Tag Archive for: property

You Will Own Nothing and Have Joy!

“A republic, if you can keep it.” — Benjamin Franklin’s response to Elizabeth Willing Powel’s question: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”


The World Economic Forum (WEF) predicted that, by 2030, individuals would own nothing and be happy and joyful.

Here are 8 predictions made by the WEF:

Does this sound familiar? It should because it mirrors the Kamala’s platform for 2024.

Comparing the WEF’s 8 Predictions for the World in 2030 and Kamala’s 2024 Platform

WEF: You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.

WATCH: Kamala Harris wants YOU to Own Nothing and Be Happy

WATCH: Tim Walz makes the case to elect Trump because, “we can’t afford 4 more years of this!”

WEF: Whatever you want you’ll rent. And it will be delivered by drone.

Remarks by Vice President Harris at a Campaign Event in Raleigh, NC — Homeownership and what that means — it’s a symbol of the pride that comes with hard work.  It’s financial security.  It represents what you will be able to do for your children.  And sadly, right now, it is out of reach for far too many American families.  There’s a serious housing shortage in many places.  It’s too difficult to build, and it’s driving prices up.

WEF: The U.S. won’t be the world’s leading superpower. A handful of countries will dominate.

WATCH: ‘Superpower’ USA Struggling To Keep Election Safe? After Trump Claims Iran Hack Attack, Kamala Says…

WEF: You won’t die waiting for an organ donor. We won’t transplant organs we’ll print new ones instead.

The National Library of Medicine published on May 19, 2022 3D Bioprinting of Human Hollow Organs stating, “3D bioprinting is a rapidly evolving technique that has been found to have extensive applications in disease research, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine. 3D bioprinting might be a solution to global organ shortages and the growing aversion to testing cell patterning for novel tissue fabrication and building superior disease models. It has the unrivaled capability of layer-by-layer deposition using different types of biomaterials, stem cells, and biomolecules with a perfectly regulated spatial distribution. The tissue regeneration of hollow organs has always been a challenge for medical science because of the complexities of their cell structures. In this mini review, we will address the status of the science behind tissue engineering and 3D bioprinting of epithelialized tubular hollow organs. This review will also cover the current challenges and prospects, as well as the application of these complicated 3D-printed organs.”

WEF: You’ll eat much less meat. An occasional treat, not a staple for the good of the environment and our health. A billion people will be displaced by climate change. We’ll have to do a better job of welcoming and integrating refugees.

WATCH:

Kamala Harris Caught Chanting ‘Down With Deportation’ In Unearthed Video

Invasion of the U.S.A. by Criminal Illegal Aliens

Border Czar Kamala Harris has lost over 325,000 migrant children to human traffickers

WEF: Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide. There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels history.

In a September 10, 2024 The Washington Post published a column titled Kamala Harris’s climate policies, explained by , and  who wrote:

As vice president, Kamala Harris helped pass the largest government investment into climate and clean energy initiatives, and grants to states to help recover from extreme weather events.

Causes of climate change

Q: Do you believe that climate change is largely driven by human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels? If not, is there a different cause you would cite?

A: Harris calls climate change an existential threat and says the United States needs to act urgently to address it. As a presidential candidate in 2019, she released a $10 trillion climate plan that calls for investing in renewable energy, holding polluters accountable, helping communities affected by climate change and protecting natural resources. As California attorney general, she prosecuted oil companies for environmental violations. As vice president, she was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate for the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided about $370 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below their 2005 levels by the end of this decade.

Climate change and extreme weather

Q: Do you believe climate change is making disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires and heat waves more intense?

A: Harris has said the United States must take action to fight climate change in the face of increasing drought, floods, hurricanes, wildfires and sea level rise. As vice president, Harris announced more than $1 billion in grants in 2022 for states to address flooding and extreme heat exacerbated by climate change. “The frequency has accelerated in a relatively short period of time,” she said. “The science is clear. Extreme weather will only get worse, and the climate crisis will only accelerate.’’

How to address climate change

Q: Should climate change be addressed through government action or market forces?

A: The Biden-Harris administration’s signature Inflation Reduction Act represents the largest infusion of government cash into climate and clean-energy initiatives. Harris and Biden sought to put the U.S. on a path to cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. Under Harris’s climate plan as a 2019 presidential candidate, she advocated for a blend of government action and market forces to combat global warming. “A climate pollution fee can play an important role as one of several interrelated policies to reduce emissions and hold polluters accountable…” she said. “However, history shows us that reliance on market mechanisms alone can often leave communities behind.”

Clean energy tax credits

Q: Do you support clean-energy tax credits such as those for electric vehicles?

