Sunday, April 29, 2018

Fake Polls


The AJC, 4/29/18 page A-1 announces that “In a Shift, most Georgia voters back gun control."  The article details answers on page A-19, but it doesn’t mention how many were polled. The AJC has long been a “liberal rag” and it doesn’t take much to identify pro-liberal bias in most of what they print.

The poll may include 100 potential voters or 10,000 potential voters, but those who conduct these polls have all the resources needed to collect the answers they want to get. The article headline gives it away. They want gun control.

I suspect that Democrats will continue to push hard to get the 2nd Amendment repealed, but I think they are aiming for the passage of laws that ban the sale of weapons to crazy people.  On the face of it, that sounds reasonable.  Not long ago, we locked them up.  But the same liberals pushed to close all of our mental hospitals and let them out, because they were said to “violate the civil rights” of crazy people.

They want our government to determine who is crazy and that would be all who oppose the liberal narrative. Freedom no longer exists in Canada, where you can be fined and go to jail for not supporting the gay lifestyle. The Democrats wanted to make it unlawful in the US to deny climate change. They also wanted to merge the US with Canada and Mexico under a newly formed federal government.

There is a case to be made for arming as many US citizens as possible as a deterrent to crime. That makes more sense than disarming all of the citizens and subjecting them to undeterred crime. Our right to self-defense is as basic as our right to limited government.

Government already has a means of determining sanity in the courts. The criminally insane are given a pass and “trustees” are appointed to control your money if you are “found to be” mentally incompetent.

Lately, I find many voters to be “mentally incompetent”, but I haven’t yet taken them to court.

I doubt that “most Republican voters” favor tighter gun controls, but I am certain that the unknown numbers of participants for this poll were cherry-picked using their google-search ratings and county voting data.

The polls got it wrong in calling the 2016 Presidential election and they still get it wrong, because they want to get it wrong.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


US Media Corruption


News in the US is packed with useless trivia and “he says, she says” gossip. It is a trivia packed reality show that is full of conjecture and gossip. It is total tabloid news. 90% of it is useless. It covers unconfirmed scandals and accusations. It is a liable machine.

It consumes hours of reporting on inconsequential events like trips of government officials, showing airplanes on the tarmac. It covers weather disasters and terror attacks for weeks.

I suspect that news organizations are not covering what we really need to know, because they don’t want us to know what we need to know.

The media is totally financially dependent on advertisers who object to certain coverage that needs to be known. This is true with small town and big city newspapers and TV cable news. So, what we get is loads of ads and very little useful news.

The media is blatantly big-government, public sector oriented. Most TV programs showcase government employees in crime shows and crime news reports.

News organizations have the opportunity to report a lot more detail on news we need and can use. It is always difficult to get details of pending bills, because legislatures like to pass unpopular bills as quickly and quietly as they can.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


US Government Corruption


Conservative US voters have attempted to elect representatives who honor their oath.  All elected and appointed government officials and members of the military take an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution”. But not all US voters are “conservative” and most US voters are not “informed voters”. Also, most candidates for elective office campaign as conservatives, but vote like socialists and statists.

The US Constitution is hiding in plain sight. You can google it and it comes up.  If you read it you will find it easy to understand. It clearly limits the “enumerated powers” of the federal government and assigns responsibility for all laws to the Congress.

If you look at the current departments, agencies and programs assigned by Congress to govern various activities, you will plainly see that the federal government is not in compliance with the US Constitution and its Amendments (as written), Most of the activities that are controlled and funded by the federal government are unconstitutional.

Congress has ignored the requirement that calls for Amendments to authorize the federal government to regulate the US economy since 1864. There is no Amendment that allows the federal government to own more land than it needs to function. But in 1864, the federal government seized land from the State and established Yosemite National Park.

This is the biggest news story in US history and is never covered by the media. Trump recently released federal land back to the State of Utah and this event could have prompted a more detailed analysis of this action, but it was glossed over. That tells me that the media wants the federal government to own 30% of the US land mass.  This only makes sense if you are a Communist.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


Are national parks constitutional?


DanielX:
I dunno... I don't think the constitution spells them out at all. So probably not, but they aren't so blatantly unconstitutional as, for instance, campus speech codes or handgun bans.
If the state its in approves then I'd say yes. If the government just goes ahead and sets up a "preserve" or military base w/out the states expressed permission then I'd have to definately say "no".


Emsworth:

This is a very interesting question, Philip. The clause on which Congress' authority might rest is: 

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)

In any territory or property of the United States, there can be no doubt that Congress has the power to create national parks, pursuant to its authority to make "all needful Rules and Regulations." The only question, then, must be whether the United States had the authority to acquire such property in the first place.


