"I will try not to waste any more of your time. We needn't correspond until then. Perhaps I should send it to you at your school email address."

Never, ever consider that you could be wasting my time. I am always happy to answer sincere questions and comments.

Please, feel free to use the school email address to communicate with me.

To effectively change a system being manipulated by the 1%, we must identify who the 1% are. Every theory on warfare begins with knowing the enemy. Yet, we know the enemy as the 1%, the power elite, the super-rich, the international bankers, etc.

We need to reform the U.S income tax law so that the wealthy pay taxes at the same rate as the masses and the super-rich:

Click to view link

lose the tax-free shelters and join the rest of us in supporting the bloated government that they, the super-rich, have created.

This can only be accomplished by identifying who these families are and how much money they are worth both here and abroad.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Good Lord, it is so discouraging. All you people want to do is ensure that the "1 percent" whatever that is, pay their "fair share." It never occurs to you apparently that the US tax system itself is dysfunctional, cruel and entirely spendthrift, or that most of the functions government supposedly "does" with your taxes are equally wasteful and wasted. Take a look at the infrastructure that the Fedgov has "kept up" with your taxes ...

You asked in your survey here, "What is the problem with U.S. Politics?" and missed the essential option completely.

Many decades ago, while trying to change the formal education system, I felt great frustration, because I had the proof in my successful radical management training Courses, when my old mentor, Kylneth, reminded me to use Negative Analysis on it.

Just as I then realised, the formal Education system is actually a beautiful machine to PREVENT LEARNING, so looking at U.S. politics correctly, it has been an incredibly effective tool to CONTROL THE PEOPLE.

U.S. POLITICS has functioned extremely well ever since its origins, to create the amazing totalitarian system, it is part of internationally today, under the very difficult conditions created by having an arrogant, well-fed, well-off peasantry in a large,(thus ungovernable as Rome found) rich land.

What you are looking at is not a coincidence, nor any error. It is a simple repetition that works. Has done for thousands of years. ("Warriors" aren't thinkers and always are repetitive.)

Unfortunately for the progenitors of this single approach, it has two weaknesses:

1. It requires wealthy nations to target, who can be presumed weaker.
2. It has a short life, because the pie can only be sliced into so many pieces and the people are not really stupid, merely culpable in their expectation of sharing in the spoils. (Like cheap petrol, today.)

Exactly like Rome, the party is over,the Circus can't feed them. The people are looking for a scapegoat. Obama was never anything but that, and a very good choice as a future hate object.

The only bright spot I see is that "1984" could not work. While it has been basically implemented in the USA today, it will have less life expectancy than its engineers had before, in Germany.

Even the new Reich in Germany has already come unstuck on the simplest level.

There wont be a New World Order.

It never worked before and has even less chance now. Too many fingers, too few pies. New China, New India, New real Russia and none of these can even feed themselves for much longer. AND finally, Mother Nature is taking a hand in the game. We ain't seen nothin' yet there. (The geologic record is quite frightening for anyone who looks at it, and it tends to repeat too!).

I don't propose to just blog. I expect to have a broadside published before Christmas, and articles and books eventually. Please keep in mind that I not only dropped out of college but high school as well. Writing has begun clarifying my thinking only recently. If I had known how much it would, I would have started decades ago.

I refuse to apply for government funds to return to school or for any other reason. It is up to me to learn, sitting in this very chair.

A bad attitude toward authority, particularlly schools has characterized much of my life. Part of that came from the disparity in quality of schools I attended early and late. Mid sixties found me in your neck of the woods attending schools in Oakland, Alameda, and Vallejo. Later I was bored to death in places like Mississippi.

You expressed interest in my response to the "economic philosophy" of Henry George as explained in Progress and Poverty. I am sure that you have had an enormous amount of feedback from your students, and from others, some actually working as economists, on this very subject.

I am sure that it will not be easy, but I will attempt to give you an analysis that is not only interesting, but actually useful.