A: In 2022, Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies for electric cars and other clean-energy technology, including tax credits for clean-energy and energy-efficiency home projects. She has been a proponent of electric vehicles and as a senator supported a national zero-emissions vehicle standard. In May, she visited Detroit to announce federal grants for smaller companies making electric-vehicle parts.

WATCH: Climate Czar John Kerry: ‘The First Amendment Stands as a Major Roadblock for Us Right Now’

WEF: You could be preparing to go to Mars. Scientists will have worked out how to keep you healthy in space. The start of the journey to find alien life?

NSA.gov states, “Mars remains our horizon goal for human exploration because it is one of the only other places we know where life may have existed in the solar system. What we learn about the Red Planet will tell us more about our Earth’s past and future, and may help answer whether life exists beyond our home planet. Like the Moon, Mars is a rich destination for scientific discovery and a driver of technologies that will enable humans to travel and explore far from Earth.”

WATCH: 6 NASA Technologies to Get Humans to Mars

WEF: Western values will have been tested to the breaking point. Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten.

WATCH: Kamala Harris speaks with Oprah Winfrey about our power in a democracy | Harris-Walz 2024

On September 24, 2024 The Hill published an article titled Harris’s agenda mirrors the Democratic Socialists of America by public policy and political analyst Merrill Matthews who wrote,

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump says Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, is a communist and Marxist and refers to her as “Comrade Kamala.” While it’s doubtful that Trump’s name calling helps him win over voters, if he has to call her something, he should have tagged her as a socialist. That’s because Harris’s major policy proposals are almost identical to those promoted by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

The DSA lists 10 policy positions under the heading “Our Platform.”

First up is “Deepening and Strengthening Democracy.” Of course, President Biden, Harris and nearly all Democrats repeatedly claim “democracy is under attack” and that Trump is a “threat to democracy.”

The DSA says it wants to “end minority rule” by getting rid of the Senate and the Electoral College. Harris would likely settle for ending the Senate’s filibuster so bills and all presidential appointments could be decided by a majority vote.

In addition, the socialists want to add seats to the U.S. Supreme Court (court packing) and impose term limits on the justices. Harris and most Democrats are pushing both SCOTUS reforms.

The DSA’s second item is “Abolition of the Carceral State” (“carceral” refers to prison and jail time). The DSA wants to “defund the police” — where have you heard that before? — and “free all incarcerated people.” Harris supported the “defund” movement and eliminating bail for some crimes until those positions became political liabilities. Now she tries to hide her soft-on-crime policies by stressing her background as a prosecutor.

Under “Abolish White Supremacy,” the DSA wants the government to pay reparations to Black people, “extend and expand sanctuary protections across the U.S.” and “end environmental racism.” Harris is on board with all of those, or at least she used to be.

There is a long DSA list of demands under “A Powerful Labor Movement,” including a right to unionize and an end to “right to work laws.” Isn’t the Biden-Harris administration supposed to be the most pro-union in history?

One of the DSA’s biggies is “Economic Justice,” where we find a whole host of demands, including free public college, canceling all student loan debt and medical debt and massive new regulations. Harris’s “opportunity economy” includes all three.

Of course, you had to assume “Gender and Sexuality Justice” would be on the DSA’s list, which includes “reproductive justice for all” (i.e., abortion) and a “guarantee of queer-friendly and gender-affirming healthcare.” Harris embraces both.

Next is the “Green New Deal,” which isn’t green or new. The GND has always been a social justice program masquerading as environmental policy. Harris was one of the original GND co-sponsors.

Under the topic of “Health Justice” the DSA supports Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) Medicare for All bill — which is a government-run health care system and has no resemblance to Medicare. Harris was a co-sponsor until she decided it would be a political liability.

The ninth DSA item is “Housing for All.” Wait, has Harris been talking about expanding government-built housing and providing a $25,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers? Yes, come to think of it, she has.

The DSA’s last heading proposes “International Solidarity” and “Anti-imperialism.” It’s not clear what Harris’s foreign policy is, but it likely reflects Biden’s appeasement policy with respect to China and Iran.

To be sure, the DSA’s agenda goes into much more depth on each major point than Harris does. But then who doesn’t go into more depth that Kamala Harris? So, while it’s possible that Harris would disagree with some DSA sub-points, it’s undeniable that she agrees, or has agreed, with the socialists on their major themes.

Harris has tried to separate herself from some of her past publicly stated positions — thus hoping to be “unburdened by what has been.” But she hasn’t made a meaningful shift on any issue. She made that clear in her softball interview with CNN’s Dana Bash when she asserted her “values haven’t changed.” That was a wink to anyone who was concerned Harris might have moved toward the center.

Her values — and those of today’s Democratic Party — are essentially identical to those of the Democratic Socialists of America. The only major difference is DSA members aren’t trying to hide their socialist beliefs; Harris is.

