Category: Blogs

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 3But 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 2Results 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 LamarrHedy 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 HooverErna 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.

A Clockwork Orange World

Acceptance of Dystopia

Clockwork orangeA “clockwork orange” is a fruit that is organic on the outside but mechanic on the inside. People can be like that – human on the outside and mechanically programmed on the inside. Stanley Kubrick, in his 1971 movie A Clockwork Orange, based on Anthony Burgess’ novel by the same name, gave us a sample of such people.

Programming of minds is a theme in A Clockwork Orange. The other side of the coin of programming is adaptation. Our bodies adapt to hot and cold weather; our minds can adapt — be made to respond with increasing acceptance — to subliminal messages, innuendo, indoctrination, abuse, violence, or terror. Adaptation is experienced by perpetrators of deeds and by victims of deeds, barring death of either.

The story is still described today as depicting a future dystopian world.

Baby monitor - CopyAirport pat downgreat-america-attack-copy-e1509478335339.jpgStreet riot - Copy

 

The Keiser Report

Alternative media where fake news need not apply.

Max Keiser 2Just Vote No and friends view main stream media’s interpretation of the “news” with a decidedly jaundiced eye. Not only that, the more popular media spews gossip and calls it news.  So, our salvation rests in “alternative” venues, such as Zero Hedge or California Political Review.

A program that has been around since 2009 is The Keiser Report, hosted by Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert, and broadcast mostly out of the RT network. We say “mostly” because what is not acceptable even to RT, is posted in Max Keiser’s YouTube channel. Max is a long-time financial analyst and money manager, as well as a passionate advocate for investment in Bitcoin. Stacy is a television presenter and producer, besides also being a fantastic news analyst.

Here are some highlights from three episodes.

#1136 Artificial Intelligence

Max and Stacy report from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in North Dakota. At first blush this might seem a strange setting for a discussion on artificial intelligence. It is not. The white man’s devastation of the Native American way of life serves as cautionary tale for the coming annihilation of the average worker’s world by increasingly sophisticated technology.

#1140 Markets & Media Meltdown

Stacy discusses the sorry state of the American media, where a feud between a legislator in a cowboy hat and the President of the nation is reported blow by blow for days. Max challenges his audience to detect a difference between debt monetization, historically the precursor of run-away inflation and financial collapse, and quantitative easing.

#1142 “Help to Buy” – Who did it really help?

Max and Stacy reveal who really profits from the tax-payer financed U.K. program purportedly implemented to help people purchase homes: developers. A universal principle is that prices are raised to the extent taxpayers are willing to finance subsidies. In the case of the Help to Buy program, builders raise house prices by almost exactly the amount made available in the form of subsidies.

Private Property – As Viewed by James Madison and a Facebook Friend

What’s yours may or may not be yours.

Private PropertyThe concept of private property — that which belongs to an individual and ownership of which is protected by government – appears several places in the United States Constitution, most prominently in Amendment V: “…nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

The Papers of James Madison contain an excellent essay on private property. Here is a quote,

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

That said, that the only real function of government is to protect the property of individuals – including life and liberty, the ultimate expressions of property – Madison goes on to warn readers how government could fail.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property..

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor..

The United States is awash in taxation; subsidies to everybody and his uncle; monopolies in the media, utilities, on-line “stores,” farming (think Monsanto). It would be safe to say that Madison would consider such a profile as of that of a government least prepared to defend anyone’s private property.

Here are more quotes. Not from one of our distant Founding Fathers, but from a current Facebook Friend commenting on a post asking “What do you dislike most about taxes?” Note the connection made between taxation and private property, as James Madison discussed.

money bagThe majority of the public don’t know anything about taxes, other than taxes come out of their pay check. The government performs thievery and then makes themselves look good by “giving it back” to the people. They take our money and then decide how it would be best spent, with our best interests in mind (hilarious!!!!). For example, let’s take a look at education. We pay school taxes (if owning property) and then the government decides, for us, how it’s best spent (ie. curriculum). They take the credit for offering educational services, WITH OUR MONEY! On top of that, they pick what we have learned and what future generations will learn (for as long as the Dept of Education exists). What better way to control the population by stealing their money and using it to teach them that stealing their own money is completely fine. It’s genius, actually.

Owning property. We don’t own shit. You buy a home and call it yours, but it’s not yours – we’re on a short leash. Pay off your mortgage and you’re still paying another, endless mortgage, in the form of taxation. Pay off your mortgage (“own” your house) and don’t pay your taxes… bye-bye house! But how? I thought you owned it? Ha. The public, in general, is uneducated and the highly sought after dream of being a home owner is a facade. The government wants you to own a home, so they can take more money from you.

Another Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, conveyed what our Founders intended as a form of government.

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

New Political Development: Declaring War by Tweets

On Matters of War and Law

A couple of weeks ago, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho appeared to believe that the United States had declared war on his country.  And how did Mr. Ri come to that conclusion? Oh, tweets and speeches. The bizarre tale was told on several media sources. Thankfully, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders assured us that all was well during her press briefing of September 25. Most of that briefing’s Q&A dealt with the usual vapidity that would make muckrakers of times past roll in their graves. But, here is the part of interest on the subject of war and law,

“Q  Switching topics, Sarah. North Korea’s foreign minister said that President Trump had declared war on North Korea and that it reserves the right to take countermeasures, including shooting down U.S. aircraft. Does the White House view President Trump’s comments at the U.N. as a declaration of war?”

