Friday, November 22, 2019

Evidence of the Trumps' and Clintons' Possible Collusion with Russia and Ukraine (Incomplete)

Table of Contents


A. Three Possible Examples of Democratic-Russian Collusion
A1. John Podesta / Joule Unlimited / Rusnano
A2. Hillary's anti-Trump Russian bots
A3. Clintons / Podestas / Frank Giustra / Uranium One / Rosakom

B. Eleven Possible Examples of Democratic-Ukrainian Collusion
B1. Tony Podesta's work with Manafort
B2. Hillary Clinton evokes Hitler to defend Ukraine from Putin
B3. The 2014 Nuland-Pyatt call about Ukraine
B4. David Leiter's lobbying work for Burisma
B5. John Kerry's stepson's work for Burisma
B6. Joe and Hunter Biden's involvement with Ukraine and Burisma
B7. Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa's work for the D.N.C. to out Manafort
B8. Ukrainian-American Alexander Vindman's testimony against Trump
B9. Ukrainian-American Marie Yovanovitch's testimony against Trump
B10. Adam Schiff's ties to Igor Pasternak, who sold weapons to Ukrainian troops
B11. Nancy Pelosi's son's alleged energy interests in Ukraine through Viscoil

C. Nine Possible Examples of Republican-Russian Collusion
C1. Former Paul Manafort client Yanukovych's refuge in, and affinity towards, Russia
C2. Oleg Deripaska's past business ties to Paul Manafort
C3. The Trump Tower meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya
C4. Trump asks Russians to find Hillary's missing emails live on C.N.N.
C5. Trump Jr. may have met with Assange or Russians
C6. Trump's anti-Hillary Russian troll farms
C7. Trump's anti-Hillary Russian bots
C8. Trump Tower Moscow
C9. Russian spy Maria Butina's infiltration of the N.R.A. and Republican Party

D. Four Possible Examples of Republican-Ukrainian Collusion
D1. Trump's campaign was briefly managed by now convicted spy for Ukraine Paul Manafort
D2. Ukrainian-Russian Konstantin Kilimnik asked Manafort for Trump campaign briefings for Deripaska
D3. Giuliani sent Ukrainians Parnas and Fruman to get dirt on Biden
D4. Trump call to Zelensky included a "cease investigation or no military aid" ultimatum and quid pro quo



     In reporting about Russiagate, "Ukraine-Gate", and the congressional inquiry into whether President Trump should be impeached, the narrative seems to focus on the "either/or", rather than on what the facts are.
     Too often, questions about Democratic and Republican corruption, and collusion involving Russia and/or Ukraine, are asked in the context of: "Who's more in bed with Russia: Trump or Hillary?", or "Who's more in bed with Ukraine: Trump or Hillary?", or "If Trump colluded with Russia, then doesn't that mean the Biden issue is moot?" However, I believe that we need to review all of the facts before we ask such narrow, and potentially misleading and falsely premised, questions.
     I say this because it is possible, for example, that both of the following are true: 1) Republicans sought help with election interference from Russians; and 2) Democrats sought Russian help with election interference in the same election. It's also possible that both parties attempted to collude with Ukraine.

     I have written the following article, to explain the twenty-seven reasons why I think that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton - and officials whom have served under them and their campaigns - may have questionable (and possibly corrupt or illegal) ties with Russia and Ukraine. These reasons are based on twenty-seven allegations and accusations which have been made, or could potentially be alleged, by various actors regarding those questionable ties to Russia and/or Ukraine.
     I contend that the scandals surrounding Joe Biden's and Donald Trump's possible illegal political and business dealings with Ukraine and/or Russia should not be dealt with as separate issues. I believe that this is part of an endemic problem; a process which begins with American interference into the politics and affairs of foreign nations, continues when those foreign nations respond in kind with their own interference into our elections, and continues further when America foolishly responds with more interference.
     I believe that it will be impossible to hold both parties accountable when they collude with one another to commit crimes (as in the case of the work for Ukraine which Democrat Tony Podesta did with Republican Paul Manafort) unless and until we have not only truly independent prosecutors and private investigators, but also at least one or two "third political parties" which have customarily been shut out of joint Republican-Democratic crime planning and racketeering planning.

     I will attempt to demonstrate that, due to the sheer number of pieces of evidence suggesting the corruption of each country by each party, it is likely that all four permutations of party-country collusion have been attempted at one point or more.
     While I cannot make definite conclusions as to the accuracy of all of the allegations and accusations which I have listed below, I have included as much information as I know, and as much as I feel confident reproducing here. I am certainly not trying to say that every single one of the accusations which I have listed below are true; I am merely reporting what those accusations are, and providing additional commentary based on what else I know, and I will let my readers come to their own conclusions.
     Please feel free to comment below, or email me at, if you can think of any other examples of possible: A) Democratic-Russian; B) Democratic-Ukrainian; C) Republican-Russian; and D) Republican-Ukrainian collusion, which may pertain to the last twenty years of U.S.-Eurasian relations.