There are five possible sources of congressional power to acquire lands:
1. The states may cede a "District (not exceeding ten Miles square) [to] become the Seat of the Government of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17). National parks do not form the seat of the government, and, moreover, are more than ten square miles in area. 
2. Congress may purchase land "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17). But a national park is not a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, or building. As the Supreme Court held in Collins v. Yosemite Park, " forests, parks, ranges [and] wild life sanctuaries ... are not covered by Clause 17." 
3. Congress may spend money to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). But the welfare must be general, not local. As Alexander Hamilton expressed this limitation: "the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending ... throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot." National parks do not meet this criterion. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court correctly held in United States v. Butler, this clause does not extend to matters "within the sphere of state government." Parks are inherently local matters, firmly within the sphere of the states, not general ones subject to federal control.
4. Congress may acquire land under the necessary and proper clause. However, such land must be purchased for some other governmental purpose expressed in the previous clauses of Section 8. Setting up parks is not one of those purposes; therefore, the necessary and proper clause should not even come into the picture.
5. The government may seize lands under its eminent domain power. But as in the case of the necessary and proper clause, the land must be taken for some constitutional purpose, which as I said before does not exist in this instance.


It has been argued that the United States may purchase lands for any purpose. I would strongly oppose such an assertion, because it contravenes the notion that the powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. The only exception is that the United States may acquire any territory from foreign countries by treaty, for any purpose whatsoever, because the treaty-making power is plenary, not limited by enumerations.


Therefore, on the whole, Congress may not buy lands from states in order to set up national parks. It may, however, set up parks in territories that were not purchased from states and do not form part of any state (e.g., Alaska before it became a state, or Puerto Rico today), and in the District of Columbia.


opebo:
Quote from: Emsworth on October 02, 2005, 10:58:39 am
3. Congress may spend money to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). But the welfare must be general, not local. As Alexander Hamilton expressed this limitation: "the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending ... throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot." National parks do not meet this criterion.


Of course they do, Emsworth, as they may be visited by American citizens from any state.


Quote
Furthermore, as the Supreme Court correctly held in United States v. Butler, this clause does not extend to matters "within the sphere of state government." Parks are inherently local matters, firmly within the sphere of the states, not general ones subject to federal control.


Hah, for that matter aren't they usually matters for municipalities, not states?  There is nothing 'inherently local' about parks, and your suggestion that they are 'firmly within the sphere of the states' is just your subjective view based on the fact that you don't like federal parks.


Quote
4. Congress may acquire land under the necessary and proper clause. However, such land must be purchased for some other governmental purpose expressed in the previous clauses of Section 8. Setting up parks is not one of those purposes; therefore, the necessary and proper clause should not even come into the picture.


Sure it does, as parks serve the 'general welfare'.  




Comments

This article does address the wording in the Constitution that restricts federal land ownership, but gives the lame excuse that it is Constitutional because it serves the “general welfare”.
I believe Congress owes it to the voters to legitimize this federal land grab by filing an Amendment that adds National Parks and send it to the States for ratification. Loose and politicized Supreme Court opinions may be at fault, but Congress can and should correct this violation.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


The Constitutionality of National Parks


150 Years Of Preservation: Yosemite And The Constitutionality Of National Parks, by Alfred Runte, 6/29/14
The Yosemite Grant gave birth to the "national park" idea, not Yellowstone/QT Luong, www.terragalleria.com/parks, used with permission.
James Hutchings/NPS - As much to the point, a first claimant was not allowed to sell any part of the 160 acres before obtaining title. The whole purpose of the homestead acts was to ensure that actual settlers received the land. By that definition, Hutchings had purchased his claim from a speculator and might well be a speculator posing as a settler too. 


Now 150 years ago, on June 30, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln signed the act designating Yosemite Valley as the Yosemite Grant. In addition to the valley and its surrounding cliffs, the act authorized the protection of up to four square miles of government land embracing the Mariposa Big Tree Grove, situated approximately 20 miles to the south. 

This is to explain why many historians (myself included) consider Yosemite as the birthplace of the national park idea. Certainly, Yosemite realized the idea in fact, if not in name. Even Yellowstone National Park, established eight years later, was referred to as 'a public park' in its enabling act. 

Management, not intent, distinguishes the Yosemite Grant from Yellowstone. Both originated as acts of Congress; both withheld scenery on the public lands from private ownership. At the time, Yellowstone was by far the larger park, but chiefly on the assertion that the region needed to be fully explored. When in fact its ' wonders' had been properly located supporters insisted its boundaries could be redrawn. 

