December 12, 2019

Sanders: Communism Fair Bread Lines Good

Share

Stupid Is As Stupid Sees

BSanders

Share

Second Amendment: a “FUCKING BOY’S COAT?”

*Editor’s Note* – Progressive are really stupid. No really, they are! They so much epitomize the “True Believer” that they are willing to destroy all the good in order to protect the “belief.” Progressives believe that government, laws, social morality, etc. etc. all must change with a changing society. Instead of preserving and protecting those things of value that made us once great, a country of morals and values, along with a strong belief and following of the Word of God, because we desire a decadent lifestyle, along with central control, socialism achieved through fascism, and communism and a ban on self-determination, because it is Progressivism it must be carried out without consideration of the results.

I have said for many years that gun ownership of 30, 50, 80 or 100 million Americans holding onto 100, 200, 300 million guns, is the last and ONLY deterrent from complete dictatorial rule. Progressives, who believe society no longer has a need for guns, evidently desire dictatorial rule. Instead of working to destroy the Second Amendment, they should be thanking those Americans who understand what a RIGHT is and are willing to protect that right instead of pushing for a lifestyle that resembles that of the days of Noah. Yeshua told his disciples, when asked how they would know of His Second Coming, that times would be as they were in the days of Noah. Maybe it’s time to go study up on how things were in the days of Noah.

Talk is cheap, but persuading Americans to surrender their rights will be expensive, difficult, and time-consuming.

Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.

Source: Rant: Second Amendment Repeal | National Review Online

Share

In national park debate, where’s the honey? | Mainely Thoughts

“I was inspired by the bees, the way they all worked together,” she said. “I thought, ‘Oh, what good little communists they are. Well, except for that queen in there.’” — Roxanne Quimby

Over the past several days, I’ve been doing research on Quimby’s national park and recreation area proposal. When I got to that quote in a March 2008 article in Yankee Magazine, I laughed. It was too perfect an analogy to ignore.

Source: In national park debate, where’s the honey? | Mainely Thoughts

Share

Force Word Changes, Force World Changes

ClimateDenierOh, this is nothing new, unless you have your head buried in the comfort of sand, pretending everything is good. It has been a tactic for many, many years and now that we have a White House occupied by a paradigm changer, i.e. someone who co-opts words in exchange for co-opting normalcy, the amount of and prevalence of the act is everywhere and more frequent. Just open your eyes to see… if you dare.

Here’s an example: Nearly a year ago, communists gathered in Oakland, California, testing ground for completing a communist takeover, to protest climate change and Capitalism. Their claims were that Capitalism is causing climate change. They demanded that, “We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.” Non thinkers believing that to end Capitalism, replacing it with Communism, will end Climate Change.

Although it is getting progressively easier to demand and get instant change on many issues, especially with unrestricted use of Executive Privilege, those seeking radical change find still enough resistance that they must resort to changing the way certain issues are discussed – climate change for example.

A year later and we discover that this forcing of word changes to force world change is in full swing and out in the open. Pressure is being put on a pliable and biased media to ban certain climate change terms and replace them with the words hand-selected by the fascist, climate change promoters.

One example is to ban the use of the term “climate change skeptic” and replace it with “climate change denier.” This, of course, works to help influence a non thinking public that man-caused global warming is the norm and denying it is due to a mental disorder.

We shouldn’t forget that in the 70s we were all going to freeze to death because of man-caused global cooling. That approach didn’t accomplish was the rulers wanted and so they switched gears and it became man-caused global warming. Now we are all going to drown.

The climate change fascists didn’t like the results of using their own term, “man-made global warming” and they forced the word change upon the masses and now everything is “climate change.” Climate change has always existed. It’s quite natural. However, when fascists co-opted a word or term and blitzed an ignorant citizenry, the term now denotes the product of evil men.

And now, censorship by the media, will continue to play a role in brainwashing the servants to believe that a skeptic, i.e. one who seeks truth, is bad and need to be labeled “deniers.” How long before that term is changed in order to further force world-wide changes?

It’s not just relegated to climate change. This tactic is everywhere. We have seen it with wildlife management. We’ve witnessed the tearing down of scientifically established institutions and replaced with romance notions, mostly accomplished through the changing of words and creating new meanings. This is known as “new knowledge.” We live in a post normal existence.

We know history repeats itself. How long before us climate change deniers will be jailed for publicly questioning theories?

Not long, I’m afraid.

