Dying “of” Coronavirus or Dying “with” Coronavirus appears to be quite subjective, especially here in the U.S.In counties over 100 million in population we are the worst in both number of cases and deaths as of 05/18/2020. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countriesWe pretty much the worst of all the countries in the world?
This is a famous sermon by the Rev. Charles Robinson, who just happens to be an ancestor, in 1865 memorializing Abraham Lincoln after his assassination.
The reason, however, I published the sermon is because of its illumination of the Venetian Conspirators noted in the 1st paragraph on page 4. (see below) He was a beautiful author and wordsmith, better than most I’ve heard and I see why he was so popular in his day.
Apparently, it is impossible to place mortal humans in positions of political power by any means, election, appointment or by their own overt actions that can effectively vote themselves the ability to restrain their own powers and influences. It may be a slow expansion of powers but none the less in total a significant one.
In 8,000 years of recorded history, do we know of any culture that has been able to place enough people with integrity into positions of political power that have successfully protected the inalienable rights and property of their fellow Citizens?
Representative government is, thus far, an elusion that has always placed money and power ahead of the majorities best interest. How quickly a portion of the electorate will attempt to overthrow the majority once they realize they can indirectly vote themselves greater benefits through their representatives, at the expense of their own Citizens, often determines the long term economic fate of their society.
It appears to me we have reached this phase in U.S. history. As many countries have found, it is easy to destroy free-market capitalism with enough taxation, regulation, and bureaucracy. It however thus far alludes us in finding a better replacement.
Paloma Funds, Donald Sussman, CEO, $21,613,800 campaign contribution. The is the founder and Chief Investment Officer of the Paloma Funds and the founder of New China Capital Management LLC. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of Carnegie Hall, a member of the Board of Directors of ProPublica, and an Honorary Trustee of the Ethical Culture Fieldston School. His company Paloma Partners, was the largest contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016 . Sussman was born to a Jewish family in June 1946, the son of Beatrice (née Zimmerman) and William Sussman. His father was a real estate developer.They were the single largest individual contributors to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016
Renaissance Technologies, James Harris Simons Founder and Chairman $16,543,000 campaign contribution. James Harris Simons was born on April 25, 1938 to an American Jewish family, the only child of Marcia (née Kantor) and Matthew Simons, and raised in Brookline, Massachusetts. His father owned a shoe factory. When James Simons was a teenager, he worked a job in the basement stockroom of a garden supply store. His inefficiency at the job resulted in his demotion as a floor sweeper., Renaissance was the 3rd largest individual contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Saban Capital Group, Haim Saban $12,283,411 campaign contribution is an American investment firm based in Los Angeles, California focused on media, entertainment, and communications investments. Formed in 2010 Saban Capital Group owns Saban Films, part of Univision Communications, and part of Celestial Tiger Entertainment. He was a part owner of FOX Entertainments, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Israeli American Council. Saban Capital was the 4th largest individual contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Newsweb Corporation. Fred Eychaner, $11,016,642 campaign contribution, (born c. 1945) is an American entrepreneur and philanthropist.Eychaner is the Chairman of Newsweb Corporation. He was included in Chicago magazine’s 2014 list of the 100 most powerful Chicagoans. In 2005, the Chicago Tribune estimated his wealth at $500 million. In 2015, he was inducted into the Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame.Eychaner is a major donor to Democratic campaigns, gay rights advocacy groups, and arts organizations. m Newweb was the 5th largest contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Soros Fund Management George Soros $10,556,793 campaign contribution is a private American investment management firm. It is currently structured as a family office but formerly as a hedge fund. The firm was founded in 1969 by George Soros and in 2010 was reported to be one of the most profitable firms in the hedge fund industry, averaging a 20% annual rate of return over four decades. They are headquartered at 250 West 55th Street in New York. Soros was born in Budapest in the Kingdom of Hungary to a prosperous non-observant Jewish family, who, like many upper-middle class Hungarian Jews at the time, were uncomfortable with their roots. Soros has wryly described his home as a Jewish antisemitic home. The Soros Fund was the 6th largest contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016.
