October 22, 2020

U.S. Presidential Debate 

Last night, I watched the last Presidential debate with great interest hoping that one of the candidates or perhaps the moderator would address the issue, aside from the constitution and its well spring of laws, which is the foundation for the freedom and quality of life enjoyed in the United States today. All across this nation thousands of politicians in thousands of races are promising that if elected, their platforms will safeguard the integrity of our Children’s future. Yet neither person running for President addressed what I consider the foundational issue of our prosperity. 

My grandfather's namesake, Stanley Louis Klos III, was born in the Spring of 2019 in Colorado Springs. I often asked my children, what exactly has Stanley and our other five grandchildren materially inherited, by just being born in the United States? 

It is accurate to state that immaterially their inheritance is a Republic that can lay claim to being the oldest democracy in history, whose citizen freedoms are protected by a remarkable system of federal, State and municipal laws as well as the quantifiable protection of the most powerful military the world has ever known. BUT what has Stanley actually inherited materially by being born in the United States? 

Stanley does not have to wander very far to discover the material wealth that I consider to be a keystone to 244 years of U.S. prosperity. Even at 1½ he can flick on a light switch powered by the national grid, turn on a faucet to obtain water from the Colorado Springs municipal water system, run throughout a beautiful home funded by The Federal National Mortgage Association and be held back, which I have done, from running out into his development's street that is maintained by the El Paso County government. 

Stanley can also travel on over 4.18 million miles of road in the United States spanning 614,387 bridges, of which almost four in ten are sadly 50 years or older. Little Stan can avail himself to utilize, with the help of his elders, 4,500 Public and Non-Profit Transit Systems in the United States including my favorite, the NYC subway system. Stanley has inherited a National Park System that encompasses 421 national park sites spanning across more than 84 million acres in each state. Add to that, according to the National Association of State Park Directors (NASPD), being able to utilize the 10,234 state park units in the United States that host over 739 million visits each year. 

His public school, whose Section 16 land was federally gifted to Colorado Springs thanks to the Land Ordinance of 1785, is physically present for his education. 

Moreover, the millions of United States private structures and businesses are not just available for his use, view or future purchase because of the aforesaid public infrastructure and the U.S. Free Enterprise system. Many of these private structures were constructed with state and government backed loans, tax incentives and outright grants. 

Capitalism has brought with it progress and knowledge, but the U.S. Free Enterprise system would come crashing down without its amalgamation of social policies in its economic mix, which began with the United Colonies of North America Continental Congress establishing the U.S. postal system, with businessman Benjamin Franklin as its first postmaster general, on July 26, 1775. 

Yes, the Presidential debate covered the like of wind mills, solar farms and fracking but what it failed to address, among many other infrastructure issues, was the need to construct a 21st Century electric grid system to supply the power to a nation populated with electric cars. The current grid would collapse if it was required to supply the electricity needed to power a 20% conversion of US cars to electric let alone the 100% conversion proposed by California politicians who are already dealing with rolling blackouts. 

I had high hopes that the last two Congresses would enact such infrastructure bills to improve the national grid, roads and bridges and Chief Executive Trump would use his real estate development experience to bring the projects in on time and under budget. It was not to be, despite all the 2016 Campaign rhetoric promising otherwise on both sides of the aisle.

Last night, based on the last Presidential debate as well as the bulk of the past 2020 Congressional debates, Stanley Louis Klos III is poised to inherit a crumbling public and private infrastructure, which threatens the integrity of both our Nation and Children’s futures. 

September 21, 2020

A Constitutional Crisis 

As we await the announcement of President Trump’s third nominee to the Supreme Court and Presidential Nominee Joe Biden calls any such nomination "a Constitutional Crisis", I find myself reflecting on an Articles of Confederation constitutional crisis that occurred 233 years ago, in September 1787. The constitutional predicament began immediately after the Philadelphia Convention unveiled its “New Plan For The Federal Government” on September 17, 1787 and it continued until September 28, 1787 with the constitution’s transmittal to States by a United States in Congress Assembled (USCA) resolution.

