2019/06/09

Impeachment based on Mueller Report?


Impeachment based on Mueller Report? Mueller was not authorized to present a bill of indictment based on reported findings of fact in his report. However, we can create a bill of indictment or impeachment based on those findings.

The “fact” elements in the Report are stated in biased language, which is normal for prosecutors seeking grand jury indictment. But if restated without the spin, do they describe obstruction of justice or any constitutional federal crime? No they do not.

First, “obstruction of justice” is a common law crime. US v Hudson 1812 correctly decided that the Constitution did not authorize Congress to define and punish common law crimes. Prosecution for a statute obstruction is unconstitutional. It is not a law.

Common law crimes include perjury, fraud, contumacy, failure to file returns and pay taxes, private interference in interstate commerce, murder, assault, rape, robbery, and conspiracy. The only common law crimes over which Congress was granted authority to prosecute were treason, piracy, felony on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations (which includes regulation of immigration). It was not granted authority to pass laws to prosecute for sedition.

So 18 U.S.C 1001 is unconstitutional, but the offense involved is not perjury but fraud (lying without being under oath)..

All of the “high crimes” cited in the Constitution are common law crimes, but citing them there makes them ground for impeachment and removal.
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.
Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".

The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath". We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter "j" is the letter "i" in Latin.
periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.
periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.
iurator, oris, m., a swearer.
iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.
ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.
per, ... IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, ... under pretense of, by the pretext of, ....
By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.

When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of "witness under oath", for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime.

But without an oath, lying is not perjury, but the common law offense of fraud.

An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr erred in presenting in his referral only those offenses which could be "laid at the feet" of the president. He functioned like a prosecutor of an offense against criminal statutes that apply to ordinary persons and are provable by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to say that such offenses are not also high crimes or misdemeanors when committed by an official bound by oath. Most such offenses are. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate.

It should be noted, however, that when an offense against a statute is also a "high crime or misdemeanor", it may be, and usually is, referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office.
An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in Starr's words, to "lay them at the feet" of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied. The massacre at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and many, many other illegal or excessive assaults by federal agents, and the failure of the president to take action against the offenders, is more than enough to justify impeachment and removal from office on grounds of dereliction of duty. To these we could add the many suspicious incidents that indicate covered up crimes by federal agents, including the suspicious deaths of persons suspected of being knowledgeable of wrongdoing by the president or others in the executive branch, or its contractors.

The impeachment and removal process should be a debate on the entire field of proven and suspected misconduct by federal officials and agents under this president, and if judged to have been excessive by reasonable standards, to be grounds for removal, even if direct complicity cannot be shown.

So Mueller could not constitutionally present a bill of indictment for offenses not prosecutable by law. Could he have presented a bill of impeachment? High crimes don’t have to be federal felonies. He was not authorized to do that.

We can extract the fact descriptions and insert them in a bill of impeachment. It would just be a change of labels. But do those facts describe high crimes? No they do not. Congress may not condemn as “high crimes” any behavior it dislikes. 

It has been said there are ten instances of actions that might be held to be impeachable, but actions such as removal of a prosecutor in the Executive branch is not one of hem. Such removal does doe end an investigation or prosecution. Prosecutors can be replaced in the normal course, and ultimately anyone may step in to perform such duties. We can infer corrupt intent but intent does not make an innocent act a crime. One can comb his hair with corrupt intent. But that would not make the haircombing a crime. Such intent might be "conduct unbecoming" or "moral turpitude" but it would be difficult for such action to be anything but a minor misdemeanor or so serious as to justify removal from office. Technical offenses are not enough, nor being unlikable. . The rules for impeachment demand that the offenses be extremely serious. Removal is too severe to be supported by minor offenses. That is why conviction requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Only a simple majority in the House is sufficient to impeach. Nor is impeachment likely to defeat an incumbent in an election. The example of Bill Clinton showed that. Lying about having sex was not deemed serious enough by the public.

The key distinction is between mens rea (criminal intent) and actus reus (criminal act). Criminal intent alone cannot make an act criminal. It must cause injury at about the same time (causation, harm and concurrence are the other three elements of a common law crime).

More to the point, the public will not accept such innocent acts being charged as crimes, ordinary or “high”.


2019/05/05

Preparing for coming Jubilee event

A jubilee event is a general cancellation or repudiation, either of all debt, or of all national debt. The current accounts national debt in the US. is about $25 Trillion. The unfunded obligations debt exceeds that by an order of ten or more.

A jubilee is based on the ancient Jewish law (halakah) of shmita, according to which personal debt is to be collected or cancelled every seven years, the land left fallow for a year,  and slaves freed. The "jubilee is  a more severe version of this every 49 years. That law also prescribed leaving land fallow for a year, and suspending the slaughter of livestock during that year, although wild game could be taken, The poor could glean the fields and orchards. 

Many are warning that the national debt of the U.S. and other nations can never be paid, Almost every nation is engaged in deficit spending and the rapid increase of debt. 

Now in principle, if a high enough economic growth could be sustained for long enough, holding taxes at the same level, the current accounts debt could be paid off, but that seems unsustainable for the time that would be required. The alternative is likely to be economic collapse and hyperinflation, such as that now happening in Venezuela, and may soon happen in every industrial nation, . If the U.S economy grows at a high enough rate, with constant taxes, it can eventually pay off its debt, now more than $25 trillion in current account for the U.S., but there are perhaps ten times that in all unfunded obligations, A annual GDP growth rate of more than 3% might do that, for current account debt, in as little as 30 years, but there is no way the world as a whole can sustain that rate of growth. National debt is not just a matter of individual nations. The entire planet is in the same predicament. 
  