Share

Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda

“Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming were intentionally a little vague as to what will replace it if we are to solve the problem. But on Sunday in Oakland, that curtain was drawn back and the new system was finally revealed: Communism. Or at least hardcore socialism as Marx defined it — the necessary transitional phase before true complete communism (i.e. no private property, no families, no individualism). Most countries we tend to think of as “communist” actually self-defined as “socialist”: The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, was (as its name reveals) socialist. I point out this detail in case anybody reading this article thinks that the “socialism” advocated at the rally was merely some kind of squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism; no, it is the same type of socialism one finds in places generally thought of as communist.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

American Individualism is a Product of Much Work by our Founders

American individualism is a product of much work by our Founders, a meeting of the minds of Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and its many centuries’ old principles are embodied in the US Constitution. The Magna Charta is about 800 years old and still very relevant. American individualism forms the foundational basis of our government and therefore cannot be anti-government. But it is clearly anti-Communist, anti-fascist Nationalist and anti-consolidation-of-power found in similarly in the Communist Manifesto, the Koran and the bureaucratic administrative states in America.

Drunken Karl Marx, responsible for nothing, created distinctions without differences. Part of his psycho-babble was “I stroll through the destruction a creator.” Setting classes against each other, that is, creating distinctions without differences, is an established tactic of the Communists, so said FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover, a loyal, trustworthy and moral American if there ever was one.

Von Mises’ 1951 refutation of the class divisions of Marxist Socialism entitled “Socialism” at page 299 states that, “Once it has been perceived that the division of labour is the essence of society, nothing remains of the antithesis between individual and society. The contradiction between individual principle and social principle disappears.”

In other words, not only is American individualism not antagonistic to society’s government, its miracle of freedom created the strongest government in the world in the history of mankind. And, the highest per capita income in the world ever since the 1830’s, as the late British economist Angus Maddison observed.

But for too many decades now, America has been moving away from founding principles of limited government and individual freedom.

So what are the common characteristics between Communism, the Koran and the administrative bureaucracies that destroy the fundamental Constitutional freedoms of individualism?

In short, each consolidates power. Both the Communist Manifesto and the Koran advocate gangs of indoctrinated who roam society and mete out “social justice”, if you will, as they find it. Bureaucratic agencies use Investigators who roam about or are tipped off by anonymous contacts. These three types of consolidated power get rid of the role of pesky lawyers, but they also combine a number of divisions of labor that are prohibited in our history by English Common Law as expounded by Wm. Blackstone. Only the administrative process attempts to hide the consolidation of power by having law-trained administrative law judges rubber stamp the steam-roller process in kangaroo court. But substantive (authentic) due process requires more. Much more.

Everyone can inherently understand the reasoning behind the common law’s prohibition of the Sheriff also serving as the Judge as a conflict of interest. It is obvious that the Sheriff will not accuse and arrest unless the Sheriff is convinced of guilt. And the Judge is supposed to be impartial. If not, a Jury will stand between the individual and the government. Add the requirement that the laws be published in writing and come from an elected legislative body, and you describe the requirements of the Magna Charta.

But when Communists or radical Muslims grab, accuse and execute you, they act as Sheriff, Judge, Jury and Executioner. It’s more complicated than that in the administrative state. The agency Investigator, sees the offense, sends in the information, and by letter, the agency tells the accused of the fine for the violation. So the agency acts as both the Sheriff and the Judge. The agency has another agent contact the accused to work out a deal. Many times, a deal is struck because the agency offers to settle for a lesser amount now, but more if you exercise your Constitutional rights. But everyone in the agency acts as One on behalf of the agency.

The agency accuses you, sentences you, tries to work a settlement with you, then enforces the sentence. As a general rule in the legal system, the initial accuser cannot be anonymous. And the administrative rules are not created the same way a law is.

And as a general proposition in court litigation, there are ethical rules regarding attorney communications with the opposite party that do not apply in agency settlement “talks”. But with agency actions, you get no jury trial right, even on appeal to the Judicial branch. In fact, changing the process from an appeal to the Judicial branch to a review by the Judicial branch simply makes the Judicial branch an extension of the administrative law judge function.

Such is more than a lack of niceties. It is a consolidation of power. But the consolidation does not end there.