     A. Three Possible Examples of Democratic-Russian Collusion

     Three Examples of Evidence That the Hillary Clinton Campaigns, Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, 
the Obama Administration, and Other Democrats Colluded with Russia, or Acted in Russia's Favor Inappropriately

     A1. John Podesta / Joule Unlimited / Rusnano

     John Podesta received 75,000 common shares in the energy company Joule Unlimited, and failed to disclose those shares in 2011, "divesting" himself of those shared by giving them to his daughter Megan Rouse. Russian-owned state enterprise Rusnano invested $35 million in Joule while Podesta worked there, and $200 million altogether. One of the board members of Joule Unlimited is Anatoly Chubais, known for being a Russian "oligarch".

     A2. Hillary's anti-Trump Russian bots

     Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign allegedly used Russian bots against Bernie Sanders and/or Donald Trump in 2016.

Frank Giustra

     A3. Clintons / Podestas / Frank Giustra / Uranium One / Rosakom

     Clinton associate Frank Giustra built the company UrAsia Energy Ltd., and sold it to Canada-based company Uranium One, which then sold it to Russian company Rosakom. Tony Podesta hired David Adams to consult with Hillary Clinton on the Uranium One deal, which happened under Obama's watch and Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. People in Russia, linked to Uranium One and UrAsia, sent $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow to a Russian-owned bank with links to the Uranium One deal.

     B. Eleven Possible Examples of Democratic-Ukrainian Collusion

      Eleven Examples of Evidence That the Hillary Clinton Campaigns, Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, the Obama Administration, and Other Democrats Colluded with Ukraine, or Acted in Ukraine's Favor Inappropriately

Tony Podesta

     B1. Tony Podesta's work with Manafort

     Tony Podesta's Podesta Group was recruited - along with Mercury Public Affairs - by Paul Manafort and Rick Gates's lobbying firm (the European Center for a Modern Ukraine) to do lobbying work inside the United States on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych and the Party of Regions (whose ecology minister Mykola Zlochevsky co-founded Burisma Holdings Ltd.). Tucker Carlson reported that, contrary to previous reports, Tony Podesta had not been offered immunity in exchange for testifying against Paul Manafort. Why Tony Podesta escaped prosecution is therefore still a mystery.

     B2. Hillary Clinton evokes Hitler to defend Ukraine from Putin

     Hillary Clinton compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler after the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, ostensibly for moving troops into an area which, in her opinion, had been conquered, rather than annexed legally and with the approval of the international community. Clinton said that Putin's actions were "like what Hitler did back in the '30s".

Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt

     B3. The 2014 Nuland-Pyatt call about Ukraine

     A phone call between Hillary Clinton's appointee Victoria Nuland (former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs), and Barack Obama's appointee Geoffrey Pyatt (former ambassador to the Ukraine), was leaked in early February 2014 after the Ukrainian civil uprising began. On that call, Nuland told Pyatt "Fuck the E.U." and the two discussed which leaders America could potentially work with, and should essentially choose to lead Ukraine over the following years.

     B4. David Leiter's lobbying work for Burisma

     David J. Leiter - a former aide for John Kerry, and the husband of former Hillary Clinton senior aide Tamera Stanton Luzzatto - did lobbying work for Burisma Holdings Ltd..
     Leiter's wife Luzzatto once managed the blog "Evie's Crib", which may have been a child pornography site; and on October 8th, 2015, she emailed John Podesta about how her granddaughters would be in a heated pool for "entertainment".

Christopher Heinz and John Kerry

     B5. John Kerry's stepson's work for Burisma

     John Kerry's stepson Christopher Heinz served on the board of Burisma, leaving shortly after Hunter Biden joined the board.

Joe Biden and Hunter Biden

     B6. Joe and Hunter Biden's involvement with Ukraine and Burisma

     Joe Biden was the "points person" for Ukraine in the Obama Administration, at the same time when the Ukrainian civil war / civil uprising was occurring in 2014, and around the same time when Biden's son Hunter and his firm Burisma came under scrutiny. Biden was filmed bragging about getting Ukrainian state prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired after he began an investigation of Burisma (on which Hunter Biden served as a board member). In what appears to have been a perfectly legal move - with the authorization of Congress, and the permission of then president Barack Obama to act on his behalf - Joe Biden withheld military aid from Ukraine, getting "quid pro quo" in exchange for a cessation of the investigation into his son's company.

     B7. Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa's work for the D.N.C. to out Manafort

     The Democratic National Committee, under the control of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign team, recruited Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa as a contractor for the D.N.C. in 2016. Valeriy Chaly, former Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S., stated that a D.N.C. contractor pressured the Ukrainian embassy to try to find "Russian dirt" on Trump and Paul Manafort. Chaly stated that the contractor tried to urge former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to make a statement denouncing Manafort. Manafort was fired and convicted of being an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of the Ukrainian government.

