It is so comforting to know you are being taken care of, even when you are a healthy adult. Oh, but is that called slavery?
The Establishment and its supporters are not at all happy with current events in Washington DC. The discontent is not a partisan issue, since the Capitol is populated mostly by Establishment folk regardless of party affiliation.
Establishment folk like their constituents to be taken care of, be free of risk, remain docile and unquestioning. Any questioning would place front and center the unsustainable national debt, fiat currency, endless wars, gargantuan bureaucracy, and a populace dependent on public assistance and/or public services. Questioning might bring to mind the list of societies that disintegrated under the weight of those same events – from the Roman Empire to Venezuela.
So what appears to be different lately? The difference could be summarized by a couple of memes. One meme implies that government holds the responsibility for an individual’s well being; that government’s job is to do whatever it takes to provide all manner of services, since all services are rights. The other meme implies that government exists only to protect everyone’s life, liberty and property; everything else is each individual’s responsibility.
To be sure, today’s Washington DC is a very long way from returning to the nation the Founding Fathers intended. The military-crony capitalism-welfare state is still here. The national debt is still a distant blur in Congress’ collective mind. The Establishment folk are still sucking up gobs of tax money in salaries and benefits while they prance around “resisting.” It remains to be seen whether the corporation tax cut will result in more jobs or more bonuses. It remains to be seen if the economy grows sufficiently to make up for the tax cuts.
But progress can be seen in the slow shrinkage of the bureaucracy through attrition, efforts to awaken the nation’s dormant manufacturing, and promises in speeches of jobs not public-assistance. Let’s hope it is not too late for this nation to escape the fate of Rome. Let’s hope we are are able to fix what we broke, and not make debt and dependency our legacy to our grandchildren.
Background of this federal trial is on our article “Whose Land is This Land Anyway?”
In Nevada, on January 8, 2018, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed felony charges against Cliven Bundy and his sons arising from the 2014 Bundy Ranch Standoff. In dismissing the case, Judge Navarro issued strong statements against federal prosecutors for their “reckless disregard for Constitutional obligations,” in withholding evidence from the defense, and violating “the universal sense of justice.”
Cliven Bundy and his sons once again exercised their Constitutional right to challenge government actions they deemed unconstitutional. Outside the courthouse after the dismissal, the elder Bundy said,
“My defense is a 15-second defense: I graze my cattle only on Clark County, Nev., land and I have no contract with the federal government.” … “This court has no jurisdiction or authority over this matter.”
Although federal jurisdiction over public land and over “trespassing” in public land might be a good case for another trial, the Bundys in this trial once again affirmed what our Founding Fathers intended – it is the duty of the People to ensure that when government ceases to be the People’s servant and protector of the People’s liberties, it is challenged by the People.
Here is a website worth mentioning, The Atlas Society. The “Atlas” part refers to Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged. The website features lessons in Objectivism, readers’ tools to assist in the understanding of Rand’s books, commentary on a variety of subjects relating to the objectivist view, and events. Students and educators in conventional schools, as well as homeschoolers, could benefit from such information.
Objectivism, as presented by writer Ayn Rand, is not a household word these days, but should be at least understood. The Atlas Society describes objectivism as follows,
Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism founded by Ayn Rand (1905-1982). In novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand dramatized her ideal individual, the producer who lives by his own effort and does not give or receive the undeserved, who honors achievement and rejects envy. Rand laid out the details of her world-view in nonfiction books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
Today, politicians and advocates for a plethora of special interests continually call for greater taxation to support social programs and projects that for the most part discourage the practice of objectivism. Words like “equity,” “social justice,” and “inclusivity,” so prevalent in today’s vocabulary, would leave individualists like John Stuart Mill or Thomas Jefferson befuddled. Adam Smith, the father of free-market capitalism, would be equally perplexed with the terms “crony capitalism” or “corporate welfare.” Ayn Rand, were she alive today, would probably simply admonish us all with an “I told you so.”