Prof. Hamburger in his 2014 legal treatise “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” from which much of the foregoing is exquisitely detailed, summarizes the consolidation of power at page 323 thusly: “In other words, administrative law harks back not merely to the time before the adoption of the United States Constitution, but all the way to the early Middle Ages. It then was commonplace to imagine that government power belonged to a single person or group that would be sufficiently wise, forceful, and judicious that it could be entrusted with all government power.”

To further describe the consolidation of power in bureaucratic agencies (the administrative state) in more detail, Prof. Hamburger makes the analogy of the human “intellect, will, and force” to the three separation of powers being the “lawmaking will, executive force, and judicial understanding…”. Id at pages 326-327.

He further points out that in the exercise of legislative will, the legislature is divided into two houses, and made up of elected people who represent individual interests. And the result of that legislative will must survive the Executive’s veto. Then there is the Executive who may be removed by the Legislature and Judiciary under certain circumstances. And the Judiciary is made up of three divisions of courts beginning with the trial court and two appellate courts to review decisions.

But Executive’s agency rules evade all of those safeguards by consolidating its rule-making process to a publish and comment process that, frankly, seems to operate more as a “should we go slower or faster” military-style after-action report.

And that is not the worst of it. Judicial deference to rule making, deference to rule interpretation and deference to the agency’s facts is an inexcusable abandonment of the duty of the Judicial branch to expound upon the law, or in this case the administrative rule. The most powerful point supporting that assertion is the fact that the Judicial branch does not allow even Congress to interpret its own laws, but it defers to the administrative state’s interpretation of its own rules. And the administrative state agency is a party in the litigation.

To a lawyer, deference to a party litigant is a shocking discovery. The Judge is supposed to be impartial, neutral. But it cannot when it defers to one of the parties in the litigation.

In those ways, administrative law defeats America’s unique Constitutional individualism. And major reform must be done. One is that the Judiciary must be reminded of its duty. And laws designed to thwart the proper judicial role must be changed and or found to be unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers. Two, administrative law judges whose decisions approving agency actions are overturned on Constitutional grounds two times should become automatically disqualified to work for government for life. This two strike rule should not disbar the attorney, but put him or her out into the private sector to make a living.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

(America’s Unique) Definition of individualism

Individualism means the priority of sacred individual rights over the rights/power of the commune or of fascist Nationalism.

The word sacred refers to the descriptor God-given to describe rights that America recognizes as preceding the writing of the US Constitution.

The words commune and fascist Nationalism include the concepts of any region such as in regionalism, globalism, environmentalism and necessarily includes the concept of habitat.

Recalling the Nazis, Nationalism was the priority of the nation over the individual wherein the rights of the individuals were bound (root meaning of the word fascist) and individual rights were denied for the greater common good of Germany. [See attached photo.][“These dead gave their spirits for the glory of Greater Germany.”]

I’ve seen a corruption of the word individualism by Communists, Putin in particular, and a foreign misunderstanding of American individualism by at least one liberal or left-wing Australian Catholic. America’s Protestant roots might also explain why the expression of individualism of the French and American revolutions might not be well understood in the melting pot of America’s many cultures.

Personalism, an old (but not irrelevant) concept in the Catholic religious community is similar but seems to be more of a term of art in the religious/philosophical field, while American individualism, according to my understanding as of this writing, is a term of art in the legal rights/political field.

Individualism as I refer to it herein, relates not to the person rather to the rights (power) of the person as an individual in competition against the rights (power) of the Commune. The individual wins against the Government because of the priority of the God-given sacred fundamental right of the individual to Free Speech.

For example, let’s take a look at what the United States Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roberts) said about the God-given right to Free Speech in U.S. V. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010):
“The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).” [Emphasis added.]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

To understand the uniquely American concept of individualism use Livy’s dialectic by considering the statements of those who oppose American individualism. Hegel (hence Marx) states that, “Freedom is the recognition of the necessity of mutual coercion.” [Quote is attributed by adherent Hardin to Hegel.] Russian Communist Putin described individualism as dangerous. And Obama in his typically inexact and rambling way stated essentially that, Personal freedom is preserved by collective action. Similar remarks are attributed to Hillary Clinton.

Redefining individualism as similar to hedonism, egoism or anarchy defeats the connection between individual rights and God as against the all powerful centralized government. In order to counter the mischaracterization of individualism by foreigners who easily confuse individualism with hedonism, egoism or anarchy consider this: American individualism is not a concept that pits man against God.