     B8. Ukrainian-American Alexander Vindman's testimony against Trump

     Alexander Vindman, a U.S. citizen who was born in Ukraine while it was part of the Soviet Union, has been accused of being a "Never Trumper" and a spy.
     Vindman listened in on Trump's July 25th, 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman testified that, during that call, Trump has undermined national security by asking Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.
     Republican House member Devin Nunes asked Vindman where his fidelity lies, which could be construed to imply that Vindman is working for either Ukraine or Israel rather than the United States.
     The suggestion that Vindman could be working on Ukraine's behalf, could possibly be construed to suggest that he is also working in favor of the Democrats, but if someone were to suggest that, then it's likely that that thought could be motivated by the idea that anyone who dares to criticize Trump must be a Democrat. There does not appear to be any evidence thus far, that Vindman is working for either the Democrats or for Ukraine.
     Vindman, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, is a veteran of the Iraq War. He is the Director for European Affairs, and a "top Ukraine expert" for the U.S. National Security Council under President Trump.

     B9. Ukrainian-American Marie Yovanovitch's testimony against Trump

     Marie "Masha" Yovanovitch, the former Ambassador to Ukraine, was called to testify at the impeachment inquiry hearings about Trump's possible illegal attempt to withhold congressionally authorized military aid from Ukraine. Ukrainian officials reportedly told Yovanovitch to "watch her back" because Rudy Giuliani had plans to replace her as ambassador. Giuliani allegedly wanted Yovanovitch removed because he and Trump felt that Yovanovitch was hindering investigations into Hunter Biden and Burisma.
     Trump ordered Yovanovitch removed from her post in May 2019, two months before Trump's call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Kristina Kvien replaced Yovanovitch for the following month, and the next month Kvien was replaced by Bush-era Ukraine ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. (the current ambassador as of November 2019).
     I suspect that there are Republicans, especially Trump loyalists, out there, who might accuse Yovanovitch of being a Democrat, or a "Never Trumper" - as Vindman has been described - because she has criticized Trump. That is why I have included Marie Yovanovitch's involvement in this impeachment inquiry as a potential accusation of Democratic-Ukrainian collusion.

Adam Schiff and Igor Pasternak

     B10. Adam Schiff's ties to Igor Pasternak, who sold weapons to Ukrainian troops

     Democratic U.S. Representative from California, and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, has been accused of having business interests in Ukraine. This allegation stems from his association with Igor Pasternak, who hosted a fundraiser for Schiff in 2013.
     However, Pasternak is not Ukrainian, but a Kazakhstan-born American citizen. Pasternak has been mistakenly described as a "Ukrainian arms dealer", but he is a Kazakh-American arms dealer, manufacturer of airships, engineer, and entrepreneur.
     But on the other hand, Pasternak is not without connections to Ukraine. Pasternak's company, the U.S.-based Worldwide Aeros Corp., "provided military hardware to Ukrainian military troops who were fighting Russian forces in Donbas" (according to

Paul Pelosi Sr., Nancy Pelosi, and Paul Pelosi Jr.

     B11. Nancy Pelosi's son's alleged energy interests in Ukraine through Viscoil

     Paul Pelosi, Jr. - the son of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California - has been accused by various media outlets of having ties to corruption in the Ukrainian energy market. However, Pelosi has denied that his work with Viscoil had anything to do with Ukraine.
     According to public records, Paul Pelosi, Jr. visited Ukraine in 2017 as part of an American business initiative. Pelosi Jr. was a board member of Viscoil. He is also an executive for NRG Lab and Research, which has stated interests in environmental protection. Viscoil, according to various reports, is based either in California, or Ukraine. Viscoil and NRG Lab have each been reported to possibly be based in Singapore. Either or both of the companies may have changed headquarters at some point.
     The allegations that Paul Pelosi Jr. has ties to Ukraine through his work with Viscoil, stems from the hiring of a Ukrainian singer to promote the Viscoil company.

     C. Eight Possible Examples of Republican-Russian Collusion

     Eight Examples of Evidence That the Donald Trump Campaign and Administration Colluded with Russia, or Acted in Russia's Favor Inappropriately

     C1. Former Paul Manafort client Yanukovych's refuge in, and affinity towards, Russia

     Former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia as a refugee, after he lost power in Ukraine in 2014. This occurred after Paul Manafort and Rick Gates (and their lobbying firm European Center for a Modern Ukraine) recruited Mercury Public Affairs and the Podesta Group to lobby inside the United States on behalf of the Ukrainian government, the Party of Regions, and Yanukovych.
    [Note: See D1 and D2 for information about why instances of Manafort-Ukrainian collusion might actually be more accurately described as examples of Manafort-Russian collusion.]

