Showing posts with label states. Show all posts
Showing posts with label states. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Which States Want to Hold an Article V Constitutional Convention?

     The map below shows which states have passed resolutions applying for a convention of states to address needed changes to the Constitution. Such action is allowed, and regulated by, Article V of the Constitution for the United States.



   In my opinion, volunteers wishing to support a convention should call state legislators in those states, in that order, because that will make it easier to get a larger number of states faster and earlier. Rapid spread of pro-convention sentiment could create a snowball effect and increase the chances of getting the 34 states required (2/3 of the states) to invoke a constitutional convention.

     To ensure maximum success and efficiency, I would recommend that states be courted for support in three stages:
     1. Stage 1 (Wyoming, West Virginia, Idaho, South Dakota, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Montana)
     2. Stage 2 (Kansas, South Carolina, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin)
     3. Stage 3 (Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, and Virginia).
     That is the order in which Trump was supported by the states likely to support a constitutional convention, but have not passed resolutions indicating interest in holding a convention.

     I have assumed that the states that didn't go for Biden, would be the states most likely to support a convention, because there would be no reward for the most strongly pro-Biden states to hold such a convention, as it would challenge the power of incoming President Biden.

     See 2020 election results here:





Source:

http://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/#:~:text=In%20just%20the%20last%20five,Arkansas%2C%20Utah%2C%20and%20Mississippi.




For more information, visit the following site:

http://conventionofstates.com/






Written and published on January 19th, 2021

Thursday, November 5, 2020

Fifteen States Allow Faithless Electors to Cast Protest Votes Without Limitation or Punishment

     If Donald Trump wins Wisconsin and Michigan again in 2020 - and Arizona and Nevada go for Biden - then Biden will win the Electoral College 270 to 268. Proportional allocation in Nebraska and Maine, and/or protest votes in the Electoral College, could make the difference, and potentially produce a tie, or else stop both Trump and Biden from receiving the 270 electoral votes necessary to win.
     To learn about the results out of Nebraska and Maine, read the following article (if you can afford it):
     http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-maine-house-district-2.html

     Watch the following Instagram videos - posted on November 5th, 2020 - to learn about why these faithless electors may come into play.


      The map below shows which states allow electors in the Electoral College to cast protest votes, without being either threatened with fines or punishment, or being required to vote according to how the majority voted in the given state.
     If any faithless electors show up in the Electoral College, they will most likely come from one of the states marked as red in the map below. If they come from other states, fines and legal challenges would almost certainly result.
     This information is accurate as of November 2020.







     Read my explanation of how the president is elected, and how the Electoral College and the 12th Amendment work, at the following link:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/07/states-where-libertarian-party-and.html




Sources:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#/media/File:Faithless_elector_states.svg
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx#faithless
http://apnews.com/article/a398c3e7c8d2c4a1b9ad498ed5f86ed7



Written and Published on November 5th, 2020

Friday, August 21, 2020

Most Likely Paths to Electoral College Victory for the Libertarian and Green Party Presidential Nominees in 2020


Click on image, and/or open in a new tab or window, to enlarge





Note:

Libertarians had more support in 2016 in California than they did in
Delaware, Nevada, Vermont, and West Virginia
(by percentage of the popular vote in each state).

The map above does not reflect that fact, because
it is extremely unlikely that the Libertarian Party would take California
away from the Democrats; furthermore, that would require a landslide.

It would only require a smaller plurality of Electoral College votes,
for the Libertarian Party nominee to win.
That would require winning Delaware, Nevada, Vermont, and West Virginia,
but winning California would not be necessary.

The Libertarian Party nominee could still receive the most votes in the Electoral College
if the candidate were to win California, but not the other four states mentioned above.

Source:















Click on image, and/or open in a new tab or window, to enlarge

Source:











Images created and published on August 21st, 2020

Friday, July 31, 2020

2020 U.S. Presidential Candidates, Arranged by the Number of States in Which They'll Have Ballot Access








Click, and open in a new tab, to enlarge images







Note:

I previously reported that Vermin Supreme was running a write-in candidate. That is incorrect.
He endorsed Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian Party's nominee, at the party's national convention.

However, seven states (those shown in green) will likely accept write-in votes
for any American who's eligible to be seated in the White House.









Sources include:






Originally Created and Published on July 31st, 2020

Images Updated, Replaced,
and Additional Images Created and Published,
on August 14th and 20th, 2020,
and March 16th, 2021

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

How the President is Actually Elected, and Where You Can Vote for Third Party Presidential Candidates in 2020

     Incumbent president Donald Trump of the Republican Party will almost certainly be his party's nominee for the presidency in 2020. The Republican Party Convention hasn't been held yet, but that's almost certain to be the case, as it has been decades (28 years) since an incumbent Republican president has faced a significant challenge during a re-election campaign.
     The Democratic Party, and presumptive nominee Joe Biden, face a similar situation. However, it's remotely possible that Biden could fail to secure enough delegates on the first round, which could result in the nomination of Bernie Sanders.
     Still, that the Democratic Party will nominate Biden, and the Republican Party will nominate Trump, seems inevitable.

