Blogs – Page 16 – Just Vote No

Update: Judge Dismisses Case Against the Bundys

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.

Background of this case is in Just Vote No article, “Whose Land is This Land, Anyway?” The L.A. Times has a good article on the trial’s dismissal.

Recommended site: The Atlas Society

Ayn Rand’s objectivism vs. the coddling society.

AynRand 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.

The Culture of Victimhood

Politicians feed false narratives. Reject them!

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

Brandon Tatum speaks out against the feeding of false narratives.

A Star, a Star Shining in the Night

“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.

May you prevail over all your winters.

Rapidly “Decarbonize” or Perish!

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.

* The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy: An international alliance of cities and local governments with the objective of assisting jurisdictions to transition to low-emission societies.

* 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.

CA wildfire nbcnews 2 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.

Houston-flood-map 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.

Whose Land is This Land, Anyway?

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 Oathkeepers website.

“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.”

Bundy Ranch allies — Anti-government? Hardly!

America in Decline

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 Company marked 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.

SFUSD BLM shirts 3 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.

sunway supercomputer 2 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.

War on Poverty or War on the Poor?

The welfare state declares itself a success by changing the description of poverty and encouraging cultural adaptation to dependency.

The Washington Post and other mainstream media are livid about the Trump administration proposed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

“President Trump and congressional Republicans want Americans to think that their proposed tax legislation is all about increasing economic growth. That’s their stated goal. But the stealth goal of GOP tax cuts is to start down the path toward gutting the New Deal and the Great Society — and if tax cuts pass, they might get away with it.”

”The stage is being set for an all-out attack on the welfare state the minute a tax cut is signed into law.”

One could garner from the Washington Post that the administration is poised to commit the unforgivable deed of tampering with a highly successful agenda. Or one could take a contrarian view and point to the actual results of the New Deal, the Great Society, and The War on Poverty.

The War on Poverty in hindsight

homess vet — Homeless vets are a national shame – evidence of failure of the welfare state.

Half a century after Lyndon B. Johnson launched The War on Poverty, urban streets serve as beds for the homeless, children have no roof over their heads but that of an unsafe and unclean shelter, tents under freeway overpasses are called home, jails house poor and dispossessed youth by the thousands, and the working poor depend on food stamps and Medicaid.

All this while the Ruling Elite declares the welfare state brought about by The War on Poverty a success, but in need of even more growth in order to take care of those who fall into the cracks.

What does it take to declare The War on Poverty a success?

* Changing the description of poverty:

Prior to the 1960s, poverty meant inability to take care of one’s needs for food and shelter. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society changed that description to inability to receive enough public assistance. A 2015 study of the country’s “safety net” is described in Center on Budget and Polity Priorities,

“Previous analysis of Census data showed that safety net programs cut the poverty rate nearly in half. Data released recently by the Urban Institute, which correct for underreporting of key government benefits in the Census survey, reveal an even stronger impact: the safety net reduced the poverty rate from 29.1 percent to 13.8 percent in 2012 and lifted 48 million people above the poverty line, including 12 million children. Correcting for underreporting reveals that the safety net also did more to reduce deep poverty than previously shown, although 11.2 million Americans remained below half the poverty line.”

It should be obvious that if someone receives a free gift of $1,000, that person’s poverty will immediately decrease by $1,000! Do we need a study to figure that? It should be equally obvious that when the $1,000 is consumed, that person will be just as poor as before the gift, unless another gift is forthcoming, or he/she finds a way to get out of poverty by becoming self sufficient. We do not need a study for that either; we just need to look around us.

* Encouraging adaptation to dependency:

Survival depends on adaptation to external events. Short-term adaptation might mean trimming our budget if someone in our household loses a job, but we are confident another job is just around the corner. Longer-term adaptation might mean giving up a physically demanding job if we hurt out back. Long-term adaptation might mean cultural acceptance of raising children outside a traditional two-parent family in order to obtain public assistance. In more progressive regions of the country such as California, cultural adaptation includes middle-income families feeling comfortable receiving government subsidies for purchasing a home.

