Showing posts with label kidnapping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kidnapping. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Did Ghislaine Maxwell Kill JonBenet Ramsey and Princess Diana?: An Infographic

 Click, open in new tab, and download in order to expand





     The image below, created by Pizzagate researchers, may also help explain why Diana and JonBenet were chosen as sacrifices (if that's what happened).
     The moon goddess Diana, and the similarity between the ram (as in "Ramsey") and the goat whose head is shaped like a pentagram, could have signified to Satanists that they were meant to be sacrificed.






First image created by the author on December 28th, 2020

Originally published on December 28th, 2020

Mysteriously deleted from this blog some time between
December 2020 and August 4th, 2021

Second image (not created by the author)
added on February 21st, 2021

Published again on August 4th, 2021

Edited on August 4th, 2021

Sunday, August 1, 2021

Numerous Connections Between Jeffrey Epstein and Comet Ping Pong Owner James Alefantis Suggest Pizzagate Could Be True After All

      I have created the informational graphic below, to show why I believe there is a high probability that the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory is true (or at least parts of it), due to the fact that so many social, business, and political connections exist between Jeffrey Epstein and James Alefantis.
     I have created this social network map for readers who can admit that Jeffrey Epstein probably provided prostitutes and/or child sex slaves for high-profile politicians, but still do not think that any part of the "Pizzagate" theory could be possible.

     For the record, I do not believe that Hillary Clinton is personally involved in the sex trafficking or torture of children in the basement of Comet Ping Pong Pizza in Washington, D.C. (owned by James Alefantis).
     But I do believe it's possible that Alefantis was selling child pornography on the encrypted section of his restaurant's website, and also that James Alefantis and John Podesta may be involved in sex crimes against children. It's also possible that Alefantis and Podesta may be involved in cannibalism, Satanism, and/or torture (or, at the very least, pig butchering and the illicit art trade).









Click, and open in new tab or window,
and/or download, to see image in full resolution







Created and published on August 1st, 2021

Expanded and Updated on August 2nd and 3rd, 2021

Saturday, April 3, 2021

Don't Shoot the Messenger: Confirming Robby Soave's Observation That it's Legal to Traffic Sixteen- and Seventeen-Year-Olds

     As comedian -turned- political commentator and podcast host Jimmy Dore has been remarking more and more often lately, "our country is full of the adult children of alcoholics, and the adult children of alcoholics tend to blame the person making them aware of a problem, instead of blaming the person who's the actual cause of the problem".
     Dore's comment seems to very accurately describe social media's reaction to Robby Soave's Twitter comments about the Matt Gaetz teenager-trafficking scandal.

     On April 1st, 2021, the New York Times and other sources reported that Matt Gaetz, a Republican U.S. congressman from Florida, is being investigated by the Justice Department for possibly trafficking a 17-year-old girl across state lines for the purposes of sex.
     Within a day or two of the Gaetz controversy breaking, Robby Soave, a writer and senior editor at the libertarian-leaning Reason magazine, tweeted in response to the scandal. His tweet read, "I really don't think Matt Gaetz committed [']sex trafficking['] even if he is guilty of exactly what the NYT describes. And in fact, the age of consent is 16 or 17 in the vast majority of states." A subsequent tweet of Soave's read, "Yes I am in fact a libertarian thank you for pointing that out".




     Soave's Twitter comments on the Gaetz scandal may seem insensitive, and it might seem like an obvious defense of trafficking teens for sex (and maybe even of pedophilia in general). Or maybe Soave is just "playing Devil's Advocate".
     But on the other hand, when Soave says "I really don't think Matt Gaetz committed [']sex trafficking['] even if he is guilty of exactly what the NYT describes", he might just mean that he personally thinks there is no merit to the reports about Gaetz.

     Still, it may seem insensitive that Soave would say that he doesn't think Gaetz is guilty "even if he is guilty of exactly what the NYT describes". It almost sounds like he's saying Gaetz is guilty and not guilty at the same time, which doesn't make sense.
     But in fact, what Robby Soave is saying about the law is 100% correct. Unfortunately, in the United States, it is currently legal to traffic teenagers across state lines, provided that they are sixteen years of age or older. This was the outcome of the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court case Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions.

     Thus, Robby Soave may appear to be defending pedophilia and child trafficking, but we cannot conclude, solely from these two tweets, whether he is doing so because of his own personal "ethics" (or lack thereof), or whether he is doing so in order to be on the correct side of the law.
     If it's the latter, then it is sad to consider what this means. In order to be on the correct side of the law, as it stands right now, we have to agree that trafficking sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds across state lines for the purposes of sex, is not a crime against anybody, in the eyes of federal law.
     The law is giving the American people (and especially the politicians and lawyers, and those who wish to become politically involved and taken seriously) no choice but to subjugate their own personal senses of morality regarding child protection, to that of the state. This will not do.



     I found Robby Soave's tweet in a Facebook group called "Communists v. Libertarians Debate Group". Soave's tweet was posted mockingly, by a member of that group.
     Shortly after the Matt Gaetz scandal broke, and Robby Soave made his comment on Twitter, I messaged the member who posted Soave's tweet, with the following message.


 

 



     Hey. Saw your post on Communists v. Libertarians about age of consent laws. Soave might have said what he said out of a desire to lower the age of consent, but he's factually correct.

     The case of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions was a federal case that effectively lowered the age of consent in about 20 states, including Florida. This federal case effectively nullified the age of consent laws in those states.

     All federal sex trafficking is under federal jurisdiction, and therefore the states can't prosecute a guy who rapes a 17-year-old as long as he takes her out of state in the process. It's a fucked up situation.