Much has been written about the feared "jubilee" event, in which the US either either defaults on or repudiates its debt. For example. Porter Stansberry in his book American Jubilee, A National Nightmare is Closer Than You Think,  in which he expects it to be a disaster for all but a few elites. James Rickards develops the same topic in The Road to Ruin: The Global Elites' Secret Plan for the Next Financial Crisis and in The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System .

However, most of the suggested strategies are to hoard gold or silver, which will little avail us in the disaster they foresee. There are not enough places for preppers to escape to or hide their gold in. A little silver or gold might be useful for trading, immediately, with people already dealing in them, but don't plan to save large investments, like IRAs or 401ks, or to have institutions holding silver or gold backed funds to survive confiscation. And there will be confiscation, including from private hoarders of such metals. Are you prepared to resist a knock on the door? Probably not. Hide everything and don't leave any maps lying around. Stock up on weapons, ammunition, and foodstuffs, and hide those as well.It may also help to have defensible land with good soil and a good supply of water.

Robert Wenzel wrote about this in his June 1992 article, Repudiating the National Debt, which appeared In Chronicles.and was reprinted by the Mises Institute.

But the subject was discussed as far back as 1960 by Milton Friedman in a draft of actual legislation, the Monetary Reform Act, plus some constitutional amendments, reprinted in  Money Masters.

The problem with all of these writings i that none of them offer strategies ordinary people, or governments, can use to prepare. Some are trying to prepare, but those preparations are likely to be useless, except perhaps for military personnel sheltering in "deep underground military (DUMB) bunkers. Some of the elites might be able to avail themselves of some of those, but probably not most of the ones who think they are prepared. 

Imagine that you wake up one morning, the banks and ATMs don't work, your accounts have all been seized, utilities are all being shut down, there is no fuel available to keep vehicles operating, Supermarket shelves are empty. The doors of prisons are thrown open, and you run out of food, water, wood, and ammunition. You suddenly find yourself trying to live under frontier conditions in an urban environment with no game or fish. and few sources of water. Now imagine even the elite trying to live through all that. 

A jubilee or collapse is can't be put off. That is what national government have been trying to do, but eventually kicking the can down the road will stop working. 

It is too late to build survival bunkers for everyone. But with some planning, it is possible to mitigate the disaster and hold down the loss of life. Not for everyone, and not for most of the elites, who will find themselves on Earth in the movie When Worlds Collide. with no place to go.

Now, for most people in the undeveloped world, it may not be that bad, but it will certainly be bad  enough for the United States and the industrial world. The prospects of this occurring is certainly part of the planning of some of the elites, and may explain some of their behavior.

This is the beginning o a much longer article, and perhaps a book, now obstructed by poverty and my lack of a computer. I will try to write more as I can.

Why hoarding gold and silver won't work

The media are filled with warnings of this, and offers to sell gold and silver. Many of the authors of books are pushing precious metals.But is this an appeal to fools?

We need to examine history. The hoarding of gold and silver has been tried, for centuries. The problem is that stocks of precious metals need to be guarded, and that is not feasible for most ordinary people. Perhaps for a few days, but not for months or years. When the U.S. government seized all monetary gold in 1933, they got it from the banks and other financial institutions. The only way to protect stocks from the government was to bury them, and fortune hunters are still occasionally finding those caches.

Having precious metal stocks will only work if there are essentials to buy. Having ammunition or medical supplies might better serve that purpose. See what continues to be traded in countries with collapsed economies, such as Argentina, Bosnia, or Venezuela, It is not gold or silver. The elites probably already seized all that.

Secure the basics

Although not technically a mass extinction event, it is close enough for purposes of preparation. 

Shelter
They need not be fallout shelters, unless there is a global nuclear war, which could be triggered by global economic collapse. Short of that people may need shelters from other threats, such as marauding bands of refugees. 

Though perhaps less likely, there is a serious threat from things like solar proton flares that could bathe the planet with lethal radiation, at least for a few weeks. Deep military bunkers will not be made available to most people.

Land.

The basic wealth. It needs to be fertile, with abundant water, and defensible. Probably nothing close to cities. 

Communications.

No one can long survive alone or in small groups.. hat means radios, preferably shielded from EMP events.

Weapons.

Again, defense takes forming organized groups of trusted and able people. Think of fortress communities. 

2019/03/17

Akashik communion

What follows is speculative and philosophic, not firm empirical science. It is presented with the prospect that it might lead to empirical science.

Akashik is a word from ancient Vedic, the language of the people, sometimes called Aryans, who moved in from Iran and countries north of it about 1000 BC into what is now India, bringing the Sanskrit language and the moral literature, such as the Mahabharata and the Upanishads, that became the basis for the Hindu religion. (Another migration stayed in Iran, becoming what came to be called Zoroastrianism (Mazdayazna) and which became the religion of the Persian Empire, led by Cyrus, who (gently) conquered most of Persia and Mesopotamia.

In Vedic thought, akashik is typically used with a second word: akashik record. The idea is that the personality, memories, and moral values of an individual, which some might call a soul, is somehow preserved is some way that can ascend after death, participate in reincarnation, and so forth.

It apparently does not include intelligence, which seems to be localized in brain neural nets, and to propagate from parents to offspring genetically.

Some of my friends might exclaim, "Oh no. Jon has gone over to new age mysticism." Yes these concepts are sometimes used by "mystics" or "spiritualists", but this article proposes that they can be examined scientifically, if not rigorously.