Although it is important to distinguish correlation from causation, the statistics are clear that so much of our precious youth is lost to inner-city violence or languishes in jails, our families are trapped in welfare-dependent neighborhoods, our children go to school hungry and depend on some slop gifted to them at some run-down government school. All this is culturally accepted and superficially monitored.

What does it take to fight back?

The first step to getting out of poverty might be to realize a good many folks have been screwed over by the Ruling Elite. In the Old South, power and the economic well being of the then Ruling Elite depended on slaves. Today’s Ruling Elite depends for its power and economic well being on a vast network of governmental bureaucracies doling out rules and make-believe benefits.

The next step is to truly wish to produce goods and services, rather than only consume them. This is where the Just Vote No comes in: threaten to run out of office anyone who makes it difficult for you to earn some cash braiding hair, selling tacos, typing, or selling your own apps on-line.

By the way, Forever 21 founder Do Won Chang started out as a janitor. Ralph Lauren worked as a clerk at Brooks Brothers before building his fashion empire. Read all about it on 15 Billionaires Who Were Once Dirt Poor.

Today’s Elite, Its Enablers, and Its Victims

Identifying and Defunding the Ruling Elite

The Just Vote No Blog is non-partisan and totally secular, but it is liberty-leaning in the manner Claude Frederic Bastiat or Thomas Jefferson. As such, we look for concrete and realistic steps to bring about, individually and collectively, freedom from public dependence. For clarification, here is an example of public dependence: Say you and your children would like to spend Thanksgiving with your Mom and Dad who live in another state, and to do that you need to take an airplane. In this scenario you are sufficiently dependent on the TSA to need to allow agents to forcefully touch your children.

Concrete and realistic steps intended to rid ourselves of public dependence require hard looks at economic, cultural, psychological and other human factors. Hard looks mean taking an idea – any idea — say the non-aggression principle, and looking for real-life instances where that idea has thrived. If the idea is not thriving, then either the idea is faulty or its advocates are ineffective.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe – Ignoring the Labels

Hard looks at possibly relevant variables also mean listening, without immediately ascribing labels. And that brings this rant to its purpose, the mention of a provocative talk by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, titled Libertarianism and the Alt-Right, at the 12th Annual Conference of the Property and Freedom Society, September 2017.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is probably best known for his position of Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, right along with Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Andrew Napolitano, Walter Block and other luminaries of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement. However, the mere mention of Hans-Hermann Hoppe often temps labeling: Austrian School economist, libertarian anarcho-capitalist, alt-right, nationalist, homophobe, racist. As he says in his talk, the only label that seems not to stick is “self-hating Jewish Nazi.”

Now, let’s for the moment ignore the labels, even the labels of libertarian and alt-right, and focus on a few points in Mr. Hoppe’s speech. These points are presented here without opinions pro or con because the ideas are interesting and worth understanding.

Identifying and Understanding Conflict

* Scarcity is at the core of conflict. Conflict avoidance provides a good path to peace and prosperity. If there is respect for ownership of resources as the property of those that acquire it in a voluntary exchange, there is no conflict. If you say there are things to which you are entitled but did not acquire in a voluntary exchange, then there will be conflict. Examples of conflict-producing acquisitions: taxpayer-funded subsidies, invaded territory, rights other than property rights (in this context, your body/life is your property).

* In order to move from scarcity and conflict to peace and prosperity, human nature needs to be acknowledged. Human nature cannot be separated from culture, ability, or psychology. Force can try to obliterate the yearning for freedom of association, but often unsuccessfully. Example of failure: today’s neighborhoods are as segregated as ever, with unfortunate pockets of no-go areas that live by their own rules of force.