Rather the concept of American individualism is God and man together against the otherwise overwhelming power of government. This is not some sort of anti-government conspiracy stuff. The automatically-arising competition between the power of government and the protection of God-given human rights (power of the individual) consumes the writers of both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers of the late 1700’s.

If the Founders were not cognizant of the overwhelming power of centralized government, then why would they devise the separation of powers so thoroughly? The Legislature is divided into two and its laws must survive a veto by a third party, the Executive. The Judiciary is divided into three courts with original trial, appellate review and then the Supreme Court. The Executive is one but may be removed by the Legislature. The Legislature (Congress) creates the law but may not interpret it. Expounding upon the law is the duty and function of the Judiciary. The Executive enforces the law.

Now think about the lack of separation of powers in agencies that make their own rules, interpret them, establish their own facts, enforce the result, and then, despite being a biased party in litigation, demand that the Judiciary to give them total deference.

The writers of the Constitution knew their history. The Magna Charta, now about 800 years old, is the basis of human rights, human freedom and thereby human dignity found in our federal and state Constitutions. It provided that humans would not be deprived of life, liberty or property without resort to a jury of their peers, yet that is exactly what bureaucratic agencies are currently allowed to get away with.

As the exCommunist noted in the ’50’s era book “The God That Failed”, the largest most controlling monopolistic corporation is but a mere pygmy when compared to the power of government. Consistent with that thought, consider that even the largest US corporations don’t operate SWAT teams but the smallest subdivision of US government can usually figure out how to get one called up if needed.

I heard someone say that the reason the expression of individualism in the French revolution failed, but the American experiment worked, was because Americans connected God to their individual rights. And the French did not. So, when God is taken out of government and schools, Constitutional rights simply become, as in any Communist country, an illegitimate Kaganesque ad hoc balancing test between the interest of atheist man in rights (powers) against the interest of atheist government in rights (powers). In such contests, the government always wins.

So to reiterate what Justice Roberts said:
“As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).”

Without connecting God to our individual rights, we cannot as easily recognize the loss of our human dignity when human rights to property are taken away from us. In labor law, employment is a recognized property right the violation of which gives rise to a cause of action by the individual whose rights are violated. The Endangered
Species Act now centrally controls, outside of the three branches of government, our private property rights. Central control abolishes private property ala the Communist Manifesto. (Last two pages Chapter Two.) By signing the ESA, Nixon capitulated more than just Vietnam to the Communists. “Just following orders” was no defense to the Nazis and should be no defense to those “just following orders” in the various anti-American, anti-human liberation movements.

Individual rights should not be confused with group rights. Group rights violate our Founders’ doctrine of equality under the law and show up as corporate cronyism (that resemble Communist oligarchy) and as special rights for small politically well-connected groups of humans and of endangered animals.

The following describes individual rights, that is, individualism, the priority of the rights of the individual over the government and its bureaucracies. Some states’ rights are included. The following is not a verbatim recitation, rather the list of paraphrased rights is to demonstrate much of what we do not hear on today’s professional agitator propaganda media outlets. Capitalization is all over the map in the Constitution and was followed in some instances and ignored in others.

The people shall have the Writ of Habeas Corpus available except under certain circumstances.

The individual shall be free from Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.

Individuals shall have limits on taxation.

There shall be no preferences toward one state over another.

Appropriations by law are necessary to authorize withdrawal of federal money from the Treasury.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the US.

The trial of all crimes shall be by jury.

Each citizen shall have all privileges and immunities of one state in all the other states.

The United States shall protect each state from invasion.

Congress shall not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or to peaceably assemble.

The individual shall have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The people shall be free from the mandatory quartering of troops in their homes.

Individuals shall not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.

No accusations of crime against individuals shall lie unless made in writing to give proper notice of the allegations and in order to provide for a proper defense.

No one shall be subjected to double jeopardy. [Regarding WOTUS, the central controllers at the EPA want fines up to $37,500 per day of violation.]

No one can be compelled to testify against oneself. [Compare that to certain administrative state proceedings that resemble the Star Chambers of old.]

No one can be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. [“Of law” has a special meaning that excludes the extralegal administrative state proceedings.] [“Due process” is a phrase of art for which whole books have been written. The concept includes substantive (authentic, my word) due process meaning the Constitutional creation of the law to include proper notice to the public, written notice of any alleged violations, and more.]

No property shall be taken for the governments’ purposes [of saving animals] without just compensation.