ASANA, Justin Rosenstein and Dustin Moskovitz formally a co-founder of Facebook. $6,005,556 campaign contribution. Allegedly, Providence, Rhode Island runs an efficient government with Asana who provides workspace management software resources to public and private entities. Asana was the 6th largest individual contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Lone Pine Capital. Steven Mandel $5,015,300 campaign contribution is an American-based hedge fund headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut, established in 1997 by its president and portfolio manager, Stephen Mandel. The firm has offices in London, New York City, and San Francisco. They were the 8th largest contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Almost all the above information came from either Wikipedia or the company website and the contributions from http://www.OpenSecrets.org
Bundlers are people with
friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits,
turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who’s willing to give, and
deliver the checks to the candidate.
The Federal Election Commission
requires disclosure only of those bundlers who are registered lobbyists. Beyond
that, it’s up to the candidate. The Clinton campaign is releasing information
about bundlers who raised over $100,000 (see list below); the campaign does not
specify how much each of these individuals has raised beyond that. The Trump
campaign has released no information about its bundlers whatsoever.
Together, 1,129 Extremely wealthy were directing at least
$112,300,000 for Clinton’s election efforts — money that has gone into the
coffers of her campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee.
Lawyers & Lobbyists, $21.9M,
Unknown, $22.3M, Misc Business, $19M, Other, $17.2M, Defense, $100K, Labor,
$100K, Transportation, $900K, Agribusiness, $1.2M, Construction, $1.4M, Energy
& Natural Resources, $2M, Ideological/Single-Issue, $2.7M, Health, $5M, Communications/Electronics,
$13.9M, Finance, Insurance & Real Estate, $31.5M, Top Economic Sectors of
Clinton Bundlers, 2016
Top Industries of Clinton Bundlers
# of Bundlers
“Contributions” column indicates the total amount that the bundlers
and their spouses have given to all federal candidates, parties and PACs in all
election cycles since 1990.
For those that have never heard of it, you’ll see later why it’s “not” something the two major political parties and mainstream media want us to talk about or discuss its merits.
The NAP, as it is often referred to, is a philosophical legal
concept which precludes individuals from harming other individuals or their
justly acquired property, with the exception of protecting themselves and/or others
and their justly acquired property from someone else who is breaking the NAP. Simply, you’re not supposed to harm others or
their property and if you do, they have the legal right of self-defense to stop
This is actually the underlying basis of most modern-day legal systems in our world. So of course, you believe in it, right? Most laws are based on this ethical principle of not harming one another called “mala in se” laws and when people do break one of the laws we classify them as a criminal.
From Wikipedia: Malum
in se (plural Mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful
or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the
conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited by political mandate.
Now here is the problem or really a dilemma with the NAP. It doesn’t necessarily apply to those individuals who represent and/or work for the nation-state, i.e. the government. The nation-state can simply enact mala in se and mala prohibitum laws and use force and coercion to enforce them. All your drug laws, vices such as prostitution, gambling, and alcohol, DUI, licensure laws such as driver and real estate licensing, permits, income taxes, public education, property taxes, etc. are all laws that break the NAP. They must use the force of coercion to enforce them or the Citizens would simply ignore them. Of course, the government will fine or incarcerate those that break the various laws, hence the use of force or coercion as the physical means of enforcement. I think it is pretty evident that everyone agrees that malum in se laws should be rigorously enforced but malum prohibitum laws is where the debates and differences of opinion really become apparent.
Their enforcement requires the use of force or coercion by those in the nation-state to carry out the politically derived mandates. They must physical steal or coerce people into giving them the money it requires to fulfil the governments social policies.
It’s not OK for an individual to break the NAP, but those who form the largest or most powerful political party and their employees can and do. I’m not here to try to determine right and wrong at this point or what laws we should or shouldn’t have, I’m here is help people understand the principle and how it affects our lives. Later I share what a few of our founding fathers said.
Every tax, fine or regulatory fee is a breach of the NAP because it
takes money or property from those who justly earned it and thus it “Rightfully”
belongs to and gives it those that didn’t justly earn it and thus it does NOT rightfully
belong to. This is the ethical foundation of our “Inalienable Rights” and why the
Citizens required a Bill of Rights be created before they would ratify the U.S.
