition to exporting all the jobs in America, bringing peace to the middle east and finally making Serbs and Croats love each other he will remake Rock history. It needs to be said, Bill Clinton is a putz. He has never been cool, he never will be cool and his taste in music is just one of the many confirmations of this fact. Unfortunately, being a NARCICIST he suffers from a complete inability to be self reflective. Now we, the American people, are going to suffer as we watch him continue to cheapen the real perception of the American Presidency. The mystique and tangible respect of the position of the President of the Republic of America is the product of 216 years of work by American Presidents. Sadly a man with as little substance as Bill Clinton will pour part of this important faith and respect down the drain in an effort to prove to himself that he is still the center of the universe.

There is no question that politician are, as a class, narcissists. But there is ego and there is narcissism. They are not the same thing. Bill Clinton's flaws run deep, frighteningly deep. One of the great unanswered questions of recent political history is why Bill Clinton's impeachment trial was conducted in secrecy. What dreadful things was the Senate hiding from us? The question, when viewed against one of the most scandal plagued administrations ever to control the White House. The possible answers are all bad, really truly, bad in ways that effect history. It appears that this man, this ex President, will never willingly leave the stage. His flaws compel him to the limelight and the damage he is doing to America's respect is real and tangible. Perhaps America needs to consider a banishment amendment to the constitution.....

©Brad Morrison 2013/Billiken Media

I apologize for posting it twice. I do not have that much experience with posting on Free Republic. As for the post being a waste of time, perhaps over the course of the next few years, we may see this minor problem as a leading indicator............

Heartland,
I will comment further to say that your immediate trust in the great institution of Wells Fargo smells suspiciously of blind faith.
I was with my friend when he discovered the stamps and I heard his report when he returned from the bank branch. Also you might try googling wells fargo atm and stamps and you will discover that the banks ATM sells stamps.... then you MAY understand that it’s all true

This story is true in its basic facts. My friend received 13 twenties and two books of stamps. When he returned to Wells Fargo they told him that he would need to file a claim form with the main corporate office. They also admitted that the ATM had done this on a number of recent occasions.
For your info the branch was Wells Fargo,1000 Northeast Central Avenue Seaside Park, NJ 08752
(732) 830-2200
This story is not fiction. I certainly spruced up the story telling to try to be funny but the bank ATM was issuing Stamps instead of money.

Let's watch and find out. All I know is sometimes it all seems to come together for me and I seem to know what they are up to. The night that Bill Clinton was elected the first time I bet four lawyer/associates of mine that he would be impeached. Needless to say I was correct. I am not Nostradamus but I gotta say things are starting to look like Hillary is making a move..................

Here it is, the night before the midterm elections and it all makes sense. As usual the comfort of deep reading of dusty old histories has brought to this feeling of comfort, of familiarity, of the love of an old pair of shoes, left and right - coup d etat and planned chaos.

Obama, or should I say Barry boy, is circling the wagons and boy is the circle really small. In fact it has shrunk to a solid wall of Secret Service men and, perhaps, his wife and daughter. (Notice I am not counting the dog - Biden. That is his name isn't it?) Here we go Hillary, 9000 miles away is moving for power. Her husband, her current agent provocateur is blissfully tramping around the country burying elections right and left, well mainly left.

This election, thanks to Alvin the chipmunk Gore, will once again be far from final. The vote rigging, packed voter rolls, electronic hacking of the brand new, federally mandated voting computers, voter intimidation by unionistas will just be the start of an election that is likely to be nullified. Poor us, we are, finally, ready to stand up and say "enough" and here they have settled it all without our noticing since we were so consumed with worrying about the placement of a mosque and the sad fiction of us actually being given something (healthcare) for nothing. (pronounced every damn dime left in circulation)

Friends, Hillary is making her move. Watch her go. Watch it on The View. Watch it in your imagination. Your imagination? Yes, perhaps we all may be cut off from media as it all goes down. When the dust clears, in January, and the election is finally over we will discover that the lame ducks have nailed our coffin shut. I just printed out a list of the current members of Congress. I am posting it next to my 1959 Playboy calendar. I will look at it occasionally to remind myself of the names of the traitors.

