Encore of Revival: America, February 11, 2019

If the border wall dispute goes to a point of emergency, there would be implications. How deeply the administration and Congress will want to pursue those implications is a question to itself, with a likely answer of, "Not far." But, the implications will remain.

Declaring a national emergency at the border is basically a declaration of being invaded by a civilian army. Like any army, this army also has a purpose and a moral cause they think to be right and fair. What invading army doesn't? But, it would be an invading army of some kind or another because that's what Constitutional powers the president would need to use to declare the emergency: repel against invasion.

The Constitutional language here compels Congress to act. If Trump were to declare an emergency to deal with the border situation—then a Federal judge stopped him—that judge would be just as implicated as Congress.

The implication?—Conspiracy with the enemy.

If an invasion can be stopped, but won't be stopped by Congress or a judge, then they are conspirators with that invasion. This is because they are Constitutionally required to stop any force from invading, not only a deputized army sanctioned by a recognized state.

Trump might not be able to do much. Presidents can't impeach anyone and members of Congress don't answer for anything they do as elected officials to anyone except the electorate. He might be able to fire the Federal judge, but that won't achieve anything because another treacherous scoundrel is sure to pop up elsewhere.

But, the implication will be there. What to do about it will be left up to the voters.

continue reading


Cadence of Conflict: Asia, March 12, 2018

As talks between Kim and Trump march forward, China is resigned to the new situation at its eastern border and is focusing on other areas, specifically trade. In truth, China's main trade opponent is not the US, but Vietnam.

Vietnam's main edge in trade will be that it is less expensive. Vietnam is, in many ways, less developed, yet more free to be expressive. Hanoi doesn't sanction the same censorship as Beijing does. Many hard-working Vietnamese are hungry, even desperate for income. A hard-working, uncensored, hungry, less-expensive people will be difficult for China to compete with on many fronts. This is entirely beside any point about political tension between China and Vietnam.

The meeting between Kim and Trump is less-than-satisfactorily explained. Suddenly they want to talk? Some "teamwork" consultant trying to sell a book will likely attribute it all to diplomacy, along with the preemptive speculation that Kim would give up the nukes because he got them. More is going on behind the scenes and if the true story is ever told it may not be told for ten or twenty years.

As for the Western spin about China's constitutional changes, it is all about the party, not about Xi. The humble pig farm worker, Xi Jinping, did not rise to power by publicly trying to serve himself. He has followed Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power to a tee and will continue to do so—that means putting the party first in his public agenda.

continue reading


Cadence of Conflict: Asia, February 26, 2018

It's hitting the fan. China is homing-up and the US is "posseing" up. CFIUS is expanding its scope and China just required Apple to send its iCloud encryption keys to servers on the mainland. Both moves are more about caution than provocation. The US is stepping up patrols to enforce the trade block on North Korea. China just started the process of amending its Constitution to remove terms limits on its President.

The change to China's Constitution is often mis-portrayed. It affects both the President and Vice President. It does not install a President for life, but simply allows it. More importantly, the Constitution is being updated to include the "Xi Thought", mainly that all ethic groups of China are equal and that helping the entire world is part of China's responsibility.

Many in the West will jump to presume Xi is making a grab for power. While it does increase his power, the more accurate interpretation is that Xi's plans go for the long term, specifically after Trump's term. Without this change, Xi would leave office by 2023. China is thinking in terms of long-term, global strategy. That's hardly a "grab", but more of a "waltz".

This is a significant change. Both the US and China clearly mean business. With a shift toward the long-term, and with China publishing its view that the whole world is part of its responsibility, we are in a different political atmosphere than in years past.

continue reading


Encore of Revival: America, November 14, 2016

The hashtag #Calexit would be #Texit if the election had gone the other way. California and Texas already did secede once. Of course Washington would do something to stop it, we wouldn’t be dealing with Obama anymore. Secession is now on the table for real, thank you Californians. It’s only a matter of time. These are bad days for globalism.

Reince Priebus and Stephen Bannon will be great in the White House. Trump is the man who led and starred one of NBC’s most profitable shows, The Apprentice. He knows who to hire. This man, accused of being a woman-hating, homophobic racist has already hired KellyAnne Connway, Peter Thiel, and Dr. Ben Carson. The Anti-Trumpist retort is that they are examples of Trump operating in “rare form”.