Constitution. These rights were specifically
to stop those in government from taking the Citizens money and enacting malum
Of course, those in government have twisted the very words in the Bill of Rights and Constitution where today government just about goes unstrained in both size and scope of powers. Instead of check and balances between the three branches, they are either rubber-stamping one another’s decisions and actions or suing one another when they breach or overstep their constitutionally mandated scope of powers. The various branches of our government and those individuals in the bureaucracy are in constant legal battles. The Federal government alone cost taxpayers over $4 trillion “annually” and requires over 110 different taxes and regulatory fees to pay for it all.
To give you an idea of what our founding fathers set out to establish
with our founding documents, all one must do is to read a few of the quotes of
the first three Presidents.
Thomas Jefferson, the Third President “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
George Washington, the First President “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
John Adams, the Second President “You have
rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or
restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the
One of the most important rights is that of “property”
protected by our Constitution as well as the NAP. How
have we gone from a society set up to protect our property and money from being
confiscated by criminals and the government, to one where the government is now
the greatest confiscator?
The greater questions are 1. can government be
restrained from confiscating to much of the majority’s wealth and if so 2. how
do we do it when it starts to cause such great problems for the majority and
our society as a whole?
As the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) on Wednesday the 31st of July, 2019 lowered the discount rate to 2% to 2.25%, 1/4 point lower from 2.25% to 2.50% I couldn’t help but think of the real underlying cause. The lowering of this rate even a 1/4 point indicates the greatest economy in U.S. history as President Trump and no one else is claiming, because it’s simply far from the truth. This has been one of the worst financial recoveries in U.S. history and we are really really far from being out of the proverbial hot water.
First, if the economy was booming as Trump triumphantly decries, the FRB would still be trying to normalize rates by continuing to raise them. Nor would they have recently stopped selling the over $4 trillion in Treasuries and MBS’s on their balance sheet as they were doing. This is the actions of an FRB trying to preempt a recession, also understanding major components within the Treasury Yield Curve remains inverted, another reliable indicator of a coming recession.
The concept and legislative enactments of allowing Government to both print and borrow money is a “really” horrible idea, that will eventually bankrupt our society. The fact that no society in history has been able to curtain their government from bankrupting their society is surely evidence of how horrible an idea this has been.
If it were a unique situation, it would be one thing, but the fact it is one of the more common occurrences prompting both long term depressions and total social failures should give us a clue to their devastating effects. Almost every major industrialized government in the world today has experienced this. In 1989, the United Soviet Socialists Republic became the largest government to have done this to their people, so big and mighty does not equate to Prosperity. You may not know it but the Roman Empire even bankrupted its government and society.
With government printing and or borrowing the fact that a generation or two may escape the catastrophic results does not limit the pain for many, as the resultant periods of inflation ravish especial the young and old with low and fixed incomes. Thinking that a group of people are any more responsible than an individual is obviously foolish and one could argue just the opposite.
Understand that government is supposed to be a projection of our own humanity as a community. An individual surely cannot print their own money nor borrow without limits, yet we have allowed our politicos to do both on our behalf.
Because of the long-term catastrophic results, there is no justifiable reason, not even to fund a war or increased military defense. Matter of fact, a bankrupted society becomes an easier target than does an underdefended society especially from being overthrown from within. The fact that there are now many underdefended countries that have survived over long periods also negates this rationale.
From my own study, especially in the more modern times it appears to me governments are now taking positions with groups of other countries working together to overthrow heads or State and destabilize various countries who they have economic or social conflicts with, so mankind is really not doing the mass evasion strategy that requires massive expenditures any more. WWII was supposed to be the war to end all wars as also told to us about WWI. Then you have the ill effects of the guns or butter principle as the U.S. and other big defense spenders are experiencing today. Will we ever learn?
I could only think of one potential cause to allow a government to expand the money supply via borrowing or printing. If someone were to invent a low-cost energy source requiring an initial high capital investment that just could not be funded by the private sector, that would be a reasonable use of the funds because it would be a one-time investment and it would lower the costs of energy making the payback of the investment plausible. Most economists today understand both U.S. and world debt today will never be paid back and as such, and thus more printing and borrowing is only differing eventual default.
