2004 Issues #1 to #16
Seventeenth Issue 10 January 2005
B M GM FMM S LT N L P
Twenty-eighth Issue 11 April 2005
Buy this essay and others in Jim's new book Being Sovereign.
The Indomitus Report
27 June 2005
"The productivity of the people backs the currency."
We don't usually discuss monetary matters in this section, but something particularly interesting has happened. Joe Banister has been acquitted by a federal jury on charges of tax fraud and conspiracy.
Now, Joe Banister is not a sympathetic character. He used to be an IRS agent. Therefore he was involved in a system which targets individuals, steals their wealth, and, because he was involved in the criminal investigations division, his work involved enforcement of some of the worst, most disgusting aspects of IRS practices. Subsequently, he was forced to leave the IRS in 1999. He had become convinced that there was no law requiring Americans to file income tax. It seems he was right.
The jury acquitting him found that the government had not proven that USA law requires income tax withholding or filing. This information was provided at the GiveMeLiberty.org web site and in a news release dateline Sacramento, California Thursday 23 June 2005. Naturally, you've heard nothing of this ruling in your mainstream newspapers or on licensed radio or television broadcast stations.
Banister was acquitted of all counts alleging criminal tax fraud and conspiracy. He had provided work and advice to a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over several years by not withholding income or employment taxes from the paychecks of his workers. We assume here that the term "employment taxes" refers to FICA or "payroll taxes" such as Socialist Insecurity and Medicarelessness.
In 2000, Banister had made a presentation to Thompson's employees describing his research that revealed that there was no requirement that income taxes be paid nor that any funds be withheld from their paychecks, under federal law. Banister not only shared information with the business owner, Al Thompson, but also prepared corrected tax returns for Thompson claiming his taxable income was, under USA law, zero. Banister's former superviser at the IRS San Jose CID office, Robert Gorini, was unable to cite any USA law that required Banister to pay income taxes.
One of the important aspects of this situation is the extent to which the government has become dependent upon this scam of income tax withholding. Hundreds of billions of dollars are withheld every year in income taxes that are subsequently returned in the form of tax "refunds" as much as 16 months later. For 1999, income taxes were 48 percent of total federal revenues, and payroll taxes were a further 33% of all federal revenues. Figuring a similar proportion of the approximate, current $2 trillion in revenue, the income tax would bring in about $960 billion (from corporate and individual filings) and the payroll taxes on employees and employers would bring in $660 billion, for a total of $1.6 trillion in revenue.
The TaxPolicyCenter.org site suggests somewhat larger figures for 2005: $893.7 billion in individual income tax revenues, $226.5 billion in corporate income tax revenues, $773.7 billion in "social insurance and retirement" revenues, $74 billion in excise taxes (cigarettes, alcohol), and $84.8 billion in other revenues for a total of $2.053 trillion.
So, ninety-two percent (92%) of federal revenues come from income taxes and payroll taxes. It appears clear from the jury's finding in the Banister case that there is no law requiring that Americans pay either type of tax. Which means that if we look at Treasury Secretary Simon's comments cited above, there is nothing behind the USA dollar but fraud, theft, and deceit.
So, tell your friends. Perhaps there is no law requiring you to pay income taxes. Does that mean that you have found tax freedom? Not at all. If you've previously volunteered to file income taxes, you may still face difficulties from the IRS, the more so if they know where you live, work, or keep assets (such as bank accounts). Perhaps there is no law requiring you to pay payroll taxes, for yourself or your employees if any. Does that mean that you can stop filing payroll taxes and expect no consequences? Absolutely not.
If you were living in a country where rule of law were respected, perhaps you'd have something here. You'd be able to point to the absence of a law and not be bothered any further with enforcement of false charges or fraudulent bills for taxes you don't owe. But, in fact, you don't live in such a country if you live in the USA. You have to suppose that your bank accounts would be levied, and that your banker would rather save his skin and would enforce a "notice of intent to levy" as though it were an actual, lawful levy itself.