Are the protesters in as much danger of Trump as they protest to being? Will Trump retaliate against NBC and other venomous enemies with an onslaught of IRS audits and the like? Historically, no because Trump is not a Democrat.

“Experts” in other countries, disparaged Democrat voters, members from the four corners of Congress, and media talking heads from the four corners of the moon—even Fox News Sunday and debate host extraordinaire Christopher Wallace—did not predict the 2016 US election outcome; Pacific Daily Times Editor in Chief and writer-narrator of this editorial, Jesse Steele, did in early February. The most widely-known prediction of Trump’s victory before Jesse Steele’s was from Richard Nixon’s wife, though Mrs. Nixon didn’t make a map.

A few polls got it right. Khali at Trafalgar polling found a way to get the truth from “shy” Trumpist Conservatives who think they can’t tell the truth to pollsters: “Who is your neighbor voting for?” It’s interesting how we tend to think that our neighbors think how we think.

In their ever-shifting opinions and speculations about Trump, so-called “experts” of 20/20 hindsight who park their pedestals among aftermath should cite their more accurate election maps published before February. As usual, if you read it here, you read it here first, at Pacific Daily Times.

The divide in America is between the archetypal city mice and country mice. The country mice need land to make things in factories and grow food on farms; the city mice manage the market’s business on less and more costly land, all the while consuming the fat of the land they rarely visit. Like a saddle and a horse, a saddle helps, but bareback is an option while a saddle ridden on the fence goes nowhere.

The two are naturally polarized and out of touch with each other; they have formed political right and left extremes. The country mice want production and renaissance while the city mice want fashion and manners. Being a “moderate” in the city-country conflict surmounts to mixing coffee with orange juice at breakfast—both are great, but they need different cups.

As for the controversy of the electoral college, it resurfaces in every presidential election as if it has just surfaced for the first time: It’s a newbie voter’s topic. The basic purpose is, in the event of a very close margin of city mice v country mice, the country mice will win because the country can’t function without the rural backbone. This is why a State gets just two extra votes just for being a State, and all that comes with it. This is why Alaska contributed 3 Republican votes, not just 1, and Hawaii and New Hampshire contributed each 4 Democrat votes, not just 2. That said, there have been no certified reports on how much of Clinton’s 260k vote lead came from illegal voting. We do know that Democrats openly object to measures that prevent illegal voting while moderate Republicans claim to oppose illegal voting, with little or no action to back up that claim. The policies, both actual and claimed, of both Democrats and Republicans brought the vote to what it was.

Pro-Lifers should be glad abortion will likely end. That was the biggest and most lasting direct result of this election, which many people have not realized, yet if ever. Perhaps Religious Right Conservative Christian Anti-Trumpist lamenters could learn a thing or two about gratitude from Liberal Democratic Anti-Trumpist protesters. Trump has managed to inspire shared hashtags for these Conservatives and Liberals. They might actually talk to each other now. That could be a longer-lasting, less direct result of this election. The way has been paved for The People’s Party.

The massive protests against Trump are the result of the country’s public education policies since the 1990’s. Students are given a trophy for showing up and recognition of winners and losers in sports is outright persecuted. Nannying and sissifying young people left the generation of first-time voters ill-prepared to deal with loss. While neither Conservative nor Liberal youth have had much experience training them to deal with the emotions of “losing” something, Conservative parents were more likely to prepare them at home for the things that school neglected. If nothing else, Conservative first-time voters had their first eight years of voting to learn to deal with loss; the Democrats did not.

There would have been protests of some kind either way. These protests are more of a “nasty” nature, involving destruction of private property with little legislative result. Had the election gone the other way, riots would have been replaced with larger, more peaceful, and yet more effective protests. Secession petitions would have been legitimate enough to provoke Congress, involve the Supreme Court, and surely military action, citing Clinton corruption and excess executive orders that Trump promised to undo. This election was somewhat of a “deal”: Get back inside the Constitutional boundaries or rip it up; the electors chose to get back inside the lines, for now. California and Texas will secede eventually, but that will require the “don’t get mad, get busy” action of sobriety and will happen only after elections and wars yet to come.

Contrary to some opinions floating around the “media-osphere”, there actually is a Constitutional basis for secession, though not stated directly. The Federal government is obligated to repel invasion, according to original Article IV. If the US is ever invaded, State secession will be as Constitutional as it is inevitable. The topic California brought up implies a warning to US enemies: Invading the United States at home would not be an act of war against one country, but against fifty. While secession is coming, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. The president elect still has not taken office, the electoral college has not voted, and the results of many States have not yet been certified by their election authorities. While some things are foreseeable from the vantage point of history, history informs foresight while the two remain separate.