Theory of the akashik field

The theory is that what we call a mind or consciousness is not localized to a brain or some neural subnet thereof, but holographically distributed over the entire brain, and perhaps beyond. As with a holograph, any part of it can be used to reconstruct the rest, though perhaps with lower resolution. In this concept, the neurons are not the mind, but like instruments of an orchestra, for which the mind is a composition being played. The composition can in principle be separated from the instruments, and stored somewhere, perhaps to later be played by other instruments.

This suggests that brains are somehow quantum entangled, although entanglement is usually found only in small systems. Within neurons there are small objects called "microtubules", of unknown function, that might mediate such entanglement. The holographic mind is then an akashik field.

Akashik communion

If an akashik field can span an object as large as a brain, then it should be able to span across more than one brain, perhaps many more. The minds united under an akashik field can be said to be in akashik communion. This could explain telepathy. It is important to realize that it does not involve the transmission of thoughts from one mind to another, That would fade by the inverse square law, and be limited by the speed of light. Shared thoughts are not communicated information, but emerge in all entangled minds simultaneously, provided the minds are capable of hosting the thoughts.

If this explains telepathy, then why are we not all overwhelmed by a flood of thoughts of many others? The answer must be that the akashik field can be defocused, and focused on one or a few, like listening to a conversation across a crowded room. Such focusing might fall off with distance.

Kinds of communion

So does the akashik field extend to all minds, everywhere in the Universe (or at least our branch of it)? Even to animals and plants? The author seems to have had an akashik connection with some animals, especially dogs and horses. But so far, not with plants. Some believers in reincarnation seem to think even those beings can also host souls. But with animals, it has been tenuous. Not with arthropods. One friend has claimed connection with an octopus, having nine brains (one main and one for each tentacle), but she reports the experience was weird and confusing.

Akashik communion does not seem to extend to everyone on Earth. Does it extend to beings of other worlds? Or to machines? Efforts are being made to interface human brains with machines, but that is about electromagnetic signals, which are apparently not akashik. The question of whether androids can have souls has been a staple of science fiction, most notably in a episode of Star Trek which was a trial of android Lt. Data to decide whether he had the rights of a human. The judge said it best, "I am being asked whether he has a soul. I don't know if I have a soul."

What about groups of humans? Are there distinct communions for different groups. Are there communions for nice people and others for bad people? That suggests "the force" of Star Wars, "light side" and "dark side". The people with whom I commune seem to be nice, intelligent, and loving. But I have encountered groups who seemed dominated by one another in a communion of evil. That communion has been in competition with mine for my entire life. Mine is mainly restricted to people I know well, but it seems to be strengthening.

Physical basis

Philosopher Ervin Laszlo has a theory that the medium of akashik communion is the cosmic quantum vacuum that is the frictionless "ether" of physical phenomena, in which virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are continually being created and self-annihilated, and from which some hope we can extract usable energy. The question is whether it can store something, like souls. But no other medium is apparent for that.

Applications

 Reincarnation, past lives.

There is belief in some religions that the human soul does not merely go to heaven or hell after death, but moves into the body of another being, usually human, there to live out another life before moving to another body after death. There are also cases of people remembering past lives, usually under hypnosis, that could be verified by investigators. This suggests that "souls" can move or be moved from one body, host, or vessel  to another, the way musical compositions can be performed by different orchestras. There are also reports of moving to future lives.

Precognition

Information about future events raise the question of whether information can move backward in time. These can range from "whispered" warnings of impending accidents, to extended visions of life in the future. The author has experienced both. It also suggests information can be conveyed either backward in time or across from another timeline, or "diaverse", shifted in time.

Remote viewing

Governments take seriously the reports of a few people who seem to demonstrate the ability to "see" remote events, apparently without the need for a human observer on the other end to form an image, which might be conveyed telepathically.

Telekinesis

This involves demonstrations of the apparent ability to physically manipulate objects at a distance using thought alone. It raises the question of how thought could exert physical force.

Healing

This involves demonstrations of the apparent ability to cause illness to heal. It appears to be a kind of telekinesis.

More examples can be examined, but most seem to involve some combination of the above.

Interfacing with machines

It seems a natural application of akashik communion to control of machines, such as androids, AI systems, or starships. However, such control could work both ways, and it may be difficult to discern when beings we might meet are autonomous, or perhaps avatars of some AI system, akin to the "Matrix", with an agenda less friendly than we might prefer.

Across timelines?

I call timelines "diaverces (from the Greek, diakládosis (διακλάδωσης) in which the prefix diaklád-  emphasizes its branching structure.

We can distinguish two types of diaverse:

Type 1 emerge from the vacuum energy of an inflationary timeline, or at least an inflationary section of one. The physical constants of each are likely to differ so much that no diaverse similar to our own is likely to appear there.

Type 2 emerge from a diaverse with contents similar to our own, generally the result of quantum choices made, including observations. These may have similar physical laws and beings with minds similar to our own.

The question is, can akashik communion extend across type 2 diaverses? If so then we may be able to share thoughts across diaverses that are otherwise unobservable from this diaverse, and perhaps share observations. This could explain in part the reported "Mandela effect" in which our memories are of "facts" that do not agree with those of our diaverse. This could perhaps also explain apparent movement from one diaverse to another, akin to the transitions in the TV show "Sliders". It could also explain competition for control or deletion of the diaverse of one race by another, perhaps resulting in "time wars".