     Unfortunately for some people's narrative, the Huffington Post and Jeff Sessions were on the right side of the issue. HuffPo for reporting the case ("Supreme Court unanimously overturns age of consent laws in 20 states") and Jeff Sessions for trying to prosecute Esquivel-Quintana, who traveled across state lines with a 17-year-old girl.

     I believe the girl was from California, it was some state where there was a 17 or 18 year age of consent. The Supreme Court found in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions that the federal government's "generic federal age of consent" of 16, won out over the states' higher age of consent laws.

     I believe that we either need to let states prosecute traffickers who take minors from their states, or else we need a constitutional amendment setting the age of consent to 17 or 18 nationwide (because varying age of consent laws in each state will inevitably lead to movement of children for illicit purposes).

 



     Many critics of libertarians - and the critics of the Constitution - like to argue that the Constitution is a living document, and that therefore it should not be interpreted too rigidly or literally.
     But it's hard not to interpret the Constitution rigidly or literally, when the U.S. Code rigidly defines all of the legal terms used in constitutional and legal language.
     To say that we interpret the Constitution "too literally", is to admit that we are interpreting it accurately, without saying it out loud.
     The critics of those who interpret the Constitution accurately, and of those of us who read the law and accurately observe from it that teenagers may legally be trafficked across state lines in some circumstances, are thus in denial.


     I would advise that people on the left who want to protect children, should stop criticizing people for noticing the state of the law. Just like the first step of recovering from alcoholism is admitting that you have a problem - and just like Lao Tzu said you must understand your enemy in order to defeat him - it is impossible to change or improve the law, unless we first recognize and admit how bad it is.
     Libertarians do not consider it fun to have to point out hard truths about the sorry state of our government, like that trafficking teenagers is legal, and that it's legal to marry babies in ten states. But we still consider it our responsibility to inform the public about bad laws, despite the fact that, in payment for this, we have only been treated like the people who caused the problem, instead of being treated as the whistleblowers we are. [My video of Joe Biden pinching an 8-year-old girl's nipple live on C-SPAN, for instance, was removed from YouTube for "cyber-bullying and harassment".]
     To reiterate what C. Frederic Bastiat said about the critics of liberty: Our critics act as if our not wanting the state to raise grain, means that we don't want anyone to raise grain; that is hardly the case. What is good for the law is not always good for the people. Similarly, the set of behaviors that are criminally punishable don't always line up with what we morally believe should be the set of behaviors that are punishable. That is why we are having this conversation; because we want the law to line up with morality.


     So don't shoot the messenger. Blame the people who are actually responsible for twenty state age of consent laws going down in one fell swoop. Blame the attorneys who represented Mr. Esquivel-Quintana. If necessary, blame the political parties with whom those attorneys are associated. Hell, blame the people who wrote the federal age of consent law, and the definition of sex trafficking of a minor or ward.
     But don't blame Robby Soave; his comments were necessary.

     The acceptable legal defense for having sexual relations with a minor, is written into the law. Until we recognize that the age of consent is too low, and we raise it and make it uniform across the states, then the current federal law on trafficking minors will serve only as an instruction to traffickers about how to get away with their crimes.
     Until sex trafficking laws are reformed, the rights of children aged sixteen and seventeen, to be free from harm, will be at risk, and those who point out this problem will continue to be mocked into silence. And the federal law on trafficking a minor or ward will be right there, to make excuses for the situation.
     We have to make it illegal to traffic 17-year-olds across state lines, if we want sex traffickers - and people like Matt Gaetz (if he is guilty) - to be prosecuted. Expecting them to be prosecuted, when what they're doing is not yet illegal (and also no longer illegal, since 2017), is irrational.
     Noticing that sex-trafficking older teens is not illegal, is not necessarily a moral endorsement of the practice; it could also be a warning. Noticing that something is not illegal, is not necessarily the same thing as saying it's good that it's not illegal. You can't know for sure what a person means by something they said, unless you read their full statement, and understand the context in which it's being said.





Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions:
http://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-unanimously-overrules-statutory-rape_b_592edaede4b017b267edff12

My most recent article about the need to reform laws on age of consent, statutory rape, and sex trafficking:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/03/before-fully-legalizing-sex-work-stop.html







Written on April 1st and April 3rd, 2021
Published on April 3rd, 2021
Expanded on April 6th, 2021

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Case of Mistaken Identity Prompts Re-Opening of Wayfair Trafficking Scandal

      The following text is an excerpt of a previous article.
     Several sentences from the first few paragraphs of that excerpt, have been omitted from this article, for the sake of presenting this information without any unnecessary introductions.

     That article focused on the possibility that the Indian paramilitary group R.S.S. may be attempting to infiltrate the United States; through Congress, through Hollywood, and through the business world.
     The excerpt below was taken from the section of that article which examines whether Indian-American Wayfair C.E.O. Niraj Shah could be working for the R.S.S..

     The following text originally appeared in my February 2021 article “Twenty-One Politicians and Celebrities Who May Be Indian R.S.S. Agents”. The full article can be read at the link below:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/02/thirteen-politicians-and-celebrities.html





     Niraj Shah was born in Massachusetts in 1973 or 1974, the son of Indian immigrants. He is the C.E.O. of Wayfair, a company that delivers furniture. Wayfair was accused in 2020 of operating a child sex trafficking ring.

     Niraj Shah is also one of the directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. He began that role in 2017.
     It should concern us that Niraj Shah holds such a high position in the hierarchy of the Federal Reserve System, while also being the C.E.O. of a company that was worth over $9 billion dollars the year before the trafficking scandal.


