What Would Jefferson Say?

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
I think they failed to comply when they were told something by a cop. You can think the cop is wrong, but you better do what they say. Sue later.

Good thing our founders did not think this way. :wink2:

Seriously every cop in DC seems to treat everyone like they are trying to invade the white house. When I read the Constitution I do not get the feeling our founders wanted us to live in a police state. They seemed to want to restrain the government and their agents and give the benefit of the doubt to the citizens of this nation.
 
Good thing our founders did not think this way. :wink2:

Seriously every cop in DC seems to treat everyone like they are trying to invade the white house. When I read the Constitution I do not get the feeling our founders wanted us to live in a police state. They seemed to want to restrain the government and their agents and give the benefit of the doubt to the citizens of this nation.

Did you really see that attitude in the video? I didn't see that. I saw an officer calmly talking to people (at first) that were violating the law and was initially trying to just get them to stop. That's hardly the kind of situation you described. What would you have the officers do, just tell them to stop and then ignore the failure to comply with the law?

I won't argue the merits of the law, it's the law at this time and the officers are sworn to enforce the laws, it's that simple. Now if this law is unconstitutional, these "demonstrators" have the opportunity to get the ALCU to take it to court for them. Who knows maybe they can get the law thrown out.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
I still cant tell if I like this guy or not...... you know something we dont WK.....?

If an atheist stood up and said:

One thing we could do that would lead to a better society would be to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us!
Now this is a variation of the words of Jesus found in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them". So here's an atheist advocating a first principle used by Jesus so do you just accept in this situation you share common ground or do you question he might have another angle?

BTW: I've heard several committed atheists who share in the belief of the golden rule and quite frankly I see them living that first principle far better than most christians do. Should we therefore question the motive and angle of most christians?

To learn more about Adam Kokesh, google his name, do the research and judge him for yourself but remember this, "judge not lest ye be judged!"

:peaceful:
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member

Did you really see that attitude in the video? I didn't see that.


No, I do not base my opinion on a video as they tend to be on their best behavior when they know they are being filmed. I have had the opportunity to go to DC a few times in the last couple of years.
 
No, I do not base my opinion on a video as they tend to be on their best behavior when they know they are being filmed. I have had the opportunity to go to DC a few times in the last couple of years.
Pretty sure we have all met cops like you described, I know I have but on the other hand I have met even more that are good guys and gals until you commit a crime and defy their authority.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
If an atheist stood up and said:

Now this is a variation of the words of Jesus found in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them". So here's an atheist advocating a first principle used by Jesus so do you just accept in this situation you share common ground or do you question he might have another angle?

BTW: I've heard several committed atheists who share in the belief of the golden rule and quite frankly I see them living that first principle far better than most christians do. Should we therefore question the motive and angle of most christians?

To learn more about Adam Kokesh, google his name, do the research and judge him for yourself but remember this, "judge not lest ye be judged!"

:peaceful:
I have googled him and looked at shows, interviews, etc. I still couldnt tell; that's why I commented. One moment Im wathcing and nodding in agreement. The next I cup my face in my hands and shake my head...lol
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Saturday's Dance Party @ TJ's

[video=youtube;E5nJIx8CA8I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5nJIx8CA8I&feature=relmfu[/video]
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
I would like to know the real catalyst to this whole mess.

In April 2008 on Jefferson's Birthday, a group of about 20 folks at midnight went to the Jefferson Memorial to celebrate the birthday of TJ. The memorial is open 24/7 and at midnight, the place is typically vacant as it was that night. Each member of the group had their own ipod and earphones so noise was not a factor and at midnight they started to dance around the memorial. At some point a park service officer asked the group to leave, that authority was questioned and it went downhill from there. One of the group, Brooke Oberwetter was arrested and thus the saga began. All charges were later dropped against Oberwetter but she sued in Federal Court for false arrest and the courts dismissed the case. The final ruling that terminated the case was earlier this year and thus new action you see taking place.

I don't know this for sure but I would think that with the original group some thought had to have been given to the fact that a confrontation would come about. Whether that was the intent I can't say and I'm sure there will be those here who will draw that conclusion regardless and I may or may not join them. I guess the real question would be, why someone, even if it looks ridiculous, would be prevented from dancing in public when in the case of the midnight group and not a soul other than them was there, no one or nothing was harmed or disrupted by someone dancing. I know it's easy to blame the officer but did he even have any authority to think and consider alternative ways of handling this or is it like any other topdown power hierarchy and officers are told it will be like this and nothing else. Not knowing the full operational methods of the officer, the best approach would have been to make sure no one or nothing was harmed and let the midnight dancers have their fun. If the group was out for a confrontation, they'd get no satisfaction and thus depart and likely not return. If the object was to just dance, again they'd be left happy and the officer could smile, thank them for coming and wish them a wonderful evening. Geez, where do you go with that?

No I don't believe this is only about doing disco for TJ but it's about challenging power and authority and it comes down to a simple question of, What kind of country do we really have when you can't dance in public? When people were dancing out in front of the White House when OBL was killed, why was that allowed? Or what if a large group of people had gathered in Washington Mall to dance when GW announced "Mission Accomplished?" Barrack Obama being elected? If Obama is defeated in 2012' will dancing be allowed then as I'm sure many here will want to shake a leg? So dancing is only allowed when it serves a State purpose? In history, I wonder what other nationstates and leaders only allowed dancing and celebration when it only served State purposes?

Here's a link and some vids of the original event and you are free to decide for yourself.

Tourist, To my knowledge, no one was arrested this past Saturday as the Park Service just closed the memorial and cleared the area. As I understand it, everyone complied with those instructions from the Park Service officers. As to the arrests from the previous dance party, all were later released and no charges filed as I understand it. Venture to say this isn't over yet!
 
In April 2008 on Jefferson's Birthday, a group of about 20 folks at midnight went to the Jefferson Memorial to celebrate the birthday of TJ. The memorial is open 24/7 and at midnight, the place is typically vacant as it was that night. Each member of the group had their own ipod and earphones so noise was not a factor and at midnight they started to dance around the memorial. At some point a park service officer asked the group to leave, that authority was questioned and it went downhill from there. One of the group, Brooke Oberwetter was arrested and thus the saga began. All charges were later dropped against Oberwetter but she sued in Federal Court for false arrest and the courts dismissed the case. The final ruling that terminated the case was earlier this year and thus new action you see taking place.

I don't know this for sure but I would think that with the original group some thought had to have been given to the fact that a confrontation would come about. Whether that was the intent I can't say and I'm sure there will be those here who will draw that conclusion regardless and I may or may not join them. I guess the real question would be, why someone, even if it looks ridiculous, would be prevented from dancing in public when in the case of the midnight group and not a soul other than them was there, no one or nothing was harmed or disrupted by someone dancing. I know it's easy to blame the officer but did he even have any authority to think and consider alternative ways of handling this or is it like any other topdown power hierarchy and officers are told it will be like this and nothing else. Not knowing the full operational methods of the officer, the best approach would have been to make sure no one or nothing was harmed and let the midnight dancers have their fun. If the group was out for a confrontation, they'd get no satisfaction and thus depart and likely not return. If the object was to just dance, again they'd be left happy and the officer could smile, thank them for coming and wish them a wonderful evening. Geez, where do you go with that?

No I don't believe this is only about doing disco for TJ but it's about challenging power and authority and it comes down to a simple question of, What kind of country do we really have when you can't dance in public? When people were dancing out in front of the White House when OBL was killed, why was that allowed? Or what if a large group of people had gathered in Washington Mall to dance when GW announced "Mission Accomplished?" Barrack Obama being elected? If Obama is defeated in 2012' will dancing be allowed then as I'm sure many here will want to shake a leg? So dancing is only allowed when it serves a State purpose? In history, I wonder what other nationstates and leaders only allowed dancing and celebration when it only served State purposes?

