This is a long article. Over 9,000 words. It rambles in places. I chase down rabbit trails to the right and to the left. It includes some solid information and also some humorous anecdotes. It’s undisciplined and in need of at least two more proof-readings.
Nevertheless, I’ve been fooling around with this article for about two weeks, and I have to draw the line somewhere. I have other fish to fry. More, I believe the ideas expressed in this article may be so fundamental and so potentially powerful, that I’ve got to publish now—even if the text is not as clear as I might otherwise hope.
I think the implications of “Reading is Guessing” are important. This may be one of the most important concepts I’ve ever presented. I hope you’ll take time to read and consider this article.
In the past five years, I’ve posted 23 articles that deal with “definitions” on this blog. You can find a list of those articles here: http://adask.wordpress.com/category/definitions/. Definitions aren’t simply useful or even important to the law, they are the essence of the law.
You can’t have law without words. You can’t have words without definitions. Definitions are the “sub-atomic particles” of meaning that turn a mere sound or collection of letters into a “word”. If you want to detonate the legal equivalent of an “atomic bomb” in the courts, start tinkering with definitions.
As I pointed out in A.D. 2011, “Definitions are the Law of the Law”.
As former President Bill Clinton once observed concerning the meaning of a particular law, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” In other words, if you want to know what a law says . . . if you want to know what a law is . . . you must first grasp the definitions of each of even the most trivial and innocuous words used to express that law.
The Associated Press recently wrote in “Stocks swoon, extending losses; Bond prices soar” that,
“U.S. stocks tumbled in midday trading Wednesday as investor fears of a global economic slowdown intensified, setting the Dow Jones industrial average on course for its fourth consecutive loss. The Dow plunged as much as 369 points in the first 10 minutes of trading, following steep declines in Europe . . . .”
Insofar as EU stock markets are also declining, the US markets may be less likely to recover on their own. So long as declines are seen in both US and EU markets, those declines may be viewed as systemic and based more on fundamentals than some recent news report about Ebola or a mathematical glitch in the stock indices.
“Traders dumped risky assets [stocks] and parked their money in investments seen as relatively safe, such as U.S. government bonds.”
If the “bow” (stocks) of the economic “ship” is sinking, short-sighted people may rush to the “relative safety” of the stern (government bonds).
However, if the bow (stocks) sinks, the stern (bonds) will follow.
Likewise, if the markets continue to decline, the public may increasingly understand that the “bow” (stocks) is composed of fiat dollars and the “stem” (bonds) is also composed of fiat dollars. If so, the public may increasingly understand that the fundamental problem is not with stocks or bonds, per se, but with our fiat currency. If that understanding begins to penetrate the national psyche, there’ll be a rush to avoid paper debt-instruments (like stocks and bonds) denominated in fiat dollars, and store people’s wealth in a tangible medium like gold or silver.
The video at the end of this article presents a Muslim perspective on what the US government calls the “War On Terror” but Muslims see as a “war on Islam”. The video focuses on a Muslim in England who hacked a British soldier to death on the streets of London, simply because the soldier had presumably fought against Muslims in the Middle East. The Muslim who killed the English soldier didn’t try to escape. Instead, he justified his act as that of a Muslim soldier fighting in a war without borders whose battlefield not only included the Middle East, but also England.
The video provides an important insight: The US “War on Terror,” the Muslim faith’s impulse to convert the world to Islam, and the Muslim’s claim of “war on Islam” are all global in nature. As a result, none of these “forces” recognize national borders, national armies, national institutions or national laws. Both those who are terrorists and those who fight terrorists are “globalists” without respect for national laws.
The conflicts between the US and “terrorists” are borderless–in part because the “terrorists” are not openly affiliated with any established government. Generally speaking (the US is a huge exception) national armies are primarily intended to protect (or even expand) their nation’s borders. National armies tend to recognize national borders. “Terrorists” (and the US military) do not recognize borders. Insofar as borders are established and recognized by international law, those individuals and entities that do not recognize borders tend to be lawless. That principle is easily seen in relation to “terrorists”–but would also seem to apply to the US military.
The US no longer recognizes, or has, “national borders”. Our government’s increasingly borderless nature can be seen not only in our propensity to invade foreign countries or regions without obvious cause, but also in our government’s refusal to protect our own borders from invasion by illegal aliens, and even by the federal governments apparent scheme to turn States of the Union into a single, national territory. I.e., our government increasingly refuses to recognize the borders (or territory and jurisdiction) of each of the States of the Union.
Instead of national borders, our government claims to have “national interests“. Rather than defend our borders, we defend our “interests“, Rather than defend our nation or or rights, we defend our “interests”
A reader writes:
“In another two years, will gold and silver values return to 2012 values or $700 for gold like Harry Dent predicts? Appears bleak. What is your counter to that?
Here’s my “counter”.
First, consider the following chart of gold prices from A.D. 2000 to today in A.D. 2014:
The red line charts the actual price changes for gold.
The yellow trend line “A” approximates the rising price of gold from A.D. 2001 (when the price was $280) though the peak price ($1900) in October, A.D. 2011. During this spectacular bull market, the price of gold rose 600% in ten years. If you owned gold, you were a very happy and excited camper.
According to The New York Times article “In Ruling on California Town’s Bankruptcy, Judge Challenges Security of Pensions”:
“A federal bankruptcy judge on Wednesday upended the widely held belief that public workers’ pensions have a special status in California that makes them impossible to cut, further chipping away at the idea that pensions are sacrosanct in a municipal bankruptcy.”
The judge ruled against the sanctity of CalPERS pensions and declared the CalPERS liens on the city of Stockton, California to be null and void.
What’s that mean?