I say perhaps there is no such law, not because I doubt that the government failed to produce evidence for any such law. Rather, I suspect that there may be a law hiding in some obscure part of the code of feral regulations that may be subsequently pulled out to show the next jury that there is some legal pretext for withholding and taxation. I do believe that the system is fraudulent and that income tax and payroll taxes represent a major scam.
That does not mean that you should act on these ideas without considerable care. In a system where the government persistently defrauds people and steals from them, you aren't safe in acting on your knowledge of the law. Obeying the laws is no defense. You not only have to obey the laws, you have to expect to be required to give up your property, liberty, and life whenever the government demands it. In other words, the USA is a tyranny.
As a result of this particular acquittal in the Banister case, a great many Americans who learn of it are going to stop paying income taxes. They are also going to demand that their payroll taxes no longer be withheld. Many employers, especially large companies with defense contracts, government contracts, or protected status due to regulations or tariffs, are going to refuse immediately. Many smaller companies are going to seek advice of "tax professionals" who will lead them astray. Tens of thousands of patriotic Americans who believe in life, liberty, property, and a constitutionally limited government are going to rebel - against their employers, against the government, and against theft masquerading as taxes.
The repercussions of this acquittal have not yet been felt. The rebellions are going to move into full swing in a few months time. The government, already unable to meet its fiscal obligations without enormous deficits, is run by men and women who will decide it is necessary to exterminate tax rebels, by hook or by crook. The dollar should suffer and hard money should benefit from these developments, but the brutal repression and massacre of tens of thousands of Americans should be expected, and lamented.
Free Market Money
"It seems to me that the decisive factor that would create a general preference for a currency stable in value would be that only in such a currency is a realistic calcuation possible, and therefore in the long run a successful choice between alternative currencies for use in production and trade. In particular, the chief task of accounting, to ensure that the stock of capital of the business is not eaten into and only true net gains shown as profits available for disposal by the shareholders, can be realised only if the value of the unit of account is approximately stable."
Refined: An Analysis of the Theory and Practice
of Concurrent Currencies, 3rd Edition, 1990
Let's see what we can make of the unit of account called the dollar. I dismiss out of hand the tri-metallic definition of a dollar in the 1792 Mint Act as outmoded. It might be nice to use the weight in silver or gold given in that act as a definition of a dollar, but that is not the definition as used now.
The dollar as a unit of account would seem to have inflated by 1,844% from January 1914 to May 2005, based on the Inflation Calculator we found at InflationData.com. What does that mean?
Well, 100% inflation would mean that it takes $2 now to buy the same thing that $1 would buy then. So, 1844% inflation means that it would take $19.44 now to buy what $1 would buy then. On average, there has been 20.26% inflation per year in the period from 1914 to 2005.
Briefly, the dollar as a unit of account is terrible. It is very hard to compare figures from one year to the next, because of inflation. A far more stable unit of account would be the troy ounce of gold.
Here's how the stocks we presently suggest in this area look of late (close Monday 27 June 2005):
Two of the companies we follow have been sued. Newmont is one, which we've suggested for some time. The other is Durban Roodeport Deep, which we follow to some extent as a result of our interest in GoldMoney. (We continue to suggest against South African based gold mining companies on the basis of the unlimited difficulties of socialism.)
These lawsuits would appear to be frivolous suits of the type: your stock price dropped, so you've somehow violated the 1934 securities act.
Doug Casey has favorably reviewed Western Prospector (WNP-V) in his Energy Speculator newsletter, or so we gather from WNP's summary of the review. Details on their site or his.
Free Market Money
Gold came up nicely, passing $442 for a bit, and then settling back around $435.
Silver has also lost a bit of luster and is down around $7.19.
Copper has been flirting a bit with $1.66 and is now around $1.6425.
U3O8 seems to be holding at $29/lb.
The three stocks we've suggested in this sector are PVH, GBH, and MCG. Prices from Monday 27 June.
Prices unchanged this week. Clearly, more buyers are needed to see much movement in this thinly traded market.
"For the next several years, as the space station development and its partnership go forward, the United States is in the position where we cannot effectively utilize the space station without our Russian partners."