     In 2020, rumors grew on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, that Wayfair was operating a child trafficking operation, by imprisoning children inside of the bureaus, dressers, and armoires that it was shipping, and delivering them for outrageous prices.
     So the theory went - and this part is true - the company named pieces of furniture with very rare names for human beings. The most famous example of this was a storage cabinet which the company named the Samiyah. Another example was a pillow called the Duplessis.



     Miraculously, mainstream media (such as USA Today) picked up on the story. However, they debunked it, given the fact that Samiyah Mumin (pictured in the image above, on the left) made a publicly shared video saying that she was not missing.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXCanblVDg


     However... Samiyah Mumin was not the only child suspected to have been missing, in relation to Wayfair. Minors named Samara Duplessis, Anabel Wilson, Kylah Coleman, Ambrose Klingensmith, Yaritza Castro, Cameron Dziedzic, Mary Durett (or Durrett), and Brandon Dalessandro also went missing.



     Dalessandro was found, according to the Daily Mail article depicted above.



     According to the Facebook post below, Klingensmith, Dziedzic, and Durrett have been found (Durett in Texas in 2017); Wilson remained missing; and no information concerning Castro is available. According to this post, two adults were taken into custody for child endangerment in the case of Klingensmith.

     It is possible that the post is incomplete, or even partially made up, however. I will leave it to my readers to investigate this matter further. But there is reason to doubt the veracity of this post because it lists Kylah Coleman as both "missing" and "NOT MISSING".

     The post is correct about Mumin, however.

     http://www.facebook.com/105546164563867/posts/samiyah-mumin-never-missingupon-initial-research-we-found-out-that-samiyah-was-m/111838707267946/


     Getting back to Samiyah Mumin...

     Mumin wasn't just the only minor suspected of being missing due to the fault of Wayfair and its patrons; she also wasn't the only girl named Samiyah! Girls named Samiyah Bond and Samiyah George also disappeared around the same time.

     You might be thinking "So what? Three girls have the same name, and that's supposed to convince me that they were shipped to some pedophile Wayfair customer in a storage cabinet?"

     Bear with me.



     First off, there is an easy explanation for Wayfair researchers' confusion between several girls named Samiyah. Astonishingly, all three of them are from Ohio.


     Article proving that Samiyah Bond went missing from Ohio in July 2018:
     
http://fox8.com/news/missing-samiyah-bond/

     Article proving that Samiyah Yasmeen Mumin went missing from Columbus, Ohio in May 2019:
     
http://www.newsbreak.com/news/1361527573849/missing-from-columbus-ohio-17-year-old-samiyah-mumin?s=oldSite&ss=fb.city.497958377064835

     Article proving that Samiyah George went missing from Garfield Heights, Ohio in July 2020:
     
http://www.cleveland19.com/2020/07/02/missing-year-old-garfield-heights-girl-found-safe/
     

     When reports came out that Samiyah Mumin was never missing, and Samiyah George had been found, most people who knew about the scandal sighed sighs of relief, and probably reckoned that the conspiracy were crazy.

     It's a shame that they never thought to ask, "Well, where was Samiyah George found!? Was she found in a storage closet?" Where the Hell was she when she was found? If she was found in a storage closet - which we still don't know - then wouldn't that prove that there is something to this conspiracy theory after all?

     She did go missing at the exact same time the Wayfair scandal gained public attention, now, didn't she!?
     The Wayfair child trafficking scandal has not been debunked.



     None of the above might seem suspicious, if not for two other important facts: 1) Wayfair trafficking researchers performed searches for the item numbers, and discovered that they led to pictures of children, some of them in swimsuits or revealing clothing; and 2) Ohio is probably a hub for the trafficking of children.

     The image below explains how researchers found out that searches of Wayfair product item numbers led to disturbing pictures of children. One Twitter user tweeted, "I look up the SKU # [stock-keeping unit number] followed by US SRC [source code] on Yandex and... W T F". Yandex is an internet service company, and "W.T.F." stands for "what the fuck".



     The image below shows an example of a screenshot of the item number, and the image search leading to images of children, side by side.


    Researchers thought the absurdly high prices strange, and reasoned that they are probably not due to a computer glitch.

     Researchers have also noted that "Wayfair" could be a play on words, referring to "waifs" (thin, scrawny women who look like they are malnourished).




     The image above shows that researchers discovered Wayfair deleting items that researchers believed were questionable.



     It's possible that some, or even a lot, of these images could have been "Photoshopped", or edited, but if even some of them show what they are claimed to show by the people who assembled them, then there is cause for concern.

     If the prices are high for a reason - and the absurd prices are not just computer glitches - then it's possible that the high prices could be attributable to Wayfair catering mostly to customers on the wealthy end of the spectrum (i.e., the kind of people who have enough disposable income to spend on furniture).

     If some of these customers are so wealthy that they have become well connected, and entered elite circles and learned how to conduct their affairs discreetly, then there is a chance that Wayfair's high prices reflect their service to the rich.

     Or, at the very least (if something nefarious is afoot), the price might not be the actual amount paid by the customer in the end; the high price might instead serve as a signal that what is going to be delivered is something "much more valuable" than the actual storage closet, or pillow, etc..



     You could say "Maybe it's all Photoshopped". And if you were to ask, "How the Hell did researchers figure out what item numbers led to pictures of children?", then I would have to admit that I'm almost as confused as you are.
     All of this could be brushed off. If not for the fact that this is not the first time that Wayfair has been affiliated with human trafficking. Wayfair provides beds to immigrant detention facilities maintained by I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
     The image below is a meme that was made by a Wayfair researcher in mid-2020. It reads, "So the same wayfair that supplies beds to ICE, who has lost over 2000 kids in their custody, is also possibly selling missing children on their website as $10k+ furniture and pillows........ the math is actually mathing on this one" [meaning that things are "adding up"].