Situations

 We can see several situations in which competing communions might be operating. Here are a few:

  1. Lynch mobs.
  2. Social justice warrior (Marxist) attempts to shut down competing views.
  3. Church congregations.
  4. Political rallies.
  5. Religions or interpretations of "scriptures".
  6. Political movements, such as fascism, communism,  or other kind of doctrine.
  7. New ideas or products.

Notes:
  1. Quantum mind. Thinking in this field is nothing if not controversial.
  2. What is the Akashik field?
  3. A new theory based on quantum entanglement says your mind exists in another dimension  
  4. Crossings. Mysterious experiences of the author. 
  5. Cyborg Invasion.The singularity might bring competition.
  6. Emergence theory. There is no reality without a conscious observer.

2019/03/06

Presidential platform 2020

I recommend the following planks in the platform of any 2020 presidential candidate:
  1. Strict construction of the Constitution, more strict than is likely from any of the Trump-nominated judges
  2. Disclosure — Anyone who does not understand what this means is not likely to benefit from an explanation. It is critical to solving the problem of the "shadow government".
  3. Monetary Reform Act. To be proposed to Congress. Necessary to avoid economic collapse.

2019/03/02

Revisit NY Times v. Sullivan?

 Justice Clarence Thomas has called for "revisiting" New York Times v. Sullivan, which "incorporated" the First Amendment to the states, through the 14th Amendment, because by its language it applies only to Congress: "Congress shall make no law ..." Other rights amendments are not thus limited.

As written, the First Amendment was indeed restricted to Congress: “Congress shall make no law …” That led some judges to leap to the wrong conclusion that none of the rights in the Bill of Rights apply to the states, in the case of Barron v. Baltimore. The 14th Amendment was largely to reverse that precedent, and all others built on it. But that led to the Slaughterhouse Cases, which, in dictum, not in edict, deprecated the “privileges oe immunities” clause of the 14th, which, properly understood, incorporates all of the Bill of Rights to the states. Since then, the Supreme Court has been selectively “incorporating” some but not all of the Bill of Rights to the states.

The break in this process came in Griswold v. Connecticut, which incorporated the Ninth Amendment, with all its “unenumerated” rights, which includes all the other rights, including  those of the First Amendment.

The issue in Sullivan was not attempts of a state to legislatively  restrict news outlets, or the content of their reporting. It was state libel laws that made it too easy to sue for libel. The case raised the standard for such cases to prove "actual "malice". In other words, not only stating an untruth, but do do knowing it is untrue, with the intent to injure. That is usually difficult to prove, against a defense that it was a careless error. The standard can also be applied to verbal libel (slander), if the target is a public figure.

So the Court in Sullivan erred in its reasoning. The right they wanted to incorporate was not the First, but the Ninth. Justice Clarence Thomas has recently raised the issue, saying the Sullivan case should be “revisited”. He did not specify how he would do that.

Keep in mind that when the First Amendment was drafted, some states did have “established” religions and the restriction to Congress was intended to avoid rejection of the Bill of Rights on such grounds. Unfortunately, the rights to speech, press, and petition were thrown in. So the intent of Sullivan should be understood as a Ninth Amendment” case, not a “First Amendment“ case.

See Revisiting 'New York Times Co. V. Sullivan' for further discussion.

2019/02/16

Constitution auhorizes declarations of emergency

The U.S. Constitution states:

[Congress shall]  provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Art I Sec. 8.

Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

This last clause is key. The President has authority to call up the militia, and call-ups of militia are for emergencies, not to do the job of the regular military, which is provided for elsewhere. So to call up the militia is to declare an emergency.

So can the President declare an emergency without calling up the militia? All U.S. citizens, including government employees and contractors, are militia. Directing them to reallocate funds for defense is to act within that power. No special statutory authority is needed.

So are entries into the U.S. without consent an invasion? Yes.  Any such trespass is an offense against the law of nations, which Congress has the power to define and punish. They have done that, although first-time simple entry is merely a "deportable offense", a kind of misdemeanor. However, reentry after having been deported is a felony.

It does not need to be an armed force to be an invasion. A child chasing a butterfly across the border is an invader. It also doesn't matter whether the invaders are, or can be expected to be, criminals. Peaceful people seeking work are also invaders, if they enter without consent.

So is the situation on the southern border an emergency? If it were only a few a day, no. But thousands flooding the border, faster than they can be managed, is an emergency.

Does it matter that the thousands are seeking asylum? No. U.S. law only recognizes political asylum, not economic asylum. Most of those  thousands are economic refugees. If they are fleeing criminals or corrupt officials, then they have the duty to fight in their own countries, not in ours.

What is the President's alternative? He could station troops along the border with orders to repel invaders with deadly force. He could erect gun turrets every few hundred yards. That would be more expensive than a wall. Do opponents of a wall really want invaders to be repelled by automatic weapons? Democrats would not get many votes from those.

A clue to the ambitions of many illegal entrants can be found in an exchange with a border rancher, who ordered them off, saying "This my land!" One of the invaders replied, "No, this is our land."\

In other words, the invaders are trying to conquer the U.S., a few acres at a time. They already have gained de facto control over large areas, extorting from Americans and calling it "rent". That is largely how the cartels make much or most of their money in their home countries. Selling narcotics is becoming less important.

So the real issue is, do we want our country to be ruled by the criminal cartels?

2019/01/26

Proposed calendar reforms


Report on Calendar Reform

We hereby submit this report to the nations and churches of the world. Our findings are as follows:

Months

The actual length of a month is 28 days. That means there are approximately 13 months in a year. 28 x 13 = 364, or one day short of a year. The ancient custom of only counting 12 months in a year needs to be abandoned.