     Many Americans are upset that the president is not elected democratically, and that the candidate with the most votes does not always win, and that this "Electoral College upset" has been the case more and more often over the last twenty years.
     In a recent interview for an internet podcast, Ralph Nader, the Green Party's presidential nominee in 2000 and 2004, made reference to the Electoral College, in a manner which, to me, suggests that he does not understand how it works. In the interview, Nader was referring to either the 2016 presidential election, or else all elections in which the Electoral College elected a candidate who did not win the popular vote. Nader said something like "the Electoral College kicked in" because the winner of the popular vote didn't win the majority of votes in enough states to become president.
     I suspect that Nader is either confused, doesn't fully understand the process, and/or has been distracted by his desire to build support for the Interstate Popular Vote Compact, to accurately portray how, and when, and under what circumstances, the Electoral College works. (Note: The Interstate Popular Vote Compact is a compact between states which desire to make it legally binding upon Electoral College electors that they must support whichever candidate received a majority of votes in each state.)
     By saying "the Electoral College kicked in" after the "popular vote winner" didn't win enough states, Nader is - intentionally or not - misleading voters into thinking that the Electoral College doesn't always meet, and that it only meets when the "popular vote winner" doesn't win enough states.
     Whether Nader understands how the president is elected or not, there is no such thing as a "popular vote winner" of the presidency. Or, at least, there is, if you want to measure things that way. But as far as constitutional law - the framework for our government, which outlines the structure of our elections - is concerned, the "popular vote winner" does not matter, and for all intents and purposes, does not exist. The Electoral College elects the president, not the people.
     If there were such a thing as a "popular vote winner", then Hillary Clinton would be President of the United States right now, or she would be some sort of bizarre co-president. Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20th, 2017, because he won the Electoral College. The Electoral College that meets every four years - in early December, about a month after the election - regardless of who wins "the popular vote"
     I'm not saying that things have to be this way, I'm simply saying that this is currently how the president is elected. We can amend the Constitution to change that process any time we want; any time we get enough public support to change presidential elections in some particular way. That will require time, effort, coalition-building, and political willpower. But if a significant majority of the people think that it's acceptable for the president to be elected by a narrow majority, or a narrow plurality, of popular votes, then that's fine; it just requires a constitutional amendment before presidential elections can be run that way.
     Just keep in mind that, if the popular vote elects the president, we will have a brand new problem (which is just the same old problem in disguise): the problem of pluralities. If four people run for president, and each receives 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10% (as was the case in the election of 1860), then the candidate who won 40% will become president without receiving a majority of the popular vote. And that, in its own way, is just as anti-majoritarian as the way the Electoral College allows states to override the majority. Which leaves us back at square one.


     Fortunately, thanks to Amendment XII to the U.S. Constitution, there is a process which allows a "third party" or "independent" presidential candidate to win the office, if both Biden and Trump fail to capture the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
     It is possible for a “third party” candidate to stop both Biden and Trump from getting the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency, forcing a second round of voting in which each state would have one vote and could choose from among the top three electoral college vote-getters.
     We shouldn't even be calling these parties “third parties”, because of how many American voters keep insisting “third parties can't win”. “Third parties can't win”? Not with that attitude, they can't! Third parties can't win if you won't vote for them.
     Calling the Libertarian Party and Green Party “third parties” suggests that they're third-rate, or not viable. That is not the case. The proper term is “minor party”, meaning a party that has not yet received 5% of popular support in a previous election in any given area. If a party has ever gotten more than 5% of the vote in any county in a state, then it is considered a major party in that state.
     We cannot say that we have fair and open elections, if we don't allow a third, a fourth, and a fifth voice into the presidential debates (which are now controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates, made up of the former heads of the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee).
     We need more options.

     Luckily, there is an even easier way to elect a Libertarian, a Green, a socialist, a Constitution Party candidate, etc., to the White House. Twelfth Amendment tactics are not necessary! It's simpler than you might think.
     All that a “third party” candidate for president has to do to win the presidency, is receive a majority of the votes in about 25 or 30 of the states in which they've achieved ballot access. That's it!
     And guess what: It's already possible for the Libertarian Party and the Green Party to win, because each of them has achieved ballot access in more than 30 states! Moreover, each the L.P. and G.P. will probably achieve ballot access in somewhere between 45 and 50 states between now and Election Day (November 3rd, 2020), as they have done during the last several presidential elections.
     So there's still hope! If a Green or a Libertarian wins a clear majority in more than half of the states, or in about 20 of the higher-population states, then as long as the electors in the electoral college respect the majority's vote, that candidate will be elected president by the Electoral College.

     Below are two maps which show the states where American voters will be able to choose the Libertarian nominee (Jo Jorgensen) and the Green nominee (Howie Hawkins) for president at the ballot on November 3rd, 2020.








The Libertarian Party presidential nominee
had ballot access in 36 states and the District of Columbia
as of the last week of July 2020.


Source:







The Green Party presidential nominee
had ballot access in 25 states and the District of Columbia
as of the last week of July 2020.




Green = states in which Green Party presidential nominee Howie Hawkins will be on the ballot

Red = states in which the Green Party is still petitioning to get on the  ballot

Orange = states in which Howie Hawkins will be a write-in candidate


Sources: Green Party website




This information is presumed accurate as of the last week of July 2020.
.






     To be clear: I stated above that if a candidate receives the majority votes in enough states, then that person will probably become president. That is, if the Electoral College voters abide by that decision. They don't have to.

     You see, each state is allowed to run its presidential election the way it prefers, and to allocate its Electoral College votes in any manner it pleases. That includes each state's right to decide whether to allow, or else punish and impose a fine upon, “protest votes” in the Electoral College. Electors who cast such “protest votes” are called “faithless electors” (but only if they go back on their pledge to support a given candidate).
     There are currently 18 states which do not impose any fine or punishment upon faithless electors: Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Illinois Kentucky, Georgia, West Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. In all other states, state laws may either require a delegate to keep his pledge, or provide for the replacement of a delegate who becomes a faithless elector, or provide for a fine to be imposed upon the elector for attempting to break his pledge.
     What this means is that, theoretically, Electoral College electors in all of those 18 states could decide that they want to “sabotage” the vote, by choosing some candidate who didn't win the majority in their respective states, and they couldn't get punished. That candidate would have to receive a majority of votes in only a couple states besides those 18, to win enough Electoral College votes to win the presidency. Such a candidate could pass 270 votes by adding together their “legitimate” votes to their so-called “illegitimate” - but nonetheless legal - faithless elector votes.
     And voilà! There's yet another way a third party candidate could become president.