     Astonishingly, the Wayfair trafficking scandal was dismissed and falsely "debunked", after Wayfair employees protested the sale of furniture to detention centers in late June of 2020. News of the scandal went public in June or July.

     http://www.npr.org/2019/06/26/736308620/wayfair-employees-protest-sale-of-furniture-to-migrant-detention-center



     Over the last two years, I have made reference, multiple times, to the possibility that human beings are being shipped in containers marked as art, in order to avoid the kind of inspections which would come with the transportation of human beings.

     I have speculated about this, based on: 1) the Israeli spies who posed as movers and art students in the U.S. in 2001, and 2) Marina Abramovic's affiliation with neo-liberal and Zionist elements in Hollywood, in addition to her blending of the distinction between what is a human being and what is a piece of art (as well as using bodily fluids as paint).

     Jeffrey Epstein's connection to the art world, and the transportation and human smuggling in which his submarine-company-owning co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, would certainly fit as a piece in that puzzle. Epstein certainly treated women as objects of art. He certainly treated them like objects (presenting himself as a scout for Victoria's Secret models); I suppose that the artistic aspect of the objectification made the treatment seem less oppressive.


     To wrap this all together:

     Epstein has ties to not only Israel, the art world, and human smuggling (which would fit in line with the idea that Israel could be spying on the U.S. in order to traffic children for various purposes).

     But there is a possible link between Jeffrey Epstein and the Wayfair scandal, which explains a point I mentioned earlier: Samiyah Bond, Samiyah George, and Samiyah Mumin were all from Ohio. That link is Leslie Wexner.

     Leslie Wexner, the C.E.O. of Victoria's Secret who funded Jeffrey Epstein, is one of the most prominent businessmen in Columbus, Ohio. Northern Columbus is home to the Wexner Medical Center and the Wexner Center for the Arts. Alleged Jeffrey Epstein victim Maria Farmer, an artist, told reporter Whitney Webb that Wexner practically owns the city.

     Epstein investigator George Webb has also visited Rickenbacker Airport in Ohio, and explained what Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein's airplanes had to do with the airport. Webb says that Epstein participated in the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, using the airport as a hub or stopping point on a journey to fly nuclear weapons components to Iran.

     [Notes: It's unclear whether George Webb and Whitney Webb are related. Additionally, Webb's reliability could be questioned, because he has admitted to having worked for the Israeli M.O.S.S.A.D. in the past. But he could be a turncoat. Webb's reporting should be taken with that grain of salt. However, his statements about William Barr's father and his association with Jeffrey Epstein, would help explain the connection between Epstein and Donald Trump, and it would also explain why Trump hired William Barr and Elliott Abrams - disgraced figures from the Reagan-era Iran Contra scandal - to serve in his administration, despite their obvious lack of credibility and corrupt natures.]

     Jeffrey Epstein and Leslie Wexner might have nothing at all to do with the Wayfair child trafficking scandal. But at least, now, we know why so many children are disappearing from Ohio.
     If Israelis have kidnapped American children, what would stop Leslie Wexner from throwing a couple of teenage African-American girls to investors he might have, who come from India?
     Maybe one such person is Niraj Shah himself.

     It may seem wrong to suspect Niraj Shah of involvement in child sex trafficking, just because he leads a company suspected of it, and he's of Indian origin. But that is not what I am saying.
     He is on the board of a Federal Reserve bank. His father worked for General Electric, which owns N.B.C. and makes transportation vehicles for the U.S. military (and is therefore a war profiteer). And he leads a multi-billion-dollar company, which was accused of kidnapping girls who disappeared from one of the most kidnapping-plagued states in the nation.
     You might be saying "The fact that Ohio is plagued with kidnapping completely explains the disappearance of three girls." Really? All of them with the same names, within just a two-year time span?

     
Leslie Wexner must be investigated, and what he knows about Epstein and sex trafficking in Ohio should be determined. Ghislaine Maxwell should not be let off with probation or a plea deal; she should do hard time in prison because she is a serial child rapist and an enthusiastic accomplice to human trafficking.
     And to what extent Niraj Shah, the Israeli M.O.S.S.A.D., and the R.S.S., may be involved in international human trafficking and child smuggling, should be investigated.




Original excerpt written on February 16th, 2021

This article first published on February 18th, 2021

Friday, August 28, 2020

Joe Kopsick for Congress Advertisement: Investigate Maxwell and Epstein, and Pass the Safe Kids Amendment



Click on image, and/or open in new tab or window, to enlarge and see in full detail





Original image created on August 28th, 2020

Published on August 28th, 2020
Edited on August 31st, 2020

Edited and Expanded on September 11th, 2020

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Local Man Enters Race for U.S. House: Congressional Press Release (Extended Version)

Table of Contents

1. Local Man Seeks U.S. House Seat
2. Kopsick's Theory of Government and Legislative Priorities
3. Restoring Transparency to Government
4. Reducing Military Spending and Paying Off the National Debt
5. Taxation
6. Poverty, Work, Boycotts, Welfare, and Licenses
7. Reforming Education in a Manner Which Protects Children
8. Reforming Ages of Consent
9. Health Policy and Abortion
10. Conclusion