I will try not to waste any more of your time. We needn't correspond until then. Perhaps I should send it to you at your school email address.

Lots of luck to you in your effort to blog. The more all of us start thinking and evaluating the way and the times in which we live, the better off we are.

I don't mean change everything.

Probably will never run for office, even locally let alone nationally. Many have had great influence just through writing. I am not very good at writing but will certainly improve. Never have done it much until recently.

Writing about politics, economics and how history proves or at least validates or invalidates systems and ideas is what I am interested in now.

I can not go back to manual labor, at least not at the level of my younger, less injured days. As long as I stay here in the middle of nowhere there is not much choice anyway.

I don't want to be a reporter. "Journalists" giving facts without opinions is an ideal which I find not only nonexistant but unuseful.

So I will be giving my opinion, but with the hope of not misleading my readers, assuming that I ever have any.

Obtained the Drake edition of Progress and Poverty today, have not yet started.

Well... I don't know, if any one of us can change the world. The way I look at it is from the standpoint of understanding it. By understanding, I mean to ascribe to a particular paradigm the need that it "work". A paradigm has to be consistent from A to Z, from the "Big Bang" to today's humans and their societies in its explanation.

Does that mean there is only one CORRECT paradigm? Not at all, if one believes in the Heisenberg "Uncertainty Principle", and I do. The criteria is not some abstract "correctness". It is "workability". One fact must logically follow other facts to interact to make a whole picture.

I possess the sense of a "workable" paradigm. Yet, I am constantly testing it. There are facts recorded everywhere. One has to start with those that logically fit together in one's paradigm. Further research and testing will confirm their applicability.

As I said, "workability" is the criteria to give validity to a paradigm. According to Quantum Theory, there could be an infinite number of universes or infinite number of paradigms, but they must "work" to be valid.

I can't help but feel guilty. I keep asking you single sentence questions, which you keep answering well, with hundreds of words.

If I were a student in one of your classed you would be assigning me similar questions to research. Research which I am ill equipped to undertake, since my quest for knowledge has been so unfocused. Basically entertainment rather than research.

I entered college with a very focused idea. To make single crystal diamonds in whatever shape and size. The idea was to eventually enable the human race to build a beanstalk, the only economical way off the planet.

When I applied to work for the Census, (out of desperation) I felt that I was betraying my principals. Employed by Lenin in Wonderland. No idea there was an oath involved. Defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. No idea it would change my perspective on the world.

Despite being patriotic, my reading held no special place for American history. It covered the world from beginning to present.

Now I find my study to be more focused, but only in a relative sense. Economics, law, history, each more than a life's study. None professions I ever desired or desire now.

I am nearly fifty, can not change my residence because I take care of my elderly parents, and live in a tiny town that has no jobs in good times.

Yet once again I feel compelled to try to change the world.

The Republican Congress during the "Reconstruction Period" did all sort of things in order to assure that the Southern States were unable to negate the interests for which the North had fought the Civil War.

One was to pass the 1866 law which required state legislatures to discard the customary and traditional "secret ballot" vote for U.S. Senators in favor of a "open voice" vote. The Republican Congress, the North still occupying the South at the time, wanted insight in the selection of U.S. Senators by requiring state legislators to openly select U.S. Senators. As a result, every other state in the union was soon rife with corruption in selecting their U.S. Senators. It was this corruption which the Progressive Movement ceased upon to built their demand for "greater democracy" in electing U.S. Senators. Their demand for the 17th Amendment was supported by the big banks and rail road monopolies. Its rafification was propagandized by the Hearst newspaper chain.