However, just as big-government people worked to main stream their ideas, so can small-government, objectivist-leaning individualists work at spreading theirs. Returning the nation towards a path that encourages the self-directed true producer, not coddles the unhappy dependent, could easily start with just voting NO on proposals that “feed the beast” with workers’ hard-earned cash.
California legislators love their “sustainable communities” projects, and are ready to tax residents into the poor house. But “Repeal the Gas Tax” looks promising for a November ballot near you.
California is labeled a “progressive” state by mild voices and a “Marxist” state by more aggressive voices. Interestingly, the true progressives/Marxists occupy only a thin strip of land along California’s coast, but are so numerous they are the state’s deciders. Even within the progressive/Marxist coast, there are small pockets of conservatives that, for the most part, have little say.
However, once in a while, the fiscally conservative, free market, private property loving silent minority rises up in fury and hits the tax-and-spenders where they hurt – the ballot box. They rose up in 1978 and passed Proposition 13, which ended the bountiful distribution of property owners’ hard-earned cash. They rose up in 2003, and engineered the successful recall of Governor Grey Davis, who had plunged the state into a squabbling war among special interests. They helped elect Donald Trump in 2016. They are not happy campers today, and seemingly ready for another “Revolt” like the one in 1978.
Outside of progressives/Marxist eyes, observers can cite ample reasons for another cultural uprising: generous largess supported by high taxes, continuous mandates voiding local decision making, mounting state debt, an army of bureaucrats earning six-figure salaries, a legion of unelected officials doing what elected officials should be doing, and the huge elephant in the room that will not budge – uncontrollable unfunded public pension liabilities that have crowded out basic services.
Of this laundry list of grievances, one seems to stand out: state mandates that obliterate the ability of local property owners to decide the character of their neighborhoods. By character, residents mean appearance, density, tranquility, safety, ease of using one’s transportation of choice.
Sacramento has been cranking out legislation that allocates specific numbers of new housing units to each jurisdiction, requires such allocated housing to be built for all income levels in all neighborhoods, and voids decisions by local planners.
The latest example is Senate Bill 827 introduced January 3, 2018, requiring dense housing at all income levels within one-half mile of a bus stop, regardless of neighborhood. The proposal, supported by the now ubiquitous YIMBYs (Yes In My Back Yard), elicited this furious comment on the Crenshaw Subway website,
Like the Colonizers before them, YIMBYs claim the ‘Hood as Theirs! The bill is backed by group that calls themselves YIMBYs, which stands for “Yes in my backyard.” Like the colonizers whose agenda they seek to replicate, it takes a certain entitlement/ supremacist mindset to call a community they didn’t grow up in, don’t live in or are new to as “theirs.” It’s NOT their backyard – it’s ours. And we’re not about to give it up. WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED!
Ouch! The fury continues with a list of obvious housing injustices ignored by YIMBYs, such as,
…they could care less about the predatory lending that led to the greatest evisceration of Black wealth in decades – it wasn’t their grandma whose mortgage became unaffordable overnight.
The article ends with a battle cry,
It is time that we put our war paint on, soldiers. SB 827 is bill that must be killed.
Another piece of legislation particularly disliked by conservatives and small businesses is Senate Bill 1, signed into law in April 2017, mandating a $0.12 per gallon increase in gasoline taxes. SB1 claims roads and bridges have been long neglected and need funding to upgrade.
However, there is enough talk in the bill of “sustainable communities” and “greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets,” code words for top-down mandates from Sacramento, to have elicited a proposed voter initiative that as of this writing has achieved over 25% of signatures required for ballot status. “Repeal the Gas Tax” would require that all increases in gas taxes be presented to voters from approval, including that included in SB1.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses issued the following statement in opposition to SB 1,
NFIB/CA is opposed to this Main Street Menace, which adds 12 cents per gallon in new taxes to gasoline, which is already the most expensive in the country. It also increases the high price of diesel by a whopping 22 cents per gallon, and adds $70 in new registration fees to each vehicle. These new taxes are supposed to be used to fix California’s ailing highways, a problem that government has failed to address for decades. The politicians have diverted budget money to other pet projects for years and now want consumers and businesses to pony up more hard-earned dollars to bail them out without offering real reforms.