Content



1. Local Man Seeks U.S. House Seat

     On Monday, August 19th, 2019, at the monthly meeting of the Libertarian Party of Lake County, local essayist and frequent candidate Joseph W. Kopsick announced his intention to run for the U.S. House of Representatives.
     Mr. Kopsick, 32, seeks the seat representing Illinois's 10th Congressional District. Kopsick, a native of Lake Bluff and a current resident of Waukegan, will run as an independent write-in candidate, but is also considering seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party and other parties. Kopsick is an advocate of limited constitutional government, supports dealing with most issues on a local basis, and would aim to reduce the number of federal departments by between five and seven.
     Kopsick pledges to operate as a home style politician, focusing his campaign and office resources on Illinois's 10th District. He would also support legislative efforts to impose term limits upon of the office of U.S. Representative, as well as to reduce the salary and benefits of that position. Kopsick intends these reforms as steps towards establishing a government in which all public service is done on a volunteer basis, and he hopes to author legislation which would allow recall elections for all officials in all jurisdictions.
     Joseph W. Kopsick attended Lake Bluff and Lake Forest public schools, and has lived in Lake County, Illinois his whole life, aside from a few years spent in Wisconsin and Oregon during his twenties. In 2009, Kopsick graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, where he studied U.S. government, legal philosophy, political science, political theory, and other related topics. Kopsick lived in Portland, Oregon briefly from 2013 to 2015, where he conducted independent research on homelessness and independent business alliances affecting the area. Mr. Kopsick ran for U.S. House of Representatives three times previously; from Wisconsin's 2nd District in 2012, Oregon's 3rd District in 2014, and Illinois's 10th District in 2016.
     Kopsick hopes to use his education in political theory and legal ethics – as well as his subsequent independent studies of alternative proposals for economic systems - to bring a fresh perspective to legislation. Kopsick hopes that this perspective will guide voters and legislators to support and author new legislative proposals which will help to achieve both freedom and equality for all those who reside in the United States.


2. Kopsick's Theory of Government and Legislative Priorities

     Kopsick describes himself as a political independent, an “open borders libertarian” who supports “minimal vetting” at the border, and a supporter of “markets, not capitalism”. He supports restoring freedom through reviving the 9th Amendment (thus ending the government's monopoly to issue licenses and permits), and revoking the government's powers to create and insure corporations, and revoking its powers to subsidize businesses and pass legislation which favors them and insulates them from competition and legal responsibility.
     Kopsick supports the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and would consider replacing it with what he calls a “truly optional public option” such as “Medicare for All Who Want It” or “Medicare for All, but Opt Out”. Kopsick believes that the Republicans do have a viable health plan, but he would not support the “state lines plan” unless accompanied with additional reforms providing for tax relief and price relief.
     Kopsick is pro-choice - and supports keeping abortion legal, free, and safe – but he opposes funding abortion with taxpayer funds. Kopsick additionally supports prohibiting infanticide and third-term abortions, and hopes to reduce the number of abortions without resorting to any legislative means, besides those prohibitions, to do so. Kopsick opposes federal gun control; and supports strengthening the 2nd Amendment, in a manner which empowers Americans to stay armed, while also taking steps toward abolishing draft registration and the Selective Service.

     Kopsick's top five most urgent legislative priorities are: 1) limiting and re-negotiating the power and scope of the federal government; 2) enacting serious budget solvency reforms while paying off the national debt; 3) reforming markets which Kopsick considers “rigged”, “unfree”, and plagued with monopolies and taxpayer-funded special privileges; 4) reforming schools, and child protection and custody laws, in a manner which keeps children safe while preparing them with the education and skills they will need for a technologically advanced economy; and 5) advocating for the increased taxation of unimproved land value (Land Value Taxation) by the most local agencies possible, while reducing taxes upon sources of revenue other than unimproved land value. Kopsick additionally supports replacing the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) with "Community Land Trusts" in every community or county, in order to keep environmental issues as local as possible.
     Kopsick hopes to avoid having to overturn Citizens United, but supports numerous reforms to ballot access and the Electoral College which will give independents and third parties the assistance they need to compete fairly with established parties. Kopsick hopes that, by reducing the set of issues in which the federal government is involved, it will be unnecessary to overturn Citizens United, because money will leave politics as soon as lobbyists realize that elected officials are strictly prohibited from regulating industries which the lobbyists wish them to regulate in favor of the interests they represent.
     Kopsick believes he can reduce political strife and social conflict by focusing on “objectively desirable, popular reforms” which he says include limiting government, balancing budgets and restoring fiscal sanity, and ending business privileges which rig markets and stop customers from being able to make choices. Kopsick also considers election reform, infrastructure, and veterans' issues to be among the least divisive issues, which could potentially help unite the nation behind a clear set of principles regarding what the government is supposed to do for us.


3. Restoring Transparency to Government

     Kopsick supports making government more transparent, and more responsive to residents' demands of their various government agencies and contractors; but he also believes that government shouldn't do too much, and that the federal government has overstepped its bounds. Kopsick hopes to reconcile these opposing viewpoints by using the amendment process outlined in the Constitution, to “amend the Constitution constitutionally”.
     Kopsick's plan is to scale-back federal authorities widely considered legitimate (even though they aren't) while empowering the states or the people to take up as many of those same authorities as they wish. Kopsick believes that this framework will avoid growing government, and avoid growing it too quickly, as long as budgets are balanced, budget balancing measures and debt limits are strictly enforced, and federal vs. state powers are strictly delineated and separated. Kopsick supports numerous amendments which would limit the legislative and punitive powers, privileges from arrest, debt contracting powers, term limits, and judicial privileges, of government officials.
     Kopsick opposes numerous congressional procedural tricks which bypass traditional separation of powers, because they leave many modern programs without proper constitutional authorization. These procedural tricks, Kopsick says, include oversteps of presidential reorganizational authority to create new cabinet positions and departments and czars, line-item vetos, congress handing its powers over to the president, fast-track programs, and supercommittees.
     Kopsick warns that these procedural tricks and bypasses have been the cause of the vast majority of improper expansion of government over the past century, which is why he supports changing federal legislation through taking the 6 months to 7 years necessary to pass constitutional amendments instead.