The detrimental effects to the freedoms and liberty of Americans, as result of the ratification of the 17th Amendment, exceeds by miles any detrimental effects brought on by the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

In the same vain, the Republican Congress proposed the 14th Amendment to make sure that the emancipated slaves would be considered "citizens" of the State in which they resided by virtue of being declared "citizens" of the United States by the Chief Executive of the federal governemnt through the emancipation proclamation. Prior to emancipation and the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865, slaves were considered chattle. They were counted as 3/5 of a human for representation purposes in election for federal office. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to make clear that slaves, were hence forth "citizens of the United States". By ratifying the 14th Amendment, the states would also have to consider such persons to be citizens of the State in which they resided. For representation in the federal government, emancipated slaves were to be considered to be "whole persons" (rather than 3/5, as before).

I am open to arguments from the libertarian movement on a number of views they hold. When Harry Browne was still a force in that movement, I could be persuaded to see the merit of some of their points. Recently however, this movement has been given to mostly emotional arguments, leaving reason well behind.

For example, some in the libertarian movement have the notion that Abraham Lincoln, opposing the cessation of the Southern States from the Union started tyrannical federal government. Their contention is that all our troubles started with Lincoln. The 14th Amendment declaring Americans being "citizens of the federal goverment" and robbing them of "state citizenship" is one of those emotional notions in which some in the libertarian movement love to wallow.

IMHO, the 14th Amendment was proposed to assure that slaves be considered "full human beings" or "whole persons" for representation purposes, and that all former male slaves were to be eligible to vote in federal elections. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment which requires the states on how to conduct statewide elections.

The part in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which declares any person born in the United States to be a citizen thereof, has been interpreted wrongly in my opinion. I do not believe that it was meant to apply to persons born of foreign parents. To clarify this part of the 14th Amendment, it would be best to make things clear in an other amendment.

Seems as though there will be very many to pardon. I guess they will have to crank up the robopens early.
Do you think it would be worthwhile to modify the 14th, per your conversation with frick and all of the other nonsense since it was adopted.

"Excuse me, sir. Just because you do not understand, it does not mean it is I that should "do some critical thinking." (Saul Alynski-ish, maybe?)"

Your reply intimates that you understand, and I don't. You justify this by an adhominem attack... ??? This is the sort of response which can rightly be expected to come from an ideologue, such as a Saul Alinsky. I suspect that you have much more in common with him than I do.

"Thus, the current state government (so-called) are nothing more than corporate extensions of the Federal Government". Allow me to explain it a bit further. Per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; "All persons" are declared "citizens of the United States" Federal Government, correct?"

Those born or naturalized within the United States are said to be citizens of the United States. However, you fail to deliberately drop the follow on wording: "... and citizens of the States wherein they reside." Why, sir do you leave out the fact that people born and naturalized in the United States are also citizens of the State in which they reside? Is it to drive home your ideology which insists that we are all "citizens" (in the "Robespierrean sense") of a central government in Washington, DC... ???

Citizenship of a particular state exists. It came into being when the state constitutions were ratified. Being a citizen of a State comes before being a citizen of the United States. In order for a state to become a state of the Union, it has to have a constitution which mirrors that of the constitutions of the original thirteen states, as demanded by Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. If you will take the time to read the United States Constitution, you will find that the original thirteen states formed a Federal Republic and gave it certain, limited and defined powers. Among those were representation of their citizens toward foreign countries, and the protection of the border for any state that borders with a foreign country.

Unlike your contention, the citizenship of each of the States was always sovereign and independent from citizenship of the U.S. Not withstanding Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.), to be a citizen of the U.S. does not take precedence over being a citizen of the state in which the individual resides.

If you go to any overseas U.S. military cementary, you will see the Rank, Name and Citizenship of the State of the fallen soldier enscribed on the grave stone. Nowhere on the grave stone will you ever see that the soldier was a citizen of the United States. Your contention that there is no such "thing" as a citizen of a sovereign state, is just wrong.