* Once force is identified as an element of conflict, the next step is to identify the enablers of force, and remove their sustenance.

The Enablers of Force

* The top enabler is the Ruling Elite: Military, Central Bankers, Big Corporations. The military possesses the power to acquire territory by force. Central bankers have the power to generate debt and dependence. Big corporations possess significant means of production that allow them to buy their political preferences, and thus impose their will on the populace.

* Intellectuals that populate the education/indoctrination systems. Today, the higher the level of one’s education the more extensive is one’s adherence to wealth redistribution, egalitarianism, and multiculturalism – all of which possible only via the force of legislation. Grants, student loans, free tuition render the intellectual class dependent on the state, and obliged to perpetuate the state’s objectives.

* Main-stream media, that serves as soft propaganda. The products of the education/indoctrination intellectual class move on to the professions, including journalism. They have been taught to believe, repeat, and proceed in the path of least intellectual vigor. If government says war is good, they repeat that endlessly. If government says the force of law is needed to bring about social justice and equity, they repeat that endlessly also.

Neutralizing the Enablers of Force

* Stop bombing other people. Such interventionist foreign policy benefits only the Ruling Elite. Victims of bombings die, and perpetrators of bombings suffer blowback.

* Withdraw from supra-national organizations. What a country, state, or city finds beneficial to their residents they can do without the interference of supra-national organizations such as the United Nations.

* Stop funding the higher ups that feed the central banks; who in turn facilitate war, debt, interest rate manipulation, and wealth redistribution. Fund your city and local institutions instead.

* Oppose the ongoing destruction of private initiative and the resulting dependence on government. As family and other social and cultural private support structures are destroyed, public assistance steps in with ineffective replacements. As tranquility is shattered by crime, unrest, cultural clashes and terror, public force steps in to provide marginal security.

* Understand real objectives of education that does not translated into good earnings in the workplace, generous public assistance programs, proliferation of protected classes, mass immigration, creation of civil rights concurrently with curtailment of individual and property rights. The objective is permanent poverty and eternal dependence. Get the state out of education; encourage youth to learn useful trades. Support immigration by invitation only; make sponsors – not taxpayers – responsible for new arrivals. Defund all strategies that lead to poverty and dependence. Prioritize funding and other support of your local jurisdictions and institutions.

* Do not put your trust in politics or political parties. Focus your efforts in arousing public anger at strategies that are not beneficial to anyone but the Ruling Elite.

* Learn to recognize political balderdash, and say “No, Hell, No!” when it is foisted upon you.

Addendum

Although no opinion on the above discussion is offered here, it is tempting to offer an observation. What has the Just Vote No Blog been saying all along? If something is being pushed on you, it is probably something that will not be to your benefit. When in doubt Just Vote No! Vote No, Hell No!

Random Access Minds – Happy Birthday Hedy Lamarr!

Let’s talk about Hedy Lamarr, Ada Lovelace, and Erna Hoover.

November 9 is the birthdate of Hedy Lamarr, and a good day to celebrate women who made their mark in technology. A good day also to wonder what could have prompted women like Kathleen Booth to develop one of the first computer assembly languages when, as another technology pioneer, Erna Hoover, said, “When I was hired, the glass ceiling was somewhere between the basement and the sub-basement.”

So, let’s celebrate just three of the many technology pioneers who happened to be women.

Hedy Lamarr – Frequency Hopping and your Wi-Fi

Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler was born on November 9, 1914 in Vienna, Austria. By age 18, she was married to Austrian ammunition manufacturer Fritz Mandl, who encouraged her to participate in his professional and social associations with the Austrofascist elite. Also by age 18, Eva Kiesler became known for her role in Ecstasy, a film that shocked for its acknowledgement of female sexuality, similarly to the cognitive dissonance that to this day accompanies the combination of beauty and brains.