Because Yellowstone then straddled Montana and Wyoming territories, Congress had little choice but to keep the park. As a state, California was in a position to accept the Yosemite Grant. The unresolved question was how to manage it; that is, appropriately observe what Congress had in mind. 

And so the intrigue began. James Mason Hutchings, a claimant and hotelier in the valley, immediately challenged the grant as illegal. Having purchased his hotel in 1863 he insisted the federal government had no right to deny his claim. 

The commissioners of the grant disagreed, noting the fundamental stipulation set forth by Congress: 'that the said State shall accept this grant upon the express conditions that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation; shall be inalienable for all time; but leases not exceeding ten years may be granted for portions of said premises.' The commissioners accordingly offered Hutchings a lease, formally denying that he 'owned' a thing. 

As supporting evidence, the commissioners took note of the legal requirements for settlement all across the public lands. Simply put, the bulk of the Sierra Nevada, including Yosemite Valley, had never been surveyed. Before any claimant could expect clear title, the relevant township containing Yosemite (36 square miles) and all relevant subsections had to be surveyed. Each square mile or section within a township further contained four quarter sections of 160 acres each. Such was the allowable claim under the homestead laws, but again, exactly where did Hutchings's quarter section lie? 


Regardless, he insisted he had gotten to Yosemite Valley ahead of the park and had every right to buy an existing hotel. Yet another Yosemite resident, James C. Lamon, similarly argued that being first in the valley gave him absolute rights. Ultimately, the Yosemite commissioners had no authority, the men pronounced, and joined in appealing their case to the legislature. 

In February 1868, the California Legislature in fact approved their claims, passing the bill over the governor's veto. However, the Legislature itself was clear; Congress still had the final say. Its 'express conditions' of acceptance did not allow California alone to reverse any terms of the grant. 

Now determined to obtain congressional approval, Hutchings personally took his case to Washington, D.C. First in 1868, and again in 1871, the House of Representatives passed the bill he wanted. Sympathy for the settler prevailed in the House. Just as firmly, the Senate refused to concur and did not bring either bill to a vote. Hutchings then filed suit against the state of California' and lost again. Offering Hutchings a last glimmer of hope, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case [Hutchings v. Low] on appeal. 

Technically, Yellowstone Park, established on March 1, 1872, was also in limbo pending the outcome of the case. Did Congress have the right to establish public parks' or withhold any public lands, for that matter? Finally, in December 1872 the Supreme Court ruled. The rights of the American settler aside, Congress was perfectly within its own rights to establish the Yosemite Grant. The park was both appropriate and constitutional, and not, as Hutchings and Lamon had alleged, an illegal 'taking' of their 'homesteads' in Yosemite Valley. 

Consider if the ruling had gone the other way. At least flirting with the possibility, the Supreme Court sided with Hutchings and Lamon that each had applied for a legal homestead. Although there had not been an official survey, the court accepted that each claimant had been sincere. With that, Hutchings and Lamon were halfway to the ruling they wanted. If Congress wished to make public parks, lands previously reserved for another pursuit' any pursuit' could never be involved. 

Instead, the Supreme Court upheld the future by affirming the constitutionality of public parks. Congress had been right the first time it had changed its mind. Having previously designated the West for settlement in no way obligated Congress to sell off every acre. "It seems to us a little less than absurd," the court remarked, "to say that a settler. . . by acquiring a right to be preferred in the purchase of property, provided a sale is made by the owner, thereby acquires a right to compel the owner to sell." 

Similarly, Congress legitimately might insist on the terms of the transfer. "The act of Congress of June 30, 1864," the court ruled, underscoring the point, passed title of Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove to California "subject to the trust specified therein." As a result, the "act of California, of February 1868," recognizing homestead claims in the valley, was "inoperative" unless "ratified by Congress." But no ratification had ever occurred, "and it is not believed," the court concluded, "that Congress will ever sanction such a perversion of the trust solemnly accepted by the State." (italics added)

We see again the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in establishing three distinct branches of government. Congress itself had come close to reneging on the Yosemite Act, at least, close enough for Yosemite's supporters to breathe a sigh of relief. Thanks to the separation of powers, Yosemite was protected long enough for the majority sentiment in the country to take hold. 

Would James Mason Hutchings have protected Yosemite Valley? And James Lamon? That we will never know, because our forebears decided not to take the risk of accepting promises as the basis of preservation. 

After all, that formula had miserably failed. If indeed Yosemite marks the origins of the national park idea, then its earliest catalyst was Niagara Falls. With every acre surrounding the falls privately owned, no American could doubt for a moment the fate awaiting Yosemite if Congress failed to act. 

As the despoliation of Niagara proved, a promise goes only so far. The decision in Hutchings v. Low then carried preservation into the modern age by allowing the public lands to be used for parks. Recall that practically every national park established over the coming century would be carved from the public lands.