On September 17th  news began to pour into New York that the Philadelphia Convention overstepped their USCA charge, which called for “… a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation …”    Instead, the Philadelphia Convention’s plan proposed to completely discard the Articles of Confederation and replace it with an entirely new constitution.  The plan also called for the new constitution to be ratified by only nine States as opposed to the 13 required under Article XIII in the Articles of Confederation. 

“XIII: Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

In his transmittal letter to USCA President Arthur St Clair, Convention President George Washington acknowledged these challenges writing:

“Sir, We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress Assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most adviseable [sic]. The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident—Hence results the necessity of a different organization.   Washington concluded this letter stating: “That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interests been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish."


Congress quickly realized that if the new constitution was ratified by nine states, that as per the accompanying Philadelphia Convention Resolution, they  would not only be responsible for monitoring ratification but also launching a new system of government comprised of three distinctly different federal branches of governance.  The 1787 Congress was now faced with the prospect of either discarding, revising or sending the new constitution with no changes to the States for ratification.

Since the constitutionality question did not fall under the provisions of Article IX requiring Congress "to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question”, the USCA became the final authority on what to do with this new constitution judicially as well as legislatively. 

Only sketches of the great debate that ensued exist due to the veil of secrecy that surrounded the USCA sessions. We do know from the notes of New York delegate Melancton Smith, which became available to the public in 1959, that most USCA Delegates believed they had the authority to alter the proposed Constitution of 1787 before it was sent on to the States.

Virginia Delegate and former USCA President Richard Henry Lee would lead the “9-13 opposition” that vehemently opposed ratification by nine states insisting that the Articles of Confederation unanimous clause be upheld by Congress.  Melancton Smith notes:

"RH LEE -- The convention had not proceeded as this house were bound; it is to be agreed to by the States & means the 13; but this recommends a new Confederation of nine; the Convention has no more powers than Congress, yet if nine States agree becomes supreme Law. Knows no instance on the Journals as he remembers, opposing the Confederation the impost was to be adopted by 13.  This is to be adopted and no other with alteration Why so? good things in it; but many bad; so much so that he says here as he will say everywhere that if adopted civil Liberty will be in eminent danger."    

Despite such arguments, Rufus King, James Madison, and Nathaniel Gorham – all members of both the Philadelphia Convention and the USCA – maintained that Congress must keep the new constitution intact, sending it on to the States without any changes or amendments despite the unanimous ratification requirement in Article XIII.  Smith records Richard Henry Lee’s reaction to their position:

“RH LEE -- Strangest doctrine he ever heard, that referring a matter of report, that no alterations should be made. The Idea the common sense of Man. The States and Congress he thinks had the Idea that congress was to amend if they thought proper. He wishes to give it a candid enquiry, and proposes such alterations as are necessary; if the General [George Washington]wishes it should go forth with the amendment; let it go with all its imperfections on its head & the amendments by themselves; to insist that it should go as it is without amendments, is like presenting a hungry man 50 dishes and insisting he should eat all or none.”

On September 28th, 1787, the matter was unanimously decided by the USCA, which was summed up by James Madison in his September 30th letter to George Washington:

“ … On the other side the right of Congress [to amend the constitution] was not denied, but the inexpediency of exerting it was urged on the following grounds. 1. That every circumstance indicated that the introduction of Congress as a party to the reform was intended by the States merely as a matter of form and respect 2. that it was evident from the contradictory objections which had been expressed by the different members who had animadverted on the plan, that a discussion of its merits would consume much time, without producing agreement even among its adversaries. 3. that it was clearly the intention of the States that the plan to be proposed should be the act of the Convention with the assent of Congress, which could not be the case, if alterations were made, the Convention being no longer in existence to adopt them. 4. that as the Act of the Convention, when altered would instantly become the mere act of Congress, and must be proposed by them as such, and of course be addressed to the Legislatures, not conventions of the States, and require the ratification of thirteen instead of nine States, and as the unaltered act would go forth to the States directly from the Convention under the auspices of that Body---;Some States might ratify one & some the other of the plans, and confusion & disappointment be the least evils that could ensue.  These difficulties which at one time threatened a serious division in Congress and popular alterations with the yeas & nays on the journals, were at length fortunately terminated by the following Resolution: "Congress having recd. the Report of the Convention lately assembled in Philadelphia, Resolved unanimously that the said Report, with the Resolutions & letter accompanying the same, be transmitted to the several Legislatures, in order to be submitted to a Convention of Delegates chosen in each State by the people thereof, in conformity to the Resolves of the Convention made & provided in that case.”