People in the sovereign states elect their state senators and assembly men. Before the 17th Amendment, they could influence the selection for U.S. Senator through their state legislators with who many citizens had close contact. That the idea of the 1913 Progressive Movement of introducing "more democracy" by popularly electing U.S. Senators is 180 degrees opposed to the intent of the founders, doesn't seem to bother you at all. That the ratification of the 17th Amendment turned the Federal Republic into a "Federal Democracy" which eats the guts out of the original U.S. Constitution, doesn't seem to bother you either.

To give you just the most noxious results of the existence of the the 17th Amendment, let me list the 1935 Banking Act and the "Fed" central bank, the Social Security System, Medicare, and recently Obama Care and Homeland Security. Had the states still a voice in the U.S. Senate, none of this legislation would ever have passed. However, in your world this is all just fine. You are convinced that Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.) is finite as to state citizenship, and it has you convinced that the 14th Amendment is the cause of our problems. Get real... . (Come to think about, this is a mantra of the libertarian movement, no wonder... )

Are not those persons in the states' legislatures then citizens of the US federal govt. per the 14th?

They are not citizens of the U.S. federal government. How can anyone be a citizen of a government... ??? It's absurd.

If you want to interpret the 14th Amendment, you could say that it points up a distinction between being a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the sovereign state of the U.S. You simply fail to read all of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which regards to being a citizen. Your reading gives out when it come to the second part: "... and citizens of the States wherein they reside."

If the sovereign states wanted to consider people with "green cards" to be citizens of their state, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. They would not be citizens of the United States to be represented toward foreign countries, and they would not be able to vote in federal elections. However, as to be able to vote in state elections, there is nothing the federal government has to say about it.

So IMHO, the 14th Amendment argument is merely a diversion from the effort of those who rightly point the finger at the 17th Amendment as being the cause of the destruction of the American Republic.

"And were they not elected by citizens of the US federal govt.?"

As I said before, "citizens of the US federal govt." is ideological claptrap. The correct term would be "citizen of the Federal Republic of the United States of America.

"Assuming you give the correct answer of "yes" to both questions, then what logically follows is that the republic states have no bodies politic. As all persons are federal citizens and not of their respective republic. Thus the state governments are nothing but extensions of the federal govt."

Your ideological blinders prevented you from seeing the real cause of the impotence of state government in guiding the affairs in the U.S. Congress. The 14th Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with it.

State governments became impotent in directing the affairs in Washington, DC by throwing away their voice in the U.S. Senate when they ratified the 17th Amendment. To claim that the states became impotent because of the 14th Amendment, is downright laughable...

"People of the original republics were not federal citizens prior to the 14th. Just as the people of the EU Nations are not (yet) citizens of the EU central govt."

To the extent that a private citizen of a sovereign U.S. State is represented by the U.S. Secretary of State in any official contact with foreign governments, a citizen of a sovereign state has always been considered a Unites States citizen, even prior to the 14th Amendment.

When you use the EU as a "red herring", as I would expect from an ideologue, let me say that whatever this socialist, bureaucratic union of states in Europe does, can in no way be compared to the intent of the origininal U.S. Constitution.

As to the UN "red herring", let me say that to give the UN any kind of standing, other than as a debating society, is a great mistake.

Excuse me, sir. Just because you do not understand, it does not mean it is I that should "do some critical thinking." (Saul Alynski-ish, maybe?)

""Thus, the current state government (so-called) are nothing more than corporate extensions of the Federal Government". How silly is this... ???
Corporate extensions... ??? What nonsense... !!!"

Allow me to explain it a bit further.

Per the Article 14 Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; "All persons" are declared "citizens of the United States" Federal Government, correct?

Are not those persons in the states' legislatures then citizens of the US federal govt. per the 14th?

And were they not elected by citizens of the US federal govt.?

Assuming you give the correct answer of "yes" to both questions, then what logically follows is that the republic states have no bodies politic. As all persons are federal citizens and not of their respective republic. Thus the state governments are nothing but extensions of the federal govt..