     The power of states and the Electoral College, are not the only “threats” to the “majority popular vote” method which many desire for electing the president. The power of faithless electors to vote for a candidate who did not win the majority in that delegate's state, could, in fact, be perceived as a threat to both the “popular vote” and the “states' rights” approaches.
     But when both major party candidates are corrupt, we have to consider radical approaches, such as refraining from punishing faithless electors who refuse to cast their vote for someone they don't believe is competent to assume the office of the presidency (the highest executive office in the land).      And we have to consider radical approaches such as electing a “third party” candidate to the White House.

     Here are two maps about faithless electors. The first shows which states faithless electors can and cannot break their pledges without being punished. The second shows that five other candidates received Electoral College votes in 2016; in addition to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.



Map showing the legality of faithless electors





2016 Electoral College results,
showing that seven candidates
won Electoral College votes, not two




     Has anybody ever seen this map before? Most Americans haven't.
     How is this possible, when all we saw on CNN and FOX and MSNBC were red and blue maps? They were reporting the popular votes in each state. The Electoral College - where the president is actually elected - met a full month later, and some electors were free to pick people who weren't even running. That's the truth!
     The major media networks don't tell us this, because 1) they think it's too complicated for the average voter to understand; 2) it's time-consuming to explain; and 3) they don't want to remind American voters that they're not the actual people who pick the president, we actually elect people who elect the president.





     All of this begs the question: How many of us can say that we were taught the whole truth, in school, about how the president is elected in this country? How many of us knew that the people don't elect the president; they elect people who elect the president? That the Electoral College meets every four years, regardless of what happens with the popular vote?
     How long will this country last, if our government is so complicated, that we can't even teach our children how it works, because it doesn't work?

     If enough Americans who can't stand Biden or Trump, can choose either Jorgensen or Hawkins or some other candidate to rally around, then it will be possible for that candidate to win the 30-45% of the popular vote which will be necessary to receive in most states, to pull off a clear victory. 
     That will be especially easy to do, if either Jorgensen, Hawkins, or some other candidate, garners much more public support than all of the other third party candidates, and blows their own competition for "lead third party candidate" out of the water.
     I have my own opinion about whom that candidate should be, but it is ultimately up to the public.
     One way or another, one of the candidates opposing both Biden and Trump must become president, or corruption will continue to reign, and the republic will risk being lost forever.
     This may be our last chance.

     Please visit thegreenpapers.com to find the full list of candidates running in races in your area (including the president).
     Research Libertarian Party nominee Jo Jorgensen, Green Party nominee Howie Hawkins, Party for Socialism and Liberation nominee Gloria LaRiva, Constitution Party nominee Don Blankenship, Prohibition Party nominee Phil Collins, independent candidates Vermin Supreme and Kanye West.
     Find out whether each of them will be on the ballot in your state, and then go to the polls on November 3rd, 2020 and vote your conscience. As former Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson has said, "The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate you don't believe in."





Addendum (added on August 6th, 2020):

     On Monday, July 6th, 2020, N.P.R. reported that the United States Supreme Court upheld state laws that punish faithless electors (which are also known as Hamilton electors, named after Alexander Hamilton).

     However, the fact that the court made this decision, does not mean that states must pass laws that punish faithless electors.

     It is also important to note that, according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, each state legislature determines the manner in which delegates are selected and appointed:

     “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, [emphasis mine] a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”







Written and Published on July 30th, 2020
Updated on July 31st, 2020
Addendum Added on August 6th, 2020

Thursday, June 25, 2020

How a Green or Socialist Presidential Nominee Could Win the Electoral College

     The map below shows how a Green Party presidential nominee, or the presidential nominee of a socialist party, could win the electoral college.
     In the map below, which was created on http://www.270towin.com/, Republicans are shown in red, Democrats are shown in blue, and Greens (or socialists) are shown in green.

     I believe that this is one of the most likely scenarios allowing a Green nominee to win the presidency. That candidate would have to win a simple majority - not even 50% plus one, that candidate just has to get more votes than any other presidential candidate - in each of the respective states shown in green.

     The reason why I believe that this is one of the most likely scenarios which would allow a Green nominee to win the presidency, is because of the three assumptions I have made in order to create this graph. Those assumptions are:
     1) Donald Trump will be nominated by the Republican Party, and he will win the same states he won in 2016, except for states he would lose to the Democratic and Green candidates as the result of a viable Green candidate entering the race;
     2) Joe Biden will be nominated by the Democratic Party, and he will win all states that Trump and the Green nominee do not win; and
     3) whomever is nominated by the Green Party in early July (most likely Howie Hawkins) will win the set of states whose voters came out the strongest for Jill Stein (the Green Party's 2016 nominee), but only as many of them as would be necessary to add up to 270 or more.
     This may be an unlikely set of assumptions, but that is what it will take to produce a Green Party or socialist victory in the Electoral College. The statistics which I ran, show that Wyoming, Iowa, Ohio, and New Jersey would be the most likely to end up as "swing states", but it's also likely that virtually all of the states shown in gray and blue, could end up being "swing states".
     To put that another way, support for Biden and the Democratic Party would shrink drastically, if the top two contenders for the presidency turned out to be Donald Trump and Howie Hawkins (or Dario Hunter, the second most viable candidate in the Green Party's primaries).
     To take the Electoral College, the Green Party nominee would have to win all of the states shown in green, plus at least one or two of the states shown in gray (or, if not those, then one or two of the states shown in blue).




Image created by Joe Kopsick on June 25th, 2020





     The image below was used to create the set of statistics, regarding support for Jill Stein in each state, which were used to predict the viability of a Green Party candidate in 2020.