The USCA adverted Article XIII in the Articles of Confederation by adopting James Madison’s position that the new constitution was a product of a Convention of the States and not Congress.  Therefore, Article XIII’s provision that “ … such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State …” was not applicable.   

Eleven States adopted the new Constitution in 1787 and 1788, elected George Washington President and the USCA resolved on September 13, 1788, a plan that would commence the new government at Federal Hall in New York City on March 4th, 1789. North Carolina and Rhode Island sat out the first year of the new republic as independent nations.  North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified the constitution, respectfully on November 21, 1789 and May 29, 1790.  

Personally, I am thankful that the current U.S. Constitution provides its citizens with a judiciary to interpret the laws rather than the old Congress, which consistently change hats from the legislative to judiciary to the executive when conducting the business of the United States.  

As to the current pending Supreme Court vacancy, there was no more partisan election then when Jefferson and Burr trounced incumbent John Adams in 1800. They even flipped the entire House and Senate from Federalist to Republican. Most people forget, however, that going out the door Adams appointed a Chief Justice on January 20, 1801and the Federalist US Senate confirmed John Marshall on February 4, 1801. Thomas Jefferson took the oath of office on March 4th, 1801.

I for one hope that President Trump appoints and the US Senate confirms a justice who is an “umpire" and not a player in this partisan game we call politics.  

August 27, 2020

The DNC and RNC 2020 Conventions

I watched three of the four nights of the RNC Convention on PBS, just as I did for the DNC Convention. I just finished reading the AP and Wall Street Journal's recap of President's Speech and RNC “night four” speakers as I did the recaps for the former VP's Speech and “night four” of the DNC Convention’s speakers. It was an exhaustive exercise but most enlightening. 

I do believe that journalism is an amalgamation of the three ends of deliberative (expedient or inexpedient), judicial (just or unjust – true or untrue) and epideictic (praise or blame) rhetoric In the past, despite the need for news brevity, journalists seemed to report “news and investigative” stories in a more judicial manner as opposed to epideictic. I was very disappointed in the PBS coverage of both conventions and found their work to be examples of activism journalism. 

Now to the Convention actors themselves. Many of the speakers in both conventions reminded me of a Spring Lake, NJ interview James Cagney did with a local reporter for his 1981 Movie “Ragtime.” The reporter asked (I am paraphrasing) “Mr. Cagney how is it that you are able to play so many gangster characters, even murderers, and your audience ends up liking and even feeling sorry for them by the end of the picture.” Without missing a beat (also paraphrasing) Cagney said: “Bad guys do not believe they are bad and with that fact always in mind, I act out the character.” 

No matter how much the opposition says otherwise, none of the speakers, at either convention, consider themselves “bad.” Falsehoods did abound on both sides of the aisle but what is a lie? How do you define it? Is it a lie if the speaker and the listener know it is a lie or is it merely theater, hyperbole or fiction? When President Trump said in his speech: 

“And I say very modestly that I have done more for the African-American community than any president since Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president.” 

I thought, if Ulysses S Grant was still in that White House, he come out and cane your ass with LBJ next in line. But is what President Trump said a lie or hyperbolic political theater? 

I remember the first time my parents provided me with a “license to lie.” I was quite young, 6 or 7, the oldest of six and on the way up from the basement steps, after a grilling of my mother over Santa Claus, she stopped at the landing on top of the stairs. Here Mom told me the truth about Santa. I do not remember exactly how she put it but I do remember that I was sternly instructed not to tell my younger sisters because it would ruin the “magic” of Christmas. I was devastated over the loss of Santa but quickly rebounded with a new Christmas mission to perpetuate the myth’s magic for my five younger sisters. I honed my storytelling of Santa Claus sightings to the point that on Christmas Eve, to show evidence of deer eating hay, I would take hay from our outdoor manager and then spread it out snow while hiding my footsteps. One year I went further by collecting deer droppings from the woods and added them in the vicinity of the hay dropped by the flying reindeer. 