The Bottom Line

Mary Rooke in a Daily Caller column titled Walz Solidifies Harris Policy Position That Would Transform Country As We Know It wrote, “The issue is that Democrats like Walz and Vice President Kamala Harris use the expression “fire in a crowded theater” to excuse the suppression of a wide variety of speech protected under the First Amendment. Anything Democrats consider ‘hate speech,’ ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ is grounds for censorship in their view.”

The destruction of the First Amendment will fundamentally transform America into a Marxist dictatorship.

The Harris platform mirrors that of the World Economic Forum.

That is the reality of what is as stake on November 5th, 2024.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness under our Constutional Republic or Democrat Socialismo under Harris/Walz.

©202. Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.) All rights reserved.

What Are Your Odds of Making It to the 1%? by Chelsea German

Your odds of “making it to the top” might be better than you think, although it’s tough to stay on top once you get there.

According to research from Cornell University, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives. Over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners (i.e., people making at minimum $332,000) for at least one year.

How is this possible? Simple: the rate of turnover in these groups is extremely high.

Just how high? Some 94 percent of Americans who reach “top 1 percent” income status will enjoy it for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose their “top 1 percent” status within a decade.

Now consider the top 400 U.S. income-earners — a far more exclusive club than the top 1 percent. Between 1992 and 2013, 72 percent of the top 400 retained that title for no more than a year. Over 97 percent retained it for no more than a decade.

HumanProgress.org advisory board member Mark Perry put it well in his recent blog post on this subject:

Whenever we hear commentary about the top or bottom income quintiles, or the top or bottom X% of Americans by income (or the Top 400 taxpayers), a common assumption is that those are static, closed, private clubs with very little dynamic turnover. …

But economic reality is very different — people move up and down the income quintiles and percentile groups throughout their careers and lives.

What if we look at economic mobility in terms of accumulated wealth, instead of just annual income (as the latter tends to fluctuate more)?

The Forbes 400 lists the wealthiest Americans by total estimated net worth, regardless of their income during any given year. Over 71 percent of Forbes 400 listees — and their heirs — lost their top 400 status between 1982 and 2014.

So, the next time you find yourself discussing the very richest Americans, whether by wealth or income, keep in mind the extraordinarily high rate of turnover among them.

And even if you never become one of the 11.1 percent of Americans who fleetingly find themselves in the “top 1 percent” of US income-earners, you’re still quite possibly part of the global top 1 percent.

Cross-posted from HumanProgress.org.

Chelsea German

Chelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

Don’t Agree with the Mayor’s Politics? No Permits for You! by Walter Olson

Boston mayor Martin Walsh gives Donald Trump the Chick-Fil-A rush* over his immigration opinions. Via the Boston Herald:

If Donald Trump ever wants to build a hotel in Boston, he’ll need to apologize for his comments about Mexican immigrants first, the Hub’s mayor said.

“I just don’t agree with him at all,” Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh told the Herald yesterday. “I think his comments are inappropriate. And if he wanted to build a hotel here, he’d have to make some apologies to people in this country.”

More on the use of permitting, licensing, and other levers of power to punish speech and the exercise of other legal rights at Overlawyered’s all-new regulatory retaliation tag. (And no, I’m not exactly thrilled with Mayor Walsh for making me take Trump’s side in an argument.)

* In case you’d forgotten the infamous Chick-Fila-A brouhaha, here’s Overlawyered’s coverage:

The uproar continues, and quite properly so (earlier here and here), over the threats of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago alderman Proco (“Joe”) Moreno to exclude the Chick-Fil-A fast-food chain because they disagree (as do I) with some of the views of its owner.

Among the latest commentary, the impeccably liberal Boston Globe has sided with the company in an editorial (“which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand?…A city in which business owners must pass a political litmus test is the antithesis of what the Freedom Trail represents”), as has my libertarian colleague Tom Palmer at Cato (“Mayor Menino is no friend of human rights.”)

The spectacle of a national business being threatened with denial of local licenses because of its views on a national controversy is bad enough. But “don’t offend well-organized groups” is only Rule #2 for a business that regularly needs licenses, approvals and permissions. Rule #1 is “don’t criticize the officials in charge of granting the permissions.”

Can you imagine if Mr. Dan Cathy had been quoted in an interview as saying “Boston has a mediocre if not incompetent Mayor, and the Chicago Board of Aldermen is an ethics scandal in continuous session.” How long do you think it would take for his construction permits to get approved then?

Thus it is that relatively few businesses are willing to criticize the agencies that regulate them in any outspoken way (see, e.g.: FDA and pharmaceutical industry, the), or to side with pro-business groups that seriously antagonize many wielders of political power (see, e.g., the recent exodus of corporate members from the American Legislative Exchange Council).