So, if you wonder why the U.S. is now the largest debtor nation in world history with approximately 1/3 of our society living at or near the poverty line, simply ask a member of Congress and wait for the proverbial baloney and nonsense to come spewing out of their mouths. They have always been very good at coming up with a rationale for both printing and borrowing money and their pensions and personal growth in wealth are the real proof of why they do it. The numbers do not lie though that prove printing and borrowing money by the government are bad for the majority.
As these Declarations from the southern States show, their secession was much more than just about slavery. Since slavery was still protected by the Constitution, it was one of the clearest violations by the Union against primarily the agricultural interests of the southern States. High Tariffs on southern farm exports was surely another, but many protectionist policies and corporate welfare to those like the northern shipbuilders and smack owners and railroad subsidies to corporate interests played a key role in the “War of Northern Aggression” which I now from a libertarian perspective, believe is a more appropriate name for the first Civil War of the United States of America.
Our Government textbooks, government-subsidized media such as PBS and even Hollywood productions by the corporate giants have given us a history much more incomplete as these Declarations show. It proves that those in the leadership positions within the government are almost always in bed with special interests and that the call for some public good is often a disguise for a more devious activity. To be continued…..
During the latter part of 2018 the Treasury yield curve started to invert as economists call it. The shorter term maturities, 1 month (1M), 3 month (3M), and 1 year (1Y) yields were all higher than the 2Y, 3Y, 4Y, 5Y, 7Y and 10Y Treasury yields. Only the 20Y and 30Y maturities remain higher. As you can see, with the two prior years, the yields of the various maturities were normal in that the short term Treasury yields were lower then the longer term Treasury yields, which is the way they should be in a good and/or normal market.
So what is the significance and importance of the partial inversion of the Treasury yield curve? 1. It means the Federal Government is having to pay more interest to investors who buy the Treasuries that fund the $1 trillion+ annual deficits the U.S. is now consistently having to borrow to fund our government. 2. Historically, in every single occasion this has occurred, the U.S. was soon in a recession. Today now only is the U.S. economy slowing, so is most of the rest of the world, according to numerous indicators and high profile sources.
It is important to understand, that the debts of both the private and public sector are much higher today indicating that the recesssion will most likely be deeper or longer than the great recession of 2008, potentially even another great Depression.
Men don’t treat women as equals and women don’t treat men as equals because we’re not. If two male engineers are not equal in their abilities and motivations, neither are any two women. Whether right or wrong, men and women discriminate against one another and women in various situations even discriminate against other women. Why because we’re different. Scientifically there are at least 50 differences between men and women and a lot of it is genetic. We know the obvious ones. Women can multitask, take fewer risks, verbally communicate better and are often more focused than men and men are generally physically stronger, take more risks and can create and build just about anything. We’ve developed defined roles between men and women but that’s where our differences often create conflict, especially in leadership roles. Of course, everyone wants to be the boss because they generally make more money, have more power and control and are granted more privileges and accolades. You are not likely to see a woman beat Tiger Woods in a round of golf and you are not likely to ever find many men who can care for a young child like a woman can. Women like pictures of kitty cats and babies of every species and men like trucks and weapons. These are the roles we have been forced to take, in part, by nature itself.
We surely do not like to see the repressive discrimination
and sexual predation by either gender. Women use their sexuality if they can to
manipulate their world just like men use their money and strengths. I think it’s
the unethical practices by both genders that is most disheartening. Men using
their money and power to manipulate women and women using their sexuality or
psychological manipulations such as making false accusations against men they
are trying to harm socially or in their relationships. We all know how
unethical both genders can be so let’s stop pretending there are saints among
I often write that humans are not as ethical as our rule of
law requires and until we can improve upon both our institutions and integrity,
I’m afraid our human weaknesses seem to have causes perhaps even a digression
in our evolution. It appears as if we are stuck on a plateau with some points
in time better than others and some worse. We made a huge leap in the development
of mankind late in the 1700s when we overthrew the Monarchs of Europe and much
of the world and abolished slavery within 75 years later, both of which had
been going on for millenniums.