These signs, along with the proverbial half gone cookies and hot chocolate left out for Santa gave credence to my Christmas stories. Christmas was never the same after the youngest discovered the sad truth about Santa but the magic recycled again with my eight children and now once again with my six grandchildren. Was all this childhood theater a lie? 

Stories in all walks of life, whether they are religious or secular, fiction or non-fiction, entertaining or life-changing are the essence of persuasion. How does one separate the good stories from the bad on so many political fronts? The complexities of our Republic (i.e. casting votes for school board to Presidential candidate or votes on state constitutional amendments to city municipal taxing resolutions) mandate the sorting out of what is true, just and in the best interest of ourselves, family and county. 

Studies indicate that most of us rely on monomorphic and polymorphic opinion leaders in our decision-making processes. The amount of information to consider/understand is herculean so we turn to opinion leaders that we hold in high esteem and they aid us in discernment in our voting duties. 

Well more than good sense is needed with that discernment because it's a lot of work being citizen Klos. 

The world’s religions (Christianity (31.2%), Islam (24.1%), Unaffiliated (16%), Hinduism (15.1%), Buddhism (6.9%), Folk religions (5.7%), Other religions (0.8%) and Judaism (0.2%)) have endless conflicting stories of where we all came from, why we are here and where we are going after death. Yet despite millions, if not billions of adherents maintaining their stories are “theological truths,” rarely do I hear the leaders of the great religions calling each other liars when they espouse theology contradictory to their competing religious contemporaries

Why can’t Trump, Biden, Pelosi and McConnell refrain from the Ad Hominem attacks on each other like the Pope, Mahant Swami Maharaj, Queen Elizabeth, and the Dali Lama. Winston Churchill said, “Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.” Both the RNC and DNC political leaders have mastered this ability, which by its very nature is the essence of successful campaign rhetoric. 

I agree with the definition of a lie being: “The non-conformity of the mind to reality with the intent to deceive.” I ask, if the true intent of the political tale is more noble than the intent to deceive, is the speaker a liar? If the politician truly believes the story being told is true, is that speaker a liar? 

Calling someone a liar no matter how accurate is almost always fruitless. Abraham Lincoln said: "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." If this is true, and you believe Vice President Biden and President Trump liars, as their opposite camps vehemently maintain, then why have they both been so successful in life and politics? 

What both conventions demonstrated is that the Ad Hominem factors used in their speeches were distractions. It was the stories, especially the more entertaining or moving ones (fiction and non-fiction) that ultimately will have an impact on undecided voters and their opinion leaders.

For the remainder of this contest, I intend to focus on the facts found in each of the nominees’ political records. I will also examine which issues they plan to champion once in office. My political opinion leaders, even the conflicting ones like McKinley, Manchin, Christie and Kasich, are most helpful. 

I look forward to the debates, both Presidential and Vice Presidential. I do hope that former VP Joe Biden fails to heed Speaker’s Pelosi’s advice and goes forward on his plans to debate President Trump as they should be humdingers.

For those that maintain the OTHER political party is purporting falsehoods, well apparently your assertions are "mostly true," regardless of party. Here is summary of the top DNC and RNC leaders as well as Rep. David McKinley (an old friend), Joe Manchin (My favorite Democratic Senator), and John Kasich (supported him for President in 2016).