Here's a link and some vids of the original event and you are free to decide for yourself.

Tourist, To my knowledge, no one was arrested this past Saturday as the Park Service just closed the memorial and cleared the area. As I understand it, everyone complied with those instructions from the Park Service officers. As to the arrests from the previous dance party, all were later released and no charges filed as I understand it. Venture to say this isn't over yet!

My question of "
I would like to know the real catalyst to this whole mess." is still the question in my mind.
Is dancing at National Monuments really that important to these people that they want to risk being arrested or do they just want to be noticed and get their 15 minutes?
I don't know how or why there is a law forbidding dancing at National Monuments, maybe someone (whoever introduced the original ban) felt dancing was not a proper display of respect fitting for that area. Maybe that person is a Church of Christ and believes dancing to be a sin. Whatever the reason, there are ways to combat unjust laws without acting like a bunch of hooligans in the street. If dancing is really that important why not just go to the disco? If the reason is unjust laws there are many to choose from that could really make a positive difference in society if overturned.

Thanks Wkmac for the history on this group.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Dept. of Education breaks down Stockton man's door


http://www.news10.net/news/article/141072/2/Dept-of-Education-breaks-down-Stockton-mans-door

STOCKTON, CA - Kenneth Wright does not have a criminal record and he had no reason to believe a S.W.A.T team would be breaking down his door at 6 a.m. on Tuesday.
"I look out of my window and I see 15 police officers," Wright said.
Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts as a S.W.A.T team barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn.
"He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there," Wright said.
According to Wright, officers also woke his three young children ages 3, 7, and 11 and put them in a Stockton police patrol car with him. Officers then searched his house.
As it turned out, the person law enforcement was looking for was not there - Wright's estranged wife.
"They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids," Wright said.
Wright said he later went to the mayor and Stockton Police Department, but the City of Stockton had nothing to do with Wright's search warrant.
The U.S. Department of Education issued the search and called in the S.W.A.T for his wife's defaulted student loans.
"They busted down my door for this," Wright said. "It wasn't even me."
According to the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General, the case can't be discussed publicly until it is closed, but a spokesperson did confirm that the department did issue the search warrant at Wright's home.
The Office of the Inspector General has a law enforcement branch of federal agents that carry out search warrants and investigations.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member

My question of "
I would like to know the real catalyst to this whole mess." is still the question in my mind.
Is dancing at National Monuments really that important to these people that they want to risk being arrested or do they just want to be noticed and get their 15 minutes?
I don't know how or why there is a law forbidding dancing at National Monuments, maybe someone (whoever introduced the original ban) felt dancing was not a proper display of respect fitting for that area. Maybe that person is a Church of Christ and believes dancing to be a sin. Whatever the reason, there are ways to combat unjust laws without acting like a bunch of hooligans in the street. If dancing is really that important why not just go to the disco? If the reason is unjust laws there are many to choose from that could really make a positive difference in society if overturned.

Thanks Wkmac for the history on this group.

I can't speak one way or the other on the motives because I've never heard anyone point blank say. As for 15 minutes of fame, I could think of 1000's of less painless ways to achieve that so I'm not sure this to be at least the primary motive. Here's my guess and it's purely a guess so take it as that.

This initial action may have been about showing the larger public the nature in which our gov't has changed over the last decade or so. I say that because of the presense of video cameras in both the original incident and the later dance parties or in otherwords, they expected some measure of reaction. Regardless, something as harmless as public dancing and the gov't forbids it in public places? It's point is to get people to ask themselves, if I live in a society where something as silly as dancing in a public place at midnight is tolerated, can I use that as a measure to which I have an overall larger degree of freedom in my own life? If dancing in public is so silly and out of place, why did Hollywood make it seem so commonplace in film after film after film? Just sayin'!

