NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

Dear readers:

I’ve often been asked the question and have heard concerns from people on the street, whether we should abolish the Electoral College (EC) in the U.S. And this has been more accentuated after Donald Trump successfully won the presidential election thanks to the majority vote of the EC. My answer has always been, that if we do that, the US as we know it: a politically stable nation, it would easily become a dictatorship. The following article, written by Walter E. William, just hits the nail.
I believe it answers most, if not all, most questions about the role of the EC. In election time, It is something we should learn about, and why we should not listen to the extreme left suggestion to abolish the EC. – Marvin R

by Walter E. Williams

Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, seeking to represent New York’s 14th Congressional District, has called for the abolition of the Electoral College. Her argument came on the heels of the Senate’s confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. She was lamenting the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush, and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, nominated by Donald Trump, were court appointments made by presidents who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College vote.

Hillary Clinton has long been a critic of the Electoral College. Just recently, she wrote in The Atlantic, “You won’t be surprised to hear that I passionately believe it’s time to abolish the Electoral College.”

Subjecting presidential elections to the popular vote sounds eminently fair to Americans who have been miseducated by public schools and universities. Worse yet, the call to eliminate the Electoral College reflects an underlying contempt for our Constitution and its protections for personal liberty. Regarding miseducation, the founder of the Russian Communist Party, Vladimir Lenin, said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” His immediate successor, Josef Stalin, added, “Education is a weapon whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

A large part of Americans’ miseducation is the often heard claim that we are a democracy. The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the two most fundamental documents of our nation — the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, our Constitution — in Article 4, Section 4 — guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The Founding Fathers had utter contempt for democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.” At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Virginia Gov. Edmund Randolph said that “in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” John Adams wrote: “Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.” At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton said: “We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty” is found not in “the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments…. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”

For those too dense to understand these arguments, ask yourselves: Does the Pledge of Allegiance say “to the democracy for which it stands” or “to the republic for which it stands”? Did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song “Battle Hymn of the Republic”? Should she have titled it “Battle Hymn of the Democracy”?

The Founders saw our nation as being composed of sovereign states that voluntarily sought to join a union under the condition that each state admitted would be coequal with every other state. The Electoral College method of choosing the president and vice president guarantees that each state, whether large or small in area or population, has some voice in selecting the nation’s leaders. Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states. They would be states such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41 percent of our population. Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7 percent of the U.S. population. We would no longer be a government “of the people”; instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states.

Political satirist H.L. Mencken said, “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.”

(Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University).

California has official signed into law a process to allow those who’ve been crushed by the war on marijuana to have a life again

by The Free Thought Project

On Sunday, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill that creates a process to expunge or reduce the sentences of people charged under the state’s marijuana laws before recreational cannabis was legalized this year. Enactment of this law takes another step toward nullifying federal marijuana prohibition in effect in California.

Assm. Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) introduced Assembly Bill 1793 (AB1793) in January. Under the new law, the court will automatically reduce or dismiss marijuana convictions pursuant to the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) unless prosecutors successfully challenge the dismissal of charges or sentence reduction.

In November 2016, voters in California approved a ballot measure legalizing marijuana for general use by adults. The law went into effect on Jan. 1. Under the AUMA, any person charged under previous California marijuana laws can petition for the recall or dismissal of a sentence, dismissal and sealing of a conviction, or redesignation of a conviction of an offense for which a lesser offense or no offense would be imposed under new law.

Under AB1793, expungement will instead happen automatically without any petition necessary, effective July 1, 2020. The bill creates a process to identify people eligible for expungement and for prosecutors to challenge the automatic dismissal or reduction of charges.

The California Senate passed AB1793 by a 28-10 vote. The Assembly approved the measure by a 43-28 vote.

In the past, we’ve seen some opposition to marijuana legalization bills because the new laws generally leave those previously charged and convicted unprotected. The passage of AB1793 demonstrates an important strategic point. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Opening the door clears the way for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.

Enactment of AB1793 not only helps those with prior marijuana arrests and convictions on their record get a new start, it will also further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. As marijuana becomes more accepted and more states simply ignore the feds, the federal government is less able to enforce its unconstitutional laws.
FEDERAL PROHIBITION

However, all of this remains prohibited under the 1970 federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.

Legalization of marijuana in California removed a huge layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the world’s sixth largest economy, something that will be extremely difficult for federal prohibitionists to overcome. FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By legalizing cannabis, California essentially sweeps away the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.

Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. In January, Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act.

With 32 states allowing cannabis for medical use as well, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.

“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.

Efforts to expand California’s marijuana law demonstrates another important reality. Once a state puts laws in place legalizing marijuana, it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These bills represent more steps forward for patients seeking alternative treatments and a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.

(Michael Maharrey is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty).