Image not created by the author of this blog



     Percentages of support for Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson - but not Jill Stein - can be viewed at the following link:
     Information regarding support for Donald Trump in each state, was taken from the above link, in order to calculate the states most likely to turn out for Trump in the event that the Green Party wins the Electoral College by increasing support in all of the states in which Greens are already supported the most per capita.



     The 2020 Green Party National Convention will be held from July 9th to 12th, in Detroit, Michigan. The nominating convention will begin at noon Eastern Time on Saturday, July 11th, and it will be broadcast live.
     That means we will know that afternoon who the Green Party's 2020 presidential nominee will be, and the stage will be set for the presidential race (the Constitution, Libertarian, and P.S.L. parties having already chosen their candidates; Don Blankenship, Jo Jorgensen, and Gloria LaRiva respectively).








Written and Published on June 25th, 2020

Thursday, June 4, 2020

Bad Elk v. United States: In Which States is it Legal to Resist Unlawful Arrest with Force?

     The map below shows in which states it is legal and illegal to resist unlawful arrest by police officers. Bad Elk v. United States is still in effect in the states marked in blue, while it is being ignored in the states marked in red.

     In the 1899/1900 U.S. Supreme Court case Bad Elk v. United States, the court ruled - unanimously, by the way -  that an individual has the right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

     You can learn more about this topic by researching Bad Elk v. U.S., and subsequent cases which affected it. The book source for the information on state laws, which is cited on the image below, is available at the following link:

     This map was accurate as of 2012. The author does not know whether any newer data on this topic are available.









Created, Written, and Published on June 5th, 2020

Friday, May 22, 2020

Explaining the Iran-Contra Scandal with a Beatles Meme

     The purpose of this article, and the below meme, is to explain which U.S. states played which roles in the Iran-Contra scandal. However, the roles which Iran and Nicaragua played in this scandal are outside the scope of this article.


Explanation: General, esp. Alabama

     Basically, Ohio was the "nuclear weapons components" hub of Iran-Contra, New Mexico was the
"nuclear weapons materials hub" (i.e., UF6 gas), Arkansas was the "cocaine hub" or "drug hub", and Alabama was the state from which aid for the Contras was shipped.

     Sources on Alabama:


Explanation: Ohio
     I included "That one friend who's always talking about how he wants to fly away" under Ohio, because the Rickenbacker International Airport in Columbus, Ohio, housed the headquarters of Southern Air Transport, and airline that was outed as a front company for the C.I.A..
     Some researchers have alleged that Southern Air Transport has assisted in drug smuggling since the Vietnam War era. Some researchers also claim that the company operated the C-123 Globemaster cargo plane that was shot down in Nicaragua, which was outfitted with cameras by the C.I.A. at Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base. Jack Hood, a spokesman for the D.E.A., told the New York Times in 1986 that the plane was most likely used in the Barry Seal operation. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/10/world/a-us-agency-used-plane-lost-in-nicaragua.html)
     The Rickenbacker International Airport was also used to import clothing from Hong Kong for The Limited Inc., owned by Leslie Wexner, one of Jeffrey Epstein's top two or three financiers.





Explanation: Ohio and New Mexico

     The following text is a copy of a portion of Section 11 from Part Three of my August 2019 article "What Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz Have to Do with Israel, 9/11, the Saudis, and Iran". The original article is available at this link: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/08/epstein-hiring-dershowitz-should-prompt.html

     Supposedly, Epstein's plane (the Lolita Express) would make flights between his home town of Palm Beach, Florida; Epstein's Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, and northern New Jersey's Teterboro Airport (near his Manhattan residence).
    On August 20th, 2019, CBS News reported that in February 2007, all the names in the flight logs of the Lolita Express (besides the names of pilot David Rodgers and his co-pilots) "dropped off the flight logs". In that report, Chris Maag stated that underage girls probably signed into the flight logs with their full names the first time they flew, but later signed in with their initials.
     Those researchers believe that Epstein's child sex trafficking ring is just the tip of the iceberg, and that international child sex trafficking is used to blackmail people for political support, in order to influence, most importantly, to where the flow of nuclear weapons is directed, as well as whom owns and controls lands which are rich in uranium. On August 15th, The New Republic published a piece enumerating many strange things about the surrounding areas of the Zorro Ranch and about New Mexico in general.
     George Webb and other researchers believe that Epstein's ownership of the Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, and the fact that Bill Richardson - former governor of New Mexico and Secretary of the Interior under Obama - was named by Virginia Giuffre (Epstein's most prominent accuser) as a co-defendant, suggest that New Mexico could be some sort of national nuclear materials trafficking hub, a distinction which it appears that the State of Ohio served in the 1980s as one of the legs of Iran Contra.

     This is a bit of speculation, but it would also make sense if New Mexico turned out to be a sex trafficking hub, in addition to a nuclear materials trafficking hub; first, because of Jeffrey Epstein's and Bill Richardson's activities there; and second, because in recent years, New Mexico (and Albuquerque in particular) been plagued with meth addiction; out-of-control crime rates; and one particularly horrific story of a young girl's drugging, rape, and murder.
     It's additionally possible that nuclear materials trafficking and sex trafficking are related, in regards to their relationships with not only the State of Ohio, but also with Jeffrey Epstein. That's because some researchers believe that Epstein not only trafficked children for sex and taught teenage girls to fly airplanes, but also that Epstein trafficked nuclear materials himself, including centrifuges - as well as UF6 gas (a uranium-based compound) - to Iran, during Iran-Contra.
     Iran-Contra had three "hubs": Ohio, Alabama, and Arkansas. It appears that Arkansas was the "drug hub", while Ohio was the "nuclear hub" in those days. It's not that the "nuclear hub" title has shifted from Ohio to New Mexico, however; New Mexico's Zorro Ranch is allegedly where Epstein flew to in order to add UF6 gas to the shipments of centrifuges which he acquired from the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant outside of Piketon, Ohio.
     Some researchers additionally suspect Epstein of flying nuclear materials to Saudi Arabia, and/or the United Arab Emirates, to be transported to Kish Island (a claim which implicates a relationship between the Epstein / nuclear scandal and the disappearance of former F.B.I. agent Robert Levinson. Levinson was arrested by Iranian authorities under suspicion of being a C.I.A. agent.
     Some researchers believe that Prescott Bush once owned a larger piece of property on which Zorro Ranch now sits.