     C2. Oleg Deripaska's past business ties to Paul Manafort

     Russian oligarch and self-described "entrepreneur" Oleg Deripaska stated that he was invested in a small company when he had business ties to Manafort. Deripaska said that his ties to Manafort ended in 2011.
     On June 27th, 2018, Business Insider picked up a report by Reuters, which said that a court document had been released; a warrant for Paul Manafort's Virginia home. Tax returns for a company owned by Manafort and his wife, revealed that Deripaska had loaned Manafort $10 million. Deripaska financially supported Manafort's lobbying work for Ukraine in 2005 and 2006.
     Deripaska cooperated with the F.B.I. regarding the charges against Manafort. Deripaska might not be, by any means, an enemy of the United States; he helped the F.B.I. attempt to rescue C.I.A. contractor Robert Levinson from captivity in Iran (although that attempt failed).
     The suggestions that Deripaska's business ties to Manafort could spell out Republican-Russian collusion, stem not from Yanukovych's taking refuge in Russia, but from the fact that Donald Trump is favorable towards the resolution of Deripaska's financial issues. Deripaska fought what he considered an unfair imposition of U.S. sanctions against his business in Russia, through what he described as his money having been taken away as a credit and then never returned.
     The accusation of Republican-Russian collusion here, is leveled at Oleg Deripaska, as well as Konstantin V. Kilimnik, the Ukrainian-born Russian political consultant who requested that Paul Manafort give the Kremlin-linked Deripaska briefings about Trump's campaign.

      C3. The Trump Tower meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya

     Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and others, may have been aware that Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya intended to discuss "dirt on Hillary Clinton" during the now-infamous "Trump Tower meeting" in June 2016. The stated purpose of the meeting was to discuss adoptions, which is plausible considering that Vladimir Putin banned the adoption of Russian children by Americans in 2012, and may have been concerned about the safety of Russian children in America (perhaps especially so given the chances of Hillary Clinton becoming president, and her and Obama's flawed track record at preventing and prosecuting child abductions; for example, the Laura Silsby incident in Haiti, to which Trump made public reference at the Al Smith dinner in October 2016).

     C4. Trump asks Russians to find Hillary's missing emails live on C.N.N.

     In July 2016, Donald Trump said at a press conference, broadcast live on C.N.N., "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" (referring to Hillary Clinton's emails).

     C5. Trump Jr. may have met with Assange or Russians

     Donald Trump Jr. has been alleged to have met with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and possibly Russians as well, to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, and others, by leaking their emails. The emails were indisputably leaked, but it remains unclear who hacked or cracked those emails and how they did it.

     C6. Trump's anti-Hillary Russian bots

     Donald Trump's presidential campaign allegedly used Russian bots and/or troll farms against the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.

     C7. Trump's anti-Hillary Russian troll farms

     Donald Trump's presidential campaign allegedly used Russian internet troll farms against Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016.

     C8. Trump Tower Moscow

     Donald Trump may have attempted to collude with Russian actors with the intent of making a deal securing rights to construct a new Trump Tower in Moscow. These attempts were apparently unsuccessful; but even if unsuccessful, the failure to secure a deal would not exonerate Trump if his intentions were illicit.

     C9. Russian spy Maria Butina's infiltration of the N.R.A. and Republican Party

     The F.B.I. reported that Russian agent Maria Butina successfully sought ties to the Republican Party. With the help of Aleksandr Torshin and Butina's then boyfriend and political operative Paul Erickson, Butina worked to promote Russian interests in the United States, infiltrating the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) as part of her work as an unregistered foreign agent of Russia.

[Note: I would like to urge my readers to re-read Accusation C1, in order to refresh their memories to provide context for Accusations D1 and D2.]

     D. Four Possible Examples of Republican-Ukrainian Collusion

     Four Examples of Evidence That the Donald Trump Campaign and Administration Colluded with Ukraine, or Acted in Ukraine's Favor Inappropriately

     D1. Trump's campaign was briefly managed by now convicted spy for Ukraine Paul Manafort

     In June 2016, Donald Trump's presidential campaign hired Paul Manafort as the chair of its campaign team; he served in that position until that August. Previously, Manafort - along with Rick Gates, and their lobbying firm European Center for a Modern Ukraine (E.C.M.U.) - recruited Mercury Public Affairs and the Podesta Group to lobby inside the United States on behalf of the Ukrainian government, the Party of Regions, and Viktor Yanukovych. The E.C.M.U. was purportedly working to "Westernize" the Party of Regions.
     In early 2019, Manafort was sentenced to 43 months in prison, and additional charges increased that to nearly eight years in prison. Manafort is set to be released from prison in 2024. Rudy Giuliani reportedly consulted Paul Manafort on the topic of U.S.-Ukraine relations, while Manafort was incarcerated.
     [Note: The fact that Manafort lobbied on behalf of the Ukrainian government, does not necessarily mean that he was not serving as an agent of Russia in an indirect manner. Given the pro-Russia stances of the Party of Regions and Viktor Yanukovych, and the fact that Yanukovych took refuge in Russia after he lost power in the Ukrainian civil uprising in 2014, it seems likely that "Westernizing" the Party of Regions was not what Manafort really wanted after all (if "Westernizing" means distancing Ukraine from Russia). Ukraine was arguably under heavy Russian influence from 2002 to 2014, the period during which Yanukovych was intermittently in charge of Ukraine. This is why all examples of Trump collusion with foreign nations involving Paul Manafort, should be considered as possible examples of Republican-Russian collusion, in addition to the obvious Republican-Ukrainian collusion which it would appear to be on the surface.]