Is this legislators’ idea of upgrading California’s infrastructure?
Politicians’ favorite “pet projects” are the “sustainable communities” mandates conservatives do not like either.
If the gas tax repeal initiative gets on the ballot, and passes, progressives/Marxists, as well as YIMBY “colonizers,” will likely experience great distress, since the event could signal the first salvo of the The New Tax Revolt.
Sometimes a post on Facebook resonates. People get it. This was the case with a post, shared on the Just Vote No Facebook Page, showing a video of a young man (Brandon Tatum) saying he voted for Barack Obama for U.S. President, but came to regret it. The young man’s message is that Democrats have harmed Black people by casting them as victims.
Just Vote No does not deal in partisan politics. A crook from one party looks the same as a crook from another party. So, let’s focus on what the young man is saying regardless of political party. When someone viewed as an authority figure (politician, police officer, teacher, social worker) acts as if you are different and in need of their assistance and discipline, you internalize that information, and neglect to review your own actions to see how they might change to improve your situation. The young man in the video calls this treatment the feeding of a false narrative – a narrative that does not help, and certainly hinders.
Thought of racism is for those who have time to think about it, or who promote it for their own benefit. The young man says he has no time to think of racism because he is too busy getting things done. Focusing on racism is victimhood. Focusing on getting things done is rejecting the false narrative and being on the way to success.
His recommendation? Same as ours. Believe in yourself and your ability to thrive. Look carefully at what you vote for. Don’t vote for crooks.
Brandon Tatum speaks out against the feeding of false narratives.
“In your palace warm mighty king, do you know what I know? A child, a child shivers in the cold…”
The Holidays: The Winter Solstice, when winter desolation starts receding. Hanukkah, remembering defending of culture and worship. Christmas, and the birth in a cold manger of a baby who grew up to change the world. These stories, and several others told and retold around this holy time of year, share the theme of common people not only prevailing but triumphing in defense of their peace and a better world for themselves. Here is a suggestion as to how such victory can be accomplished: the snowball effect of confidence and hope, like in this traditional song:
Said the night wind to the little lamb, do you hear what I hear? High up in the sky little lamb, do you hear what I hear? A song, a song, high above the trees With a voice as big as the sea, with a voice as big as the sea.
Said the little lamb to the shepherd boy, do you see what I see? High up In the sky shepherd boy, do you see what I see? A star, a star, shining in the night With a tail as big as a kite, with a tail as big as a kite.
Said the shepherd boy to the mighty king, do you know what I know? In your palace warm mighty king, do you know what I know? A child, a child shivers in the cold, Let us bring him silver and gold, let us bring him silver and gold.
Said the king to the people everywhere, listen to what I say Pray for peace, people everywhere, listen to what I say The child the child, sleeping in the night He will bring us goodness and light, He will bring us goodness and light.
Hold on to your wallets! U.S. city mayors are on a roll sermonizing about how the End is Near due to the “climate change crisis.”
City officials from around the U.S. and around the world on December 5, 2017, signed the Chicago Climate Charter at the Inaugural North American Climate Summit. The mainstream media puts the number of city mayors that signed the Charter at “dozens” and “more than 50.” A count of signatures on the Charter posted by the host Mayor Rahm Emanuel shows 64 signatures. The media says 36 of the signatories were U.S. mayors.
Sixty four out of 4,416 cities in the world is 1.45% (assuming “city” means jurisdictions housing 100,000 or more residents). That’s not much. However, 56% of U.S. signatories might be sufficient for what could be the Charter’s objective.