It all started with Yosemite Valley exactly 150 years ago. Over the next eight years, the entire concept of public parks would be tested by Congress, the state of California, and the U.S. Supreme Court. To reemphasize, Yellowstone was the beneficiary and not the originator of that most important test. 

As for James Mason Hutchings, he received generous compensation, if not the heart of Yosemite Valley he fought to own. And certainly his combative spirit cleared the air. His motives notwithstanding, he set in motion the process by which the national park idea would reclaim the best of the American land for us all. 


Comments

This article fails to cover the fact that Lincoln violated the US Constitution by not having Congress draft an Amendment and send it to the States for ratification. But it does explain how this violation took place.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


Saturday, April 28, 2018

War and Peace


Peace

The blueprint for Peace requires productive countries who are improving their economies and living conditions to benefit their citizens, so that they can be self-supporting. If all citizens who can be in the labor force are in the labor force, they will succeed. This ensures that the citizens will not foment violence and revolution. Focusing on the family as the basic economic unit and encouraging private property ownership in a free market economy are important.

They also need to get along with neighboring countries and encourage these countries to adopt similar policies. This is done to prevent wars with neighboring countries. Mutually beneficial trade between neighboring countries results in shared benefits. Good will between neighboring countries occurs when they assist each other during natural disasters including crop loss.

War

It is assumed that these countries will maintain a military and police force to deter bad actors from harming their citizens. Laws should be limited and should include the right to self-defense, so that citizens can defend themselves if needed.

Wars need to be avoided, because they are destructive and expensive. They are waged by governments and have been defensive and aggressive. Citizens normally support defensive wars, but should be wary of aggressive wars.

We are better able to track financial transactions now and should be able to predict what countries are building their military forces to wage wars of aggression. Often this kind of war has a history for these countries and it is possible to understand why they want to invade a neighbor. For Russia, the reason is that their target was once a part of their nation. For Iran the reason is that their religion once ruled a caliphate of countries. For North Korea, they will push for reunification under Communist rule by the North. Good luck with that. They all need to know this is not acceptable.

The lessons we learned from World War I and World Wat II are that if you launch a war of aggression to acquire neighboring countries by force, you will not succeed and will be bombed into oblivion.

The lessons we learned from the Vietnam War should dissuade us from entering defensive wars we refuse to win on behalf of far-away countries we know nothing about.

The lessons we learned from the Middle East Wars is similar to Vietnam. We can’t help people in far-away countries with tribal cultures who don’t want to change.

The lesson we are learning about Islam is that they need to reform their Koran and remove the parts that make them a pain in the ass for the rest of us.

The Cold War was a waste of time and money. Communism and Socialism are merely failed economic systems that will collapse under their own weight unless they are propped up by real economic activity.

The current wars on terror, the drug gangs and international criminal enterprises cause wars that need to be fought and won by the countries that are affected. We may be helpful by lending our military to them for a surge, but they first need a plan and their own resources to make the eradication of these bad actors permanent.

Recovering from War

After World War II, the citizens of Germany did not become refugees in other countries. They remained in Germany to rebuild it. Outside help came from the US with the Berlin Air Lift to get food flown in to Germany after the Soviets blocked ocean shipping into Germany to punish them. 

The US had a different attitude toward Germans after the War. We believed that they made a terrible mistake letting Hitler take over. The Bankers lent the Germans what they needed to recover because they showed resolve to rebuild and would prove to be “credit worthy”.

The refugee problem for Jews that lived through the holocaust was solved, in part, with the establishment of the nation-state of Israel. The US immigration policy in 1945 was based on merit, so many Jews came to the US after the war.

No government financial aid or welfare was offered. These immigrants were sponsored and supported by relatives until they could work and earn enough to establish their own households.

Today refugees are unskilled and on welfare. They are more of a burden than a benefit for the US and they need to return to their home countries to rebuild them. They should not be given a choice.

We need to repeal our current immigration and refugee policies and replace them with limits to reflect our current national needs.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


EU Refugee Problem


EU trying (in vain?) to get new agreement on migrant redistribution in Europe; fear increase in populismPosted by Ann Corcoran on April 27, 2018

“If we don’t get a deal by the summer we will lose credibility vis-à-vis public opinion and we cannot afford that because it would fuel support for populist and extremist parties across the country.”(Unnamed diplomat from a frontline country)
Invasion of Europe news….Of course nowhere is it mentioned that they must first stop the boats arriving from North Africa (European equivalent of BUILD THE WALL)!
 