4. Reducing Military Spending and Paying Off the National Debt

     On the national debt: Kopsick supports enacting serious and comprehensive budgetary and taxation reforms which will commit the government to pay off the national debt within 23 years, thereby restoring faith in our creditors, and increasing the value of our bonds and our currency.
     Kopsick hopes that putting America on a path to fiscal solvency, and keeping the value of the dollar high, will help avoid the need to increase the federal minimum wage. Kopsick cautions voters that the minimum wage affects less people than we are often told it does, and believes that employees earning minimum wage should receive assistance through price relief and a decreased burden of taxation on ordinary earned income, rather than through government assistance. Kopsick supports reducing social safety net and welfare spending, but not before cutting military, energy, and other commercial and corporate subsidies.
     Kopsick observes that America outspends the next 19 countries combined on military, and so he believes that we cannot justify continuing such high rates of military spending as we are seeing now. Kopsick supports making as much military spending discretionary as possible, strictly prohibiting bills providing for military expenditures from lasting for more than two years. He also supports withdrawing all troops, American military contractors, and military bases from as many countries as possible – some 800 to 1000 military bases, and troops in roughly 150 countries – while restricting the distance from U.S. shores from which troops can stray during peacetime. In addition to these reforms to the military, Kopsick supports reforms which would “end Big Brother programs” (like domestic and foreign surveillance, use of drones without permission of the host country) and limit the use of military equipment by local police departments.
     Kopsick believes that these reforms – as well as devolving the entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) to the states – will help reduce the federal budget to $2 trillion. Kopsick aims to reduce overall federal spending from $4 trillion to $2 trillion as soon as possible, while continuing to collect $3 trillion in tax revenues annually, as the federal government is doing now. Kopsick says that the national debt can be paid off by requiring a trillion-dollar budget surplus as soon as the government's total budget and scope can be halved; and by “spending a trillion less than we take in each year, instead of spending a trillion more than we take in each year”, and doing it for 23 years in a row, while paying off our debtors with 100% of those funds.


5. Taxation

     On tariffs: Although Kopsick admits that tariffs are easy to justify constitutionally, he does not think they are economically productive, nor wise, because he observes that American domestic importers pay those tariffs, not foreign sellers (as we think they do). The costs of tariffs are absorbed by importers, but some costs are passed onto foreign sellers, as well as to domestic manufacturers who use imported products, and customers who buy finished products made from materials that originated in foreign countries. Kopsick believes that tariffs only help us “shoot ourselves in the foot”, increasing the costs of all goods in all countries affected. That's why Kopsick supports reducing tariffs to zero “without bullying other nations into lowering their tariffs first”.
     On other forms of taxes: Kopsick believes in taxing monopolies, corporate income, capital gains, inheritance, and sales of luxury items, before resorting to taxing ordinary items with sales taxes and tariffs, and before resorting to taxing income from wages. Kopsick believes that if local governments instituted Land Value Taxation (taxing unimproved land value, while refraining from taxing improvements upon land, such as buildings and labor), then more income tax and sales tax revenues would be available for progressively less local levels of government. Kopsick asserts that all government could potentially be funded through Land Value Taxation, observing that the total cost of all government in the United States is the same amount which modern students of Henry George (who originated Land Value Taxation) estimate could be collected by taxing “kept economic rents”.


6. Poverty, Work, Boycotts, Welfare, and Licenses

     Kopsick believes that a U.S. representative should understand how the Constitution and free market systems are supposed to work, even if they aren't working properly anymore. Kopsick plans to support all measures which end the redistribution of revenues from the working poor to wealthy companies, while advocating for increased economic education in schools and among elected officials.
     Kopsick hopes to see more libertarians, and more students of economics, studying how diverse sets of economists and politicians predict technology will change the economy over the coming decades, and hopes to see more libertarians studying economic proposals such as Georgism and Mutualism.
     Kopsick has proposed numerous suggestions – related to land, housing, money, credit, markets, and automation – which he believes will result in drastically reduced prices for most items. This, coupled with tax relief, he says, will help the working poor, struggling families, and perpetually out-of-work people, afford their daily needs much more easily. Kopsick says this framework will help avoid the need to resort to untenable unconstitutional proposals and anti-free-market or anti-competitive legislation in order to solve the problem of people struggling to pay for their daily needs.

     Kopsick opposes increasing the minimum wage, but concern for the employability of the poor at high wages is one of the reasons why he takes that position. Instead of raising the minimum wage, Kopsick would help the poorest Americans by enacting proposals aiming to reduce the mistreatment of the poor and homeless by government agencies, businesses, and charity organizations; and by passing legislation prohibiting governments and border agents from interfering with mutual aid organizations, charities, and religious organizations providing food relief, medical treatment, or shelter to people in need (regardless of their citizenship status).
     Kopsick opposes taxpayer funding for immigrant welfare, except as necessary to keep detainees alive, healthy, and well-rested while in government custody. Kopsick says that establishing and providing a basic minimum of care will help reduce immigrants' need for government medical assistance. Kopsick hopes to limit government by allowing residents to opt-out of most or all government services, including immigrant welfare and abortion; so he would not seek to prohibit the provision of relief to immigrants (nor citizens) when the revenues in question are acquired through voluntary, consensual cooperative pooling of funds by willing participants. Kopsick says that one way to achieve this is to allow taxpayers to check-off government programs they wish to pay for, on their tax forms (or else by experimenting with such a system, until it can be determined whether citizens could responsibly control 100% of government spending).
     Kopsick additionally wishes to author a congressional resolution which would acknowledge that the 9th Amendment implicitly recognizes certain freedoms which are necessary in order to survive (among them, the rights to work, eat, hunt, forage, and travel), and he hopes to see hitchhiking become legal in all U.S. states and territories. Kopsick believes that, by increasing our understanding of, and respect for, the 9th Amendment, we can diminish the need for government monopolies on the issuing of licenses and permits.