Sadly, both sections on space this week are on NASA and its hare-brained schemes to negligently kill astronauts while simultaneously crushing all dreams of spaceflight in an iron fist. This section is on the return to flight.
The allegedly independent panel which reviewed the compliance by NASA with 15 recommendations by the Columbia accident investigation board has sat on the fence, equivocating. They have said that the three very significant issues unresolved by NASA don't really matter, and the shuttle is safe to fly. Those three issues?
Since the Columbia was doomed by a combination of the absence of these three things, and unwillingness by NASA to even look at the possibility of the problem using spy satellites, and a failure to send the crew to a safe haven aboard the space station, one has to take a pretty dim view of these equivocators. "Faith, here's an equivocator that could swear in both the scales against either scale: who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven: O, come in, equivocator." Come in to Hades, as the porter seems to be saying in MacBeth.
NASA Admini-straddler Michael Griffin says that "we're ready to go" in spite of not having fixed the problems that doomed Columbia. "At this point, we must say that we have reduced the level of risk from debris damage to an acceptable level ... or we must say we don't want to fly the shuttle again." I guess the temptation to fly is to great. Perhaps he'll attend the funerals for the next batch.
Griffin and Condee Rice have joined forces to ask the science committee for an amendment to the Iran non-proliferation act which would allow NASA to buy trips to the internationalist socialist space station from Russia, even though Russia allegedly provides weapons, missile technology, and conventional weapons tech to Iran. Presently, NASA cannot even reach the station while the shuttle fleet is grounded. And if they blow up another shuttle, they'll have another hiatus.
As it is, Bush has mandated that the shuttle stop flying in 2010, and that's not enough time for the 28 shuttle flights needed to "complete" the space station. So, the space station has to be changed, again. Remember 1984? Reagan announced that the building of a permanent space station was a goal of his administration, that it should be done in ten years (tee-hee) and cost estimates then were $8 billion. Wheee!
After spending upwards of $100 billion on various designs, mostly scrapped, and some hardware, mostly grounded, NASA has to once again change the plans. From 1969 to 2005, NASA has gone out of its way to thwart every alternative to the shuttle, even at one point trying to get the entire expendable launch vehicle fleet eliminated. They put all their eggs in one basket, then failed to watch the basket very carefully.
NASA delenda est. Happily, they seem dedicated to this idea themselves.
SpaceDev is at $1.52. It is up $0.02 since we first suggested it.
SpaceDev has reported a net profit for the first quarter of 2005, so it should come as no surprise that the market has punished SpaceDev for this affront. First quarter revenues were up 78% to over $1.8 million, with profit of $101,000 and net cash from operations of $236,000.
Earlier this month, SpaceDev reported a Small Business Innovative Research contract for $100K from the Air Force Research Lab of Edwards airbase. The contract is for hybrid propulsion for so-called nan-sat systems.
"[L]ook for us to pick a 'leader' with whom we will get started - and also to fund a couple of 'followers' at the study level in case the leader falls off the track. Because, the leader is only going to continue to get his money if progress continues to be met. We will set up verifiable milestones, agreed upon in the deal, the way that any commercial deal would be done. When the terms and conditions are met, the money will be provided."
Keith Cowing, one of the more socialistic of the so-called NASA watchers, has published an essay describing Cowing's views of Mike Griffin's so-called "commercialization" vision for NASA. Some things should be clear from the outset.
Griffin is not any sort of free market enthusiast. Rather, he seems, from his comments, to be a typical big-government Fabian socialist. He would probably applaud John Maynard Keynes and George Bernard Shaw and their vision to smash the world with hammers until it looks the way they want.
Cowing quotes Griffin extensively, so let's take a peek at some of those quotes. The venue was the Space Transportation Association's breakfast in Washington, DC. This event attracted many sycophants and other paid participants who want NASA to shell out contracts to them. Some Congress critters, staff, media types, and NASA personnel showed up, too. Some of the people I know in this industry, like Jim Muncy and Lori Garver - people I don't particularly admire - were there asking questions.