Now, a comment to the powerful. Hillary might want to remember that Octavian, later known, as Augustus was not Caesar. He wasn't second in line. He wasn't the guy (or girl) that was passed over. He came out of the third string. He was one of the talented partisans that used the chaos of a struggle for power to eliminate everyone and leave himself the last man standing. And then, he had talent. Tons, and tons of talent. Does that describe anyone in the current picture?....I thought not.....

Just thought I would mention it all was about to come unglued............................

The Gadsden flag is once again waving over this great country of ours. Throughout America's history this flag has flown at many critical moments. It has flown over the decks of the newly minted US Navy as one of the first "jacks" as frigates stood out to sea to stand up to the Barbary Pirates. When the first Marine companies were mustered their yellow marching drums were painted with the motto and the figure of the coiled serpent. The idea, and the spirit of the flag has come down to us with a wonderful, stirring pedigree. Now, once again the flag waves. It waves over the heads of our generation's patriots. But, it's apparent, that it doesn't point the way.

While the Gadsden flag is an important anchor for the anti-tax movement, and, unquestionably it reiterates a valuable message, that the government should be cautious before it acts in any way against the wishes of a people who are guaranteed a republican form of government, it fails in one important way. It fails to tell us what the next step is. It fails to give us a message that is uniquely our own. That is to say a message that speaks to the fact that this new american revolution needs slogans that show members of the movement and more importantly those that we are confronting what are our core values.

The current Tea Party movement has a solid basis in the values and writings of the founding fathers. The actions of the Tea Party rallies are a visible manifestation of the first Amendment which is, at its base, a demonstration of our common law. This is the heart of what the Tea Party is doing, demonstrating our rights, the rights that are embodied in our common law. The rights that are the structure of our common law view of the universe as seen through the lens of our unique American vision.

Common Law, a system that is unique to English and American jurisprudence, is a summation of the people's view of rights, privileges and duties. Certainly this view has been tempered and recast by the needs and demands of the ruling elite but the system, nonetheless, is a goldmine of pickets and ammunition for anyone looking to protect and resuscitate freedom.

If you flip casually through Blackstone or Hogue you will come across a concept in common law that is ready-made for the Tea Party movement. This concept is summed up by the Latin phrase "In Loco Parentis". Like many tenants of common law it is a concept that seems constructed out of the most basic philosophical common sense. Once it is outlined it has the ironclad aroma of virtue and morality. As a legal concept it lacks only the colorful sophistry that is so often draped over modern legal scholarship as it strains to strip the most common of us of our basic rights, morality and responsibilities.

For me the newest incarnation of "In Loco Parentis" moved from a dusty page in Blackstone to a vibrant living sword of justice during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. It wasn't long after the sordid activities of the President came to dominate the news that I first heard a legal scholar stumble onto the phrase as they struggled to outline the connection between the immorality of the President's actions and the legal implications. My faulty memory credits Judge Napolitano on Chris Mathews' Hardball with reviving the phrase. His attempt to explain to the logically bankrupt Mathews why it actually was a violation of the law for a President, an authority figure, to misuse the trust placed in him by the young lady's parents.

"In essence, under the law, the President is expected to stand in the parent's shoes and is expected to protect and nurture this young person and his actions are a complete betrayal of the trust placed in him. In the common law this concept is called In Loco Parentis." Now I am the first to admit that this quote is a complete fabrication from my dicey memory. It may not have been Judge Napolitano at all, it may have been Hulk Hogan or Hunter Thompson I don't recall but I do remember that during these debates the phrase was once again used as a legal argument.

Now I find myself searching for the correct explanation and justification for the coming actions of the Tea PArty and this phrase once again provides a solid bridge between the morality of our situation and the structure of the law.

In Loc Parentis - translation - In the Shoes of our fathers or, perhaps, to hold the seat of the Mother/Father. Blackstone in Book One, chapter sixteen while discussing the common law and its relation to the father and the child discusses a father's "empire" and "dominion". He outlines the manners in which a parent may assign these rights.... "Yet, till that age arrives, this empire of the father continues even after his death ; for he may by his will appoint a guardian to his children. He may also delegate part of his parental authority. during his life, to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child ; who is then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the power of the parent committed to his charge, viz. that of restraint and correction, as may be necessary to answer the purposes for which he is employed."