     Kopsick hopes to repeal some of the federal laws which he feels unfairly turns our rights to work, form unions, prompt negotiation with management, and go on strike – and our right to “vote with our wallet” (that is, to practice ethical consumerism by boycotting companies we don't like) – into privileges which government can take away. If elected, Kopsick would author and propose legislation to “make boycotts fully legal”; Kopsick says this will require repealing the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, as well as abolishing all bailouts and subsidies, revoking government's ability to create new L.L.C.s, drastically reducing the duration of patent protections, and revoking other forms of taxpayer-funded supports and privileges for businesses which give them an unfair advantage in the market.
     Kopsick says these reforms will lead to a truly free market, wherein companies have to compete by providing better products and/or better prices, instead of relying on taxpayer funds to keep their businesses afloat. Kopsick hopes these reforms will lead to increased price competition, which he says allows supply and demand to meet naturally at an equilibrium price, allowing markets to clear. This is how, as Kopsick says, “free markets lead to free stuff”.


7. Reforming Education in a Manner Which Protects Children

     Kopsick has released a comprehensive plan to reform public school policies, as well as other areas of law, in a manner which protects children's safety, while also preparing them with the skills and education they will need for the future. On higher education, Kopsick supports ending F.A.F.S.A. and Sallie Mae – while, if necessary, supporting a boycott of public universities and colleges, in order to reduce costs of tuition – alongside forgiveness of 100% of public university debt.
     Kopsick supports an “original intent” interpretation of the Constitution which precludes the federal government from intervening in matters related to education, health, welfare, labor, sponsorship of commerce, energy, land outside of the District of Columbia, and other policy areas not mentioned in the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution, without proper authorization via a constitutional amendment. As such, Kopsick supports ending the federal government's involvement in education, barring a constitutional amendment explicitly authorizing it to exercise such authority, and barring the adoption of a set of reforms which Kopsick has recommended be immediately implemented in as many school districts as possible. He has said that he will comment on national issues upon which the federal government is not properly authorized to legislate, but only until the federal government is no longer involved in the issue at hand.

     On primary education, Kopsick opposes setting national education standards, and would urge states to set their own standards. Kopsick wants school tests to rely less on rote memorization and multiple-choice tests, and more on tests containing questions that require students to actually know the answer and understand the subject matter. Kopsick additionally supports increased civics and life skills education, and wants economics classes to teach about “post-scarcity economics” and economists' critiques of economies based on competition and currency. If elected to Congress, Kopsick hopes to propose and support legislative efforts to allow and encourage states to experiment with alternative economic proposals such as state public banks, universal basic income guarantees, social credit systems, local currencies and currencies backed by labor and natural resources, natural resource dividends, Land Value Taxation and split-rate taxation, and other proposals.
     Kopsick supports bringing auto shop classes, wood shop classes, and gun training courses to high schools, but only with waiver systems (signed by student and parents) protecting the school from liability, and only for juniors and seniors. Kopsick believes that public schools would work best if more high schools taught freshmen and sophomores on a campus separate from juniors and seniors. Kopsick says the benefits of such reforms include: 1) facilitating different sets of needs in regards to the parking of vehicles, 2) keeping children under 16 away from dangerous equipment in auto and wood shop classes, and 3) reducing the age range of students attending high school campuses from 6 (if you include skipped-forward and held-back students) to 3.


8. Reforming Ages of Consent

     Kopsick has published numerous proposals which would protect children, but do not pertain to education; such as proposals to investigate child trafficking by agencies of government, and in other industries such as sports and entertainment. Kopsick shares the Libertarian Party of Illinois's concern – and the concern of its last nominee for governor – that divorce laws, family court laws, and Social Security Title IV-D (child support) must be reformed, in order to prevent the unjust taking of children into government custody in divorce proceedings when no physical or sexual abuse has been alleged, and in order to prevent the unjust taking of biological children into custody on legal grounds which only intended to allow the taking into custody of adopted children.
     Kopsick would also aim to reduce the separation of families at the border, and thus reduce the chance for physical and sexual abuse of children while in government custody, by requiring border patrol officials to conduct minimally invasive visual assessments to determine whether migrants are kidnapping the children they're with. Kopsick also supports abolishing I.C.E., which has only existed for 16 years, and which Kopsick says should be considered legally inadmissible because it was “rushed through Congress under duress” during the wave of post-9/11 hysteria.