Can we really say or prove that suffrage or any of the other
political mandates after that have made our world better since the abolition of
slavery? Scientists have now proven that
we are an oligarchy, providing the evidence our experiment as a democratic
republic, which Benjamin Franklin questioned upon its ratification, has failed.
The majority have little or no influence over the social policies being created
and we are being ruled over by a relatively small group of people; that’s what
an oligarchy is.
Yes, the power, controls and unethical activities within our society are subtle but increasingly blatant as the oligarchy keeps gaining more and more powerful. Sadly, the majority is stuck in the middle of two dominant warring factions fighting over political power and money. Suggesting that if either of these two factions prevails the world will be better off, is logically weak if not totally false. The problem is systemic. An oligarchy cannot possibly take us to the next level in any progressive evolutionary manner. How is it that a Constitution and Bill of Rights created to restrain the size and scope of government has failed and provided just the opposite? We can of course experiment with a direct democracy but the working mechanisms and problematic issues of that are perhaps even more difficult to overcome. I do not want my neighbor to be able to vote against my liberties any more than I do of elected representatives.
History tells us that our world progressed the most when
governments had the least power and after the defeat of the European Monarchs
and our founding fathers tried to politically institutionalize our newfound
liberties with a Constitution and Bill of Rights as did many societies around
the world. It hasn’t worked very well
though. The governments today are equally as powerful, with many of the same
systemic problems the monarchies offered. We’re very close in many situations,
considering the diminished individual liberties, as those defeated by our
revolutionary forefathers, but it has been very subtle and took almost our
entire history to come full circle; dominated by an oligarchy but now tiered
even higher with international organizations such as the World Bank, INF and
United Nations giving military and financial support to the many oligarchies
ruling our world.
The English Tories were the primary adversaries of the founding fathers. Those entrenched in the political, religious and commercial interests of the church and crown. We thankfully eliminated the religious persecution by protecting religious liberties with the 1st Amendment. What we have failed to protect, are the economic liberties. As the government has gotten more powerful, so has the required revenue increased through a plethora of taxes and regulatory fees. We may have religious liberty, but the State (now an oligarchy) has taken all our economic liberties. Those who are well off, as were the Tories of old, under our current system vote for its maintenance, stifling any major changes as those who are not well off, are finding it increasingly difficult to survive.
If the 1st Great Revolutions failed to protect the individual liberties essential to the majorities prosperity, another revolution will over time result in the same losses of liberty and resultant problems. Another revolution is obviously not the solution until such time as we can come up with a superior way in which to protect our economic liberties. Does anyone with a brain really want to try socialism with eventual communism again? Look at all the problems all the social policies enacted just over the last 100+ years have caused. Right now, millions of people cannot earn enough money to even feed themselves and thus require government assistance. Our economic system is badly broken, and it is simply because we have allowed the government to tax our incomes, property, sale of goods and services, exports and a plethora of over 110 different taxes and regulatory schemes.
It’s a systemic problem; it’s the system itself. We need to create a system that truly protects the individual’s rights to property and our earnings. Who is going to build the roads? If the rights to property and income are protected from taxation the oligarchs will be forced to pay for them if they want us to travel to their businesses and to buy the good and services, they produce. Taxation is truly the power to destroy and it is destroying the middle class. So how do you force the oligarchs, those in power to pay for anything? They are greedy and they are going to pay for whatever it takes, including any infrastructure, to be able to get you to buy the goods and services they produce. There is more than enough money in society to pay for those things that are beneficial and necessary for the majority to prosper. If you take money and property from those that cannot afford it, it takes away their ability to survive. The oligarchs dangle the proverbial carrot in front of the majorities noses to motivate them, why not dangle the carrots in front of their noses. History tells us that when taxes were low or non-existent, the wealthy did, in fact, build much of the infrastructure of their day. Just think with all the technologies today, what could be, if the government did not tax and misallocate so much of our financial and material resources. So, I don’t want or really even care about equality. I know that there are going to be people who do better and worse in life than I do. I just want equal justice under the law and my rights to my justly earned property protected. If we kill this systemic problem, perhaps other systemic problems will also be alleviated. Power has the ability to corrupt and political power is the worst, because it is not earned; it is most often achieved by force, coercion, cronyism or fraud.