The earthquakes had the final and poetic word after “US election week”: Both sides of the Pacific were shocked and shaken, and, more poetically, the shock in Christchurch started a tsunami.

continue reading


Encore of Revival: America, November 9, 2015

The world saw shifting this week. Russia dominated in Syria and got welcomed in Iraq. Goldman dumped the BRICS bank, dominated by China and bandwagoned by Russia, India, Brazil, and South Africa. We saw the first distortion about Carson and the first distortion bandwagoned by Trump.

The controversial TPP was seen for the harbor it is for anti-information laws. The terrorist watchlist is too politically incorrect to help a university keep its students safe. German citizens line up to protect their own border. A presidential candidate wants Puerto Rico as the 51st State. Israel reaches out to Washington. Washington has never looked more incompetent while Israel and citizens worldwide have never been more determined. Everyone else is stepping up while old leaders have no choice but to stand down.

Ben Carson On Biased Media and Trump This Week FULL Interview (YouTube)

…Stephanopoulos interviews Carson on Trump response to anti-Carson article, Trump response…

Donald Trump FULL Interview With George Stephanopoulos 11.08.15 (YouTube)

Ben Carson Endorses Puerto Rican Statehood – 3 Months After Island Defaulted on Debt

‘US-led coalition disjointed in fighting ISIS as some members have own plans’ – Iraq’s ex-PM

University officials agree to rip up Constitution in undercover video

Israeli leader heads to Washington as spokesman draws fire

HUNDREDS OF GERMANS Form Human Chain to Protect Border From Migrant Invasion (VIDEO)

‘Mysterious light in sky’ spooks California

…US Navy was practising at night just off the coast of LAX, flights restricted two days.  · · · →

continue reading

Congress’ Role in Fergusson: A Relook at Government

Congress’ Role in Fergusson: A Relook at Government

The problem in Ferguson, Missouri didn’t begin with the decision of a grand jury. Nor did it begin the summer Michael Brown was shot by the police. It didn’t begin with left over anger from a neighborhood watch leader killing Trayvon Martin. It didn’t begin with the LA riots after the beating of Rodney King. It didn’t begin with Democrats or Republicans. It didn’t start with President Obama or President Bush.

No, Ferguson’s problems began in the same place that America’s Immigration problem began: Congress.

America’s most recent fascination has been with the Constitution. It’s too bad that the Builder’s generation didn’t have that fascination. Renaissance usually follows crisis, which usually follows prosperity followed by disrespect of the up and coming generation. But being fascinated with the Constitution isn’t enough. We are closer to a national recovery, but still far from it.

Even in our rediscovery of the Constitution, few people have examined “responsibility”. Instead, almost all Constitutional-focused talks have been about “rights”… Second Amendment rights, Executive rights, State governments’ rights, Federal rights… No one talks about responsibility. If Constitutional responsibility had been on America’s mind the last 50 years, the problems in Ferguson and Immigration might not even exist.

Rather than discussing Constitutional responsibility in general, I want to focus on two main issues: Article IV and Amendment II. These two areas obligate Congress, which has utterly failed in its duty.

The Second Amendment is not merely about a right to carry weapons. This “right” is based on the responsibility of the standing militia described in Article I, Sec. 8, Clauses 15 and 16. Congress is supposed to make standards for States to follow to train and regulate a standing militia.

Some have claimed that the militia is the National Guard. It’s not. While States have some influence over the National Guard, a militia is made of all adult men of able body and mind. In our modern day, this means that “militia training” should happen about the same time as driver’s education and should be required before a man can vote. It should be a class in high school that everyone can take and pass. Women and men with learning disabilities should be able to pass the high school “Militia” class, but would not be obligated to serve.

The Second Amendment is not only about a right to carry a weapon, but about Congress’ responsibility to tell the States how to train all people how to use weapons, how to cooperate with local authorities, and how to be the eyes, ears, and hands that keep the local peace.