Clearly, Griffin's vision of commercialization has nothing to do with private free enterprise activities. He is not a supporter of free markets. His words betray him to be a socialist. For example, he says, "The ability of this economy and the principles upon which it is established to generate wealth is an amazement to the entire world. It largely draws on the ground rules of - I want to say unfettered competition - but we actually 'fetter' the competition in order to have rules of the road and to make it reasonably fair and ethical."
Reviewing his comments, on the whole it appears that Griffin wants to fetter competition as much as possible. It seems clear that he wants to avoid having any private enterprise business challenge NASA or its defense contractor community in the area of space transport. Indeed, it appears that he is making clear policy statements that it will be business as usual, with one major defense contractor chosen to build all of NASA's cargo and crew vehicles in the next phase of major activity.
Griffin pays a sort of lip service to free enterprise, saying that Silicon Valley is the place to go to see unfettered competition with the most rapid development of technology. But, of course, "I am not suggesting that everything should be like that but I am suggesting that everyone understand it and know it." The idea seems to be to avoid the things free enterprise brings, such as competition, innovation, and profits, while seeking the things free enterprise brings such as rapid technology development and lower costs.
While doing everything in its power to thwart such efforts, NASA is aware that private enterprise has to, in Griffin's words, "develop their own business plan, find their own money, ... acquire a team, ... produce a product, and ... try to see if it will sell." Sadly, of course, NASA has acted time and time again to criticize or lie about business plans, NASA has told prospective investors that business plans won't ever work, NASA personnel have denied the laws of physics in some instances, and NASA has gone out of its way to prevent entrepreneurs from finding competent people to work in the private sector. NASA also works with other government agencies to thwart the development of any products, so that sales become impossible. NASA is a despicable bunch of scum in management with a few competent and dedicated workers in engineering and science.
The way up at NASA is the way up in any bureaucracy. The term I use is "bureaucratic imperative." This term refers to the only way to advance in any bureaucracy, commercial or governmental: you must control more budget and have more staff working for you. If you add more budget and more staff, you will get higher pay and advancement in your career. If you conserve money, return any part of your budget, or reduce staff, you may expect to be fired, replaced, or demoted. Naturally, this means that if you engage the engines of commerce to make things happen faster, with less budget, and higher quality, you are worse off than if you thwart those things.
"So, the task in front of me as a manager of our civil space program is how to recognize and deal with the fact that publicly funded space programs have goals and objectives which have to be achieved. The NASA Administrator, the Director of the NRO, Secretary of the Air Force - all the folks who have high level budgeting and strategic authority as to where the money goes - have goals and objectives that have to be met. And the meeting of those goals cannot be treated as a lottery - where we'll just spread money around and let a thousand flowers bloom," says Griffin. Which means, business as usual. There won't be any entrepreneurial start-ups handling cargo for the government, because the government won't even look at the Kelly Act - which allowed private aircraft operators at the dawn of aviation be paid to carry airmail.
In 1987, I worked very hard on proposed legislation which became the Launch Services Purchase Act. The key features which would have made it possible for start-ups to compete for payloads were gutted in Congress. The balance of the provisions of that law have been ignored.
So, how does Griffin propose to "engage the engine of competition" for space activities? He says, "the best way to do that is to utilize the market that is offered by the International Space Station and its requirements to supply crew and cargo as the years unfold." But, of course, that doesn't mean unfettered competition would ever be allowed.
Rather, the shuttle will continue to fly until all three remaining shuttles have been destroyed, or 2010, or whatever extension NASA can get. These shuttles will be used to build the space station. In the meantime, NASA will, business as usual, design, build, and operate a crew exploration vehicle (CEV) which, "will be the follow-on to the shuttle for getting people in space." The space tourism companies can forget about ever building passenger vehicles for orbit. That is to be the exclusive domain of NASA, per usual. NASA's CEV is "to carry astronauts to the Moon, and later, to Mars, but it will also have the requirement to carry astronauts to and from the space station. In our architecture planning we are making certain that unmanned versions can also carry cargo to the station." So, good luck supplying cargo flights, either.