The source is, a product of the left leaning Tampa Bay Times, which is a nonprofit project operated by the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida, with offices there and in Washington, D.C. It began in 2007 as a project of the Tampa Bay Times (then the St. Petersburg Times), with reporters and editors from the newspaper and its affiliated news media partners reporting on the accuracy of statements made by elected officials, candidates, their staffs, lobbyists, interest groups and others involved in U.S. politics. Its journalists evaluate original statements and publish their findings on the website, where each statement receives a "Truth-O-Meter" rating. The ratings range from "True" for completely accurate

July 13, 2020 - 1787
Articles of Confederation Congress establishes a 260,000 square mile federal territory free of slavery and indentured servitude.
Happy 233rd Birthday Northwest Ordinance!
After three years of hotly contested debates centering on state western land claims in the United States in Congress Assembled (USCA), the time was right in 1787 for the approval of an ordinance to govern its federally owned territory located north and west of the Ohio River. The governing constitution in 1787, the Articles of Confederation, provided limited powers over the 13 original States to its central government. This fact had hampered Congress from addressing their lofty self-evident truths listed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, which stated “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
For the first time since the ratification of the Treaty of Paris in 1784, which ended the war with Great Britain, the USCA had complete control of its own federally territory, free from the old colonial land claims of the several States. It would be on this day, 11 years after Independence, that the USCA would end slavery and indentured servitude in US Territory that encompassed the States of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and even parts of Canada with Article Six:

"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid."
True, the Delegates had to compromise on returning escaped slaves and indentured servants but Article Six still remains an epic law in human history. In 1787, slavery had been practiced in civilizations as old as Sumer (4500 BCE), as well as in almost every other ancient civilization, including ancient Egypt, ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Babylonia, ancient Iran, ancient Greece, ancient India, the Roman Empire, the Arab Islamic Caliphate and Sultanate, Nubia and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas. The enactment of the Northwest Ordinance, after 6,000 years of slavery and indentured servitude, is proof that the USCA Congress had mustered the courage and wisdom to begin the process of ending enslavement in the United States of America.
Moreover, the ordinance did not stop with slavery on the Declaration’s promise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Article One provided for religious freedom: “No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.”
Article Two provided for citizen legal benefits: “The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law.”
Article Three openly expressed theism, education and Native American rights: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.”
Articles Four and Five established the principles that enabled the creation of new States like Ohio in 1803. It also guaranteed that inhabitants of the Territory would have the same rights and privileges that citizens of the original 13 States enjoyed.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, was unanimously re-enacted in its entirety in 1789 under the current United States Constitution after the dissolution of the Articles of Confederation Republic by its eleven states. The First Federal Bicameral Congress after readopting the ordinance would go onto utilize its wording and ideals in drafting the Bill of Rights. Later Abraham Lincoln and his Congress would use the Northwest Ordinance’s Article Three in drafting the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment.

Know that I deliberately delayed this this post until the end of the news cycle in the hopes of giving a shout out to any media outlet(s) that mentioned the ordinance on its 233rd Birthday. I saw nothing, did you?

June 27th, 2020
On House of Representatives DC Statehood June 26, 2020 Vote:

On June 26, 2020 the House of Representatives voted 232-180 to grant DC Statehood despite the fact that on that same date in 1783, Articles of Confederation USCA President Elias Boudinot issued a Proclamation moving the United States Seat of Government from Philadelphia to Princeton, New Jersey BECAUSE "a body of armed soldiers in the service of the United States, and quartered in the barracks of this city, having mutinously renounced their obedience to their officers, did, on Saturday this instant, proceed under the direction of their sergeants, in a hostile and threatening manner to the place in which Congress were assembled, and did surround the same with guards."

Early, when the mutiny broke out President Boudinot wrote his brother in New Jersey requesting his aid to protect Congress in Princeton, which might become the new Capitol of the United States if Pennsylvania, who had authority over the Independence Hall and other federal government buildings, did NOT come to aid of the United States in Congress Assembled (USCA):

“My dear Brother, I have only a moment to inform you, that there has been a most dangerous insurrection and mutiny among a few Soldiers in the Barracks here. About 3 or 400 surrounded Congress and the Supreme Executive Council, and kept us Prisoners in a manner near three hours, tho' they offered no insult personally. To my great mortification, not a Citizen came to our assistance. The President and Council have not firmness enough to call out the Militia, and allege as the reason that they would not obey them. In short the political Maneuvers here, previous to that important election of next October, entirely unhinges Government. This handful of Mutineers continue still with Arms in their hands and are privately supported, and it is well if we are not all Prisoners in a short time. Congress will not meet here, but has authorized me to change their place of residence. I mean to adjourn to Princeton if the Inhabitants of Jersey will protect us. I have wrote to the Governor particularly. I wish you could get your Troop of Horse to offer them aid and be ready, if necessary, to meet us at Princeton on Saturday or Sunday next, if required.”