NOTE FROM TE EDITOR:

Dear readers:

I found this article so interesting and educating in how the global economy as it is developing in front of our own eyes, affects the whole world. And we all are affected by it, for being in the middle. Do you understand how the banking system – as a monetary paradigm – is imposed on all of us under the barrel of a gun?

by James Corbett

Well, it’s official: “Japan Inc.” is now “Bank of Japan Inc.”

Oh, OK, not officially official, but just about. As the Nikkei Asian Review reports, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) is now a top-10 shareholder in a whopping 40 percent of the listed companies in the country. That’s right, having purchased 25 trillion yen ($227 billion) worth of exchange-traded funds in the past eight years, Japan’s central bank is now one of the top 10 shareholders in 1,446 out of 3,735 companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.

Even the banksters admit they’ve painted themselves into a corner with their stock buying frenzy. BOJ Governor Kuroda concedes that if the bank persists in pumping its funny money into the markets there will be serious “side effects” that could harm the entire banking sector. So they should turn off the spigot and drain the monetary swamp by raising rates, right? Nope. As BOJ board member Yutaka Harada points out, the banksters can’t reverse the tide and raise interest rates because “bond and stock prices would decline and the yen would appreciate,” completely negating the entire point of the asset purchases in the first place.

So what does all of this mean?

Well, if you’re Japanese it means your central bank is creating (as one Japan-based asset manager puts it) “a new form of financial socialism” from which “Nobody can see a smooth exit strategy.”

But more broadly, the economic pickle that Japan finds itself in right now is merely a small-scale example of the dilemma that the global economy is facing. Caught between the low interest global liquidity trap and the high interest global debt trap. Caught between the globalist “free trade” nightmare and the emerging trade war/hot war nightmare. Caught between the expansion of a predatory system that is designed to drain the wealth of the average worker and the collapse of that system, which will assuredly drain the wealth of the average worker.

The straits between these economic rocks and hard places couldn’t be any narrower. It’s enough to make Scylla and Charybdis look like a cakewalk.

But for those who fail to comprehend the bigger picture here, it should be stressed that this isn’t just about interest rates and bond yields. The point here isn’t what level the stock market is at or whether some trader in Jeddah is going to be selling oil in dollars or yuan. The real point, as I have been trying to stress in this column for some time, is that economics is never just economics. The global economy rests on a monetary paradigm. That monetary paradigm emerges not from some economic calculation but, more often than not, the barrel of a gun.

It’s no coincidence that the Bretton-Woods system instituting the US dollar reserve paradigm arose from the ashes of WWII. It’s no coincidence that that paradigm began to break down when the US started using its reserve currency privileges to run up the debt for the military-industrial complex. It’s no coincidence that the petrodollar paradigm which replaced Bretton-Woods rested on a military and geopolitical alliance with the Saudis. It’s no coincidence that the erosion of that paradigm is giving rise to worries about a Third World War and, presumably, a monetary reset.

It’s no coincidence because all of these things are directly related. The breakdown of the economic order is intimately tied to the breakdown of the geopolitical order. It’s part and parcel of the change that is occurring in the monetary order. And it is inseparable from the rising military tensions that accompany the decline of the American unipolar order.

Let’s highlight another “small” story that fills in one of the pieces of this giant jigsaw puzzle.

Earlier this week, China pitched an idea to EU diplomats attending a Sino-European summit in Beijing: “Join us in an anti-US trade alliance and together we can win the global trade war!” Multiple suggestions were proffered for what form such an alliance might take. China could open up more of its market to EU business as a gesture of good will, for instance, or the two powers could launch a joint action against the US at the World Trade Organization.

The EU’s reaction was swift: “Thanks, but no thanks!”

You have to admit, it was a bold gambit. The idea of the EU throwing Uncle Sam (and the almighty dollar) overboard for a few paper promises about “freer trade” from the notoriously mercantilist ChiComs is absurd.

But think about what it means that such an idea was even proposed. A few years ago, even a few months ago, such a plan would have been unthinkable. Today, it is merely fanciful. And tomorrow…?

This is what the breakdown of the global trading order is really about: Not the fluctuations in the trading accounts or currency reserves of this or that nation, but the reorganization of the alliances between those nations. And, if push comes to shove, the possible crossing of swords between nations.

Now couple this story with the BOJ shareholder story (or the Argentinian peso story, or the emerging market bond story, or the Iranian oil story, or any number of other stories from the world of economics, finance and trade) and the picture becomes even clearer: We are heading toward a crisis. The only question is what new order will emerge from that crisis.

As I discussed in my most recent edition of the “Questions For Corbett” series, a period of chaos, breakdown and crisis is necessary for a change in world order to occur. And whether that change leads to the New World Order that the powers-that-shouldn’t-be are constantly lusting after or a new flowering of human freedom is still very much up in the air.

In the end, that question will not be answered by the central bankers of the world. It will be answered by us. That answer lies in us withdrawing our support for the current system, choosing where to re-direct our energy and resources, refusing to fight the banksters’ wars for them, and creating the alternative system we want to see emerge from the chaos . . . or lying back and doing nothing. And I think we all know where that option leads.