The Bulgarian proposal is pushed by Germany, Sweden and other countries eager to avoid a repeat of the 2015-2016 migration crisis.
“If we don’t get a deal by the summer we will lose credibility vis-à-vis public opinion and we cannot afford that because it would fuel support for populist and extremist parties across the country.” More here.

European Lutherans fight against populism and nationalism!


Politico Europe is reporting that the European Union is working to get in place (by June) a new plan to redistribute migrants from frontline countries, but those frontline countries are not happy.

Politico: The political fight over migration is roaring back to life. Five EU countries that sit on the bloc’s external borders are bucking a proposed overhaul of asylum rules, putting in peril efforts to strike a deal by June’s summit of European leaders.

The pushback from Italy, Spain, Greece, Cyprus and Malta, laid out in a three-page position paper obtained by POLITICO, comes as Bulgaria, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, is pushing a proposal aimed at revising the so-called Dublin Regulation and ending one of the bloc’s most bitter policy fights.

In efforts to keep the Visegrad countries onboard, the frontline states (in the draft proposal) would get the brunt of a provision which, in the draft, says migrants must stay where they landed FOR up to TEN YEARS!

Their hard position comes on top of the longstanding opposition by the Visegrad countries, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, to any effort by Brussels to force countries to accept refugees, or to set new restrictions on how asylum seekers might be returned to the first EU country they entered.

It revives the idea of applying mandatory quotas for all EU countries to take a certain number of refugees, which was imposed temporarily during the crisis but fiercely opposed, especially by Hungary and Poland. The EU ended the quota system in September 2017 after transferring fewer than 28,000 refugees, far short of the 160,000 goal.

However, the new proposal calls for imposing quotas only if refugee numbers spike, suddenly setting off another crisis.
Under this new system, the EU would push for voluntary “allocations” of refugees from countries that are hardest hit to other willing EU countries, in part by offering financial inducements. 

The proposal is intended to stifle the complaints of anti-migrant European politicians, but any suggestion of mandatory quotas, even in extreme situations, is likely to be controversial in places like Austria or Poland.

Fear! Austria is set to take the presidency of EU, and the Leftists fear that the new hard line Austrian government will then stymie all efforts to spread the pain more evenly.

“We want a deal by June because the presidency that comes next is Austria, which has extremely conservative views on Dublin and migration and borders,” this diplomat said.

In related news, the Lutheran World Federation is meeting in Berlin next week to map out their social justice strategy and plans to defeat POPULISM.

It is really worth reading the short news story and watching the video, especially if you are of the Lutheran faith.
See my complete archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ by clicking here.


Comments

The EU needs to end their policy of dictating to member countries on the refugee issue. All the migrants who invaded Europe need to go back to their home countries. The Brexit vote in the UK was ensured by voter reaction to the mess these migrants have made of Britain.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


Managing Money


If you can’t pay all your bills each month, you need to look at both your income and your spending.  If you can increase your income, that might fix your problem.  But if you cannot increase your income, you need to cut spending.

You also need a cash reserve for emergencies and expected maintenance. This can include auto repairs and tires, but might also include repairs or replacement of roofs, HVAC units and appliances.

If you purchased and own a home, you probably have a mortgage loan. The 15 year mortgages or mortgages that allow you to pay extra are the best, because they reduce the amount you will pay in interest. You will also be able to pay it off early and reduce your monthly living expanses.

You probably don’t pay cash for your cars and need to finance them.  You should try to pay off cars in 3 years or have a strategy to lower your driving expenses. We brought Prius Hybrid cars in 2005 to get 60 mpg. We saved 60% on gas because we tripled our mpg. The Prius also lasts over 300,000 miles. The Prius pretty much pays for itself.

Buying “toys” for the family is not usually a good investment, but if you use them and they didn’t cost much, they can be a good deal.  In 1975, we moved to Salina Kansas and I bought a large, open-bow boat for $4800. We kept the boat in our driveway and trailered it to the nearby reservoirs. We took our 6 kids boating and camping almost every weekend. We sold the boat in 1983 for $3000 to a guy who wanted to restore it.  Our expenses were limited to gas and maintenance. The kids still talk about all the fun they had on these camping trips.

Saving for retirement is another thing everybody needs to do.  401k stock accounts are the best place now to have your money invested.  During high inflation periods, fixed income accounts are the best. Fixed income accounts invest in mortgages, so it is “debt” investing. I pooled my savings in accounts to lend money and collect interest.  I kept my $5800 TIAA balance in a fixed income account 1975 when I left my job at Washington University and by 2011 it was worth $90,000. Inflation had kept fixed income earning from 7% to 12%.  I joined a 401k plan in 1986 and had the maximum deducted. At the time, fixed income was earning 10%. The balance got to $ 46,000.  When I started my consulting practice in 1993, I rolled over my 401k and opened a SEP stock account in the Vanguard Index 500 and contributed the maximum until 2011. I still have that SEP account.