Soon after Ecstasy, Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler, escaped her fascist milieu, went from Paris to Hollywood, and took the name of Hedy Lamarr. From the late 1930s to the late 1950s, Hedy Lamarr had a successful film career. She also decided during the 1940s to contribute to a solution to detection by enemy forces of radio-guided torpedoes. The knowledge of fascist plans and operations she acquired during her marriage to Fritz Mandl served her well.

“During World War II, Lamarr learned that radio-controlled torpedoes, which could be important in the naval war, could easily be jammed, thereby causing the torpedo to go off course. With the knowledge she had gained about torpedoes from her first husband, she thought of creating a frequency-hopping signal that could not be tracked or jammed. She contacted her friend, composer and pianist George Antheil, to help her develop a device for doing that, and he succeeded by synchronizing a miniaturized player-piano mechanism with radio signals. They drafted designs for the frequency-hopping system, which they patented.”

U.S. Patent 2,292,387 “Secret Communications System” was awarded to Lamarr (under her married name Hedy Kiesler Markey) and Antheil in 1942. Although the Navy at the time turned down the idea, probably because it could not conceive of torpedoes being guided by player-piano rolls, years later more random minds understood the basic usefulness of the principle of frequency hopping. The system eventually contributed to the development of spread-spectrum technology, the basis of today’s of wireless communications.

Ada Lovelace

Ada Lovelace – the First Programmer

Augusta Ada Byron, born in 1815, was the daughter of poet Lord George Gordon Byron and Lady Anne Isabella Milbanke. The couple separated soon after Ada was born, and Ada was raised by a single mom, who simply decided not to worry about gender roles. Ada had tutors in science and mathematics just like the boys of the day. She married William King, Earl of Lovelace, father of Ada’s three children and supporter of her academic endeavors.

Around the age of 17, Ada met Charles Babbage, “father of the computer” and inventor of the analytic engine. Ada studied the machine, and “described how codes could be created for the device to handle letters and symbols along with numbers. She also theorized a method for the engine to repeat a series of instructions, a process known as looping that computer programs use today.”

Erna S. Hoover – Feedback Control so your phone systems don’t overload

Erna Schneider Hoover, born in 1926, did not let her gender keep her from earning a PhD from Yale, being awarded one of the first software patents, becoming the first female supervisor of a technical department at Bell Labs, or being inducted in the National Inventors Hall of Fame.

In an age of ubiquitous smartphones, we tend to forget that it was not so long ago that Bell Labs struggled with a growing number of analog telephones and switching systems overwhelmed by dropped calls and dreaded busy signals. Aided by her background in mathematics, Erna Hoover drew plans for a computer program that kept track of the number, intervals, and classes of calls. The monitoring allowed for prioritizing resources, thus preventing systems from overloading.

Dr. Hoover was awarded U.S. Patent No. 3,623,007, Feedback Control Monitor for Stored Program Data Processing System. Inventors listed are Barry J. Eckhart Ottawa, Canada, and Erna S. Hoover, Summit, NJ, U.S.A. For information: the order in which names are listed under “Inventors” does not indicate importance of contribution.

What to “Just Vote No” On?

An article about women inventors might seem out of place on this website, but it is not. Here are four suggestions:

* Vote No on any proposal to allow prioritizing establishment politics over subject learning like reading, writing, arithmetic, science, technology. The women inventors had to know their subject, either by formal tutoring or schooling as Ada Lovelace and Erna Hoover, or by self study like Hedy Lamarr.

* Vote No on any proposal that excuses learning choices. If you wish to major in sociology, that’s fine, but be aware that on the average you will not be earning as much as someone who majors in engineering.

* Vote No on any proposal that emphasizes gender. They are all designed to keep women economically indebted to government largess.

* Vote No on any proposal to standardize schooling to the point that natural curiosity and randomness is stamped out. The inventions by Lovelace, Lamarr, and Hoover all called for planned randomness, finding a pattern in the unexpected, connecting dots where no connection was there before.