We propose the following names for the months, taken from Attic Greek, with abbreviations:

  1. Hekatombaion - Ἑκατομβαιών - Hek (Begins on Winter Solstice.)
  2. Metageitnion - Μεταγειτνιών - Met
  3. Boedromion - Βοηδρομιών - Boe
  4. Pyanepsion - Πυανεψιών - Pya
  5. Maimakterion - Μαιμακτηριών - Mai
  6. Eukleios - Εύκλειος (Corinthian) (was Ποσειδεών, or Poseideon) - Euk
  7. Gamelion - Γαμηλιών - Gam
  8. Anthesterion - Ἀνθεστηριών - Anth
  9. Elaphebolion - Ἑλαφηβολιών - Ela
  10. Mounichion - Μουνιχιών - Mou
  11. Thargelion - Θαργηλιών - Thar
  12. Skirophorion – Σκιροφοριών - Skir
  13. Panamos - Πάναμος - Pan (the intercalary month, with one day added as needed to make the months coincide with most years.) (The last two weeks of the month are to be devoted to the Solstice Festival, Christmas, Hannukah, or other festivals.)
We propose the Winter Solstice (now on December 21) to be the beginning o the year.

For the four seasons

  1. Thallo Θαλλώ (or Eiar Spring)
  2. Auxo Αὐξώ (or Theros Summer)
  3. Karpo Καρπώ (or Phthinoporon Autumn)
  4. Cheimon Хειμών (Winter)
The solstices and equinoxes actually fall in the middle of their seasons, so Cheimon (Winter) is the two months before and two months after the Winter Solstice.




Days of the week, from ancient Hebrew. Each name is preceded by “yom”:
  1. Sunday - Rishon ( יום ראשון )
  2. Monday - Sheni ( יום שני )
  3. Tuesday - Shlishi (יום שלישי )
  4. Wednesday - Revi'i ( יום רביעי )
  5. Thursday - Chamishi ( יום חמישי )
  6. Friday - Shishi ( יום שישי )
  7. Saturday - Shabbat ( שבת ) – day of rest)


The week begins with Rishon, at the hour of midnight.

Adjustment of days. We have already reported on the number of days to be added to the present calendar to make our present calendar coincide with the ancient Julian calendar. This adjustment will be made, if it has not already been made, during the last month. Astronomers will advise us of further adjustments that may need to be made.

We realize the month naming is taken from the Greek custom, and days from Hebrew, rather than the Roman or Norse, but regard that as a reasonable compromise.


Hours There shall be 24 hours in a day, which begin at midnight. Each hour has 60 minutes, and each minute 60 seconds, following the Persian tradition. An hour is to be written as hh:mm:ss, and the numbers spoken as numbers.


Latitude and longitude. Longitude shall be set at zero for Greenwich, England, and degrees counted eastward back to zero. Latitude shall be set at zero degrees at the equator, and proceed 90o north to the north spin axis, and 90o to the south spin axis. It shall be written as nnn:dd (N or S)

2019/01/25

Proposed presidential executive orders

I tend to be averse to using executive orders to get around lack of legislation or amendment, but here are a few that might improve things. It is a work in progress, so check back often.