Home ownership is a big part of financial planning. When we got married in 1964, we didn’t want to rent, so we moved in with my mom.  We had a daughter in 1965 and went house hunting.

In 1966, we bought a 4 bedroom ranch with a basement on an acre lot in a subdivision in the exurbs for $700 down and we assumed a $16,000 loan at 4%. It was a foreclosure. Our monthly house payment of $150. It was a “fixer-upper”, so we put in central air, installed new doors, poured a patio and a bypass driveway pad, fixed up the yard, planted trees and shrubs and put in a garden in the back of the lot.  At the time, new homes were going for $30,000, so I started off cheap.  We sold that home in 1975 for 36,000. We paid off the remaining mortgage for $12,000 and carried away $24,000. We were in this home for 9 years.

On the Income side, I was able to work and play band jobs on the weekends, so my wife didn’t have to work and could be home with the kids. We moved my mom in with us in 1966 and rented her house to the same guy for the next 9 years. We moved her back to her house in 1975. My house was next door to my brother and his wife and 4 kids, so my mom was close to all of her grandkids. My mom worked as an Accountant until about 1973. When we moved to Kansas, she moved back to her home across the street from her sister and brothers and enjoyed chauffeuring herself and 3 other old ladies to church every morning. She had saved her rent money all those years and was able to retire with no worries about money.

We moved to Salina Kansas in 1975 and bought a home for $55,000. We put $20,000 down and got a $35,000 mortgage at 6%. Our house payment was $300 per month.  We sold this home in 1983 for $85,000 and took over $50,000 out. We were in this home for 8 years

We moved to Atlanta Georgia in 1983 and bought a home for $137,000 and got a $100,000 mortgage at 13%. We refinanced back to 10% and then 7% with a 15 year loan. We paid this off in 2003.  Our home is now worth over $500,000.  We recouped every dollar we ever paid on house payments and upgrades from 1966 to 2003 including interest. We’ve been in this home for 35 years.

We kept our real estate fee expenses low by keeping our homes for as long as we lived in those areas. We kept our cars for 10 years. Most of our vacations were spent with family. We were “handy”, so we always did all of our own maintenance and renovation work.

In 1983, when we moved to Dunwoody Georgia, my wife enrolled in Dental Hygiene school. She had been a Certified Dental Assistant and Lab Tech and when Hygiene programs were being offered she got the bug to be a Hygienist.  She graduated in 1986 and we saw a $25,000 rise in household income overnight. This was just in time to help get our 6 kids through college. They all had student jobs and we bought them used cars and together we got them all graduated with no student loans to pay off.

In 1988, we started paying for weddings. We gave the kids a budget of $5,000 and they stuck to it. The last wedding was in 2003 and it cost a lot more.

We worked together as a family to ensure that all would be self-supporting. We always believed that the family was the basic economic unit of the US economy and we proved it.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


Basic Writing


This 1886 Cornell English Syllabus May Explain Why College Students Can’t Write, by Annie Holmquist 4/28/18 


According to the Nation’s Report Card, only 27 percent of 8th graders attain proficiency in writing. But no problem, right? They’re just leaving middle school. Give them a few years under the instruction of high school English instructors and all will be well.

That seems to be wishful thinking, for the Nation’s Report Card shows that writing proficiency is still 27 percent by the time students head to college. Unfortunately, college doesn’t improve the writing woes of American students either. As writing expert John Maguire explains in The Washington Post:

“The failure of many of today’s college students to write decently, even after years of instruction, became headline news not long ago when a well-researched study of college student learning was published as a book under the title “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses.” Its authors, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, found that 45 percent of 2,300 students at 24 colleges showed no significant improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years. …

Millions of young men and women sit in freshman composition classrooms each fall semester, but if the Arum report is right, nearly half will write just as badly in their junior years as when they started college.”

Maguire goes on to ask: “Why aren’t they learning? There are multiple causes. One is that schools admit students who can’t write and then pack them into comp courses taught by adjuncts. But the main problem, I think, is that the colleges are not really trying to teach students to write clear sentences. Not anymore. First-semester writing courses now cover rhetorical strategies, research, awareness of audience, youth civic activism — everything except the production of clear sentences.

Curious about Macguire’s statement that colleges no longer teach students the basics of writing, I dug around for freshman English syllabi from past and present. The following description comes from a present-day First-Year Writing Seminar syllabus at Cornell University:

See this in the original article. It doesn’t cover the basics.

While the description does hint that some instruction in foundational writing techniques is present, the overall tone conveys the loftier, higher-level approach to writing that Maguire insists is the norm on today’s campuses.