Links on Arkansas's Role in Iran-Contra

     Arkansas was a "cocaine hub", a "drug hub", and a "drugs-for-weapons trading hub" in the Iran-Contra affair.
     Sources:





Meme Created on May 20th, 2020
Article Written and Published on May 22nd, 2020

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Abolishing the Federal Government and the Presidency in Seventeen Easy Steps

     Given the recent scandals in Washington, D.C. regarding Russian and Ukrainian spying and business deals, election sabotage and interference, and association of presidents with known child sex traffickers, it is becoming obvious to more and more Americans that the current federal government with which we are currently burdened, has become unbearably corrupt, as well as financially and morally bankrupt.
     The solution to these problems, in my opinion, must be to abolish the federal government, the Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. Additionally - possibly - to call for a new national government, if reassurances can be made that such a government would be tolerable). But most importantly, to incarcerate (and, if necessary, charge with treason and/or sedition) any politicians or federal officials whom have engaged in unlawful or immoral actions involving representatives of foreign governments.

     If I were asked what federal officials, and/or the president, could and should do, to abolish the federal government as soon as possible, then my advice would be what follows below.
     I would recommend that the president take as many of these sixteen steps as possible - and as quickly as possible, and in the order shown below - in order to achieve abolition of the United States federal Government as swiftly, successfully, and peaceably as possible.

     This list should be viewed as a set of stages.
     The purpose of the first two steps (Phase One) is to communicate clearly to the people why the federal government needs to be abolished. This will help ensure that the president who promises to abolish the government, has the people's trust and support when inaugurated.
     The remainder of the steps should be taken by the president as soon as possible following inauguration. Those steps include the first phase following inauguration (Phase Two). In Phase Two, the president makes sure that foreign nations recognize that the president was elected lawfully, in order to avoid an international incident, and ensure the stability of the new administration while it attempts to abolish the federal government (as the people will want it to do).
     In Phase Three, the president gives Congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive branch officials under the president's control, one last chance (each) to cease cooperating with the continued creation and enforcement of widely unpopular and unconstitutional laws. Many of these cannot even rightfully be called laws, because most unconstitutional acts of Congress, are unconstitutional because they disregard limitations which were put in the Constitution with the specific intent of ensuring that the states and the people retained a significant and meaningful measure of the right to govern themselves (as opposed to being governed by a central authority).
     In Phase Four, the president takes all steps necessary to abolish the entire federal government (with the exception of the offices of the president, and one diplomat for each foreign nation), and issues declarations and public statements explaining and confirming these moves.
     In Phase Five (providing that most or all of steps 7 through 10 were successful), the president declares that efforts to abolish the federal government were successful, and makes statements and invitations which recognize the sovereignty and independence of the fifty states as separate countries, each with their own diplomatic authorities.
     In Phase Six (after the world has recognized the freedom of each state), the president calls for the consideration of a new national or federal government and a new constitutional convention, weighs in on this matter, fires all diplomats still employed federally, and vacates the office of the presidency (leaving nobody to succeed).



     The Seventeen Steps:

Phase One (Before Inauguration):
     Step 1: Communicate, and Campaign on, the Need to Abolish the Federal Government
     Step 2: Communicate the Legal Rationale for Abolishing the Federal Government

Phase Two (Immediately After Inauguration):
     
Step 3: Invite Ambassadors to Recognize the Legitimacy of the President's Election

Phase Three (After Achieving Recognition of the Election Results):
     Step 4: Urge Congress and the States to Convene for an Emergency Amendment Session
     Step 5: File Lawsuits Which Could Severely Limit Federal Authority
     Step 6: Nullify Executive Orders

Phase Four: (If Steps 4 Through 6 Have Little to No Effect):
     
Step 7: Revoke the Authority to Enforce Federal Laws
     Step 8: Order the Congress to Disband
     Step 9: Charge Corrupt Officials with Sedition and Treason
     Step 10: Firing the Vice President and Refusing to Nominate Cabinet Members
     Step 11: Order the Arrest of All Persons Cooperating with the Federal Government

Phase Five (After the Federal Government is Abolished):
     Step 12: Declare the Federal Government Legally Foreign to the States and the People
     Step 13: Invite Ambassadors to Recognize the Sovereignty and Independence of the States
     Step 14: Insist Upon the States' Freedom to Conduct Diplomacy and Join the United Nations

Phase Six (After the World Has Recognized the Independence of the States):
     Step 15: Call for a Constitutional Convention
     Step 16: Fire All Federal Diplomats
     Step 17: Vacate the Presidency




Phase One (Before Inauguration):

     Step 1: Communicating, and Campaigning on, the Need to Abolish the Federal Government

     Make it clear that the presidential candidate, and the congressional and senatorial candidates, are running with the intent to abolish the positions for which they're running.
     It should be emphasized that various notable figures in pop culture have suggested doing without government (such as Kid Rock, who said something to the effect of "What if we decided to have no government, but everybody promised to be cool?"; and Alec Baldwin, who said, while portraying Donald Trump on N.B.C.'s Saturday Night Live, "Maybe it's time we take a break from having a president for about a year."). Forces in favor of abolishing the federal government should make it clear that they could not agree more.
     Attempt to make abolishing he federal government; incarceration of dozens of high ranking federal officials; and full investigations of Jeffrey Epstein, everyone listed in Epstein's black book of contacts, Ghislaine Maxwell, Joe and Hunter Biden, John Podesta and James Alefantis (etc.); into mainstream policies and platform planks (if possible, resulting in multiple parties adopting such positions).
    Additionally, for any officials running for federal positions having promised to work to abolish the federal government, it should be clear that they intend to return the power of attorney back to the people from which they have been borrowing it (through political representation).
     Moreover, campaigns to abolish the federal government should explain that repealing laws, and dismantling and abolishing entire departments, will drastically reduce not only government costs, but also the number of armed government law enforcement officials, as well as the number of violent attacks committed by government agents against civilians.