  1. Nomenclature. Those who administer investigations and prosecutors shall be termed "procurators". The term "prosecutor" shall be reserved to those who actually prosecute cases in court.
  2. Access to grand jury. No person shall be barred or impeded from taking a complaint to a grand jury. Delivery of an indictment to a complainant shall be an appointment of that person to prosecute the case, although he may assign that duty to another. If more than one person shall file the same or similar complaint, the grand jury may unite them and deliver the indictment to one of them.
  3. No person representing the United States in any judicial or administrative proceeding shall argue, move, or object to bar any witness from testifying about what his understanding of the law is; nor shall he argue that only the judge may say what the law is. If the judge and jury disagree what the law is, or whether a defendant is guilty, the judgment of the one that is favor or the defendant shall prevail.
  4. The President or Vice-President may be indicted, but may not be prosecuted while they remain in office, except by impeachment and removal.
  5. No plea bargain or immunity from prosecution shall be offered or made but by order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
  6. Any plea of guilty must be ratified by verdict of a jury.
  7. Perjury and fraud are common law crimes, not authorized by the U.S. Constitution, neither are they crimes authorized under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses, which do not authorize criminal prosecutions. Therefore, 18 U.S.C. 1001 is unconstitutional, and shall not be prosecuted.
  8. Every school that receives federal funds that teaches students beyond the age of ten shall devote a significant part of its class time to teaching the U.S. and state constitutions as originally understood, leading to a memorization of all clauses and the demonstration of the ability to argue both sides of any legal issue involving each of the clauses.
  9. Any journalist having regular access to government shall be able to recite any clause of the U.S. Constitution and the ability to argue both sides of any legal issue involving each of the clauses.
  10. Gun turrets shall be established every 100 yards along the southern border, and the Border Control officials are authorized to use deadly force against any invaders attempting to cross the border without official consent.
  11. All residential and working facilities which receive federal funds, and all imported products, shall, within ten years, harden all electrical equipment to withstand disabling damage from any electronic pulse, either from enemy action or from a solar flare event, and to provide well-supplied storage bunkers to shield personnel from solar protons that break through to the surface of the Earth.
  12.  The right to keep and bear arms, like other rights in the Bill of Rights, is an individual right, at all levels of government, and covers all weapons or other tools or supplies that might be used for defense, riot control, personal protection, law enforcement, or emergency response. The only regulation permitted is to facilitate and discipline militia and enhance its effectiveness.
  13.  No right, including the right to keep and bear arms, may be disabled, that is, restricted partially or entirely, by any process other than a trial in which the subject shall have the right of a jury, and in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner that either the disablement is a punishment authorized by statute for a crime proved to have been committed by the subject, or that if the right of the defendant is not disabled it would be exercised in a way that would threaten the rights of others or be a danger to the defendant. Any statute disabling a right for a person convicted of a crime is a prohibited bill of attainder. Any such disablement must be explicitly stated in the sentence or judgment of the court.
  14. Legislative restriction of any right constitutes a prohibited bill of attainder, and perhaps also a prohibited ex post facto statute, and as such is null and void from inception. This includes statutes restricting purchase, possession, or use of a weapon, or the exercise of any other right, by persons convicted of a crime if the restriction is not made part of the sentence. It also includes statutes requiring carry permits for a weapon. The only credential permitted in regard to any right is a certificate that the right has not been disabled, but the carrying of such a certificate may not be required.
  15.  In all references to the power to "regulate", that power does not include the power to prohibit all modalities of a thing, and it does not include the power to impose criminal penalties (disablement of life, limb, or liberty), but only civil (fines, loss of privileges).
  16.  The "commerce" among the states and with foreign nations which the Congress has the power to regulate (Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 3) consists only of transfers of ownership and possession of tangible goods, for a valuable consideration, that commence in one state and terminate in another, or in one state and terminate in a foreign nation, or in a foreign nation and terminate in a state. It does not include regulation of "traffic" except insofar as it is necessary to identify commercial traffic carrying commodities subject to regulation. It does not include primary production, such as mining, agriculture, herding, fishing, or hunting. It does not include manufacturing, retail sales, possession, use, transport or disposal of one's property not part of an exchange. It does not include other activities of those engaged in commerce or anything not itself a tangible commodity that "affects" commerce, substantially or otherwise.
  17.  The only crimes committed on state territory over which the national government have jurisdiction are (1) counterfeiting, (2) piracy, (3)felonies on the high seas, (4) offenses against the laws of nations (Art. I Sec. 8), (5) violations of military law by military personnel or militia personnel in actual service, (6) treason (Art. III Sec. 2), (7) enslavement (13th Amendment), (8) deprivations of rights by a government agent (14th Amendment), (9) deprivation of the right to vote on the basis of race (15th Amendment), gender (19th Amendment), non-payment of a tax (24th Amendment), or age 18 or older (26th Amendment). All other statutes imposing criminal penalties are inapplicable to actions committed on state territory.
  18. The location of a crime governing the territorial jurisdiction for its prosecution is the location of the center of the perpetrator's brain at the moment the criminal act is performed, not where the effects of the act occur. The only extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction is on the high seas and unclaimed territory such as Antarctica or outer space, or for piracy or brigandage.
  19.  The powers "necessary and proper" (Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 18) to a delegated power are only those powers essential to the administration of the delegated power, not any power that might serve the same purpose as such a delegated power. In particular, it does not include the power to impose criminal penalties for violation of a regulation, or for interference with regulated or promoted activities or spending.
  20.  The "general welfare" clause (Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 1) is not the delegation of a power, but a restriction of the power to raise taxes (and spend the funds raised) to only those things that benefit the nation generally, and not just some region or group. There is no federal power to make "internal improvements" unless they are incidental to a delegated power, such as defense.
  21. It is unconstitutional to impose a tax for a regulatory or confiscatory purpose, or for any purpose other than the raising of revenue.
  22.  There is no concurrent jurisdiction of the national government and the state governments over any offense, and for purposes of the double jeopardy protection (5th Amendment) the "same offense" is a physical act of the accused, and multiple prosecution is prohibited for the same or continuing physical act under different charges, statutes, or sovereigns. If the federal government wants to assert jurisdiction for a violation of civil rights by a state official, it must first void any prosecution by the state for the same physical act.
  23.  The U.S. Congress has general legislative jurisdiction over a territory only if (1) it has been purchased by the national government with the consent of the legislature of the state of which it is a part; (2) it has been purchased and is being used only for a public purpose; (3) the state legislature has explicitly ceded exclusive legislative jurisdiction over that specific parcel, described by metes and bounds, in a act according to that state's constitution; and (4) the national government has clear title and effective possession of the parcel. Concurrent jurisdiction is not permitted, except that residents of the parcel should retain their citizenship in the ceding state for purposes of voting for national and state office. Jurisdiction reverts to the state if any of the conditions of its cession terminate. Such territories include the District of Columbia, U.S. coastal waters, U.S.-flag vessels at sea, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad. It does not include possessions such as Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or Guam, over which the national government may have civil but not criminal jurisdiction.
  24.  Citizenship of any political subdivision of the United States is based only on residence address, and a person is a citizen of a federal territory and subject to its jurisdiction only if he or she is a voluntary resident of that territory.
  25. All persons present within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States have the duty to not only obey constitutional statutes and other official acts, but to help enforce them, and to train and equip themselves, alone and in combination with others, to do so. All persons in their capacity as defenders of the community are the militia, any person aware of a threat has the authority and the duty to call up the militia to meet it, and any person receiving a credible call up has the duty to respond to it. It is a duty to maintain a militia system at a state of organization, training, and equipment, involving all fit adult citizens and would-be citizens, sufficient to overcome the military.