     D2. Ukrainian-Russian Konstantin Kilimnik asked Manafort for Trump campaign briefings for Deripaska

     Konstantin V. Kilimnik is a Ukrainian-born Russian political consultant. Kilimnik requested that Paul Manafort give the Kremlin-linked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska briefings about Trump's presidential campaign.

     D3. Giuliani sent Ukrainians Parnas and Fruman to get dirt on Biden

     Lev Parnas is a Jewish-Ukrainian immigrant and U.S. citizen, and Igor Fruman is a Jewish-Belarusian immigrant and U.S. citizen. In 2018, Parnas and Fruman hired Rudolph Giuliani as a consultant for their fraudulent security business "Fraud Guarantee". Later that year, Giuliani sent Parnas and Fruman to Ukraine to find people and information that could be used to damage Joe Biden and undermine the Mueller investigation into Trump-Russian collusion.

     D4. Trump call to Zelensky included a "cease investigation or no military aid" ultimatum and quid pro quo

     On the morning of July 25th, 2019, Donald Trump called President Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine since May. Amid disputes regarding the contents of the call, and reliable sources regarding transcripts and regarding what was said during the call, Trump has been accused of ordering European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland and others to work with Rudy Giuliani, acting as Trump's lawyer, with the intent of having Giuliani pressure American and Ukrainian officials to investigate Hunter Biden and his firm Burisma Holdings Ltd. (which is actually based in Cyprus, not Ukraine). Trump has been accused of trying to get "quid pro quo"; i.e., receive a promise and/or a Zelensky-issued public statement on Biden and Burisma, in exchange for the release of $400 million in Ukrainian military aid.

Written on November 22nd, 2019
Published on November 22nd, 2019

Some of this information was originally published in the article
"Forty-Seven American Political Figures with Ties to Ukraine",
published on October 12th, 2019,
and Edited and Expanded Between Octoober 13th and November 14th, 2019

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

2020 Democratic Primary Predictions

     The most difficult states to predict are now, and will likely remain, California, New York, New Hampshire, and Iowa.

     I predict that California and New York will be close contests between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, Iowa will be a close contest between Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, and New Hampshire will be a three-way contest between Biden, Warren, and Sanders.

     If I had to guess, I suspect that Biden will take California and New York. It would be difficult to guess which state will be a closer call, but I believe that if Warren is more likely to take California than New York. I also suspect that Warren will beat Pete Buttigieg in Iowa. New Hampshire is virtually impossible to predict at this point, but if I had to choose, I think it's likely that either Biden or Warren will beat Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire (probably Biden, a little more likely than Warren).

     The map below depicts my predictions for the primary, if forced to choose who I think will win in all states (including states which I believe will be toss-up states).

     This makes the 2020 primary an almost certain win for Joe Biden. Even if Elizabeth Warren manages to take all four toss-up states, she will still trail Biden by about a thousand delegates (unless she somehow manages to pick up at least eight or ten states which I expect Biden to win).

     Please visit the following link to learn about how delegates will be allocated in the 2020 Democratic primaries:

Written, and maps created, on November 13th, 2019
Published on November 13th, 2019

Map created on
Predictions based on November 2019 Democratic primary polling,
especially those compiled by

Why I Support a Boycott of the 2020 U.S. Census

     Local government is urging the American people to cooperate with the 2020 U.S. Census survey.
     A court recently ruled that the Trump Administration could not include the citizenship question on it. But what will local government do to protect us, if the administration insists on including it anyway (whether they figure out how to do it legally or not)?
     The Constitution authorizes the federal government and its census takers to collect no information other than the number of people. Therefore,all questions about ethnicity, race, religion, country of origin or birth, and citizenship, are thus illegal, and laws providing for those questions to be asked are unconstitutional. We cannot legally be obligated to answer any of those questions, and I urge residents not to answer them (especially given that there is no enforced punishment for evading the census).
     Another reason why our local governments are urging us to cooperate with the census, is that our elected officials use the census to make money off of us. Making sure that everyone participates in the census is, after all, how government makes sure that congressional districts have equal numbers of people. And that is what they use to justify taking the census in the first place; they say apportionment and drawing districts are impossible without a census.
     However, the number of people in the district also secures that district federal funding, as part of its “equal share” of federal funding. That is how our representatives are using us – taking advantage of the fact that we are in their districts – for their own monetary benefit (i.e., the idea that we need to be represented is what allows them to hold positions and profit).
     Of course, it matters to almost nobody that spending and the tax burden are not shared anywhere near equally by the districts and states (shown in the maps below). 