The Charter’s objective is for cities and regions to continue working on commitments made under the Paris Climate Agreement, even though the U.S. withdrew from the Agreement. Just Vote No discussed why President Donald Trump did not renew U.S. participation.
Considering the fact that the U.S. is the only country at present not to be a participant in the Paris Climate Agreement, this Charter begs the question, why bother, if the other nations that do belong to the accord can carry on the work without the U.S. – or can they? Maybe it is not work that is needed but funding, otherwise called redistribution of resources from those according to their ability to those according to their need. Redistribution of wealth principally from the United States and the more affluent countries in the European Union to the poor countries was clearly spelled out in the Paris Climate Agreement.
Principals behind the Chicago Climate Charter are not U.S. city mayors simply wanting to ensure clean air and clean water for their jurisdictions, but global players, or in the case of California Governor Jerry Brown and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, global wannabes:
* Michael Bloomberg : Former mayor of New York City and now United Nations Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change.
* United States Conference of Mayors: Forum for city officials to discuss diverse challenges, but also founding member of the Global Parliament of Mayors.
* C40 Cities: Network of big cities committed to implementing measurable and sustainable action on climate change.
*Rahm Emanuel: Mayor, City of Chicago, host of the 2017 North American Climate Summit, where the Chicago Climate Charter was signed.
* Jerry Brown: Governor of California and founder with Michael Bloomberg of America’s Pledge, an initiative to quantify actions of U.S. states, cities, and businesses to drive down their greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
If these players are so determined to carry on the objectives of the Paris Agreement, and one prerequisite of the Paris Agreement is for more affluent countries to fund the climate change initiatives of the less affluent, they will surely find a way. For example, the Global Covenant of Mayors partnered with the European Investment Bank and the World Bank Group,
Paris, France, 12 December 2017 – Today, at the One Planet Summit in Paris, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy and World Bank Group, the world’s largest multilateral development bank, announced a new partnership to provide technical and financial assistance to 150 cities across the world undertaking aggressive climate action programs. The World Bank’s investment [loan] of $4.5 billion USD will ensure cities battling the increasing threats of climate change have the funding necessary to implement sustainable initiatives and climate resilience programs.
The lending will occur over the next three years under the umbrella of the World Bank’s City Resilience Program (CRP), and will draw on resources from IFC [International Finance Corporation] and MIGA [Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency] to provide financial and technical assistance to 150 cities, including current and future Global Covenant cities, to drive climate ambitions forward and upwards and build greater resilience to climate and disaster risks.
Let’s focus for a moment on the phrase “climate and disaster risks.” Governor Jerry Brown’s website mentions the Governor’s keynote speech on December 12, at the Two-Year Anniversary of the Paris Agreement:
Pointing to the state’s nearly year-round fire season – and the blazes still raging in Southern California – the Governor also sounded the alarm on the costly and destructive global impacts ahead unless we rapidly decarbonize.
More effective action would be for Californians either not to build homes right next to wild areas that have regularly gone up in flames for as long as history exists, or for conservation rules to allow for cutting down vegetation where Californians want to build houses. This NBC News image shows how close this beautiful home is to the dense vegetation in the background.
The same can be said for building in floodplains. Floodplains will not move or disappear when we all “decarbonize.” They will stay where they are and keep flooding. And folks will keep building homes in them. This map shows the blue areas of flood risk, all populated.
Weather.com makes an interesting observation regarding the flood zones, “Politicians appear to be supportive of this new development despite the inherent risks of building on a floodplain.” Intriguing. Cui bono – who benefits?
We should always keep in mind that government’s only source of funds is the taxpayer. Any redistribution of funds is redistribution from a taxpayer’s pocket to someone else’s pocket. Therefore, if you feel “climate crisis” is the cause of lives and property tragically lost in California’s fires or Houston’s floods, we are certain you will gladly pay any additional taxes that result from efforts to “rapidly decarbonize.” Otherwise, you can Just Vote No on “decarbonization” funding.