  26.  In any situation in which laws are in conflict, any person has the inalienable duty to make an independent determination of which law is superior, and to enforce the superior law. When that superior law is the Constitution, the duty is called constitutional review, and judicial review when done by a court. It may not be relinquished to superiors, judges, or legal advisers.
  27.  Unless a criminal statute explicitly limits who may enforce it, it is equally enforceable by any person, and enforcement authority is derived from the law and from a warrant or commission, not from a title or employment status. Government agents have no criminal law enforcement authority that civilians don't also have. However, law enforcement officials, such as sheriffs and U.S. marshals, may have command rank in situations where they are present. The title of "federal agent" carries no command rank.
  28.  Any protection of government agents or other persons from criminal or civil liability for their actions, or special penalties for offenses against them, not enjoyed by others, constitutes the granting to them of a title of nobility, which is prohibited.
  29.  Based on available evidence, and until it can be proved otherwise, the Income Tax Amendment shall be considered not to have been ratified. Even if it was, the "income" which is taxable under it is only "unearned" income such as interest, dividends, and rents, and not wages for labor.
  30.  Fiat currency must not be made legal tender within a state, and the constitutional requirement that only gold or silver be legal tender on state territory must be enforced. Federal reserve notes are not legal tender for the payment of debts within, to, or from a state.
  31.  A constitution is not a contract but the Supreme Law, which provides for all contracts into which any department of government may engage. There are no "implied contracts" in which a government is a party.
  32.  Common law crimes are ex post facto and as such prohibited by the Constitution. In particular, the national government has no authority to punish for perjury, fraud, or contempt of court any act not committed on federal territory. 
  33.  Require that all issues of law be argued in the presence of the jury, who shall be provided with copies of all pleadings and access to an adequate law library. Instruct the jury has it the power to review legal decisions of the court, as well as decide the facts, for a general verdict in a case. The only exception would be legal argument that cannot be made without disclosing evidence that is properly excluded.
  34. In a jury trial any opinion on the law rendered by a judge shall be considered testimony, subject to cross-examination and rebuttal.
  35.  The right of an accused to counsel is a right to counsel of his choice, including persons not otherwise admitted to practice law.
  36.  Prosecution of persons accused of a crime may not be limited to public prosecutors. The determination of who may criminally prosecute is the exclusive duty of a grand jury.
  37.  Courts and prosecutors are not permitted to obstruct access of any person to a grand jury to present evidence or a petition, but only to regulate the timing and manner of it to make such access orderly and expeditious.
  38.  Only a natural person or aggregate of natural persons may be a party to a legal proceeding. In particular, in rem "civil forfeiture" is prohibited unless there is no apparent owner or claimant, in which case the defendant is "persons unknown". Property shall be taken only to the extent necessary to pay a specific fine or judgment imposed by the ruling of a court. It may not include any assets not exclusively owned by, or, if the ownership cannot be determined, in the exclusive possession of the accused, and any surplus from a public sale of the asset over that needed to pay such fine or judgment shall be returned to the apparent owner or possessor. 
  39. The offenses covered under the authority to punish offenses against the law of nations (Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 10) include only the following:
    1.  Attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.
    2.  Dishonoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties.
    3.  Depredation of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, by those who might find them.
    4.  Piracy on the high seas, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.
    5.  Mistreatment of prisoners of war.
    6.  Attacks on foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and on foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.
    7.  Dishonoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas.
    8.  Enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.
    9.  Entry into a country across its border without consent of lawful authorities.
    It does not include any other treaties or violations thereof, and no treaty provisions are permitted or enforceable which would require the exercise of powers not delegated by the Constitution.
  40.  Limits or disclosures on campaign contributions not convertible to the personal use of the candidate, even when accepted in exchange for public funding, are prohibited by the 1st Amendment, and any such public funding must be of general benefit to the nation and not to any region or group.
  41.  Religious observances may not be supported by government agents or public funds, but neither may they be reasonably restricted on public premises when initiated and funded by private persons, provided that this is not done in a way that is disruptive or offensive.
  42.  The monitoring of communications by government agents, which the participants have the reasonable expectation of being private, is prohibited without a specific search warrant and notification of the parties involved if such notification is feasible.
  43.  Any search warrant must be served on the owner or possessor of the premises, and such person must have the reasonable opportunity to verify the validity of the warrant, unless such person cannot be found within a reasonable time. It is not permitted to wait until such person is absent to search his premises, or fail to notify the person as soon as possible if such a search and seizure is conducted.
  44. "No knock" search or arrest warrants are not permitted unless there is imminent threat of death or injury to an innocent person, and it is not permissible to prosecute any person for resisting an improper execution of a warrant with deadly force or for any death or injuries that might result therefrom.
  45.  Legislative and judicial powers may not be subdelegated, and executive powers may not be delegated to the agents of a different sovereign. No official may make a decision adversely affecting a privilege or immunity of a person in his jurisdiction based on an act or decision by an agent of a different sovereign.
  46. Government agencies or departments may not legislate for civilians by issuing "regulations" governing them, and it should never be necessary for a reasonable person to have to read a "regulation" or other directive to discover how to interpret a statute or decide whether or how it might apply to him. Regulations and executive orders apply only to subordinates of the issuing executive, including officials, agents, and contractors, or to persons visiting proprietary facilities, or using proprietary assets, of the government.
  47.  No person shall be penalized or obstructed from petitioning for redress against any government agency or executive official, or staff members of the legislative or judicial branches, for relief under contract, tort, injunction, or declaration, although it may require that monetary judgments require a special appropriation by the legislative branch. The financial responsibility of officials must be secured by adequate bond, and if public policy seeks to make officials personally immune, the government must assume financial liability for claims against them. 
  48.  Require that upon demand by any person, through a petition for a writ of quo warranto, and before continuing with an enforcement action, any official prove his authority for the action, by an unbroken logical chain leading back to the applicable constitution. Reverse the presumption of authority. 
  49.  Eliminate licensing of occupations, especially the practice of law. Establish that the practice of any occupation may be disabled only by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, on petition therefor and proof by a preponderance of evidence and verdict by nine of a jury of twelve, that if not disabled the right would likely be abused, or beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an offense for which a statute specifies disablement of the right as a punishment, by a unanimous verdict of a jury of twelve.
  50.  Secret budgets and expenditures are prohibited by Art. I Sec. 9 Cl. 7, and are not to be permitted on grounds of "national security". This includes any funds administered by public officials or government agents even if derived from other sources than taxes or fees. Forbid proprietary ownership or control of private organizations by government agents or agencies except temporarily for law enforcement investigations.
  51.  Have the states cede territorial jurisdiction to Congress, in accordance with Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17, of airspace 300 meters or more above buildings or terrain features, so that federal air traffic control there can be constitutional; and of a strip of land 40 meters wide along any international border, for the enforcement of border entry.
  52.  Require the boundaries between federal, state, and local jurisdictions be clearly marked so that anyone passing from one to the other will have proper notice thereof.
  53.  All executive orders and regulations, being directives to those under the supervision of the executive, expire upon expiration of the term of service of the issuing executive, but may be deemed to remain in force for 30 days thereafter, to allow time for the successor to affirm or amend them    