Like all of Blackstone's discussions and, in fact, the majority of common law, the concept is broad and implies protections and responsibilities. The historical cases that have been used as precedent in courts ancient and modern, English and American are clear. When a person, an adult or citizen finds themselves by the totality of circumstances to be burdened with the role of the parent or guardian of a minor then the common law expects and demands that the person shall excercise that office with the full force and authority of the parent. Further the adult or citizen is afforded the protections that are traditionally given to a parent. Like the concept of the Good Samaritan, the person's free will and choice is tempered by the necessity to protect the minor, the necessity to safeguard the minor's well being. This concept makes sense with a deep uncluttered clarity. An infant crawls towards a precipice. You have the power to stop it, must you? Of course you must. This is not a standard instance of negligence it goes much further than that concrete, property based rules of commercial law.

This brings us to the crossroads that confronts the Tea Party. As I have mentioned the Gasden flag has its place. We could certainly bring back the Pine Tree flag or the flag of South Carolina but these symbols have their place and it is firmly in the struggle to create our republic during the 18th century. Any symbol or slogan from the war of independence we adopt for the Tea Party will serve only to remind us of the tradition of organizing and acting to protect our rights. The Tea Party needs to introduce and display slogans and symbols that show us and others why we are doing what we are doing. Slogans serve to inspire and to educate. They serve as rallying cries and as mottos to clarify our vision. In this In Loco Parentis comes to us at a time of need. It is a de facto explanation of our authority under the common law to do what we are doing.

It is plain that the Tea party stands in the shoes of the founding fathers. The founding fathers willed to us a constitutional republic. The republic is a child that is powerless to defend itself from the predation and potential destruction at the hands of an out of control Federal Buracracy. It is clear that the common law demands that all citizens defend the republic and through its defense defend our inalienable rights. Herein lies our authority to stand up to the Federal Government. Herein lies our moral and legal argument to withhold our taxes until a full redress of our grievances. If there is any question that this is the intent of the framers of the constitution then their extant writings reiterate and summarize their expectations that future generations must protect the constitution.

I'm certain that the next Tea Party rally will see a forest of Gadsen "Don't tread on me" flags blowing in the breeze. It is a strong wind indeed that sets these flags fluttering. Now we need to state our legal argument to those who are silly enough to stand in our way. We need to fly the flag "In Loco Parentis". We need to take up the chant "In Loco Parentis" because this explains why we have the right to do as we do, tradition, after all, is on our side. Perhaps the symbol of a child's small hand in the palm of a parent's hand is the image for such a flag, I know not, I only know that when I attempt to explain why the members of the Tea Party are called to do what they do this concept of common law seems to be the logical justification.

Tell your friends, better yet, tell those that oppose us.....................In Loco Parentis.

What is a blog pimp?

As you have noticed I am new to FR. Although I have been writing content that would fit here for a long time. I have little interest in analyzing or mocking Weiner’s sexual preference unless it some dovetails with understanding his future behavior. (Look I think I spelled Behavior correctly)

I was unaware that he was engaged to one of Hillary’s sycophants. That is interesting and valuable information.

Thanks Red Steel, now that is interesting. No enforcement?!! This posits two queries:
What is the managerial plan and functional intent of the 17,000 new hires.
How long will this null zone of non collection for non compliance continue before they explain to us the necessity of releasing the dogs?

Yes, I am a newby and don’t know the rules. I also don’t understand all the acronyms. I’m trying to learn. As for copyright, since this commentary appears on my personal blog, which is copyrighted I just threw in what seemed appropriate....what are the traditions here? Is there a link to some basic ground rules for FR?

This weekend the talk show programs were buzzing about an interchange between Congressman Weiner and Bill O'Reilly. The essence of the interchange centered around O'Reilly trying to force a mysteriously reluctant Weiner to admit that the enforcement agency in the new health care bill was the IRS. Weiner ducked and dodged and, in the end, refused to admit that IRS was going to pursue people who didn't purchase health care insurance.