A few weeks ago I noted the case of Maryland’s South Mountain Creamery, which contends through an attorney (though the U.S. Attorney for Maryland denies it) that it was offered less favorable terms in a plea deal because it had talked to the press in statements that wound up garnering bad publicity for the prosecutors. After that item, reader Robert V. wrote in as follows:

Your recent article about the [U.S. Attorney for Maryland] going after the dairy farmers reminded me a case in New York state where the Health Department closed down a nursing home in Rochester. They claim is was because of poor care, the owner claims it was because he spoke out against the DOH.

The state just lost a lawsuit where the jury found the DOH targeted the nursing home operator because he spoke out against them.

According to Democrat and Chronicle reporters Gary Craig and Steve Orr, the jury found state health officials had engaged in a “vendetta” against the nursing home owner:

Beechwood attorneys maintained that an email and document trail showed that Department of Health officials singled out Chambery for retribution because he had sparred with them in the past over regulatory issues. The lawsuit hinged on a Constitutional argument — namely that the state violated Chambery’s First Amendment rights by targeting him for his challenges to their operation.

The Second Circuit panel opinion in 2006 permitting Chambery/ Beechwood’s retaliation claim to go forward is here. It took an extremely long time for the nursing home operators to get their case to a jury; the state closed them down in 1999 and the facility was sold at public auction in 2002.

Versions of these posts first appeared at Overlawyered.com, Walter Olson’s indispensable law blog, published by the Cato Institute. 


Walter Olson

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

Michael Moore and the 2nd Amendment by B.K. MARCUS

Would the left support gun rights over police monopolies? 

In the wake of the Baltimore riots and the latest charges of police violence against unarmed suspects, Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore has called for disarming American cops, saying in his Twitter feed, “We have a 1/4 billion 2nd amendment guns in our homes 4 protection. We’ll survive til the right cops r hired.”

Is that an implicit endorsement of private individuals’ right to armed self-defense?

Probably not.

Moore, who became the darling of the gun-control movement in 2002 for the movie Bowling for Columbine, is an outspoken critic of the 2nd Amendment, saying that the Founders themselves would have excluded gun rights from the Constitution if they had known what firearms would become over the next two centuries:

If the Founding Fathers could have looked into a crystal ball and seen AK-47s and Glock semiautomatic pistols … I think they’d want to leave a little note behind and probably tell us, you know, that’s not really what we mean when we say “bear arms.”

It’s tempting, therefore, to dismiss Moore’s April 30th tweets as conscious hyperbole — perhaps confronting law-and-order types with the logic of their own support for gun ownership.

But if you look at the full set of Moore’s tweets on the subject, a consistent libertarian logic is evident:

  1. Government agents currently do more to endanger private citizens than they do to protect us.

  2. That oppression can only continue while the government holds a monopoly on armed violence.

  3. We need to shift the balance of power away from the state and back to the people.

Is that too much to read into one angry Twitter rant?

If Moore’s goal was to outrage the American public, he has certainly succeeded. Pro-police conservatives are jerking their knees at the far-left filmmaker’s provocations. But advocates of liberty can find at least a sliver of common cause with those who see the visible fist of government power in Baltimore and too many other American cities in recent months.

Many libertarians consider the police to be among the few legitimate roles for a night-watchman government; defense and security are necessary to protect the rights of individuals. But there is no question that the government’s most heavily armed agencies have grown well beyond the role of night watchmen, if that was ever really their function. And then there is the proliferation of armed agents to organizations like the Fisheries Office, NASA, the EPA, and the Department of Education.

As the sharing economy chips away at other cartels in our over-regulated economy, we need to accept that the police, too, need competition — and we have the opportunity right now to ally with many on the American left who are beginning to suspect the same thing.

When government agents hold a monopoly on the tools of violence, is it any wonder when they behave like a cartel? Privately owned firearms are part of the decentralized solution to both looting and the police violence that triggers the protests.

By allowing individuals to defend themselves, their homes, their businesses, and their communities from crime and rioting, they need not rely exclusively on police forces that may be ineffective or corrupt. (The famous defense of Koreatown by armed shop owners during the LA riots shows this principle at work.)

If you don’t recognize the right to armed self-defense in principle, you are either dogmatically opposed to private guns, or you think the question is pragmatic and that there is a calculus of trade-offs: which is more dangerous at the moment, armed citizens or a police monopoly?

There isn’t much say to dogmatists on the matter. But the question of practical trade-offs may resonate with those on the left who currently see the police less as protectors and more as a danger.

Would such an alliance evaporate as soon as our allies perceive themselves to be in power again? Probably. Moore doesn’t see the problem as permanent: “We’ll survive til the right cops r hired.”

But we have the opportunity right now to drive home the point that the government needs more than checks and balances within itself. The people must have the ability to defend themselves independently of the state, and that’s harder to do when the government has all the guns.

B.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is managing editor of the Freeman.