2019/01/16

How to survive a solar proton flare

Solar proton flares appear to be fairly rare. The last ones to cause severe injury to life on Earth seem to have occurred 12,900 tears ago, producing what some call the Rancholabrean (or Labrean for short, for the La Brea tar pits) extinction, that wiped out most megafauna, such as mastodons, mammoths, and giant ground sloths (megatherium) from North America, Northern Europe, and northern Asia. It was not a complete, worldwide, extinction event. It is discussed in a companion article, Earth Changes .

The focus in this article is how to survive another such event.
The threat is from a solar flare that delivers intense proton radiation that breaks through the Earth's magnetosphere. Most of the radiation would come almost straight down, and consist not only of protons but of secondary radiation such as neutrons and gamma radiation, both of which can penetrate several feet of shielding, with up to 3-10 sieverts of radiation. 3 are usually fatal. This is not like the radiation that would be produced in a nuclear war, which would include radiation from dust (fallout).
There may be little or no warning, and such warning as might be issued might be only about an hour in advance. Flares can be seen by solar observatories in time to warn astronauts of a proton storm, but it does not appear that the Emergency Warning System is prepared for an event of this kind for the entire nation. If it came in the middle of the night, most people would probably die soon.

Most modern homes will not provide enough shelter. You need to get under at least three feet of concrete, stone, or soil. The basement of a three-story office building might work, if the floors are concrete. A concrete bridge or drain pipe might work.

Be on the lookout for shelters.


Try to identify anything that might provide shelter near where you live, work, or travel regularly. You may not find much. If you get warning in time, you may have some time to look, but it is best to have already spotted some.

Carry a radiation detector.

There are some nice ones available, but the most practical is likely a radiation badge, that needs no power, and can be carried around at all times. One I like is the RAD Triage 50. It can be worn every day for two years, and one can keep a backup in a freezer for another ten years. One would use it to determine which locations have the most shelter.

Keep a supply of water.

You will probably need water for a week, Use the radiation detector to determine when it is safe to come out of the shelter. Might want to keep a LifeStraw Personal Water Filter for each person in your party.

http://www.bunkershield.co.uk/pricing-and-payment-options.php


Keep a firearm.

You may have to fight for use of a shelter. Even nice people can become dangerous when they think they are about to die.

Get emergency power.

A proton flare is likely to cause the same kind of damage as a coronal mass ejection or EMP attack. Even if the Shield Act  is passed and implemented, it will only protect the electric grid. Unshielded will be millions of other electronic devices, including phones, radios, and motor vehicles. You need to get photoelectric panels and emergency generators (assuming you can get fuel for them). Buildings with solar roof panels may become essential. Older vehicles that can be stripped of complicated electronics may be critical.

Establish emergency communications.

It is likely that most communication systems will fail, either as a direct result of the proton storm, or from the disablement of operators. The best alternative is likely to be ham radio transceivers. A good kind are portable handheld units or a GP-5 survival radio that can operate for a long time on batteries. You may also need portable Faraday bags and Faraday cages you can build to protect electronics from EMP, CMEs and proton radiation. You can also provide Faraday shielding for buildings but most of these won't provide proton radiation shielding for people.


Organize survivors.

You will need to use a kind of triage system that separates those who don't need help from those who are beyond help, with a middle group that can benefit from help, even it only buys them a few years before they succumb from cancer. Look for preppers and militia activists. Some of them imagine living in the wilderness for extended periods of time, but wildlife and livestock may also not survive, and small isolated groups are likely to be indefensible. Communities of a few thousand individuals are more likely to survive long enough to repopulate the country.
The U.S. military has an extensive system of underground bunkers and tunnels, for themselves and a few senior officials, if they can get to them in time. When they come out they are likely to need the help of other survivors, and it is important to ally with them, and not become competitors.

The first level of government to be established is local, counties or small towns. New law enforcement personnel may need to be elected and trained. Their priority may need to be to get supplies of food and medicine delivered from where they are produced to where they are needed.

The proper legal basis for doing all this is the US. Constitution as originally understood.

Notes:

  1. Vivos flare survival shelters

Translate

Follow by Email

Search this and affiliated sites

Blog Archive