During the on air interview on Fox the Congressman flat-out refused to admit that in the new bill the IRS were designated as the agency of enforcement. According to all press reports (I do not yet have a copy of the bill) the bill states this fact in plain language. Why would the Congressman refuse to admit this fact? Why would he be so unnaturally reluctant to split hairs over the provisions of the bill, the usual defense of scoundrel politicians? If you haven't heard the interview check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yzDbnMY4hg

He seems to be determined to achieve one purpose, and that is to say that the health care law has nothing to do with the IRS. O 'Reilly has a valid question, if someone refuses to comply with this new law how will it be enforced? Which agency will do the dirty work? Will a park ranger from the Dept. of the Interior turn up at your door? Will it be an ATF agent? One of the President's Secret Service Detail? Perhaps it's a Capitol Hill cop. Congressman Weiner refused to answer. He flat-out refused. This is kind of mysterious. I'll propose a plain explanation of the mystery.

If you watch the clip closely Weiner's act is largely convincing. Certainly he didn't agree to an interview with O'Reilly without knowing that in the wake of the Congress and the President passing a gargantuan change in the law against the will of the American People that O'Reilly would attempt to highlight the most controversial aspects of the bill. Further we can assume that he agreed to the interview for the purpose of advancing his own agenda.

During the clip he spits out a few, odd facts but largely passes on the following message to the staunch supporters of the left. "That's a lie!" he bleats repeatedly to any question O'Reilly asks. Then in a B Movie over rehearsed attempt at keeping his anger in check he bemoans the difficulty to being interviewed by someone spouting lies. His anger though is deep and it is real. When he looks to the right, freeze the image. Lowered lids...rage, it's in there somewhere... at who? Bill O' Reilly? No, like all insiders O'Reilly is a cocktail party annointed one, assumed to be part of the club. So where is his rage focused?

"There is an enormous amount of things that opponents of the health care bill that are just lies. just lies. I'll say that again, just lies."

Was he worried that we hadn't heard him call everyone on our side of the divide liars? I think not. Instead I believe that he knew the interview would be contentious and as a result be replayed as a sound byte for days afterwards. His accusations, that critics of congress and the new health care law are fabricating grand lies will resonate with members of the left nationwide and will serve to short-circuit possible debate and exchange of ideas. But this is just a secondary purpose behind his statements.

Congressman Weiner is a professional liar. He is very good at it but his face betrays with micro indicators on his face. Watch the clip and watch for his eyebrows to rise and quickly arch together. It's a classic indicator of passing a lie. Now pay strict attention to what he is saying when they happen. (I have to admit that there is some demonic pleasure in using the latest behavioural science against those that seek to appoint themselves at the top of a behavioural modification system of oppression)

More disturbing is the truthful information that he offers as a non sequitur. If you watch the whole clip he makes no statements with any content other than protesting that he is not being allowed to talk or saying the Mr. O Reilly's questions are lies. Then suddenly he's offering us factual information not related to any question and it's as a response to the pressure of being repeatedly questioned.

"Right now we have an 88% compliance rate with all elements of the tax code. Requirements, sanctions, everything it's the highest in the world. Ninety Seven.." At this point O'Reilly cuts him off to ask "What about the other twelve percent." This is the key to his whole appearance on Fox. What does the tax code compliance have to do with the new Health Care system that has been written into law? Why was this factoid and number right there in the front of his mind during a debate over health care and compliance with the new federally based system? The immediate and easy comment would be to think that the congressman was about to make some platitudinous comment about a rosy future where the population, down to the last vagabond under a trestle, will rush to sign up to Obamacare. I think there is a much darker and more logical explanation.

Here is where Rep. Weiner looks to the right. (ironic huh?) and O'Reilly says " What about the other 12%? The IRS get's them if they don't pay the taxes, ask Wesley Snipes." Freeze frame again. Rage, lowered eyelids, jaw muscles flexing involuntarily. deep seated rage at those that are not paying.

An 88% compliance ratio for the IRS? A decade ago it was 97%. These nine points are a remarkable shift in the behaviour of the population. Statistically action by a large population in the very high nineties signifies general social compliance and the small 2,3 4 % of the balance is usually attributed to the standard remnant of any population that reject a large social trend. For example there are households that have never bought into electrification or telephones. This is the way humans behave and without a Stasi style campaign employing every third person as an operative and brutal coercion the holdouts will remain.