     Step 2: Communicating the Legal Rationale for Abolishing the Federal Government

     In order to justify, and provide legal context and rationale for the legality of, abolishing the U.S. federal Government, campaigns to abolish the federal government should cite the fact that the Declaration of Independence recognized the people's pre-existing right to alter or abolish our government if it becomes destructive of the liberties which it declared an intent to preserve.
     Additionally, at least six state constitutions recognize a right to reform, alter, or abolish government; -and many nations acknowledge the right to revolution and/or the right to rebel - so those facts should not go ignored in the president's statements.
     [Note: The Supreme Court, historically, has not considered the Declaration of Independence to be organic law, and thus the court does not consider the Declaration to be part of the U.S. Code. However, Congress traditionally has recognized the Declaration of Independence as organic law. This information may be relevant in order to pursue a successful legal defense for the case in favor of abolishing the government.]




Phase Two (Immediately After Inauguration):

     Step 3: Inviting Ambassadors to Recognize the Legitimacy of the President's Election

     [Note: Step 3, and subsequent steps, should all be taken on January 20th, in the afternoon and evening immediately after the inauguration of the president, and within the first 24 or 48 hours of the inauguration.]
     The president should instruct all sitting United States ambassadors to foreign countries, to meet with their counterparts in those foreign nations, and ask those counterparts whether they will affirm that the election of the president was carried out duly and legally.
     This step will help reduce the risk that an international incident (whether diplomatic or military) could flare up, at the news that a presidential candidate has been elected who promised to abolish the position of president as well as the national government of the United States. This step will also help ensure that foreign nations will interact with the states in good faith, following the next several steps which the president should take to abolish the government.






Phase Three (After Achieving Recognition of the Election Results):


     Step 4: Urging Congress and the States to Convene for an Emergency Amendment Session

     The president should strongly urge Congress to convene for a brief, one-time, emergency legislative session, to give Congress one last chance to amend the Constitution in a meaningful way.
     While doing this, the president should cite the need to review the existing set of national emergencies (of which there are dozens and dozens, and probably too many); and the need to declare national emergencies regarding civil liberties, due process, government transparency, and corruption.
     The president should do this, while specifically demanding that the members of Congress authorize their own arrest for misdemeanors as well as felonies, and also demanding that Congress refrain from interfering with any efforts by the states to hold a constitutional convention.
     The president should accomplish this by insisting that Congress and the states work together to immediately pass an amendment which would amend (and repeal a portion of) Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. That amendment should replacing that clause with the following language: "The Senators and Representatives shall not be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance of the Session of their respective Houses, nor in going to nor returning from the same, and in addition to any Speech or Debate in either House, they may be questioned in any other Place."
     The president should additionally insist that the convention of states consider amendments which would repeal the U.S. Constitution in its entirety and revert to a confederation, and/or abolish the office of the presidency (by striking Article II, Section 1).
     In the (extremely likely) event that Congress were to refuse to accept the president's insistence that this emergency legislation be considered (i.e., proposals to allow the arrest of congressmen for misdemeanors, revert to a confederation, and abolish the presidency), then the president should proceed with any and all plans to order the Congress to disband, since it will have signaled that it is not willing to acknowledge the right to hold a constitutional convention as acknowledged in Article V of the Constitution.



     Step 5:  Filing Lawsuits Which Could Severely Limit Federal Authority

     The president and the new administration should file lawsuits intended to make it impossible for the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid promptly weighing in on three key constitutional issues, the outcome of which rulings could have major impacts, potentially including the abolition of the federal government as we know it.
     These lawsuits include suits which will pressure the Supreme Court to issue rulings:
     1) whether there is any constitutional merit to the claims that Amendment XVI (income tax) was passed unlawfully;
     2) whether there is any constitutional merit to the claims that the Titles of Nobility Amendment was passed as Amendment XIII, but has been disregarded despite having been lawfully passed by Congress but not signed by the president; and
     3) whether there is a difference between "the Constitution of the United States" and "the Constitution for the United States", and additionally, within that controversy, whether the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 violates the provision in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that the federal government exercise exclusive jurisdiction only within the District of Columbia itself, and limited to 100 square miles ("ten miles, squared").
     A ruling on the first issue could have the result of repealing and abolishing the income tax, which would defund the federal government by depriving the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) from collecting approximately half of the total amount of receipts from which the federal government derives its revenue. With its funding halved, the federal government will struggle to fund its enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws.
     A ruling on the second issue could help prohibit federal officials - especially judges and congressmen - from receiving any form of foreign honors, titles, or privileges whatsoever. If the language in the Titles of Nobility Amendment becomes law, then federal judges will likely lose much or all of their power to issue orders which affect the states and localities.
     A ruling on the third issue will help determine whether the federal government is, in a strict legal sense, exercising exclusive jurisdiction anywhere besides the District of Columbia (for example, on federally managed and owned lands, and on U.S. military bases overseas, and in our various overseas territories and possessions, etc.).
     The president should additionally insist that the Supreme Court issue a ruling regarding whether Congress's refusal to allow an emergency convention to amend the Constitution (as described in Step 4).
     If the Supreme Court refuses to take any of these cases, then the president should call for the court to be abolished. If the justices of the Supreme Court refuse to accept their dismissal and the court's abolition, then the president should call for their arrest. These arrests could be performed by branches of the national guard, officials representing the states or community governments, and/or volunteer citizen militia wishing to assist in a citizens' arrests.