People of the original republics were not federal citizens prior to the 14th. Just as the people of the EU Nations are not (yet) citizens of the EU central govt..

See:

POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS
LEGISLATIVE, DIPLOMATIC, AND POPULAR
1856-1886
JAMES G. BLAINE.
NORWICH, CONN. THE HENRY BILL PUBLISHING COMPANY
1887

Page 61. The Reconstruction Problem

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A BASIS OF RECONSTRUCTION.

[Speech of Mr. Blaine at a Republican mass meeting in Skowhegan, Maine, Aug. 29, 1866.]

excerpt:

"The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens. We do not, by making them citizens, make them voters,-we do not, in this Constitutional Amendment, attempt to force them upon Southern white men as equals at the ballot-box; but we do intend that they shall be admitted to citizenship, that they shall have the protection of the laws, that they shall not, any more than the rebels shall, be deprived of life, of liberty, of property, without due process of law, and that 'they shall not be denied the equal protection of the law.' And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship-and our Amendment declares that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.' This Amendment will prove a great beneficence to this generation, and to all who shall succeed us in the rights of American citizenship; and we ask the people of the revolted States to consent to this condition as an antecedent step to their re-admission to Congress with Senators and Representatives."

All persons (black and white) were declared "citizens of the United States" Federal Government by the 14th Amendment.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.) defines the 14th Amendment this way: The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;...

The 14th Amendment reconstructed the form of government. Citizenship is the foundation of bodies politic.

What effect would repealing the 17th have without restoring the separate republics first?

Please look down this thread for further information I've posted.

Mike

"This means there is no bodies politic in the several ststes. Thus, the current state government (so-called) are nothing more than corporate extensions of the Federal Government. So giving the state legislatures the power to select their Senators won't accomplish much in restoring the republican form of government."

I have heard this argument over and over again. It never made any sense to me.

The 14th Amendment states that, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States... ..are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The original constitution made very clear who elected U.S. Senators. U.S. Senators were not the representatives of the people. They represented the state governments. How does the 14th Amendment have anything to do with U.S. Senators chosen by state legislators... ???

"Thus, the current state government (so-called) are nothing more than corporate extensions of the Federal Government". How silly is this... ???
Corporate extensions... ??? What nonsense... !!!

What the founders wanted was federal officials to be elected by groups of voters no larger than could personally interact with the candidates for office before they cast their vote.

Furthermore, U.S. Senators selected by state legislators were subject to recall by the state legislators at any time. Seven U.S. Senators were thus recalled.

With the ratification of the 17th Amendment, U.S. Senators were elected by popular vote by the people residing within a state. The U.S. Senators elected by state legislators had to represent the interest of their state government. They weren't permitted to make deals with banks and corporations against their state government's policies. However, once U.S. Senators were popularly elected, mostly with campaign contributions by the big banks and corporations, they no longer had to answer to state governments and they could not recalled. Since the ratification of the 17th Amendment, U.S. Senators have felt free to pass legislation to favor the special interests. Take a look at what is going on in the U.S. Senate today.

What is the repeal of the 14th Amendment going to do about this abominable situation in the U.S. Congress... ???

I suggest you do some critical thinking, and you evaluate the priority in the repeal of the 14th Amendment over the repeal of the 17th Amendment. I sure look forward to hearing that argument... ..

"I wonder how much longer Holder will last. Will they just brazen it through or will Obama sacrifice him for the election? Maybe they planed all along one way or the other. The entire executive seems to have lost all regard for legality."

I am afraid that they will be brazen about their lawlessness until the very end. They will literally have to pry Obama's hands off the levers of power after the next general election. Just like Clinton, before he must leave office, he will pardon all kinds of cronies, first among them his pal Tony Roskoe.

When communists (note the lower case "c") want to amend the constitution, look out!