If the United States had fulfilled the Constitutional mandate to train a militia—made of all able-bodied young men, not just a volunteer service like the National Guard, and not a private militia like the Culpepper Minutemen—then many things would be different in the country. For starters, deporting people who entered  illegally would already have millions of enforcers at almost zero cost. Reducing that cost, alone, could have made sensible Immigration enforcement more feasible and Congress would have had fewer excuses for delay.

In Ferguson, riots might never have happened. Not only would the city be filled with more than enough trained, able-body peace keepers, more importantly, having finished their “Militia” high school class, there might be fewer people who even want to riot in the first place.

Providing the system for training the militia is not the only responsibility that Congress has shirked. Article I, Sec. 8 and Article IV require that the Federal government take action to prevent insurrection and invasion. If Congress can’t meet, it’s up to the President. Congress has been able to meet, they have simply refused. Can we really blame the President? Should we even praise the President if he takes action that Congress refused?

Honest or not, hiding an agenda or being fully open, President Obama’s Executive action concerning Immigration was necessary to prevent the Federal government from defaulting on their Constitutional mandate in Articles I & IV. No one should have praised him. No one should have scolded him. Everyone should have demanded that Congress face the music. But instead, everyone’s excited about the President, one way or another.

Arguably, one reason that Congress did not act comes from the bipolar politics. Whether in business, family, religion, or government, Americans tend to take a “my way or the highway” approach to solving every problem. It hasn’t worked.

Part of the idea of a Constitutional Federation is that different States and Counties can do things differently. Rather than trying to force our policies on the entire nation, and rather than trying to compromise on exactly what policy should be forced on the entire nation, we should follow the flexible approach that I outline in The People’s Party, another free eBook. It’s widely available and I won’t elaborate on that here.

So, what happened in Ferguson? Was there some racial prejudice involved? We wouldn’t be Human if there wasn’t. But that wasn’t the big problem. Accidental police shootings, police corruption, favoritism of the police by juries—these have been a swelling problem all over our nation.

Fortunately, most police in our day are still good. But that majority isn’t as large as it was when the Builders were more fascinated with their accomplishments than they were with their responsibility to teach their children about the Constitution. If something isn’t done soon, honest police officers will soon be in the minority, like many other countries.

Mentioning police abuse is always an explosive topic. Some overreact and attack police in general. Others filibuster the concern for police ethics and only talk about how wonderful the good police are. Few people ever focus on getting the few bad apples out in order to save the bushel. Few people said peep about the “few bad apples” with Ferguson. As a result, silence unscabbed our old racial wounds—Blacks either looted or scolded each other for looting, Whites shot their noses in the air and said, “I just don’t understand [why Blacks would be angry enough to riot, even with our 400 year history of 350 years of legalized racism],” some of the smarter White guys even said, “Understanding doesn’t change anything.” Who talked about saving the bushel from the few bad apples?

While everyone had a point, the “bad apples” police issue took the back seat when it should have been front and center. And if Congress had fulfilled their responsibility to train the militia, the police issue might have been fronted and centered. Then, Michael Brown might even be alive today.

What would have been different if we had a high school Militia class, even fifty years ago? First, there would be fewer police because every man 18 and older would be an armed peace enforcer. The police probably wouldn’t have been where they were at the time Michael was where he was. Whoever robbed that convenience store either would have been too afraid to rob it in the first place or he wouldn’t have been able to get away if he did. Michael would have known how the police operate because he would have been trained to cooperate with them and what to do if they tried to stop him. If the police were as corrupt as some seem to think they were, then the militia might have been able to save Michael’s life.

After the verdict from the grand jury, when riots were more than predictable, where was law enforcement? The police protected their own buildings, why didn’t they protect the buildings of local merchants? Were the police selfish? Were the police stretched too thin? Why didn’t the State send in the National Guard? None of these questions could be asked if there was a standing, State-regulated, all-able-men militia as the Constitution requires of Congress.

So, it wasn’t White ignorance that killed Michael Brown, though with all the White guys reacting with, “I just don’t understand,” White ignorance has certainly been admitted to. While Black stereotypes are difficult to refute with the Ferguson riots, those stereotypes didn’t kill Michael Brown. While we all need to know and understand each other more, understanding the rioters doesn’t mean we should agree with them any more than understanding why police kill people means that those people aren’t dead. While we need to address the small, but growing problem with police being given too much license to shoot and keep their careers, bad police work didn’t kill Michael Brown. No, Michael Brown was killed by the same irresponsible culprit that killed Immigration: Congress killed Michael Brown.

continue reading