MS. SANDERS: Not at all. We’ve not declared war on North Korea. And frankly, the suggestion of that is absurd.”

Absurd indeed, but persistent none the less. One could excuse a foreign diplomat for not knowing the ins and outs of war declaration in the U.S. But journalist? How about defense secretaries? Back in August, the media reported that Defense Secretary James Mattis, referring to North Korea’s threat to launch a missile toward Guam, said that war “is up to the president, perhaps up to the Congress.”

Well, not really, Mr. Ri, journalists, and Mr. Mattis. War in the U.S. is not supposed to be declared by presidential tweets, speeches, or conversations with Defense Secretaries. It is supposed to be declared by Congress — at least that is what the United States Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

But wait! Isn’t the President the Commander in Chief? Surely in that capacity he can declare war! Nope. The President directs deployment of troops after Congress declares war.  Cornell Law School:

“Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.”

Ah, but what about the President’s “war powers?” Presidential “war powers” are the legislative equivalent of fake news. If voters allow it, Congress can pass all kinds of stuff, whether or not the U.S. Constitution allows it. Thus Congress has passed since the Korean war in the 1950s “resolutions” and “acts” that allow the President to send troops to or bomb wherever in the world he chooses.

How come? Why has Congress abdicated its responsibility to deliberate and decide on war or peace? Is it the perception of need for immediate decisions? On December 7, 1941, the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor. On December 8, President Franklyn Roosevelt delivered his Day of Infamy speech urging Congress to declare war, which Congress immediately did. Roosevelt did not act unilaterally. It all sounds pretty immediate!

The reason for the abdication is more complex. CNN actually reported something substantial in an article dated September 25, 2017 – yes, the article is about the tweet that helped North Korean Foreign Minister Ri come to the conclusion the U.S. had declared war on his country.

“The Constitution grants Congress the ability to declare war in Article I, Section 8. But presidents don’t have to wait for Congress with the more broad interpretation of executive authority that has developed around the executive branch. When they do feel they need congressional authority, they have been more likely to seek and authorization for the use of military force. Even that has become more perfunctory in recent years…Lawmakers are loathe to take difficult votes on military force, however they do, to some extent control the President’s ability by controlling the national purse strings. They could conceivably choke off funding for a war.”

But, Congress has simply doled out the money to fund wars it did not bother to declare. Congress neither wishes to make difficult decisions nor curb questionable presidential ones.

Mother and Child in KoreaWhat happens now, as the U.S. faces a nation that claims to have nuclear missiles at the ready, whose leader’s speechifying matches our own, and that remembers the devastation of the so-called “Korean conflict.” Do voters demand responsible deliberation and decision making from an adult Congress, or do we just let tweets and speeches decide our fate?

For those interested in this subject, there is a unique website called War and Law League, where the league’s founder writes about destruction brought about by undeclared and unconstitutional “presidential wars.”  They also have a Facebook Page.

Donald Trump’s U.N. Speech 2017

A departure from the status quo: Globalization rejected.

The United Nations General Assembly meets in September of each year, when heads of state and other notables of member nations speak before the assembled representatives. On September 19, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump spoke. The mainstream media focused on his mention of destroying Rocket Man and on his denouncing today’s national pariahs. However, those who listened to or read his entire presentation would have noticed more important messages, 1) a reminder that in the U.S., the people govern; and 2) a shift from the global integration that Barack Obama emphasized in 2016 before the Assembly to cooperation among sovereign nations. Here are some quotes from Trump’s speech,

“In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people, where it belongs.”

“As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first.”

“All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.”

“But making a better life for our people also requires us to work together in close harmony and unity to create a more safe and peaceful future for all people.”

“For the diverse nations of the world, this is our hope. We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife. We are guided by outcomes, not ideology.”

The part about in the U.S. the people govern is clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. The part about the sovereignty of nations in the context of the United Nations has become somewhat obscure over the years since establishment of the U.N. in 1945.

The U.N. Charter says the purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security; develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination; achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character; be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

The U.N.’s purpose is clear, but somewhat open ended. However, Chapter I, Article 2, No. 7, indicates that nations are to maintain their sovereignty, except when they commit physical aggression upon another nation, in which case the U.N. can decide to intervene.

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…”

Now, let’s see what obscured the original purported U.N. intent that nations were to remain sovereign. As a reminder, the U.N. Charter is considered a treaty, and the United States Constitution states that treaties to which the U.S. Senate concurs have the force of U.S. law.

In 2000, U.N. delegates adopted the Millennium Declaration, which significantly expanded the role of the U.N. For example, the 8 Millennium Goals committed participants to the implementation in their own countries by 2015 of policies to achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, and develop global partnerships.

Sustainable Development 5The 8 Millennium Goals were superseded by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. These new goals added new areas to the original 8, such as climate change, economic inequality, innovation, sustainable consumption, and peace and justice.  They also made the old goals more ambitious, such as changing “Achieve universal primary education” to simply “Quality Education.”

We invite you to read legislation, especially land use legislation, passed since around 2006 by your state legislators, you might see an incredible resemblance to the language contained in the Millennium and the Sustainable Development Goals.

What Donald Trump did during his address before the U.N. General Assembly on September 19, 2017, was to cast a NO vote, not to peace, not to prosperity, but to U.N. mandates being implemented as national policy.  Interestingly, the mainstream media did not address this issue.