The Journals of the United States in Congress Assembled for Saturday, June 21, 1783 report of the same incident:

“The mutinous soldiers presented themselves, drawn up in the street before the State House, where Congress had assembled. The executive Council of the State sitting under the same roof, was called on for the proper interposition. President Dickinson came in, and explained the difficulty under actual circumstances, of bringing out the militia of the place for the suppression of the mutiny. He thought that without some outrages on persons or property, the temper of the militia could not be relied on. Genl St. Clair then in Philadelphia was sent for, and desired to use his interposition, in order to prevail on the troops to return to the Barracks. His report gave no encouragement.”

A committee, with Delegate Alexander Hamilton as chairman, waited on the State Executive Council to ensure the Government of the United States protection in Philadelphia so Congress could convene the following day. President Elias Boudinot, however, received no pledge of protection by Pennsylvania and ordered an adjournment of the USCA to Princeton, New Jersey. This was the last time the Articles of Confederation Congress would convene in Pennsylvania. From Princeton Congress moved the seat of government to Annapolis, then to Trenton and finally to New York City, which became the first Capitol of the United States in 1789 under the current Constitution.

The Framers specifically placed an Article and section in the new Constitution of 1787 to ensure that what happened in Philadelphia in 1783, would never happen again. The exact language in the current US Constitution on creating such a capital district reads: “The Congress shall have Power... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

The First Bicameral Congress designated the Permanent Seat of the Government of the United States (Washington DC) in the Act that first relocated the Capitol to Philadelphia from New York for ten years. In 1790, former President Boudinot was then a member of Congress being elected to the first, second, and third House of Representatives, serving from March 3, 1789, until March 3, 1795. Representative Boudinot, neither a Democrat or Republican, worked on the "Act for Establishing the Temporary and Permanent Seat of the Government of the United States," which was passed by Congress on July 16, 1790.

The Supreme Court already has ruled that Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the sole permanent and plenary power over the Federal District of Columbia. Congress can delegate various powers of home rule, as it has done in the past, but it always remains constitutionally free to resume full control of the District at any time.

The House members who voted for the June 26th bill know that should district becomes a state, statehood is permanent. It can never be revoked, as the Supreme Court recognized after the Civil War in Texas v. White. In other words, making the District a full state would be a termination of power that the Constitution in Article I, Section 8 explicitly assigns to Congress alone. This is unconstitutional.

Moreover, the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution recognizes the existing district of government referring to the Washington DC as a permanent constitutional entity. This 23rd Amendment fact cannot be simply revoked by Congressional legislation. In addition, all states are entitled under Article II, Section I of the Constitution to electors in proportion to its congressional representation. Yet the terms of the 23rd Amendment clearly provide that D.C.'s electoral votes would be capped at the number granted to the state with the lowest population (currently three), regardless of D.C.'s own future population, which is yet another conflict with Congressional legislative statehood.

In short, the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8 and again in its 23rd Amendment requires that D.C. Statehood can only be achieved through a Constitution Amendment.

It does NOT sadden me that HR DNC Members voted for DC Statehood knowing full well it is unconstitutional. On the contrary, it was a smart move politically because this sort of legislation, even though specious, helps to energize their base to vote Democratic in the upcoming November election.

However, what I do find quite disappointing is that not one HR Member or major news outlet picked up on the fact that the House vote occurred on the same day that USCA President Elias Boudinot was forced to issue his June 26th Proclamation to move the US Seat of Government to Princeton because the federal seat of government was controlled by Pennsylvania and not by Congress.

June 19th, 2020

Juneteenth General Order No.3
As order by General Philip Sheridan, Major General Gordon Granger upon his arrival with 2,000 Union troops in Galveston, Texas  issued General Order No. 3 on June 19, 1865, that states:
“The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.”