Griffin insists, "So, there will - and there must - be a government-derived capability to service the space station even after the shuttle is retired." In other words, NASA will create its own capability, will never allow competitors to create alternative capabilities, and will continue to use all its influence to prevent entrepreneurs from succeeding. NASA has always done so, even when it has promised to encourage competition, even when Congress has demanded that it do so.
To justify his idiocy, Griffin says, "Let me remind you that in other venues the government operates military air. I have been on many military air flights. The government also buys tickets on commercial airlines. So one approach does not exclude the other. Today we don't have, in the space industry, the equivalent of the airline tickets or the airline cargo delivery services. But, using the NASA market for this traffic to the space station, I believe we can help create one."
But, of course, NASA won't allow competitors to spoil its turf. It has always thwarted the free market for space transportation, and it always will. A free market for space transportation cannot arise when NASA actively works to prevent it, won't arise when NASA competes against it with free flights for government, university, and even some private payloads, and won't arise while NASA refuses to obey the laws Congress has set down and the orders the White House has made requiring NASA to remove commercial payloads from the shuttle and requiring NASA to buy from the private sector. NASA has always used its discretion, whether authorized by law or not, to demand it be allowed to do whatever NASA pleases. I don't happen to believe a word Griffin says to the contrary. In my view, he's just another sleazy bureau-rat who wants to rule the aerospace sector, probably right up to the point that he can arrange for a cushy job with a defense contractor.
At this point in his speech, Griffin sashays forth with a few choice acronyms, such as "BAA" for some time of acquisition arrangement, and rather a lot of song and dance about how NASA plans to buy commercial space transportation services while continuing to operate its own cargo and crew capabilities. I view most of this passage as malarkey, meant to dull the audience into submission. In this passage, which is available at the link cited at the top of this section, Griffin offers some telling points. He'll use the insurance industry to coerce compliance to processes and standards NASA thinks are important, in my view. He'll demand standardization on NASA's terms.
"So, just like when we build ships and airplanes, there are standards to which such objects have to be designed and built - or they can't be insured. The same thing is true in the true space arena. I would look for us to supply a floor of standards to which you must work." Gee, Mikey, that sounds commercial. Sure, let's see if you can make the puppets dance.
Then Cowing modifies some part of Griffin's speech with square brackets, and presents it as follows, "[You should] look for us to conduct such a competitive procurement - and [you should] look for us to pick a 'leader' with whom we will get started - and also to fund a couple of 'followers' at the study level in case the leader falls off the track. Because, the leader is only going to continue to get his money if progress continues to be met. We will set up verifiable milestones, agreed upon in the deal, the way that any commercial deal would be done. When the terms and conditions are met, the money will be provided."
In my view the above paragraph represents the most telling evidence of business as usual. NASA is going to fund one company, probably a defense contractor such as Boeing or Lockheed Martin to be "the leader." That company will receive massive subsidies to compete against all the other companies. Andrew Beal folded his tent when NASA determined to approach the procurement of cargo launch vehicles this way. Beal Aerospace closed its doors because Beal saw the writing on the wall. And he was right. Griffin isn't changing a thing. He's going to hard wire a contract for one major defense contractor, probably get all the usual graft and corruption involved, very likely get the revolving door to carry him from his job at NASA into a job at that same defense contractor, and then use all the political muscle NASA has to make sure the contract is well funded. Everyone else who has any interest in flying cargo or passengers will get "study money" which will string them along until they die of old age.
Griffin then says that there won't be extra money for the big defense contractor that gets the leadership job, and there won't be get well money if they have trouble meeting expectations. However, I view these as bald-faced lies. NASA always takes care of the contractors. NASA always finds a way to kill any innovations that threaten its prime contractor. NASA took over and destroyed the DC-X, killed off Kantrowitz's laser launch system, used its political muscle to kill off NERVA, and will go right on being a bully, a bad actor, and a menace.