     Kopsick subscribes to the “Non-Aggression Principle”, the idea that disputes and conflicts ought to be resolved without violence if at all possible. A libertarian, Kopsick believes that not only does government resort to violence all too often to enforce its order, but also that the very concept of the state is intrinsically predicated upon the idea that legalized violence, violent enforcement, territorialism, and monopolizing resources. Kopsick believes that government, society, and the economy should run on the concepts of voluntary participation in contracts and government programs, reciprocity, mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, and assurances that people will follow through on their promises and contracts.
     Kopsick says that, although the Enumerated Powers don't formally authorize the federal government to set ages of consent, such laws can and should be implemented properly via the amendment process, because a more or less uniform set of ages of consent is necessary; not only to establish a vague age required for marriage and contracts, etc., but also to reduce the likelihood that children will be trafficked across state lines for various purposes related to those limitations.
     As such, Kopsick would author legislation providing for formal constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene in such policy areas – if necessary, calling for a constitutional convention, calling the states together to establish a uniform set of laws on these issues (but only as long as such a convention can be held without risking civil liberties being negotiated away).
     Kopsick hopes to offer guidance to help the federal and state governments establish more uniform sets of laws pertaining to ages of consent for various activities (including a ban, in all states, on child marriage for minors under 16). Kopsick wants to increase the federal age of consent from 12 to 15 or 16, while narrowing the age differences prescribed in state “Romeo and Juliet” laws to within two years, in a manner which will stop the fact of federal jurisdiction from preventing states from prosecuting interstate child trafficking when the federal government will not do so.
     According to Kopsick, all of these reforms - to ages of consent, schools, and other issues – will result in significantly increased rates of prosecution for child trafficking, and for molestation while in school and government custody.
     Kopsick notes that, while the State of Illinois is increasing the age of tobacco purchase, it is lowering the age a child has to be in order to be left at home unsupervised. Kopsick says this doesn't make sense, and supports authorizing the federal government – through a proper constitutional amendment - to prohibit states from setting most ages of consent (for voting, contracts, marriage, sex, tobacco, etc.) lower than 16 or higher than 18, while prohibiting states from setting the age of alcohol purchase lower than 18 or higher than 21. Kopsick supports allowing minors as young as 14 to drive, provided that they learn to drive outside of public school. Kopsick wants to see twenty-five more states legalize voting by 17-year-olds in primaries, as long as they will turn 18 by Election Day.

     On other electoral issues: Observing that many states allow 18-year-olds to serve as mayors and governors, Kopsick would urge states to lower the age at which officials can be elected or appointed, to 18. Kopsick has proposed numerous other reforms to elections, including allowing states to continue to have radically different laws concerning how their Electoral College votes will be allocated (or, if that is untenable, then reforming the Electoral College and the Congress by getting rid of the Senate and electing the president through the popular vote). Kopsick also supports increased ballot access for third parties; including equal signature collection requirements for all parties, “jungle primaries”, and ranked-choice voting.


9. Health Policy and Abortion

     Although Kopsick opposes federal involvement in health care and health insurance policy without a constitutional amendment, Kopsick believes that a “Medicare for All” -type program could be maximally economically efficient (as long as no money is lost to bureaucracies and politicians), while a “Medicare for All Who Want It”, “Medicare for All, But Opt Out” or “public option” type system would help preserve choice better than Medicare for All would.
     Instead of authorizing the federal government to negotiate on drug prices, Kopsick would strike at the root of the problem; by ending medical companies' monopolies, subsidies, and special privileges. Kopsick supports applying his “free markets lead to free stuff” idea to health care, achieving price relief on health items by reducing the lifespan of pharmaceutical patents and medical devices, while giving non-profit health organizations tax-free status, and giving medical professionals tax write-offs to provide free care.
     Kopsick believes that a low-tax, non-profit environment – along with voluntary participation in government health programs, in a free interstate market for health insurance – will help reduce the prices of health goods and services, while unleashing a torrent of innovation in regards to new research and development into new medical technologies. Kopsick supports using free enterprise and strictly limited intellectual property protections to encourage innovation, rather than investing taxpayer funds into R&D.

     On abortion, Kopsick is pro-choice, but with exceptions; his platform includes a proposal reading “Allow abortion, but don't subsidize it”. Kopsick opposes the expenditure of taxpayer funds on abortion and organizations providing abortion, whenever those funds are collected without the consent of the individual taxpayer. Kopsick would author legislation providing for the punishment of medical professionals who allow babies to die after being born alive as the result of failed abortions, and who commit infanticide while calling it late-term abortion.
     Kopsick believes that Roe v. Wade has been as destructive as it has been helpful, in regards to ensuring access to abortion. Kopsick supports prohibiting abortion in the third trimester, but requiring all states to allow people to pay for abortions as they please, without the help of involuntary taxpayer funding, and allowing free legal access to abortion services in the first and second trimester so as to avoid any need for late-term abortion.
     Kopsick believes that keeping abortion free, but unsupported by taxpayer funds, will help reduce a lot of the moral and social differences in our society. Kopsick says that by aiming to reduce abortions – without supporting prohibitions on abortions before the third trimester – and believes that, by keeping access to contraception, adoption services, and surrogacy (as well as allowing research into womb transplants), the demand for abortion can be drastically reduced, without the need for government intervention.


10. Conclusion

     Kopsick currently works as a private security officer at various locations throughout Lake County. In his spare time, he enjoys playing guitar and piano, making mashup music, and drawing.

     Kopsick manages a blog, the Aquarian Agrarian, which can be found at www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com. Kopsick plans to launch an official personal website, featuring a section on campaigns. Voters can read his platform by visiting that blog, and reading Kopsick's August 2019 articles “Reform or Abolition: Thirty-Point Basic Platform for U.S. House of Representatives in 2020” and “Expanded Platform for U.S. House of Representatives in 2020”.

     The election for U.S. Representative from Illinois's 10th District will be held on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, the same day as the election for president and vice president of the United States.
     In addition to Mr. Kopsick, who filed as an independent, three other candidates have filed to run for the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10th District; the incumbent Democrat, another Democrat, and a Republican.



Written on August 25th, 2019
Published on August 25th, 2019

Edited on August 27th and 28th, 2019


How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...