The Generals were acting under the authority of President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves in the Rebellious States, including Texas, on January 1, 1863.
It is extremely important date to celebrate but on June 19, 1865 the slaves in the Union States of Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky were still enslaved.
On December 6, 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment met the required number of States ratification to became part of the Constitution:
Illinois — February 1, 1865
Rhode Island — February 2, 1865
Michigan — February 3, 1865
Maryland — February 3, 1865
New York — February 3, 1865
Pennsylvania — February 3, 1865
West Virginia — February 3, 1865
Missouri — February 6, 1865
Maine — February 7, 1865
Kansas — February 7, 1865
Massachusetts — February 7, 1865
Virginia — February 9, 1865
Ohio — February 10, 1865
Indiana — February 13, 1865
Nevada — February 16, 1865
Louisiana — February 17, 1865
Minnesota — February 23, 1865
Wisconsin — February 24, 1865
Vermont — March 9, 1865
Tennessee — April 7, 1865
Arkansas — April 14, 1865
Connecticut — May 4, 1865
New Hampshire — July 1, 1865
South Carolina — November 13, 1865
Alabama — December 2, 1865
North Carolina — December 4, 1865
Georgia — December 6, 1865
Having been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states (27 of the 36 states, including those that had been in rebellion), Secretary of State Seward, on December 18, 1865, certified that the Thirteenth Amendment had become valid.
It was on that date, December 18, 1865 that slavery ended in the remaining slave states of Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky ending slavery in the United States of America.
The Thirteenth Amendment was subsequently ratified by: Oregon — December 8, 1865; California — December 19, 1865; Florida — December 28, 1865 (reaffirmed – June 9, 1868); Iowa — January 15, 1866; New Jersey — January 23, 1866 (after rejection – March 16, 1865); Texas — February 18, 1870; Delaware — February 12, 1901 (after rejection – February 8, 1865); Kentucky — March 18, 1976 (after rejection – February 24, 1865); Mississippi — March 16, 1995 (after rejection – December 5, 1865).

As for Texas, nine days after Juneteenth, General Granger issue another order stating:

Office of the Provost Marshall General
District of Texas, Galveston, June 28, 1865
“All persons formerly slaves are earnestly enjoined to remain with their former masters, under such contracts as may be made for the present time. Their own interest as well as that of their former masters, or other parties requiring their services, renders such a course necessary and of vital importance, until permanent arrangements are made under the auspices of the Freedman’s Bureau. It must be borne in mind, in this connection, that cruel treatment or improper use of the authority given to employers will not be permitted, whilst both parties to the contract are made, will be equally bound to its fulfillment on their part.
No persons formerly slaves will be permitted to travel on the public thoroughfares without passes or permits from their employers, or to congregate in buildings or camps at or adjacent to any military post or town. They will not be subsisted in idleness, or in any way except as employees of the Government, on in cases of extreme destitution or sickness, and in such cases the officers authorized to order the issues, shall be the judge as to the justice of the claim for such subsistence. Idleness is sure to be productive of vice, and humanity dictates that employment be furnished these people, while the interest of the commonwealth imperatively demands it, in order that the present crop may be secured. No person, white or black, and who are able to labor, will be subsisted by the Government in idleness, and this hand as a dead weight upon those who are disposed to bear their full share of the public burdens. Provost Marshals and their assistants throughout the District are charged with using every means in their power to carry out the instructions in letter and spirit.
By order of Major-General Granger; (Signed) R. G. Laughlin,  Lt. Col. and Provost Marshal, Dist. of Texas.
All Texas papers will copy the above circular one month and send bills to the office of the Provost Marshal General, Galveston.” – The Galveston Daily News, July 7, 1865.

Such an law ordering the new freeman “to remain with their former masters” was still legal under President Lincoln’s Emancipation but would also be outlawed forever with the ratification of the 13th Amendment five months later.  

July 4, 2016

The Time has come to unchain Real Estate Investment to compete with Wall Street Equities.  