NASA was founded by a committed Nazi named Werner von Braun. While others were using their status as officers in the military and the Weimar Republic's law that officers could not be required to join political parties, von Braun was busy joining every Nazi club and group he could find. When the Nazis had him build war rockets with slave labor from the Mettelwerken concentration camp, von Braun happily built war rockets to rain down on London, Belgium, and other parts of Europe. When the Nazis were defeated, von Braun came to the United States and grabbed hold of a job with the military so he could remain in a socialist position within what was then a post-war capitalist economy. To von Braun's delight, the government became increasingly socialistic after the war, and Eisenhower created NASA with von Braun's plans for military conquest of space in mind. The pretense of a civilian space program has been with us ever since.
My old friend Frank Sietzen asked Griffin if he would obey the recommendations of the Aldridge commission as they pertain to commercialization. Griffin said he would not. He admitted that without private sector alternatives, NASA would continue to spend $200,000 per pound to put things in orbit. He said, "But with respect to any advisors - any study groups - any recommendations we've received ... I cannot possibly feel bound by them because, you know, it may not fit the overall plan.
In other words, NASA has pre-conceived ideas of what it must do, and the devil take all recommendations from all commissions tasked with reforming NASA.
Those who think that NASA is going to stop flying the shuttle any time soon should be aware that Griffin has said, "For the heavy lifter, I am looking to adapt shuttle-derived systems to the needs of Moon-Mars because we already have a vehicle that is in the class that I want. We'll see how that works." Which means, even if it works badly, NASA will continue to seek to maximize the profits of the defense contractors currently supplying shuttle systems.
In response to Cowing's question on the recommendations of the Columbia accident investigation board, Griffin rejects out of hand implementing all of them. "The CAIB recommendations in their full scope are recommendations and they are not all implementable. ... we're going to have to sign up to launch Discovery and Eileen Collins and her crew without having complied with that recommendation because we can't. ... But at the end of the day the line management in the implementing organization has to be in charge - and at NASA, our line management is in charge." Which means, nothing has changed, business as usual.
With regard to the near term, Griffin says, "We know - to the extent that something can be known through statistics - we know that we can't launch 28 shuttle flights, which is the current station assembly manifest, between now and when they retire. We have a very high likelihood of getting 19 or 20 flights - and I would say a near certainty of getting 15 or 16. ... We have to figure out how best to assemble and or utilize what is the best combination of assembly and utilization for the International Space Station, going forward in the next 5 years, using the asset that we have, and flying it as many times as we expect to be able to fly it...." Notice that there is no chance NASA would offer prizes to get other parts of the station assembled, or even up to orbit. (The suggestion that NASA offer a prize for the repair of the Hubble has obviously fallen on deaf ears.)
In response to long-term NASA sycophant and arch-enemy of freedom Lori Garver's question whether big defense contractors would be out of the game, Griffin clearly replied that any major defense contractor would be welcome to build and operate crew exploration vehicles, cargo vehicles, or space station supply vehicles. He then puts his tongue firmly in his cheek, knowing as he must that NASA has thwarted every commercial provider to date, and says, "the government will not provide the requested service if there is a commercial provider who can do it." But, of course, no commercial provider will arise, because NASA's line management will continue to destroy every commercial effort, as they always have.
Again, Griffin insists, "We must have for ourselves - for the government - the capability to move crew and cargo around. We cannot be hostage to an individual provider deciding to go out of business." So, it will be business as usual. The government will continue to build and operate its own fleet of space access vehicles, and if it has to make it illegal for private competitors to fly in order to gain the market share needed to justify the government's cost models, that will be just too bad.
In response to a comment from my old friend Jim Muncy (who also gives lip service to free enterprise, and also has impressed me as basically a socialist," Griffin says, "first you've got to prove to me that you can deliver cargo - then we can deliver crew." It is the same old story. Prove to NASA that you can do the job for free, then maybe NASA will give you a study contract to get in line to do the job, after their big defense contractor falls down on the job, unless for political reasons NASA decides to stick with the big defense contractor.
Griffin may say he wants to be flexible rather than proscriptive, but NASA as a whole has always been proscriptive, and prohibitive. NASA wants to own space. Deal with them at considerable peril to yourself, your company, and your future.