Using the same yardstick a 9% shift in any core behaviour by a large population is extremely significant. Assuming the taxpaying base at 138 million that translates to 12,420,000 people who have moved into non compliance in the past decade, a decade if you listen to the mainstream government rhetoric,that was one of prosperity. Further it must be noted that social swings like this usually do not stabilize at the 9% mark. Many statistical modelling theorists have noted that social trends have a tendency to stabilize around the following null points of stability; 20% 45%, 60% 80-83% and finally 96-97% the point we started with in tax code compliance. This is not a linear scale model these points can be stabilizing points in either the growth of social acceptance or the rejection of social behaviours. They just seem to be, for some unknown reason, points of stability that occur frequently. You may be asking where I am going with all this, please read on because the balance of the story comes from other quarters.

Is American taxpaying behaviour shifting towards a 20% compliance statistic? Or more frighteningly 45% non compliance? Where is it going. I won't bother to ask why I will just state that this was the inevitable result of decades of oppressive, creeping universal taxation.

My experience and knowledge of anecdotal evidence points to a growing number of people who find themselves in an untenable position and in desperation drop off the radar, with the intent to find a solution. The system is set up to pile on fines, punishments etc the further you venture into non compliance. For most people, sadly, once outside the system it's difficult to return to compliance.

So now we can go back to Congressman Weiner. (I've got to comment at some point in this article that anyone raised with a surname that invites mockery must inevitably harbor a massive insecurity problem and as a result be extremely dangerous if trusted with any power) The interview with Bill O'Reilly centered around non compliance and the congressman ducked, dodged, blustered and fumed while never answering with any substance his question about the IRS. News reports cite that the new health bill will start out by adding 17,000 new IRS agents. That's a hell of a lot of IRS agents.

So let's sum up. The Government has just stuffed a monumental new entitlement down the throats of an unwilling population. Tax compliance is dropping for the first time in modern history and it's dropping fast. An angry citizen has just performed a Kamikaze attack on the IRS. (he reportedly was a democrat) The government has added 17,000 new IRS attack dogs. Government spokesmen are refusing to answer questions about the methodology of enforcing compliance on an unwilling population. And finally, the last puzzle piece, the new health care law insures that the Federal Government will count every head, locate and gain some measure of control over every single last citizen from the cradle to the grave. Feel free to discount or discard my over analysis of his inner thoughts and the facts still add up to a frightening possibility.

Behind closed doors the Government has screamed CRY HAVOC! AND LET SLIP THE IRS DOGS OF WAR!!! Is it any wonder that they are refusing to answer, using obfuscation, denying, lying, burying the facts in 2700 page unreleased legalese and moving in the dark of night? Does Weiner's behaviour make more sense from this angle? It does to me.

Since Oklahoma City our government has been running scared. In their arrogance they never imagined that they might be subject to retribution from anyone in our country no matter how unsavory their actions.Historically this is a common mistake of oppressive governance. Since the Oklahoma tragedy they have been quietly circling the wagons.They've instituted various schemes to locate and identify us, they've expanded domestic surveillance and hammered significant cracks into our protection from search and seizure, the sight of routine traffic stops have become standard viewing for the average american, they are about to add national ID's all this while the only threats we can all see are far beyond our borders. We do not see the threat that our government sees extremely clearly, us.

So I watch in the interview with Weiner and a chill runs down my spine. I tuck my two small children in tighter. Coincidentally, while watching Star Wars for the first time my seven-year old daughter asked what a rebel was. I told her that the rebels in Star Wars were people fighting against bad men that wouldn't let them be free.

"We're Free!" she bubbled enthusiastically.

"In some ways we are honey." was my reply as a knot grew in my gut. "For now..."

The current administration and congress haven't finished remaking America and forcing us to choose sides. It's sickening to watch. They are far from finished taxing us even though the recent collapse was arguably the result of decades of oppressive taxation on a once vibrant, optimistic country. What happened to "it's dawn in America." ? Well it's been taxed into poverty. Where can they possibly imagine the money will come to pay the next wave of crushing taxes? I'll tell you where, our grocery bags, the medical profession's cash flow, cap and trade, a VAT and finally new entitlement excused payroll taxes.

Congressman Weiner you better not answer the questions...........................................

© ciceroqpublic contact ciceroqpublicATyahoo.com

Sorry, I am wholly unfamiliar with Bump for Later. In the world I come from BFL was the common acronym for Big Fat Liar..................