It is a fact that since the earliest days of our republics, real estate investment has led the way in the expansion of citizen and national wealth. The 1787 Northwest Ordinance's Ohio land sales funded the last vestige of the Articles of Confederation government enabling it to launch a new federal republic after the March 4th, 1789, enactment of the current U.S. Constitution. Since then, real estate investing has provided the average person with the most realistic opportunity of building wealth, catalyzing individual entrepreneurship and realizing economic independence.

In 1987, however, this all changed with the enactment of the 1986 Tax Act. In short, this tax act has encouraged millions of US citizens to mortgagee their homes at maximum levels to take advantage of the "Earned Income" mortgage interest tax deduction. Moreover, the 1986 Tax Act has stimulates average citizens to invest in Wall Street Equities, rather than local real estate because real estate is relegated to a "Passive Income" tax code category while the potpourri of commodity, bond and stock equities are placed in the Wall Street friendly "Portfolio Income" tax category.
Since 1987, millions of working class citizens like plumbers, teachers and police officers chose not to diversify their investments into local real estate markets because these "Passive Income" losses/gains cannot be offset by the myriad of "Portfolio Income" equities losses/gains. Since then, middle class investment money has flowed out of "Main Street" real estate investments, controlled by citizens locally, into stocks, bonds and commodities that are controlled by the large international financial corporations yielding unprecedented company profits. The result has been a windfall for billionaire equity company executives and shareholders at the expense ordinary citizens who up until 1986 primarily built wealth and financial independence in their hometown real estate markets.

Additionally, the "Earned Income" mortgage interest tax deduction has fostered a citizen investment strategy of mortgaging homes to maximum levels funding everything from cars to student loans. Why? Mortgage interest is tax deductible and this coupled with low 30-year and/or “interest only” home equity loans payments are more preferable than non-tax deductible high monthly payment consumer and credit card loans. Now, 30 years later, the 200-year-old U.S. tradition of paying off your mortgage is dead while corporate equity and mortgage loan firms flourish thanks to the 1986 Tax Act.

In short, a major reason for the dramatic increase in United States income inequality is primarily due to these two aberrations in the 1986 Tax Act Code.

It is my position that a sound tax policy moving real estate investment into to the "Portfolio Income" tax category while limiting home mortgage interest tax deductions to loans no larger than 50% of the home’s original purchase price will build widespread citizen wealth and spur on economic development.

Simply put, these tax code changes will ignite "Portfolio Income" diversification into local real estate investment and development. It will also hold the line on citizens mortgaging their homes to 50% of their original value. This real estate tax code change of the 1986 Tax Act, will promote thrift and reverse the ever widening income gap between the wealthy and the working class.

As you can see by the attached Article, I warned the George H.W. Bush administration of this economic cancer back in1992, predicting the real estate mortgage crash by 2006, which finally came to pass in 2008. Despite RE/MAX and other real estate credentials this proposal has been dismissed by Congress, which is the only entity along with the President that is empowered to effect change on the U.S. federal tax code.

To date, none of the Presidential candidates see this real estate forest for the equities tree. Sadly, the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen as Presidential candidates on one side offer more failed socialist programs while candidates on the other side offer ideas of isolationism. 


  1. I would very much like to quote the source on, George A. Custer: 1839-1876, for a paper I'm writing. Could you please provide me with the author's name and date this was published?

    Thank You,


    1. Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, edited by James Grant Wilson, John Fiske and Stanley Klos. Six volumes, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887-1889 and 1999.

  2. Hi i was taking information from the Samuel de Champlain page, and i was wondering how i would cite it as a website? With the publisher, publishing date, author, company? Thanks

  3. Not to offend but Ned Boone was killed by the Indians not Squire Boone who lived to an old age and died in Southern Indiana.

  4. "The fearless action of Captain Fechet and his command entitles them to great credit and the celerity of his movements showed the true soldierly spirit."
    --Major General Nelson A. Miles

    125 years ago today Captain Edmond Gustave Fechét rode to the sounds of the guns in support of the Indian police at the Standing Rock Agency who where attempting to arrest Sitting Bull. [ 4831 more words. ]


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.