But the fact that equality is not furthered in determining where these districts lie, should show that the census's main purpose is to secure whatever funding the district can manage to get. That is why urging people to participate in the census, and offering people well-paid positions to be census takers, is nothing more than a scam to continue the redistribution of wealth across the country.
     The census is nothing more than a scam to defraud us, the voters and taxpayers and residents, of our financial power (through our right to those funds), and our legal power (through allowing our elected officials to take away some of our power of attorney, and in so doing, to appropriate more of those federal funds towards themselves and their own offices than towards We the People).

     Aside from the census being a money-making scheme for our legislators, it is also a plot to track us, and harvest our private personal information. Government-regulated credit rating agencies and banks routinely lose millions upon millions of people's personal information; do you really trust government to handle your personal information wisely?
     Moreover, the census could potentially be used as a way to round-up non-citizens and other “undesirables” or “enemies of the state”. What do our state and local governments plan to do, if the Trump Administration goes forward with its plan to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census (whether legally or illegally)? Do they intend to protect us?
     Unfortunately, I predict that they're going to continue to urge cooperation at all times, because to do otherwise would be against the law, and the opposite of what they're supposed to do as elected officials (which is to urge faith in all public institutions at all times, and participation in as many government programs as possible).
     You might think that elected officials and police have an obligation to do their jobs, and do as ordered. But if your job is to threaten force against people who entered this country illegally but without threatening force themselves, then your job is immoral, and you doing your job conflicts with the public's moral obligation to peacefully resist unjust laws. The police, for the most part, have no obligation to do “their jobs” (if by that we mean “protect and serve the general public”; that's out because of Warren v. D.C.) because they can only do as ordered. “I was only following orders” didn't fly at the Nuremberg Trials, and “I was just doing my job” is the new “I was only following orders”.
     Local governments throughout Illinois should urge Governor J.B. Pritzker to instruct the Illinois National Guard, and all public police in Illinois, to refrain from cooperating with federal authorities. And that goes for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.), and agents of the 2020 census, alike; and the same goes for other states urging their governors to interpose the same federal authorities. That's because the vast majority of these agencies' activities (and the census takers' questions) were not properly constitutionally authorized.
     Under no circumstances should the public be urged to cooperate with federal authorities in pursuit of these unconstitutional aims. All fifty state governors should immediately issue orders nullifying the federal law which authorized I.C.E.; effectively removing the authority of I.C.E. to operate legally within the boundaries of each particular state.
     If necessary, state National Guard troops should be mobilized to arrest federal troops or agents, and/or prevent more of them from entering the given state, if they insist on enforcing unconstitutional federal laws. If local government doesn't intend to do anything to stop the continued operation of an illegal federal department that didn't even exist just 17 years ago, then it cannot rightfully claim that what it does, promotes either freedom or public safety.

     Local governments are doing their residents no service to recommend that they cooperate with the Trump Administration. Even if the administration doesn't use the census to carry out deportations, it's already deporting peaceful undocumented immigrants.
     I.C.E. is hassling Hispanic-Americans who were born in America now. Seasonal farm workers are being trapped in America at the end of harvest season, and mocked and driven into the shadows for being here illegally (through no fault of their own), now. Immigrants are being funneled away from points of entry where they could easily declare asylum, and instead are forced to trek through dangerous desert, now.
     Whether the Trump Administration's immigration, deportation, and census policies going forward, will be legal and constitutional or not, why should state and local governments urge us to cooperate with those “authorities”? Aren't they supposed to protect public safety? Governments are supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.
     If the police state national guards do not come to the aid of all non-violent residents (not just the citizens who pay them) during deportation raids, then neighbors will come together to protect vulnerable residents who are in the United States without proper permission.
     And if that happens, then it will be the members of local government whom will have urged resident and police cooperation with federal authorities, whom will be remembered as the people who urged cooperation with a blatantly authoritarian regime, and whom will have suckered us into becoming fascist collaborators (and potentially even turning-in our undocumented neighbors, especially if you consider the potential usurious ends for which the census taker could be used).

     I urge the people to arm themselves, and to resist the census. I also urge the people, and the police, to refuse to cooperate with federal authorities enforcing all immigration laws.
     The federal government has the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, not to enforce it (which means it should fall to the states). The federal government, also, lacks authority to establish any other types of immigration policy; and moreover, the federal government has no obligation to collect census data in addition to the number of people.
     That is why I support boycotting the 2020 U.S. Census. It will be used – and, in my opinion, is already being used, by our legislators - as a way to convince citizens to shame one another into supporting the census, with the non-participating person being seen by the pro-census people as if they were withholding money from the district and their fellow citizens. We are being forced to compete against one another, and encouraged to spy on one another.