But the opposite can also be true, if something as silly as a person dancing in public is not tolerated, then just how free am I? Just how far are freedom of expression and speech really tolerated? It's a public action to get people to see an example, silly as it is, and then consider the deeper philosophical questions and implications of it. And the fact all this took place at the Jefferson Memorial (I concede Jefferson's many warts too) bangs this home even further in it's symbology. In some measure, there is as much a public statement being made here as the one Rosa Parks made or the Greensboro 4 who in 1960' challenge the segregation laws pertaining to lunch counters. Rosa Parks and the Greensboro 4 did more to show the lack of freedom and over reach of the state and in time they were found to be absolutely correct and the law, the state policy and the majority proven absolutely wrong. If the state can by law and public policy tell a private concern who they can recognize as customers, what else can they tell that private business or concern? And on the flipside, when a group of private concern can use the state and public policy to dictate to others who they can and can not serve in any economic transaction, is that truly free market?

Rosa and the Greensboro 4 at the time were breaking the law and one could question if they could achieve the same ends by different means. History now seems to support them in their choices. What about MLK and the Selma to Montgomery marchers? Do you think they understood their actions would draw conflict with the holders and enforcers of law? We now celebrate that march in the action of liberty and freedom practically as an equal to Lexington Green and rightly so in many respects. No disrespect to African Americans intended if they think I'm trying to equate the dancing situation with their own rights struggle as by no means I'm not. Theirs was a far greater struggle by light years but on a level of principle and question of state control, the dancing does follow in the pathways of that struggle and the fact the dancers followed a non-violent approach shows the importance and legacy of not only MLK but Ghandi as well. IMO, I think both men would have proudly approved and it proves a non-violent but non-compliant public can grind an over reaching state to a halt.

In the case of the dancing on June 4, they in effect shut gov't down (closed the Jefferson Memorial) because the gov't was left with no answers. A similar response to the 2 previous dances backfired and any arrests see all charges dropped because in the end the charges themselves are groundless and baseless so shutting down the area and ordering people out was their only solution. And let it be noted all the dancers complied and left the area as ordered. I wonder if the decision was left solely up to the officers on hand if they would sit back, allow the dancing but just make sure no one is hurt, harm or otherwise their visits effected? I'm not a betting man but I'd bet good money most officers would in fact take that approach but sadly we live in a top down not bottom up world so there you go!

Again, the TJ Dancers re-enacting American Bandstand may seem silly and one could question choices made but consider this. You said:

I don't know how or why there is a law forbidding dancing at National Monuments
You have seen the situation and actions taken by the state and among the questions you are asking, you are questioning the actions of the state itself and in that lay the intended purpose of the dancing in the first place. I'm projecting my own opinion on this so "grain of salt" warning. Getting people to begin to question and maybe the next step is, "What the hell are they (the state) doing and what is really going on here?" is asked in a much larger and broader context. If the state can tell you when and when not to dance, does that same foundation of authority give them the power to tell you when and what insurance to buy? Should we be considering this point from this perspective or is this too outlandish and far reaching? And those too should be questions we should ask.

If you are not free to dance unless the gov't sez so and prescribes when, where and how, what else are you not free to do unless the gov't sez so? Or if gov't can tell you when where and how in one place and you accept this as right and valid, how long before someone else comes along with other self interests, uses the precedence of law to now mandate dancing as it relates to when, where and how in other areas? BTW: When did dancing become an action requiring one to go to gov't, to ask permission and then get a permission slip to do so, especially in a public space? Now think about that one.

There's my shot at the answers for whatever it's worth! Be good and remember, only dance if given permission!
:happy-very:

Wolakota!
 
I can't speak one way or the other on the motives because I've never heard anyone point blank say. As for 15 minutes of fame, I could think of 1000's of less painless ways to achieve that so I'm not sure this to be at least the primary motive. Here's my guess and it's purely a guess so take it as that.