     Step 6: Nullifying Executive Orders

     The president should undertake all efforts possible to nullify all past executive orders, presidential signing statements, and line-item vetoes which remain active and have no constitutional merit. These may include executive orders which the president believes to be destructive of civil liberties, or destructive to the rights of the people to be governed in a decentralized fashion.
     The president may need to use both active and passive methods in order to accomplish this. Likely, some executive orders (etc.) can be ignored through the president refusing to issue orders to enforce them, while others may have to be accomplished through presidential actions. These may include new executive orders which invalidate old executive orders.
     Whatever the case, the presidential candidate who intends to abolish the federal government should be prepared to undertake whatever legal means necessary to rescind, or otherwise invalidate, the executive orders which still exist and have been  destructive to freedom or empowering of tyranny.
     These include, but are not limited to, executive orders which: 1) deprive accused people of the right to a trial; 2) establish and maintain secret prisons; 3) instruct officials to deprive detainees and incarcerated migrants of their right to a basic standard of health and safety while in custody; and 4) provide for "continuity of government" programs and exercises which make it difficult to abolish the federal government.






Phase Four: (If Steps 4 Through 6 Have Little to No Effect):


     Step 7: Revoking the Authority to Enforce Federal Laws

     On the president's first day in office, the president and/or the new administration should insist upon the president's right to tell all armed bureaucrats working for the federal government to surrender their badges and to return or lay down any and all arms issued to them by the federal government.
     The rationale for this should be that the president has the right, as the chief executive of the nation's armed forces, to issue orders requiring the firing and disarmament of any and all law enforcement officials continuing to claim to work for the federal government, and attempting to enforce federal laws (which will, as provided in Step 4, have been repealed en masse just prior to Step 5).



     Step 8: Ordering the Congress to Disband

     The president should make an appeal to the people, explaining that the president would not be in the White House unless the people who elected that candidate truly wanted the candidate to abolish the federal government, and truly believed that the candidate would do so if given the opportunity.
     The president should use these facts to justify and explain the president's next step: an order for the United States Congress - i.e., the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives - to disband. If the Senators and Representatives just elected, refuse their dismissal, then state or community officials (or private citizens) should remove them from the chambers of Congress, and take them into custody.



     Step 9: Charging Corrupt Officials with Sedition and Treason

     On January 20th, the president should be prepared with orders to indict all federal officials (justices, elected officials, law enforcement officers, etc.) who continue to serve under the guise and authority of the federal government, and who continue to attempt to enforce federal law.
     The list of this set of federal officials should be made up primarily of the following: 1) elected and appointed officials who abused their oaths of office by engaging in corrupt foreign business deals and/or election collusion; 2) justices, senators, and congresspersons who refused to vacate their offices; and 3) potentially dangerous federal law enforcement officials, intent on continuing to enforce federal law after the authority to do so is rescinded, whom are not likely to give up their arms without a fight.
     Most importantly, the president should be prepared to charge the first set of officials enumerated above, with sedition and/or treason (whichever is appropriate).



     Step 10: Firing the Vice President and Refusing to Nominate Cabinet Members

     The president should ask for the resignation of the running mate who was elected along with the president, and/or undertake any and all peaceable measures possible which could prevent the vice-president-elect from taking an oath of office.
     The president should also refuse to cooperate with any demands to hire a chief of staff, and also with demands to nominate cabinet members. The president should explain that at least half of those cabinet members would only end up heading federal departments which lack proper constitutional authorization (so most of what they do is unlawful).
     The president should dismiss the vice-president-elect, and refuse to hire a chief of staff and nominate a cabinet, in order to prevent those persons from being arrested for cooperating with the federal government (which they would not deserve, having been elected specifically in order to abolish the federal government).




     Step 11: Ordering the Arrest of All Persons Cooperating with the Federal Government

     The president should issue an order which will prohibit, and provide punishment of, all state and local officials, and all citizens of the states, who continue to cooperate with officials claiming to work under the auspices of anything described as a federal or national government of or for the United States.
     If circumstances merit and necessitate it, then the president should be prepared to charge any such "federal officials" - or persons aiding and abetting them - with treason (and/or sedition) against the people and the states.
     The president should issue just under two hundred exemptions, however. The president, and one diplomat for each foreign nation, should be retained, until such time as the president would be prepared to relinquish them from the federal employment rolls. This will be necessary in order to ensure that the president completes the mission to abolish the federal government, and in order to ensure that foreign nations will accept the sovereignty of each American state after that mission is over.






Phase Five (After the Federal Government is Abolished):


     Step 12: Declaring the Federal Government Legally Foreign to the States and the People

     The president should declare intent to re-affirm the only provision of the 1789 Treaty of Paris which is left standing; i.e., the provision which recognizes that the states are, and of right should be free to behave as, "free, sovereign, and independent" states.
     While issuing this declaration, the president should explain that: 1) without recognizing the freedom and sovereignty and independence of each U.S. state, they cannot rightfully be called "states"; and 2) the federal government is, legally speaking, foreign to the states, and to the people.
     The president should predicate the validity of the second point, on the facts that the federal government has alienated the people, the federal government has treated the people as strangers and aliens in their own lands (as if they had no rights), and the federal government has transported accused people to far-off secret prisons for indeterminate lengths of time and without trial (which was one of the main reasons, if not the biggest reason, the Declaration of Independence was drafted in the first place). The president should cite Grievance 8 and Grievance 9, of the Declaration, in order to explain and justify the decision to declare the states' and the people's independence from federal and national government.
     This declaration by the president should be made publicly, and should be billed as "the Second Declaration of Independence" of the United - and fully sovereign - States of America.