Ryan Bundy says, “Man only has rights he is willing to claim, use and defend.”
Background of the Bundy Ranch Standoff
The trial of the 2014 Bundy Ranch Standoff might indeed be the “Trial of the Century.” That is, if the trial ever occurs, pertinent evidence and discoveries are properly and timely presented by the prosecution, and the judge sticks to procedure not politics. So, let’s see what happens on December 20, when the trial is supposed to resume.
Obviously, the judge needs to focus on the Bureau of Land Management and the FBI charges against Cliven Bundy – more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees, cattle still grazing for free, and an armed standoff when the BLM and FBI came to remove the cattle from land under federal administration.
However, what is really at stake is not whether Cliven Bundy owes the money; or whether he, his sons and their allies are “domestic terrorists;” or whether ranchers need to remove their cattle from grazing land so no desert tortoise will be cramped for space. What is at stake are bigger issues: Who has rights to the land? By what right does the federal government still own 47% of the West and most of Nevada? Was it lawful for the federal government to repeal the Homestead Act? Or is it lawful for the federal government to ignore the traditional concept of “beneficial use?”
Side Issues of Interest
What is a racist, a Fascist, a supremacist, or a domestic terrorist these days? It’s whatever willing fools say it is. Perhaps we should view with a jaundice eye claims that Clive Bundy, his family and his allies are anti-government.
To liberty-minded people, government means what the Founding Fathers created, a system whereby states have all the powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
So, who is anti-government in the Bundy Ranch Standoff case? Who is upholding the 10th Amendment of the Constitution?
Ryan Bundy States His Case
Ryan Bundy, a defendant in the case acting on his own defense, stated his view in his opening statement on November 15, 2017. It is important that all liberty-leaning people read Ryan Bundy’s statement and understand the concept of sovereignty. Here is a highlight. You can read the entire statements on several websites. We recommend The Oathkeeperswebsite.
“To have rights you must claim, use and defend… man only has rights he is willing to claim, use and defend. There is a difference between rights and privileges. Rights you own. Privilege is afforded. Like renting or owning a house. Government asserts there are no rights, only privileges and unless we pay, we can’t be there. The State of Nevada says differently. These are my father’s rights. Everything we have comes from the land. That is wealth, not the dollar bill. The things we use all come from the land. Who controls the land, controls the wealth?
We create government to preserve and serve us. These are some of the beliefs of my family. That we have said we will do whatever it takes to defend is not a threat, it is a statement. Being right here before you today is part of doing whatever it takes. The Founding Fathers pledged whatever it would take… their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, to defend rights.”
1978 photo of Jerry Brown and Howard Jarvis observing the passage of Proposition 13
In June of 1978, California became a different state. Property owners revolted. They refused to continue to be viewed as the state’s ATM. Proposition 13 passed with nearly two-thirds voter approval. But, alas, legislators were not to be thwarted in their tax and spend routines. So, state taxes increased to fill the void, with some unbeneficial consequences such as state control of school districts and other local services.
Today, California is at a crossroads. Income, sales, and fuel taxes are among the highest in the nation, while public debt and unfunded public pension liabilities soar. Voters will need to choose to either repeal or reform Proposition 13 and open the floodgates of property taxation, or tie the hands of tax and spenders in order to force them to put their house in order.
Howard Jarvis once stood at the barricades and said enough is enough. His efforts led to the passage of Proposition 13. Nearly 40 years later, could the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association be at the forefront of another tax revolt, one that would lead to the lower taxes that could bring back the corporations and the productive workers that have fled the state? Can the HJTA lead a tax revolt that will prevent California from going the way of Detroit and now Chicago? Where do you stand? Can the HJTA count on you? Read the article: Don’t Let California Become Chicago.
Is it all Donald Trump’s fault, or have we been voting our way into Banana Republic status for a long time?
It is All Trump’s Fault
Neal Gabler on Moyers and Companymarked the first anniversary of the Donald Trump presidency by writing that America has descended into Banana Republic status thanks to Mr. Trump.