Click to view link

I used the lower case "c" in communist because I didn't want to insinuate these communists are affiliated with the Communist Party. Although it would not surprise me. I say communist because the likes of Schumer and Durbin promote, endorse, push communist, or communistic policies. Or maybe I should use less bold terms as socialist. Or progressive. Or democracy.
What's the difference?

"Democracy is indispensable to Socialism." - V. I. Lenin
"Socialism leads to Communism." - Karl Marx

"If one understands that Socialism is not a 'share the wealth' program but is in reality a method to
consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super rich men promoting Socialism
becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking
megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately Socialism, is not a movement of the down-trodden
masses but of the economic elite." - Gary Allen

"Communism: AN INTERNATIONAL,
CONSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH
PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THEIR DESIRED
AIM-GLOBAL CONQUEST."---Gary Allen, "None Dare Call it Conspiracy"---

Mike

Every time I have read Vieira he has suprised me with the depth of his research. I certainly have to agree about homeland security being worse than worthless. As badly as the public has been brainwashed at least most can see things like that better than many in government. I can't even imagine having a bureaucratic perspective, though I suppose most of them can't help it.
Selective enforcement seems more and more to be geared toward reelection. I wonder how much longer Holder will last. Will they just brazen it through or will Obama sacrifice him for the election? Maybe they planed all along one way or the other. The entire executive seems to have lost all regard for legality. They don't even seem to care much about appearances. A mass of John Reeds in the MSM.
Have to shut down. Severe weather. Will be looking at Henry George.

Where's McCarthy? eh? Straight-jacket the lot of them. Mr. Matt Bauer (Red Shield Satanist) needs to go change his diaper. It's full.Damn commie creep.

As you can see, by the words put out by his honor Mr. Blaine, that the 14th Amendment was not intended just for the emancipated negro as the anti-republic 'federalists' and central government democracy advocats would have us believe. But rather the 14th Amendment was intended for "all persons."
So I say; Anyone that minimalizes or marginalizes the effect the 14th Amenment had on the reconstruction of the US Constitution and the US Federal Government should be viewed with great suspicion. They are not freinds of liberty.
Mike

POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS
LEGISLATIVE, DIPLOMATIC, AND POPULAR
1856-1886
JAMES G. BLAINE.
NORWICH, CONN. THE HENRY BILL PUBLISHING COMPANY
1887
Page 61. The Reconstruction Problem

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A BASIS OF RECONSTRUCTION.
[Speech of Mr. Blaine at a Republican mass meeting in Skowhegan, Maine, Aug. 29, 1866.]

excerpt:
"The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens. We do not, by making them citizens, make them voters,-we do not, in this Constitutional Amendment, attempt to force them upon Southern white men as equals at the ballot-box; but we do intend that they shall be admitted to citizenship, that they shall have the protection of the laws, that they shall not, any more than the rebels shall, be deprived of life, of liberty, of property, without due process of law, and that 'they shall not be denied the equal protection of the law.' And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship-and our Amendment declares that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.' This Amendment will prove a great beneficence to this generation, and to all who shall succeed us in the rights of American citizenship; and we ask the people of the revolted States to consent to this condition as an antecedent step to their re-admission to Congress with Senators and Representatives."
Federal citizenship is why the States' lost sovereignty to the Federal Government.
Mike

Repealing the 17th would be a start of course, in regaining States' sovereignty. However that alone would not be effective IMHO, and here's why.
"All persons" are "citizens of the United States" Federal Government, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This means there is no bodies politic in the several ststes. Thus, the current state government (so-called) are nothing more than corporate extensions of the Federal Government. So giving the state legislatures the power to select their Senators won't accomplish much in restoring the republican form of government. This is because the bulk of States' sovereignty was lost to the Federal Government with the 14th Amendment. The 17th Amendment merely built upon it. So, the foundation of the newer Federal Government 1868 democracy, that was reconstructed out of the Federal Government founded 1789 is the 14th, and should be the major target in restoring republican government.
Mike