An accused shall have the right of speedy and public trial [No agency Star Chamber trials.] by jury where the crime was alleged to have been committed, to be informed of the allegation, to confront the accusers, to have compulsory process for providing defense witnesses and for a defense lawyer.

Where the amount of controversy shall exceed $20, a litigant shall have the right to demand a jury. [Again, environmental fine of $37,500 with no trial.]

The individual shall be free from excessive bail, excessive fines and free from cruel and unusual punishments. [$37,500 fine, daily.]

The individual’s rights set out shall not be disparaged by the numbering order set out in the Bill of Rights.

There shall be no slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime. [That is after conviction, not just because you decide to engage in a certain kind of regulated business.]

No state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges and immunities of the individual. [Seems to me that economic rights are privileges and immunities of property ownership that should not be abridged simply by administrative rule that are not enacted first by law, that is, representative government.]

Equal protection under the law appears in three important places not including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

The individual’s right to vote appears in several places also.

No where in there do I see any right of a small politically well-connected group of pinnated grouse, of tiny fish or of spotted owls to force an individual to give up human rights to private property or to private property self-employment rights. In fact, what I see is the establishment of a humans-first public policy that Congress had no right to alter by passing the Endangered Species Act.

Individualism

Share

Want to Fight Communistic Central Control but Don’t Want to Leave the Country to Do It?

Fight the cancer of Communistic principles from the comfort of your own bunkhouse…. learn how to say No.

Joan Veon said that Public Private “Partnerships” exist to manage the assets of the government. And that would necessarily include assets that the government, usually a bureaucracy, lays claim to control.

Video of Joan Veon on public private partnerships.

All the critics are in agreement that WOTUS[Waters of the United States] is about controlling all waters, and thereby private property land use, of the US.
http://gardner.house.gov/press-release/gardner-votes-protect-colorado-wotus-rule

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2014/09/24/ncba-issue-another-warning-on-wotus-impact/

It ain’t rocket science. Central control of private property is pure Marxism. (Last part of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto.) Control equals wealth. Control equals ownership. Central control abolishes private property. Central, regional, national, global “planning” schemes are not legitimate options to eminent domain proceedings required by the US Constitution. Regionalism is not a safe alternative to fascist Nationalism, the evil philosophical twin to Communism that robs Americans of the sacred individual right to just compensation for takings of private property for bureaucratic purposes of controlling water quality, providing habitat for animals.

Learn how to Just Say No.

So, let’s talk about what communism is or is not. Is all central control of government assets communistic? No, don’t be silly. We are talking about the centralized control of private property and rights that are being systematically seized outside of the normal transfer of rights process and then controlled conjunctively through the administrative state and bureaucracies that are routinely being characterized as lawless by more and more legal scholars.

At some point I think people will begin to connect the take-over of private property land to other private property rights such as employment. For example, Cuba’s Slave Trade in Doctors. (May be a Paywall. Hint: You might be able to bypass the Pay Wall by placing the title in a Google search box.)

Now think about Obamacare. Does Obamacare enable public private “partnerships” to skim the difference off the labor of the enslaved, if you will, American doctors? We now find out that the Obamacare bill was intended to be obscure. And it is in many ways.

It clearly takes over a large fraction of the US economy and that is dangerous to American exceptionalism.

The reason I put the word partnership in quotes is because in a real partnership there is a sharing of profits and liabilities. But government typically dodges liability because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. A public private partnership can include a publicly traded corporation that wealthy hedge fund speculators can invest in. The profit margin involved when enslaving doctors can amount to a lot of money for public private partnerships composed of small groups of politically well connected friends of the White House. In fact, such public private partnerships can hire top political figures (amoral opportunists) as safeguards against adverse legislation and or prosecution, and lend the whole scheme an air of legitimacy, of “giving back”.

Instead of true partnerships, the general concept of public private partnerships looks like a special delegation of governmental power to a select private company along with a smoke screen of borrowed sovereign immunity. Favoritism, corporate cronyism, oligarchy and monopoly were disfavored by our Founders who believed in equality under the law. Corporate cronyism fits the Communist form of government far better than the American example of equal treatment. Cronyism smacks of the idea that certain favorites are above the law.

So, let’s take a look at another specific instance of “assets of the government”. Texas has 1,500 years worth of groundwater, even if it does not rain again. Nearly all of it is privately owned. The Texas scare narrative is that we will never develop the technology to get it out of the ground. Surely, the advancement of engineering technology to extract water will not magically stop.