     Step 13: Inviting Ambassadors to Recognize the Sovereignty and Independence of the States

     The president should instruct all sitting United States ambassadors to foreign countries, to meet with their counterparts in those foreign nations, and ask those counterparts to affirm that they will not undertake any actions resisting or challenging the president's orders to dissolve and abolish national government for the United States.
     This step will help reduce the risk that an international incident (whether diplomatic or military) could flare up, at the news that the national government is unstable or could soon disappear (because the federal government's abolition is likely to have far-reaching and grave effects on the state of world peace and world finance, as well as on the state of society and the freedom revolution at home).
     Diplomats from the United Kingdom, in particular, should be invited to re-affirm what it affirmed in 1789 when that nation recognized that America was no longer under British control. Namely, that - as provided in the 1789 Treaty of Paris - the American states remain free, independent, and sovereign. 
     This step may, and hopefully will, have the effect of insuring against attempts from within the remnants of the federal government, to either: 1) engage in collusion with foreign governments abroad; 2) challenge or depose the president, or to create another national government; or 3) invade with a foreign army, thus occupying the states with a national government (albeit a foreign one).



     Step 14: Insisting Upon the States' Freedom to Conduct Diplomacy and Join the United Nations

     Immediately upon completing the tasks of ordering the abolition of the federal government, the president should point to the fact of widespread approval of that move, to make it clear that the authority to engage in diplomacy and trade, is now vested in the states themselves, or in the people.
     Next, the president should communicate with all fifty state governors, and insist that those states have the right to join the United Nations, to participate in its programs independently, and to participate in international diplomatic and trade deals without consulting any other governmental body. The president should also insist that each governor extend invitations for foreign diplomats to meet in their states' capitals, to acknowledge the sovereignty of each state, separately and in person.
     If necessary, the president should defend this insistence upon full state sovereignty, by citing the fact that even the Soviet Union (with its storied reputation for repression of both civil liberties and democracy) allowed the Ukraine and Belarus to be members of the United Nations long before the Soviet Union was finished being dismantled.







Phase Six (After the World Has Recognized the Independence of the States):


     Step 15: Calling for a Constitutional Convention

     [Note: This step should only be taken if, and after, it has become abundantly clear that there no longer remain any realistic challenges to the new administration's authority, nor to the federal government's abolition, nor to the states' total sovereignty and independence.]
     The president should call for a second constitutional convention of states. As provided in Article V, no amendment shall be considered which could potentially violate the provisions of Article I, Section 9 as amended.
     In defending the move to call for a constitutional convention, without citing the Constitution's authority, the president should cite the fact that Article V of the U.S. Constitution (which authorized constitutional convention) remained law before the president's inauguration, but was never taken seriously by Congress or enough state governors to make such a convention happen. This made reforming the federal government all but impossible, and made revolution or abolition inevitable.
     The president should call for a constitutional convention of states, to determine whether to create a new national or federal government. However, the president should insist that, if such a government is created, then it should only happen on the condition that the Bill of Rights is strengthened and clarified (or, at the very least, left alone).
     [Note: In my opinion, Amendments II, V, IX, and X could benefit the most from clarifying and modernizing language, through better encapsulating the spirit of liberty which informed the original intentions and original meanings of those amendments.]
     If a new national or federal government is formed as the result of these proceedings, then the most important matters which should be considered in the creation of new amendments, should revolve around: 1) what the structure of the new government should be, and in that issue, how to safeguard civil liberties and severely and explicitly limit the government's powers (which would hopefully include language resembling the suggested amendment outlined in Step 4); 2) how to have free, fair, and open elections; and 3) which measures to adopt in order to ensure the financial security of the new government (and the national economy in general).



     Step 16. Firing All Federal Diplomats

     The president should fire all diplomats still employed by the federal government (which shall have been retained this long solely for the purposes of ensuring international recognition of the legitimacy of the new administration).



     Step 17: Resigning the Presidency and Vacating the Oval Office

     Before the states and the people decide whether to convene for a constitutional convention, the president should announce resignation from the office of the President of the United States - and announce an intent that the office of the presidency be vacated forever, from this day forward (hopefully January 21st) - in a public address which explains the reasons for doing so.
     That address should include the president's thoughts regarding whether a constitutional convention should take place, and whether there is a justification for any national or federal government to exist again in the territory once occupied by the United States federal Government.
     The president should also communicate an opinion about whether positions like the presidency, the chief executive, and the unitary executive, ought to exist or be trusted ever again. This will help make it clear to the people that the president truly is about to become the last president (or, at least, the last president under this current constitution) upon the resignation that follows this address.
     If this public address is not televised live, then it should be either pre-recorded and broadcasted, or else a statement to the same effect should be sent to members of the press and officials representing the fifty states.
     If this public address is broadcast live, then the president should be shown signing a letter of resignation live on television, and then, the president should insist that everyone present in the Oval Office, leave the room immediately (i.e., the president and any remaining members of the president's retinue, members of the press, and/or any state governors or foreign diplomats invited and present for the resignation).





     Those interested in these topics may additionally wish to read my 2011 article "The Spooner Amendment", a suggested list of reforms to the U.S. Constitution. That article is available at the following address:




Based on Notes Taken on October 17th, 2019
Written on October 25th and 31st, 2019

Published on October 31st, 2019
Originally Published Under the Title
"Fourteen Recommendations Regarding How to Abolish
the Federal Government and the Presidency"

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...