If you want a future in space, if you want to go dancing on the Moon, if you want to fly in space, you should condemn NASA to the ash heap of history. NASA delenda est.
New Country Developments
"On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home."
In Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut, Justice Souter and a majority of the Supreme Court have ruled that city governments are allowed to take land from one private owner and give it to another. Among the acceptable justifications, if the government would generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits, it can grab land at will.
Since the constitution is evidently foreign to the Supremes, Logan Clements and others have taken up the project of illustrating the consequences of their decision to the Supreme Court, or at least starting with Souter. There's no doubt that tax revenues from "the Lost Liberty Hotel" and other economic benefits would provide adequate justification to seizing Souter's property. Applied to all the justices who agreed with Souter on Kelo v City of New London, this approach only requires adding four more real estate projects.
Indeed, it would be really nice if such projects could be kept up indefinitely, so long as Souter and the others identify their property on acquisition. Keep them homeless.
Clements goes on to say, "The Lost Liberty Hotel will feature the Just Desserts Cafe and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible, each guest would receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged." Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on Souter's land because it is a unique site, being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank," said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, we can begin our hotel development." Clements plans to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute for Justice and participants in the Free State Project, among others.
And so begins another aspect of the coming rebellions. The Real ID Rebellion, the tax rebellion mentioned above, and now the rebellion against Supreme Court directives, these are just the tip of a very large ice berg. We can certainly expect to see rebellions centered around the Supreme Court's asinine decision on medical marijuana.
What happens if Souter is able to successfully keep his property? Then the rebellions will continue, because it will be obvious that influential people are above the law. A country of men and not of laws was exactly what the Founding Fathers were fighting against. If Souter loses his home, and gets to watch it bulldozed, perhaps he'll think twice about defying the sacred tradition of private property, though, frankly, Souter losing and Souter thinking are both results I'd consider far fetched.
These rebellions will continue for many decades. The reprisals should be expected to be brutal. Brutal, mindless reprisals will lead to retaliatory violence.
To paraphrase from the film "The Patriot," these rebellions will not be far away. They will not take place on distant battlefields in Iraq or Afghanistan, though there is plenty of rebellion in those places. The coming rebellions will be here, among us, among our homes. Our families will see them with their own eyes. Our own property will be embroiled in these rebellions.
To the extent that one may stay aloof from such conflicts, it would be wise to do so. The early rebellions will be brutally repressed, and won't accomplish much. Better to cheer them on from the sidelines than to be the target of reprisal. Surviving these rebellions and the subsequent revolution(s) to create a more lasting peace and prosperity founded on principles of individual liberty and private property would seem to be a worthy aspiration. Flinging yourself into the first conflict that comes along is to be avoided. Keep your sights on the far horizon, on actually achieving your goals rather than just venting your rage.
Not, of course, at the cost of your principles. If it comes to it, you should be prepared to use deadly force to defend life, liberty, and property as you see fit. Keep your powder dry, and may your aim never waver.
"Some believe that permafrost may have changed the properties of the bacteria, causing them to develop proteins and enzymes which stimulate the immune system and prolong the life span."
Researchers in Russia, near Tyumen have found ancient bacteria. These bacteria are believed to be some two million years old. They were found in the Chukotka glaciers.
Experiments at "a foreign research center" injected these bacteria into flies. The flies lived much longer than ordinary flies. Tests are planned on mice at the Tyumen research center.
Sukhovei says, "If this theory is confirmed, a skin rejuvenation cream and then a longevity drug may be obtained." The research has been funded by the governor of Tyumen.
We mentioned but never suggested Alteon. Its stock looks to be headed for very tiny numbers, recently at $0.22.
Dendreon was at $5.31 when we looked in Monday 27 June 2005. Its price is off a penny. Motley Fool seems to have picked it as a biotech suggestion.
Elan Corp, PLC, was at $6.46 when we looked in on it Monday 27 June 2005.
Publication Note: Narrowing the delay. Yay.
Copyright © 2005 Free West Trust, All Rights Reserved.