Through a heritage of ancient and relevant English, Spanish and French law, America, including Texas, developed sets of legal concepts that govern relationships between users of surface water with a governing authority managing that surface water and resolving conflicts between users with surface water rights. But in Texas (as in states east of the Mississippi), groundwater is owned outright by the individual land owner, the same as other underground minerals such oil and gas.

So when talking about surface water, the creation of a Texas Water Trust, Texas Water Bank, a Texas Water Development Board and water credits, and the like, are not all that unusual. But I am suspicious of the cover story when such banking and investment schemes are used in conjunction with privately owned groundwater. There is no legitimate way to use “regional planning” to plan our groundwater rights away. Regionalism, in the form of “regional planning” schemes, are not legitimate alternatives to eminent domain proceedings required by the US Constitution. I am not talking about the purely voluntary water market made up of purchased groundwater rights. Voluntariness makes a market legitimate. Trickery of planning private property rights away removes voluntariness. That is why, when it comes to private property groundwater, a water trust, water bank, a state level water board and water credits are highly suspect depending upon the source of the title to groundwater rights especially so when we learn that the Greenies in the UN’s Commission on Global Governance say things such as, “Regionalism (think Texas’ regional water planning groups) must precede Globalism.”

Here is something else that is curious. Ignoring for now the unconstitutional nature of the forced “saving” of 50% of private property groundwater, think about this. How can the selling of water credits of groundwater, that can no longer be produced (because the 50% level was reached and all groundwater production was stopped for the paramount benefit of the endangered downstream fish), not end up being some sort of securities fraud?

Now, put on the conspiracy hat for a moment.

What could be the motivation behind getting the private money of American super-rich hedge fund managers and others, even more wealthy, tied up in worthless groundwater assets that cannot be developed to their full potential because of a mandatory 50% preservation of groundwater in 50 years? (Never mind that the state cannot define 100% and that it is impossible to save 50% of something when you don’t know what 100% looked like or when it existed.)

And what about the climate change clap trap? Who or what has the clout (too big to jail?) to ignore all the pump and dump (in my opinion) going on with nearly worthless carbon credits and the climate change con job? Climate change – follow the money.

Conspiracy Hat Moment:
Is the purpose of the various asset grabs to drain the wealth of the US (and other select countries?) so it (or they) can’t fight back in the next world war? (That’s right Dorothy, war is something humans will never be able to end.)

Are America’s most wealthy being duped into duping the average US citizen with the Marxist, anti-economic theme that central control increases total production?

Or is the duping really aimed, not at the general public, but at the wealthy through a campaign that only appears to be aimed at an increasingly skeptical public?

We should remember that citizen wealth is sometimes resorted to, even as recently as the current Ukrainian crisis by an impoverished and unprepared nation. Oil tycoon buys batteries for military vehicles that have none.(Pay Wall)

Knowing how important batteries are to vehicles, what’s with the EPA’s draconian regulations forcing the closure of the last US lead smelter……..

It is well established that the American revolution was financed in part by the personal wealth and family treasure of early American citizens.

So what explains the stubborn global push to keep the climate change con going, the various environmental schemes going against all the available science, the same con jobs that are draining the US Treasury and the portfolios of the most wealthy among us and the pocket books of the average American through “smart” high energy and fuel prices?

So just to recap, communism is top-down, central planning and control of private rights. I think we all need to learn how to say No as more and more are doing daily.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

The Anti-Economics of Drunken Lowlife Karl Marx

Marx’ slanders of the shared prosperity of the middle class, the bourgeoisie he called them, at the end of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto with the now forever discredited as delusional notion that centralized control of private property increases total production.

Hence we see groundwater boards conducting water grabs and sending an annual supply for 500,000 Californians out to sea for the benefit of the commune’s tiny endangered fish – during a severe drought; activist bureaucratic agencies cooking their economic numbers and the disastrous devastation of the lumber-rich Northwestern US, Curry County Oregon, now beyond two decades of subhuman impoverishment.

The Endangered Species Act, when used to enslave us through the central control of our sacred individual human rights is pure Marxism.

Central planning and control destroys America’s exceptionalism to Communism.
It destroys the private property rights that made Americans have the highest per capita income in the world ever since the 1830’s.

The use of central control is like planning for the future by burning your own house down, the exact same description I saw someone use to describe Keynesian “economics”. Sounds like anti-economics to me.

Livy

Share