An 1886 freshman composition syllabus from Cornell University takes a completely different approach, however. Instead of focusing on audience, or proper citation formatting, or whether a paper has drawn from a wide enough variety of sources, a majority of the class focuses on the basics. Thus, how to craft a clear, unified, and interesting sentence takes center stage. After learning about proper sentence structure, 1886 students moved on to the proper construction of a paragraph. From there, students learned how to choose a subject and appropriate language to support it. These basic building blocks of writing instruction take up most of the 20-page syllabus, a sample of which is shown below:

See the syllabus in the original article. It begins with an analysis of the sentence composed of words, phrases and clauses and how to construct paragraphs.

Macguire concludes his Washington Post piece by saying:
“Colleges should teach the important writing behaviors first, one at a time, in sequence. They should offer new writing courses that assume students know nothing about sentences and train new sentence behaviors from the ground up.”

If the 1886 syllabus is any indication, such advice isn’t new. Given this revelation, one can’t help but wonder how many of today’s education woes might find a solution by simply looking to the past and rediscovering the tried and true methods recent generations have rejected.    
Image Credit: Imperial War Museums (cropped), Public Domain

Annie is a senior writer for Intellectual Takeout. In her role, she assists with website content production and social media messaging.  


Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


Friday, April 27, 2018

Judicial Abuse


Obstruction is caused by the Judicial System itself.  Multiple District Courts are allowed to hear the same case and these cases then have to proceed to their own Appeals Courts.  This is just a full employment bill for lawyers. It is a mindless bureaucracy.

Immigrants and Refugees should not have access to US Courts unless they are US Citizens. Immigration courts should be replaced by Administrative Judges who confirm or reject their claims to US entry based on the facts these immigrants must prove. This should be done on the border or before they seek entry in real time. Allowing immigrants into the US and releasing these non-citizens into the US and expecting they will come to their court hearing later doesn’t work.

These changes need to be included in Reform Bills, passed and signed into law quickly. Congress needs to stop chasing the news narratives and go after bad law.

Civil law has its problems. Judges want litigates to settle and that exposes the victim in the suit to more extortion. Defendants often settle in bogus cases, because it’s slightly cheaper than continuing to pay legal bills.

Malpractice law is an unnecessary burden on the entire healthcare system and should be replaced by rulings by county medical associations who can suspend and pull licenses.

Municipal Courts are charging way too much for fines for local ordinance violations. If you are late paying your auto insurance premium, you are put on the Police database and it will cost you over $1,500.

Violent criminals need to be kept in jail and off the streets. They all need to work a 12 hour day to pay their keep. Releasing them because the jails are overcrowded should not be permitted.

Non-violent criminals need to work and repay their victims with the money they make. Convicted Felons should never be allowed to vote.

The Judicial System has been weaponized. Filing bogus lawsuits amounts to abuse. Filing injunctions to advance a political agenda should be punished. Fabricating scandals about political opponents should backfire on the perpetrators with libel judgments.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


Financial Abuse


Government needs to spend less than it expects to collect in taxes and always run a surplus.  The surplus should be invested, saved in accrual accounts and used to replace critical infrastructure.   If this is ever put into practice, legislators will need to prioritize their spending and will need to ramp down spending in low priority areas and end it.  Low priority items should include anything that is not critical infrastructure like roads, bridges, highways, water supplies, water treatment facilities, sanitary sewers and storm sewers. 

Government should never take on a service that requires continual subsidies. These entities need to pay for themselves. Public transit needs to be privatized and sold to private bus companies who have the incentive to manage schedules to maximize ridership and reduce schedules when ridership is low. Government should never take on a service that could be provided by charities or the private sector.

Immigrants should be required to be self-supporting and should send their children to private schools until they are US citizens.  Immigrants should not be given a Social Security Card or regular drivers’ license until they become US citizens.  Immigrants should not be eligible for government welfare benefits in the US.  Refugees should not be admitted at all in the US, but housed in camps in their own countries and sent home quickly.

Government employees should have their defined benefit pension plans terminated and the balances rolled over to 401K Plans.  Government employees should not be eligible to form labor unions for collective bargaining purposes.  Strikes, protests and walk-outs should be prohibited.

Government employee wages should be based on valid market rates for their skills. Retirement plan matches should be based on market averages. Employee contributions to 401K Plans should not be limited. Government employees should have the same tools used by their private sector counterparts to ensure productivity.

Healthcare and Education need to be returned to the Private Sector. Government services are overpriced and underperforming and are not unsustainable. Government subsidies for healthcare and education need to be reduced over time to zero. Consumers need to control the prices in Healthcare and Education using supply and demand.