     In mid-July 2019, a federal court ruled against including a citizenship question in the 2020 Census. However, on July 29th, N.P.R. reported that the U.S. Census Bureau sent out census forms including the citizenship question to 240,000 households.
     The Trump Administration says this was only a test. However, they've been criticized for not doing this test long enough before the 2020 census, before it can be approved in its final form. There are now, at the time of this writing, only six and a half weeks left until 2020. My local U.S. Representative recently reassured an audience that the census information will be secure, and will 
not be used to deport people (nor sold for profit to big data collection companies), but I remain unconvinced.
     It was completely predictable that the administration would keep pushing on this issue, because pushing and doubling-down is what this administration does. Lawsuits don't work against fascists; the Trump Administration will find a way to use this information for evil. After all, the Nazis might never have been able to murder as many Jewish people as they did, were it not for the assistance of I.B.M. computers, which collected census data that allowed the Nazis to track Jews down.
     We should not forget that something like that could happen again. Big data companies are real threats. Facebook, for example, has been about encouraging people to voluntarily surrender information about themselves (where they are, who they're with, what they like) from the start; in its early days, Facebook was funded by the C.I.A. through a startup called In-Q-Tel.

     We shouldn't wait for the Supreme Court to stop the Trump Administration doing something illegal; they will find ways to keep enforcing policies even when they know they are unconstitutional, improperly authorized, or could easily be enforced differently or not at all.
     Instead, we should endorse Jeffersonian nullification. The governors would be fully within their powers to nullify I.C.E., deportation orders, and additional census questions, and in so doing make the states “sanctuary states”. Although using a "states' rights" solution could be politically unpopular (or even offensive), the same power could also be used to justify keeping Illinois a "sanctuary state".
     However, I would not recommend that this “sanctuary state” designation be made in a way that secures federal funds to the given state, as the federal government should not be in the business of settling immigrants; its only duty is to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
     I believe that this policy will help make assistance to undocumented immigrants legal, constitutional, and voluntary (i.e., neither prohibited nor mandatory).

     Until state and local governments can start offering more than words when criticizing the Trump Administration's desire to implement legislation they know damn well is unconstitutional – if the council could offer condemnation and plans for action – then it could show a generation of young Americans that their country's civic ethics are not only about promoting civic engagement, but also in recognizing our freedoms and our rights to resist tyranny.
     The American people stood up to fascism, and they will stand up to it again, whether it is at home or abroad.

Based on notes written in July and August 2019
Edited and expanded on November 13th, 2019

Originally published in final form on November 13th, 2019
(includes fragments of articles published in July and August 2019)

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Why Libertarian Socialists Belong in the Libertarian Movement and the Libertarian Party

     Libertarianism and the left, far from being irreconciliable, are one and the same; libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron.
     Libertarian socialism hearkens back to the traditions of 19th century European liberalism; back in the days of Joseph deJacque, the anarchist of the 1848 Paris Commune. Back when classical liberalism and calls for revolutionary socialism were all lumped together as part of “the left”, and back when classical liberal Frederic Bastiat and mutualist-anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon served together on the left of the French National Assembly.
     Libertarian socialists aim for the dissolution of the state, as well as all hierarchical and exploitative economic structures which the enforcement of the state's power supports. Libertarian socialists support mutually beneficial voluntary exchange; and as free, direct, open, and egalitarian negotiation (on employment and contracts and other forms of decision-making), as possible. Libertarian socialists support the achievement of socialism through peaceful means, but also recognize that achieving justice against an intrinsically self-serving and violent government, often requires acting without the support of the law.
     Libertarian socialists believe in abolishing the state, organized and legalized violence, monopoly, and relationships of domination and hierarchy in the economy. These relationships of domination include landowner over land and nature, polluting business over community, landlords over tenants, bosses over employees, lenders over borrowers, and elected representative over voter. Libertarian socialists aim to create a society which is absolutely free, but also as equal as possible (without sacrificing liberty), just as voluntaryists and libertarians of the right do.

     Liberty from the state, and equality within that liberty, make libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialists want to see people so absolutely free, that they are equal in that total liberty, and thus have equality of opportunity. Guaranteeing equality of outcome, however, would take the “libertarian” out of “libertarian socialism”, and that would be against our values; libertarian socialism is thus not inconsistent with the traditional entrepreneurial libertarian value of freedom of opportunity (and equality within that opportunity).
     That is what I and other libertarian socialists believe, and that is why we feel that there is a place for libertarian socialists within the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party. We are in the movement to help make sure that voters (and non-voting lovers of freedom) understand that libertarians do not want to fetishize, or over-prioritize, capitalism, private property, competition, markets, trade, or money. If the Libertarian Party regards its economic ideology as capitalist, rather than supporting free markets, it is making a choice for potential voters, which they should and must have the right to make for themselves when we have a free society. That choice is the choice of which economic system (or systems) one will live under.
     A stateless society will feature a multitude of economic systems, because the structures which keep the current system enforced, cannot continue to be supported without resorting to legalized violence (i.e., state action). That's why, when the state is gone, we will see not only free markets in defense and security (because the power to make large-scale military contracts with legally stolen taxpayer money will be gone), we will also have a free market in economic systems. We will also have a free market in "self-governance", i.e., freedom of choice over who resolves our disputes. and ensures that we abide by voluntary contracts.
     That is why I and other libertarian socialists believe that the Libertarian Party should not designate an economic system. I would prefer that the L.P. cease supporting “capitalism” in name, and instead declare that we support free markets. Alternatives which I would accept, include: 1) a declaration that we are neutral on economic issues not having to do with the state; 2) a declaration that we are open to all so-called “heterodox” (or non-traditional) schools of economics; or 3) a declaration that we support either classical liberalism, laissez-faire economics, or entrepreneurialism.
     Whatever we choose, it must be abundantly clear that we do not oppose cooperative enterprise. Anyone who believes that a private, for-profit business can be self-governing, should be able to admit that a cooperative enterprise can be self-governing too. And when all enterprises become self-governing - and are directed by a free, open, and direct as possible negotiation between their workers and clients/customers - external government of economic affairs will no longer be necessary.

     Only when we are free to improve land and keep whatever we build and grow on it, will we all be fully free to enjoy the benefits of liberty and property. We cannot simply resolve to support “property rights”, by supporting the existing set of property claims (many of which are unfounded, undeserved, and supported by the violent enforcement of outdated government laws). The libertarian socialists are in the movement because libertarians should want everyone to have property, and own businesses (if that's what they want in life), if the movement is to be taken seriously as having realistic solutions to poverty.
     If the federal government did not own or manage any land outside of the District of Columbia, then the third of Western American lands which it owns and manages, would fall to the states and/or private owners. If assurances can be made that vulnerable lands won't be exploited, then the amount of area suitable for development will increase. With more land available, the price of land will decrease. And since all labor and capital which you can mix together, has to be mixed together on land, with the price of land low, the costs of developing that land, including by hiring people to work on it, will also decrease.
     This is how abolishing the state, and undeserved claims over wide swaths of land, will eventually lead to low prices on everything, and potentially even zero cost for land. The same effects, in terms of price decreases, will also be felt when and if our market systems are used as they were intended; our markets need an injection of price competition and the clearing of markets, so that prices can naturally fall, without governmental economic intervention being necessary to achieve those price decreases.
     The last hundred and fifty years of discourse in political economy has been consumed with petty squabbles between the representatives of the interests of labor and capital. But neither capital nor labor will be free - nor will they be able to deal with one another on fair or free terms - until the land beneath them is respected. An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere; none of us will be free as long as the majority of the people with whom we are interacting, are unfree. Each of us ought to be free to join any union (and as many unions) as we please (on a voluntary basis). Also, we must each be free to become independent contractors, which maximizes our power to negotiate in a direct manner.

     The more people who are independent contractors, and the more people who own their own home - and the less restrictive zoning laws we have – the more people there are who can work at home. When people can work without leaving home, they can protect their own house and family (instead of somebody else's), and teach the next generation how to inherit their skills. And the more people who work at home and own their own home, the more people can build and grow whatever they want on their own property, and keep all the products of it (without paying taxes or rent). And the more people can depend on themselves, the less likely it will be that they will have to resort to leaving their own property, selling their labor, selling their products, participating in markets, or trading, or using money or currency, or participating in economic activity at all. Post-scarcity economics is possible now, because we have abundance, and most if not all economic activities could easily be made unnecessary.
     Only once we can build and grow what we please on our own property, and once competition is fully optional, will competition be fully free. A free market, in a stateless society, will feature total freedom to compete, as well as to cooperate, and cooperatively own. Total freedom to compete, includes the right to compete against the established predator multinationals which exist today, and which thrive off of taxpayer-funded subsidies, favors, grants of monopoly status (such as patents), and other privileges and protections (such as contractual and legal protections from economic competition and responsibility for their crimes and frauds).
     Corrupt, monopolistic, and rent-seeking firms will likely never be held responsible through the law, and so they must be held responsible through the market; through both competition by all producers against monopolies, and cooperation with other producers with the intent of driving the corrupt monopolists out of business.

     When large numbers of
 families do not own the homes they live in, and can have their shelter or warmth taken away through a landlord's selfishness or negligence – or through a boss's corruption - humanity is threatened, and the system is condoning child abuse. We must never allow ourselves to become dependent upon anyone whom we would not trust to take care of our families as we would. And that is why nobody who works should be dependent upon a boss (or a machine he doesn't at least partially own, or land in which he doesn't have stake and interest) for survival.
     And once it is no longer necessary for anyone to rent or borrow means of production (i.e., farms, factories, workplaces, and large difficult to move machines), then all economic rents (including rent, interest, profit, and usury) will disappear. We can have a stateless economy which is “privatized” in its statelessness, but that does not have to mean that the economy must be oriented towards extracting as much surplus profit as possible. Expecting each person to be independent, can only work with enough voluntary association and coordination, to make sure that the purchasing power of the poor and needy are maximized, so that the poor can afford what they need to live.
     We can and must achieve a free market system that is so radically and totally free, that the potential of the poor to build and grow and receive what they need, is not predicated on their ability to beg for scraps while their work is deliberately undervalued so as to keep them in dependence forever. A vision of society which allows that is unfree, and thus cannot rightfully be described as featuring a free market or a free economy.

Written on November 6th and 7th, 2019
Published on November 7th, 2019