“Whatever her failings, America was once majestic. Now she is hopelessly diminished — a wealthier version of the corrupt nations in the developing world that we used to ridicule. And we owe it all to Donald Trump for making America small again.”
Someone who can transform a nation from “majestic” to third world in 12 months must be capable of walking on water. Not that such transformation feats are impossible. George Bush turned Iraq, a country different from ours but stable, into an incubator for terrorism. Hillary Clinton and her State Department, after contributing to the unforgivable death by impaling of Muammar Gaddafi, plunged Libya into complete chaos (gloating afterwards “We came, we saw, he died”).
The Real Decline
However, the mindless assertion that Donald Trump is responsible for America’s decline is not the point of this article. The point is that America is in decline, and there is very little time to save it. Our Founding Fathers came up with an amazing idea when they created this nation. This was to be a country where the People ruled, where government was for the People and by the People. But such an experiment, they knew, required a responsible populace – folks who understood what to vote for and what not to vote for in order to preserve their liberty and prosperity.
Alas, the Founding Fathers’ experiment seems to have been a tall order. Today, just about everyone depends in some form or another on government, thereby making government the master not the servant of the people. Today, we have voted ourselves into $20 trillion worth of national debt. Today, we see dismal statistics on America’s life expectancy, child mortality, income inequality, and literacy.
Technology: A Competitive Advantage Lost
For example, let’s talk about technology. When modern globalization – where each nation depends on a competitive advantage to thrive – became the norm in the 1970’s, the U.S. was expected to be the leader in technology. It was expected to be comfortable with shedding its manufacturing base and focusing on development of computing power and associated economic sectors, such as banking and finance.
But then unions fossilized mediocre educators into tenure; children were indoctrinated, not taught the three Rs and other skills to allow them self sufficiency and productivity; higher education became more interested in recruiting useful idiots into the progressive cause than teaching future professionals; and so many of our children went to school hungry because their parents were incapable of providing for them. The destruction of the American family, the murderous war on drugs, big pharma, the military-prison-welfare complex are subjects for another day.
Results have been totally predictable. America lost its competitive advantage. In November 2017, China unveiled its Sunway TaihuLight supercomputer. The TaihuLight ranked number one in the TOP500 list as the fastest supercomputer in the world. The previous holder of the rank was the Tianhe-2, also Chinese. And by the way, the TaihuLight is also energy-efficient, ranking 16th in the Green500 list.
Precious Little Time to Act
Meanwhile, America does little manufacturing, lacks an adequate skilled workforce, and is mostly focused on the fake news of the month – whether it is toppling down statues or keeping tabs on who exposed himself to whom 20 years ago.
Moyers & Company and Mr. Gabler make their living promoting the status quo progressive state, and that’s entirely their prerogative. It is up to those who suppose Moyers and his company are not connecting the dots to present alternative scenarios.
Speaking of alternative scenarios to Mr. Gabler’s reason why America is in decline, here is a link to episode #1155 of the Max Keiser Report on RT. Max and his guest Dan Collins paint a fascinating picture of how China is building trade partnerships, helping second-tier countries build infrastructure and schools, internationalizing its currency (so they one day may no longer need U.S. dollars), and buying up gold (maybe to establish a gold standard!?). All this while the U.S. has for the last 15 years been squandering its human and economic treasure in endless war, and now has little to offer its neighbors but armaments and military bases.
Max Kaiser is fond of hyperbole. He commented that President Trump is “euthanizing America” in the least painful way – winding down the country’s unrealistic view of itself as policeman to the world, making mutually-beneficial deals with other countries, enticing corporations to come home and provide jobs, and (a contentious part) giving the American worker a better chance of having a job without the presence of foreign workers, whether undocumented or holders of work visas.
We the People need to choose whether to continue on our current trajectory or turn things around. We need to decide who gives a better reason for America’s decline — Neal Gabler or Dan Collins.