This initial action may have been about showing the larger public the nature in which our gov't has changed over the last decade or so. I say that because of the presense of video cameras in both the original incident and the later dance parties or in otherwords, they expected some measure of reaction. Regardless, something as harmless as public dancing and the gov't forbids it in public places? It's point is to get people to ask themselves, if I live in a society where something as silly as dancing in a public place at midnight is tolerated, can I use that as a measure to which I have an overall larger degree of freedom in my own life? If dancing in public is so silly and out of place, why did Hollywood make it seem so commonplace in film after film after film? Just sayin'!

But the opposite can also be true, if something as silly as a person dancing in public is not tolerated, then just how free am I? Just how far are freedom of expression and speech really tolerated? It's a public action to get people to see an example, silly as it is, and then consider the deeper philosophical questions and implications of it. And the fact all this took place at the Jefferson Memorial (I concede Jefferson's many warts too) bangs this home even further in it's symbology. In some measure, there is as much a public statement being made here as the one Rosa Parks made or the Greensboro 4 who in 1960' challenge the segregation laws pertaining to lunch counters. Rosa Parks and the Greensboro 4 did more to show the lack of freedom and over reach of the state and in time they were found to be absolutely correct and the law, the state policy and the majority proven absolutely wrong. If the state can by law and public policy tell a private concern who they can recognize as customers, what else can they tell that private business or concern? And on the flipside, when a group of private concern can use the state and public policy to dictate to others who they can and can not serve in any economic transaction, is that truly free market?

Rosa and the Greensboro 4 at the time were breaking the law and one could question if they could achieve the same ends by different means. History now seems to support them in their choices. What about MLK and the Selma to Montgomery marchers? Do you think they understood their actions would draw conflict with the holders and enforcers of law? We now celebrate that march in the action of liberty and freedom practically as an equal to Lexington Green and rightly so in many respects. No disrespect to African Americans intended if they think I'm trying to equate the dancing situation with their own rights struggle as by no means I'm not. Theirs was a far greater struggle by light years but on a level of principle and question of state control, the dancing does follow in the pathways of that struggle and the fact the dancers followed a non-violent approach shows the importance and legacy of not only MLK but Ghandi as well. IMO, I think both men would have proudly approved and it proves a non-violent but non-compliant public can grind an over reaching state to a halt.

In the case of the dancing on June 4, they in effect shut gov't down (closed the Jefferson Memorial) because the gov't was left with no answers. A similar response to the 2 previous dances backfired and any arrests see all charges dropped because in the end the charges themselves are groundless and baseless so shutting down the area and ordering people out was their only solution. And let it be noted all the dancers complied and left the area as ordered. I wonder if the decision was left solely up to the officers on hand if they would sit back, allow the dancing but just make sure no one is hurt, harm or otherwise their visits effected? I'm not a betting man but I'd bet good money most officers would in fact take that approach but sadly we live in a top down not bottom up world so there you go!

Again, the TJ Dancers re-enacting American Bandstand may seem silly and one could question choices made but consider this. You said:

You have seen the situation and actions taken by the state and among the questions you are asking, you are questioning the actions of the state itself and in that lay the intended purpose of the dancing in the first place. I'm projecting my own opinion on this so "grain of salt" warning. Getting people to begin to question and maybe the next step is, "What the hell are they (the state) doing and what is really going on here?" is asked in a much larger and broader context. If the state can tell you when and when not to dance, does that same foundation of authority give them the power to tell you when and what insurance to buy? Should we be considering this point from this perspective or is this too outlandish and far reaching? And those too should be questions we should ask.

If you are not free to dance unless the gov't sez so and prescribes when, where and how, what else are you not free to do unless the gov't sez so? Or if gov't can tell you when where and how in one place and you accept this as right and valid, how long before someone else comes along with other self interests, uses the precedence of law to now mandate dancing as it relates to when, where and how in other areas? BTW: When did dancing become an action requiring one to go to gov't, to ask permission and then get a permission slip to do so, especially in a public space? Now think about that one.

There's my shot at the answers for whatever it's worth! Be good and remember, only dance if given permission!
:happy-very:

Wolakota!

All possible and reasonable explanations.
 
Top