The US National Debt needs to be reduced back to $5 trillion and unfunded liabilities reduced by 80%. Government needs to privatize most of its activities and become compliant with the US Constitution  (as written).

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


US Refugee Policy Unsustainable


Does America have a moral obligation to resettle refugees?
Our obligation, as Trump has made clear, is to America First!
Posted by Ann Corcoran 4/27/18

That is the question a young opinion writer asks and answers (in the affirmative of course!) in the wake of Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on the President’s travel ban.

The long opinion piece in Deseret News by writer Gillian Friedman evoked a largely negative response by readers.  I especially got a chuckle out of this comment:

From Kansas City MO, 4/26/18, The title of tins article should be changed to”Do I have the right to force my neighbors to pay for my Charity? , because that is what you are really saying”

I’ve snipped the following segments, but although we know the writer sought to answer the question with a resounding YES!, she has some useful historic nuggets buried between her quotes on why (she and all those she interviewed) say we are obligated to welcome the world to America (and pay for it all too).

Deseret News: Writer Gillian Friedman graduated from Whitman College in 2016 with a B.A. in Race and Ethnic Studies.

WASHINGTON — The first U.S. Supreme Court debate over President Donald Trump’s so-called travel ban took place this week, and while justices won’t make a ruling until June, the decision is playing out at a time in which the refugee crisis in one of the impacted countries, Syria, may be getting worse.

While missile strikes may be exacerbating the refugee crisis in Syria, the United States has accepted just 11 Syrian refugees this year, compared to over 15,000 in 2016 and over 3,000 in 2017, according to State Department figures.
All of which leads to a pressing question: what obligation, if any, does America have to refugees fleeing countries where the United States is engaged militarily? The ‘Pottery Barn rule’.

There is no legal obligation or provision in international law that requires a country to take in refugees, even in a case of war, says Ryan Crocker, who has served as a U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Lebanon.

But despite the lack of legal obligation, Crocker says that from 1945 onward, America has played a role of “international leadership” in refugee resettlement from countries where U.S. military forces were directly involved.
Me: The solution to that is for the US to stay out of mostly religious squabbles in the Middle East and Africa.  

The Refugee Act of 1980 enlarged upon the 1975 legislation by standardizing resettlement services for all refugees admitted to the United States. This act became the legal basis for today’s U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

9/11 changed how Americans felt about opening our doors wide to the Middle East and Africa

Gillian continues….The policy remained consistent in its approach until the 9/11 terror attacks, when the refugee program was temporarily suspended, and then reinstated with new security protocols and lower admission rates.

Serena Parekh, associate professor of philosophy at Northeastern University and author of “Refugees and the Ethics of Forced Displacement,” says 9/11 had a profound impact on U.S. attitudes toward refugee resettlement.

Yes, it did. It is when Americans woke up to the fact that migrants from Muslim countries harbored ill-will toward us!
Parekh says that pre-9/11, one of the central tenants of America’s approach to refugee resettlement had been the “Pottery Barn rule,” referencing a well-known incident in which Colin Powell warned President George W. Bush of the “Pottery Barn rule” before the invasion of Iraq.
“You break it, you bought it,” Parekh explains.

Former Ambassador Ryan Crocker lectures us on “who we are” as “nation of immigrants.” Crocker says that in recent years, the United States has “sadly disengaged” from a leadership role in refugee resettlement.

“In 2017, we had 3,100 migrants drown in the Mediterranean [Sea],” he says. “How many times can you recall a U.S. Navy vessel sailing to the rescue of a floundering refugee boat? It’s a nice round number. Zero.”  [What the hell, does he really think that our Navy men and women should be responsible for diverting their mission and plucking Africans from boats and then possibly being responsible for them.  I can see it now—-the illegal migrants would demand asylum in the US—ed]

Crocker says he was one of 50 senior former national security officials to file an amicus brief in support of the state of Hawaii and the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project’s lawsuit against the Trump administration in the travel ban case.
Doesn’t it make you sick every time you hear this pablum about “nation of immigrants” and “who we are.” Let’s hope that Crocker’s ilk remain on the fringe of Washington policy maker circles for years to come.

Crocker continues…..“I firmly believe that we are a nation of immigrants, that’s who we are, and it’s an obligation for those of us who feel that way to push back against those who try to change who we are as a nation,” says Crocker. “No matter how much lipstick you put on it, it is still a highly discriminatory measure based on national origin and religion. And that’s why it’s in front of the Supreme Court.”
There is more.  Looking for something to do?

Send a comment to Deseret NewsClick on the op-ed here, see the other comments and then send yours! And, remember what a rare opportunity the Trump Presidency has given us to rethink this “moral obligation” issue.


Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader