Open Committee Toward Solutions On the Homeless Crisis

[Mayacaman]

Here is a Thread where concerned Citizens may air their suggestions for Solutions to the ongoing Crisis of Homelessness in the United States of America. This Crisis is not - as President Trump has suggested - a situation that is peculiar to "sanctuary cities" that are run by "liberals" - Nor is it a crisis that began just a couple of years ago, as Donald Trump also has indicated.

Indeed, it is a Crisis that has been building for decades, now. The roots of it may be found in actions that Ronald Reagan undertook as soon as he became governor of California in 1966, and de-funded the Halfway Houses. The roots of the crisis lie in the philosophy of "benign neglect" that the right-wing Democrat, Daniel Moynihan, articulated when he began to work for Nixon in 1969.

I encourage Everyone who is concerned about Solutions, to enter into this Discussion. We may also request that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Doctor Ben Carson enter into the discussion - or at least listen in - and let us know what the current Administration has to offer in the way of long-term Solutions. -For we are concerned that the "clean places" where the Homeless are to be put not be "clean" FEMA Camps.

The fact that there already are "Camps" for the Stateless Refugees from Mexico and Central America along the Southern Border, gives us cause for concern on this score. Can I hear an Amen?

[Mayacaman]

Here follows the Homestead Act of 1862. Ronald Reagan, upon coming into the Oval Office in 1981, abrogated it.

It needs to be re-instituted and amended, because there is a crying need for Land Reform in America. Furthermore, it needs to be adjusted with regard to the number of acres to be made available to applicants.

It would seem that one quarter acre - with a two-story 9' by 12' 'tiny house' in an intentional community for the Homeless - would be sufficient space for every homeless person.

Families ought to be able to obtain four acre parcels, in "intentional communities for families" in the near wilderness of former timber lands; Lands that were obtained by Fraud in violation of the terms of this Act:

Transcript of Homestead Act (1862)

CHAP. LXXV. —An Act to secure Homesteads to actual Settlers on the Public Domain.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen of the United States, or who shall have filed his declaration of intention to become such, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, and who has never borne arms against the United States Government or given aid and comfort to its enemies, shall, from and after the first January, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, be entitled to enter one quarter section or a less quantity of unappropriated public lands, upon which said person may have filed a preemption claim, or which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to preemption at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or less, per acre; or eighty acres or less of such unappropriated lands, at two dollars and fifty cents per acre, to be located in a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the person applying for the benefit of this act shall, upon application to the register of the land office in which he or she is about to make such entry, make affidavit before the said register or receiver that he or she is the head of a family, or is twenty-one years or more of age, or shall have performed service in the army or navy of the United States, and that he has never borne arms against the Government of the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies, and that such application is made for his or her exclusive use and benefit, and that said entry is made for the purpose of actual settlement and cultivation, and not either directly or indirectly for the use or benefit of any other person or persons whomsoever; and upon filing the said affidavit with the register or receiver, and on payment of ten dollars, he or she shall thereupon be permitted to enter the quantity of land specified: Provided, however, That no certificate shall be given or patent issued therefor until the expiration of five years from the date of such entry ; and if, at the expiration of such time, or at any time within two years thereafter, the person making such entry ; or, if he be dead, his widow; or in case of her death, his heirs or devisee; or in case of a widow making such entry, her heirs or devisee, in case of her death ; shall. prove by two credible witnesses that he, she, or they have resided upon or cultivated the same for the term of five years immediately succeeding the time of filing the affidavit aforesaid, and shall make affidavit that no part of said land has been alienated, and that he has borne rue allegiance to the Government of the United States ; then, in such case, he, she, or they, if at that time a citizen of the United States, shall be entitled to a patent, as in other cases provided for by law: And provided, further, That in case of the death of both father and mother, leaving an Infant child, or children, under twenty-one years of age, the right and fee shall ensure to the benefit of said infant child or children ; and the executor, administrator, or guardian may, at any time within two years after the death of the surviving parent, and in accordance with the laws of the State in which such children for the time being have their domicil, sell said land for the benefit of said infants, but for no other purpose; and the purchaser shall acquire the absolute title by the purchase, and be entitled to a patent from the United States, on payment of the office fees and sum of money herein specified.


SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the register of the land office shall note all such applications on the tract books and plats of, his office, and keep a register of all such entries, and make return thereof to the General Land Office, together with the proof upon which they have been founded.


SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That no lands acquired under the provisions of this act shall in any event become liable to the satisfaction of any debt or debts contracted prior to the issuing of the patent therefor.


SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That if, at any time after the filing of the affidavit, as required in the second section of this act, and before the expiration of the five years aforesaid, it shall be proven, after due notice to the settler, to the satisfaction of the register of the land office, that the person having filed such affidavit shall have actually changed his or her residence, or abandoned the said land for more than six months at any time, then and in that event the land so entered shall revert to the government.


SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That no individual shall be permitted to acquire title to more than one quarter section under the provisions of this act; and that the Commissioner of the General Land Office is hereby required to prepare and issue such rules and regulations, consistent with this act, as shall be necessary and proper to carry its provisions into effect; and that the registers and receivers of the several land offices shall be entitled to receive the same compensation for any lands entered under the provisions of this act that they are now entitled to receive when the same quantity of land is entered with money, one half to be paid by the person making the application at the time of so doing, and the other half on the issue of the certificate by the person to whom it may be issued; but this shall not be construed to enlarge the maximum of compensation now prescribed by law for any register or receiver: Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to impair or interfere in any manner whatever with existing preemption rights : And provided, further, That all persons who may have filed their applications for a preemption right prior to the passage of this act, shall be entitled to all privileges of this act: Provided, further, That no person who has served, or may hereafter serve, for a period of not less than fourteen days in the army or navy of the United States, either regular or volunteer, under the laws thereof, during the existence of an actual war, domestic or foreign, shall be deprived of the benefits of this act on account of not having attained the age of twenty-one years.


SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the fifth section of the act entitled" An act in addition to an act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes," approved the third of March, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, shall extend to all oaths, affirmations, and affidavits, required or authorized by this act.


SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent any person who has availed him or herself of the benefits of the first section of this act, from paying the minimum price, or the price to which the same may have graduated, for the quantity of land so entered at any time before the expiration of the five years, and obtaining a patent therefor from the government, as in other cases provided by law, on making proof of settlement and cultivation as provided by existing laws granting preemption rights.
Approved, May 20, 1862.

[ Source ]

[Mayacaman]

Soon upon the heals of the Homestead Act of 1862 being enacted into Law, the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 also entered into Law.

But, Whereas the Homestead Act had stipulated that no “person” could receive more than one hundred and sixty acres of the Public Domain, the Railway Act gave millions of acres of the Public Domain to the fictional Persons incorporated as the Union Pacific, Central Pacific, and Western Pacific Railroad Corporations.

Perhaps I am missing something. –But then again, perhaps it takes a Railroad Lawyer to explain the seeming contradiction.

[cyberanvil]

Here is a Thread where concerned Citizens may air their suggestions for Solutions to the ongoing Crisis of Homelessness in the United States of America. This Crisis is not - as President Trump has suggested - a situation that is peculiar to "sanctuary cities" that are run by "liberals" - Nor is it a crisis that began just a couple of years ago, as Donald Trump also has indicated.

Just this morning I was watching a homeless advocate decrying the lack of action by Gavin Newsom and Co. concerning the homeless crisis. He wanted Newsom to declare a state of emergency. If I find a link, I'll post it later. Anyway, Santa Rosa made the big time. I wonder where Sebastopol ranks.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/homel...ink/ar-AAHIRt4

[cyberanvil]

Michael Shellenberger makes case for declaring state of emergency

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6087733089001/#sp=show-clips

Ben Carson Speaks

https://video.foxnews.com/v/60888694...#sp=show-clips

[Mayacaman]

Just this morning I was watching a homeless advocate decrying the lack of action by Gavin Newsom and Co. concerning the homeless crisis. He wanted Newsom to declare a state of emergency. If I find a link, I'll post it later. Anyway, Santa Rosa made the big time. I wonder where Sebastopol ranks.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/homel...ink/ar-AAHIRt4

That's a good link, Jefferson, with good information, and related links. I agree, Gavin Newsom should declare a state of emergency. IMHO, the Crisis of Homelessness in California, has reached the level that is has become a genuine "State of Emergency."

However, the "Crisis" is nationwide, and it cannot be fobbed off on governors of the states that are run by the Democrats, as the whole gist of the dialog in the following two links - from FOX News - tends to do.

Michael Shellenberger makes case for declaring state of emergency

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6087733089001/#sp=show-clips

Ben Carson Speaks

https://video.foxnews.com/v/60888694...#sp=show-clips

In the first link, we have talking head, Forbes correspondent, Michael Shellenberger, pontificating that there are three separate issues that comprise the problem: 1) a major housing shortage; 2) a drug epidemic & 3) an untreated mental illness problem.

I would say that his Analysis is correct - as far as it goes... What is left out of the picture, are the facts that I stated at the top of this thread:

"This Crisis is not - as President Trump has suggested - a situation that is peculiar to "sanctuary cities" that are run by "liberals" - Nor is it a crisis that began just a couple of years ago, as Donald Trump also has indicated.

Indeed, it is a Crisis that has been building for decades, now. The roots of it may be found in actions that Ronald Reagan undertook as soon as he became governor of California in 1966, and de-funded the Halfway Houses. The roots of the crisis lie in the philosophy of "benign neglect" that the right-wing Democrat, Daniel Moynihan, articulated when he began to work for Nixon in 1969."

FOX News is still holding to Donald Trump's party-line on the nature of the problem. In answer to Tucker Carlson's leading Question about why is this happening in San Francisco, Shellenberger says, @ 1:55, "I think, at bottom there is an "ideology" behind this..." -And that is the note on which Tucker Carlson wraps up his little three-minute sound-byte. Take heed. This is not just journalism. It is also propaganda.

In the other link, Doctor Ben Carson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development says, at the outset, that the Crisis is not the responsibility of the Federal government to solve. That is an undistilled expression of the sort of twisted libertarianism that has become fashionable in the Republican Party; for which Trump & company have become the latest - and most dedicated - mouthpieces.

INMO, the Crisis must be solved by all concerned agencies - both Federal & State governments, working in harmony. Also, we, as citizens can not fob off all of the responsibility for doing something about it on 'the government' - because it is a humanitarian crisis, and it affects all of us. No man is an island.

[cyberanvil]

FOX News is still holding to Donald Trump's party-line on the nature of the problem. In answer to Tucker Carlson's leading Question about why is this happening in San Francisco, Shellenberger says, @ 1:55, "I think, at bottom there is an "ideology" behind this..." -And that is the note on which Tucker Carlson wraps up his little three-minute sound-byte. Take heed. This is not just journalism. It is also propaganda.

Thank you for your reply Mark. Of course Tucker probably has a bias. But propaganda can be filtered and the facts examined. Gavin has money for a Bullet Train and a Smart Train and for trips to S. America. He has the ability to address the homelessness issue with more vigor. He's not, never has and he should be held accountable. Don't gaslight on the Federals.

[sealwatcher]

Gaslighting on the Federals? According to this guest on Democracy Now, housing is a federal issue and has been since the founding legislation: https://www.democracynow.org/“Nothing Ends Homelessness Like a Home”: Advocates Slam Trump’s Attack on SF & Homeless People

Thank you for your reply Mark. Of course Tucker probably has a bias. But propaganda can be filtered and the facts examined. Gavin has money for a Bullet Train and a Smart Train and for trips to S. America. He has the ability to address the homelessness issue with more vigor. He's not, never has and he should be held accountable. Don't gaslight on the Federals.

[cyberanvil]

Gaslighting on the Federals? According to this guest on Democracy Now, housing is a federal issue and has been since the founding legislation: https://www.democracynow.org/

This thread was created for discussion of Solutions On the Homeless Crisis. Housing is only part of the problem. Across the board, Gov. Moonbeam and Galloping Gavin have done little.

I suppose the usual blame will be heaped on Trump. But the Homeless problem started long ago, before Trump. Can't anyone in this state accept some blame? The homeless problem hasn't been getting better. Doesn't this show that past actions (mostly inactions) are not working?

[Thad]

If you dissected normal you would find many levels of psychological dissonance.

Where is the dividing line between when you have mental problems or your just going through a bad day?

What happens when you have so much unresolved imediacies you can't live with people in small spaces and living in a tent is so much better than that.

So Campgrounds with Mechanics Quarters making small easily ported shelters as if NASA designed it.

When people have a privacy they can come out from somewhere. When they don't they are frantically needing it.

An interesting re-socializing project.

Providing Privacy

Maybe these people could be enticed to use their tech

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/2...funding-launch

[cyberanvil]

If you dissected normal you would find many levels of psychological dissonance.

Where is the dividing line between when you have mental problems or your just going through a bad day?

What happens when you have so much unresolved imediacies you can't live with people in small spaces and living in a tent is so much better than that.

Identify and evaluate.

What is a 1799 medical hold?

In addition to these holds, the law provides for a 24-hour 1799 medical hold, placed by a physician, in which a patient who comes to the emergency room for medical treatment and is then discovered also to have a psychiatric problem that requires attention. If necessary, a 1799 hold can be converted into a 5150 hold.

[Mayacaman]

What I would like to do with this thread, as the rest of you toss information around as to where people who are homeless might camp, short-term; is deal with the long view: History & the Future – and attempt to arrive at a permanent Solution of the Quandary.

How did we come to this juncture in Time, where the Crisis of Homelessness is so acute in the United States? -When North America at the time of the first European settlers was such a vast and wealthy continent - in every way?

It has become a truism on the Left that the North American continent is “Stolen Land.” The other position – the one that the “conservatives” tend to take, is to say, as S.I. Hayakawa said of the Panama Canal, “We stole it fair and square.”

The romantic exposition of this position is perhaps best expressed in the book, The Course of Empire, by Bernard DeVoto, the Mark Twain scholar who taught creative writing at Harvard.

I do not know if the quotation – supposedly by Jefferson - about the children of those who conquered the continent, waking up homeless, is authentic or not (for its authenticity is debated) yet it has come to pass, as if it were a prophesy.

One thing is certain: the Republican Party, which traces its beginning to anti-slavery elements on the Frontier in Wisconsin, became the party of “Free Soil.” This meant two things:

A) That the lands West of the Mississippi should not become Slave States…
&
B) That the lands of the West should be made available for Homesteading.

The western states of Texas, Arkansas & Missouri were already Slave states when the Republican Party began, & Kansas soon became a battleground between militant Abolitionists like John Brown and equally militant pro-slavers in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democrat Party in 1860, we must remember, was the Party of the South, and of Slavery.

Yet, although the Republican Party & Abraham Lincoln were firm on the point of limiting the spread of Slavery in the West, they had no problem with the practice of taking the Land away from the Natives. Thus we see an essential - and early - contradiction between the ideology and the practice of the more “progressive” of the two parties of 1860. It seems that the Republicans were selective in their racism.

This contradiction continued after the Civil War, when the Union general Phil Sheridan - who was all for giving the freed Negro slaves “forty acres and a mule” in Kansas, pushed westward with the Union Army through Indian country in Nebraska, to make the West safe for the Union Pacific Railroad Corporation. The Union Army was not disbanded after the Civil War, and the Question has arisen in the minds of some just whose Army it actually was.

[sealwatcher]

Thank you, Mayacaman. Quite recently, out of my dismay and sorrow occasioned by the reign of Trump has come the realization that this time is quite probably the natural progression of what the European invaders have brought to this country. In Sebastopol-speak, it's karma, straight up.

What I would like to do with this thread, as the rest of you toss information around as to where people who are homeless might camp, short-term; is deal with the long view: History & the Future – and attempt to arrive at a permanent Solution of the Quandary.

How did we come to this juncture in Time, where the Crisis of Homelessness is so acute in the United States? -When North America at the time of the first European settlers was such a vast and wealthy continent - in every way?

It has become a truism on the Left that the North American continent is “Stolen Land.” The other position – the one that the “conservatives” tend to take, is to say, as S.I. Hayakawa said of the Panama Canal, “We stole it fair and square.”

The romantic exposition of this position is perhaps best expressed in the book, The Course of Empire, by Bernard DeVoto, the Mark Twain scholar who taught creative writing at Harvard.

I do not know if the quotation – supposedly by Jefferson - about the children of those who conquered the continent, waking up homeless, is authentic or not (for its authenticity is debated) yet it has come to pass, as if it were a prophesy.

One thing is certain: the Republican Party, which traces its beginning to anti-slavery elements on the Frontier in Wisconsin, became the party of “Free Soil.” This meant two things:

A) That the lands West of the Mississippi should not become Slave States…
&
B) That the landsof the West should be made available for Homesteading.

The western states of Texas, Arkansas & Missouri were already Slave states when the Republican Party began, & Kansas soon became a battleground between militant Abolitionists like John Brown and equally militant pro-slavers in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democrat Party in 1860, we must remember, was the Party of the South, and of Slavery.

Yet, although the Republican Party & Abraham Lincoln were firm on the point of limiting the spread of Slavery in the West, they had no problem with the practice of taking the Land away from the Natives. Thus we see an essential - and early - contradiction between the ideology and the practice of the more “progressive” of the two parties of 1860.It seems that the Republicans were selective in their racism.

This contradiction continued after the Civil War, when the Union general Phil Sheridan - who was all for giving the freed Negro slaves “forty acres and a mule” in Kansas, pushed westward with the Union Army through Indian country in Nebraska, to make the West safe for the Union Pacific Railroad Corporation. The Union Army was not disbanded after the Civil War, and the Question has arisen in the minds of some just whose Army it actually was.

[cyberanvil]

[QUOTE=Mayacaman;229583]

It has become a truism on the Left that the North American continent is “Stolen Land.” The other position – the one that the “conservatives” tend to take, is to say, as S.I. Hayakawa said of the Panama Canal, “We stole it fair and square.”

One thing is certain: the Republican Party, which traces its beginning to anti-slavery elements on the Frontier, in Wisconsin in 1854, was the party of “Free Soil.” This meant two things:

A) That the lands West of the Mississippi should not become Slave States...
&
B) That the lands of the West should be made available for Homesteading.

Yet, although the Republican Party & Abraham Lincoln were firm on the point of limiting the spread of Slavery in the West, they had no problem with the practice of taking the Land away from the Natives. Thus we see an essential - and early - contradiction between the ideology and the practice of the more “progressive” of the two parties of 1860. It seems that they were selective in their racism.

This contradiction continued after the Civil War, when the Union general Phil Sheridan - who was all for giving the freed Negro slaves “forty acres and a mule” in Kansas, pushed westward with the Union Army through Indian country in Nebraska, to make the West safe for the Union Pacific Railroad Corporation. The Union Army was not disbanded after the Civil War, and the Question has arisen in the minds of some just whose Army it actually

I must take issue with your rather romantic and partisan view of history. The Left (as the Party of victimization) has always found it convenient to fold, bend and spindle history.

Rather than boring you with a long winded dissertation on my part, I would ask you to view the following presentations concerning our history with the Native Americans.

[sealwatcher]

Rather than boring us with a long-winded dissertation, you let Jared Taylor of American Renaissance speak for you. Here's what Southern Poverty Law Center had to say on this man:

"Taylor is the founder of the New Century Foundation and edited its now-discontinued American Renaissance magazine, which, despite its pseudo-academic polish, regularly published proponents of eugenics and blatant anti-black and anti-Latino racists. After the last print issue of American Renaissance magazine was published in January 2012, Taylor concentrated entirely on the magazine’s website, Amren.com. Taylor also hosts the annual American Renaissance Conference, where racist intellectuals rub shoulders with Klansmen, neo-Nazis and other white supremacists."

No time tonight to look at the second video but surely it's just more of the same blatant racism anchored in "They did it too! We did it better!"

[cyberanvil]

[QUOTE=sealwatcher;229591]Rather than boring us with a long-winded dissertation, you let Jared Taylor of American Renaissance speak for you. Here's what Southern Poverty Law Center had to say on this man:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all semblance of rational behavior. Known for their fundraising attacks and very biased operation, they shouldn't be taken seriously.

https://reason.com/video/the-southern-poverty-law-center-scam/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-a-scam

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2022301001/

[podfish]

The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all semblance of rational behavior. Known for their fundraising attacks and very biased operation, they shouldn't be taken seriously.

https://reason.com/video/the-southern-poverty-law-center-scam/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-a-scam

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2022301001/

ok, time for source-vs-source. Your sources are pretty biased, in the technical sense of the term. For example, even the USA Today article (to pick the least-ideological of them) embedded a teaser to this article in their opinion piece:

"In April 2016, my then 14-year-old daughter became convinced that she was my son. In my attempt to help her, her public school undermined me every step of the way."
.. with 'help' meaning: force her to accept female pronouns, etc. These sources are bastions of MAGA. Not really helpful in convincing the undecided.

[cyberanvil]

ok, time for source-vs-source. Your sources are pretty biased, in the technical sense of the term. For example, even the USA Today article (to pick the least-ideological of them) embedded a teaser to this article in their opinion piece:

"In April 2016, my then 14-year-old daughter became convinced that she was my son. In my attempt to help her, her public school undermined me every step of the way."
.. with 'help' meaning: force her to accept female pronouns, etc. These sources are bastions of MAGA. Not really helpful in convincing the undecided.

Not surprising that listed sources are discounted. Part of the D playbook. Still, I list three and you list......crickets.
How about John Stossel? He's a Libertarian in good standing. Should this source also be discounted?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/john...lander-machine

[Mayacaman]

Jefferson Donley, aka “cyberanvil” wrote:

“Thank you for your reply Mark. Of course Tucker probably has a bias. But propaganda can be filtered and the facts examined. Gavin has money for a Bullet Train and a Smart Train and for trips to S. America. He has the ability to address the homelessness issue with more vigor. He's not, never has and he should be held accountable. Don't gaslight on the Federals.”

There is one point that I missed, when analyzing the following:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/60877330...#sp=show-clips


What is the name of the ” ideology” that Michael Shellenberger mentions in this three-minute sound-byte, and that Tucker Carson sounds off on?

Neither one of them cares to name it; though they imply that it is a “liberal” ideology, peculiar to Democrats. And Tucker Carlson engages in a little self-righteous moral indignation while he shows himself to be a “compassionate conservative.”

Again, it was Ronald Reagan who turned the dysfunctional and semi-functional out of the Halfway Houses, upon becoming governor of California in 1966. The so-called “conservatives” can not and will not deal with this “true fact” when it comes to addressing the issue of the current crisis of homelessness. I’m sure they would prefer that it be forgotten.

I suggest that the “Ideology” that these two men refer to obliquely, is common to Both of the Two Major political Parties in America.

I suggest that the “ideology” – which they prefer not to name - has its roots in the doctrine of “Survival of the fittest” that Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley extracted out of the Thesis of Charles Darwin back in the nineteenth century.

[Mayacaman]

Jefferson Donley wrote:

“I must take issue with your rather romantic and partisan view of history. The Left (as the Party of victimization) has always found it convenient to fold, bend and spindle history.

Rather than boring you with a long winded dissertation on my part, I would ask you to view the following presentations concerning our history with the Native Americans.”

To suggest that the white man did not steal, or ‘take’ the land comprising the North American continent from those who inhabited it is preposterous. There is nothing “romantic” about this notion. It is entirely factual, and rests upon the evidence of the trail of broken treaties.

Open that link and click on any one of those images, and you will find a wealth of information.

It is a Fact that every treaty save one that the White man ever made with the Native Americans was broken.

The one exception was the Treaty that the Quakers of Salem, New Jersey made with the Salem Indians. After three hundred years there were no pure blood Salem Indians left; they had all intermarried into the settler population, which was the original Quaker Colony that predated Philadelphia.

Now, the “romantic” view of American history vis-à-vis the Indians, as I have said, is the “conservative” viewpoint. -And it is far better represented by Bernard DeVoto, than by Jared Taylor of “American Renaissance.”

If you are intent on pursuing that course, cyberanvil, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the books of Bernard DeVoto, the Mark Twain scholar who taught creative writing at Harvard. He, at least, was a good writer and an authentic intellectual.

With regard to the second video-lecture: Stephen Molineux often makes legitimate points – whether or not one agrees with the gist of his lectures. And he has a point: the word “genocide” is a bit of a stretch in the case of the North American Indians.

But I am not speaking of “genocide.” We are speaking of Land – and the Land of North America was taken from the Natives by émigré Europeans through force of superior numbers and superior arms – as well as many, many broken promises.

[Mayacaman]

In 1823, Chief Justice John Marshall, in a Supreme Court decision in the case of Johnson & Graham v. M’Inntosh, elaborated the Legal Doctrine of Discovery. In the words of Wikipedia:

“The discovery doctrine or doctrine of discovery is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall explained and applied the way that colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to foreign sovereign nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government whose subjects travelled to and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch.

The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments.”

The lands lying west of the Allegheny and Appalachian mountains and east of the Mississippi River had already been made safe for Democracy by the time Justice Marshall rendered his learned opinion in 1823.

Thomas Jefferson had obtained the Louisiana Purchase for fifteen million dollars in gold from a cash-strapped Napoleon in 1803.

It only remained for the Union Army - which was not decommissioned after the Civil War - to march west under the firm hand of general Phil Sheridan, and secure the lands west of the Mississippi that Jefferson had “purchased” from Napoleon, and that Chief Justice John Marshall had proclaimed “ours” by right of “Discovery.”

Phil Sheridan had already proved his zeal and efficiency in the Civil War in his campaign in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, where he'd ordered his troops to blast & dismantle every single structure: be it barn, mansion-house, or bridge that was built out of stone.

I think it is fair – and accurate – to establish the Fact that the Lands that Thomas Jefferson purchased from Napoleon were inhabited by folks whose way of life was not altogether - shall we say “edified”? - by the process of dislocation. It is also fair to repeat the old {Native American} adage in this regard, “White man speaks with forked tongue.”

-Because, from the middle of the Civil War through the end of the nineteenth century, every single Treaty that was made by Washington D.C. with the Native tribes was callously broken in a matter of a few years – usually considerably less than a single decade.

Case in point: The Wind River Treaty of 1868

Here is what was promised.

Needless to say, the end results were considerably less. In fact, the ultimate “Res” was very, very small.

Here is what comes up in a search when you spiel “map, broken Indian treaties” in the search box @ DuckDuckGo. (my favorite Search Engine)

[cyberanvil]

Thank you Mark for your Opine.

[QUOTE=Mayacaman;229678]


What is the name of the ” ideology” that Michael Shellenberger mentions in this three-minute sound-byte, and that Tucker Carson sounds off on?
He didn’t name an “ideology.” But since the present CA leadership is Democratic you can surmise. He does mention “vacuum of leadership.”
Neither one of them cares to name it; though they imply that it is a “liberal” ideology, peculiar to Democrats. And Tucker Carlson engages in a little self-righteous moral indignation while he shows himself to be a “compassionate conservative.”
It’s obvious that the present Dem leadership is lacking. Being equal opportunity, I’d like to blame the Repubs also, but since they haven’t had power in CA for decades that’s hard to do. Jan 1999 (Gray Davis) to the present have been all Dem. Arnold came in as a Republican with great reform ideas, but quickly turned into a RINO turtle and caved to the Dems in Sacramento.
Again, it was Ronald Reagan who turned the dysfunctional and semi-functional out of the Halfway Houses, upon becoming governor of California in 1966. The so-called “conservatives” can not and will not deal with this “true fact” when it comes to addressing the issue of the current crisis of homelessness. I’m sure they would prefer that it be forgotten.
It’s really not relevant to go back to Reagan. The farther back you go, the more miniscule the homeless problem was. But in the present (Gavin is so green) we have Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown as the poster child of inaction.
I suggest that the “Ideology” that these two men refer to obliquely, is common to Both of the Two Major political Parties in America.
Speculation, not relevant.
I suggest that the “ideology” – which they prefer not to name - has its roots in the doctrine of “Survival of the fittest” that Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley extracted out of the Thesis of Charles Darwin back in the nineteenth century.
To a degree you’re right. But don’t disparage reality. What has been happening in the distant past, present time and probably into the future is reality. You know, more than one political forum uses and also disparages “whataboutism” and here you give an example. Interesting, huh? Do try to forget partisanship and accept that the present leadership is bankrupt concerning the homeless. Maybe if Republicans were in charge there would be no improvement, but we can only guess. Focus on the present and demand action.

[cyberanvil]

[QUOTE=Mayacaman;229679]

Thank you Mark for your observations.

To suggest that the white man did not steal, or ‘take’ the land comprising the North American continent from those who inhabited it is preposterous. There is nothing “romantic” about this notion. It is entirely factual, and rests upon the evidence of the trail of broken treaties.
The Left, being the party of "victimisation” would naturally label it as “steal” whereas the Right prefers terms such as “settle.”
Open that link and click on any one of those images, and you will find a wealth of information.
No thanks. I am aware.
It is a Fact that every treaty save one that the White man ever made with the Native Americans was broken.
There’s a point coming and I can feel it.
The one exception was the Treaty that the Quakers of Salem, New Jersey made with the Salem Indians. After three hundred years there were no pure blood Salem Indians left; they had all intermarried into the settler population, which was the original Quaker Colony that predated Philadelphia.
Now, the “romantic” view of American history vis-à-vis the Indians is, as I have said, the “conservative” viewpoint. -And it is far better represented by Bernard DeVoto, than by Jared Taylor of “American Renaissance.”
I’m a realist and you seem to be an apologist. The two rarely meet.
If you are intent on pursuing that course, cyberanvil, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the books of Bernard DeVoto, the Mark Twain scholar who taught creative writing at Harvard. He, at least, was a good writer and an authentic intellectual.
I just know the point is coming.
With regard to the second video-lecture: Stephen Molineux often makes legitimate points – whether or not one agrees with the gist of his lectures. And he has a point: the word “genocide” is a bit of a stretch in the case of the North American Indians.
But I am not speaking of “genocide.” We are speaking of Land – and the Land of North America was taken from the Natives by émigré Europeans through force of superior numbers and superior arms – as well as many, many broken promises.
Point is, assimilated Natives are reaping the rewards of society. Those that cling to Balkinization are also. We even have an example right in Rohnert Park. You decry the past, but seem to be blind to the present. What do you suggest? Perhaps Native reparations could be added to the Democratic mix.

[Mayacaman]

Jefferson wrote:

It’s obvious that the present Dem leadership is lacking. Being equal opportunity, I’d like to blame the Repubs also, but since they haven’t had power in CA for decades that’s hard to do. Jan 1999 (Gray Davis) to the present have been all Dem...

I also am an "equal opportunity" critic - of both parties. That is my confirmed position. Mercutio said it best: "A plague on both your houses."

It’s really not relevant to go back to Reagan. The farther back you go, the more miniscule the homeless problem was. But in the present (Gavin is so green) we have Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown as the poster child of inaction.

It is totally relevant to go back to RR. I'm going back to the Homestead Act of 1862, to offer a Legal Remedy. So I beg to differ. The past is prologue. Besides that, you are mistaken when you say "The farther back you go, the more miniscule the homeless problem was."

Not so. "Homelessness" first became a national issue in the 1870's. Then there was "Coxey's Army" back in 1894. There were also multitudes of homeless on the roads in the 1930's, after the Crash of '29. Multitudes. Back then, however, the problem was not so acute, since there was more space on the edge of the city - space for "Hoovervilles." This problem is recurring and endemic in Amerika.

Mayacaman wrote:

I suggest that the “Ideology” that these two men refer to obliquely, is common to Both of the Two Major political Parties in America.

Jefferson Donley wrote:

Speculation, not relevant.

Not speculation. How about I offer this as my confirmed opinion, based on observation.

Do try to forget partisanship and accept that the present leadership is bankrupt concerning the homeless. Maybe if Republicans were in charge there would be no improvement, but we can only guess. Focus on the present and demand action.

Done. This one ( i ) am not a partisan to either of the two wings of the Party of Wall Street. I have long maintained that we live in a political Duopoly. And, though I have been a registered Democrat (twice) in my life, and voted for Billy Boy Clinton in '92, I soon came to regret it.

You are correct, Jefferson, on this point: That the present Democrat Party leadership is bankrupt on the score of doing anything beyond issuing temporary motel vouchers & offering handouts in the form of free lunches to the Homeless. When Willie Brown was Mayor of San Francisco, the issue came up big as to opening the Armory. He passed on it.

[cyberanvil]

[QUOTE=Mayacaman;229680]

Thank you Mark for the history lesson, but how does it relate to homelessness?

[Mayacaman]

“Thank you Mark for the history lesson, but how does it relate to homelessness?”

Patience, Jefferson Donley, patience. I am getting there. First I establish the historical context, and then the reasonable ground of the Argument.

I have already supplied a few hints as to the Remedy: for a good portion of the Remedy is to be found in the Homestead Act of 1862 – which should be re-written and re-enacted in accordance with current conditions and the current State of the Union.

The Republican Party Platform of 1860 – the Platform on which Abraham Lincoln ran and was elected president stated:

“13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty, and we demand the passage by congress of which has already passed the house.”

Thus we see, that the Republican Party of 1860 - which was at the time, the more progressive of the two parties {according to the old, classical definition of the word} - held to the principle of establishing Homesteads (read, Homes) in the wilderness of the West, for the dispossessed and underprivileged working men. (After the Civil War, this came to pass, in Kansas, for the Freed Slaves.)

Indeed, the Republican Party Platform of 1860 spoke to the needs of the families of the poor and downtrodden (to borrow a little Marxist Jingo.) Karl Marx himself, you may not be aware, established a correspondence with Abraham Lincoln.

The Republican Party Platform of 1860 was also adamantly opposed to the Extension of Slavery in the West:

“8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.”

And it endeavored to speak to the economic needs of Farmers, Mechanics & Workingmen:

“12. That while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence."

All I am suggesting, Jefferson, in my recitation of American History, is that the “Grand Old Party” return to the principles upon which it was founded. I hope that Donald Trump and Doctor Ben Carson are listening...

[ TO BE CONT’D… ]

[cyberanvil]

[cyberanvil]

[QUOTE=Mayacaman;229693]

Thanks again Mark for another fine read.

Patience, patience, Jefferson Donley. I am getting there. First I establish the historical context, and then the reasonable ground of the Argument.
Sorry, but I really don’t play the captive audience role very well. Haven’t I related before that other pursuits limit my time here. You really only need to jump to the bottom line of your dissertation because…….well it’s not going to work. And another 411, my solution won’t be taking place either. And yet, my solution is the most reasonable, most likely to succeed and the most cost effective.
I have already supplied a few hints as to the Remedy: for a good portion of the Remedy is to be found in the Homestead Act of 1862 – which should be re-written and re-enacted in accordance with current conditions and the current State of the Union.
In 1976, the Homestead Act was repealed with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which stated “public lands be retained in Federal ownership.” With provisions for homesteading in Alaska until 1986. Alaska was one of the last places in the country where homesteading remained a viable option into the latter part of the 1900s.

The Republican Party Platform of 1860 – the Platform on which Abraham Lincoln ran and was elected president stated:
“13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty, and we demand the passage by congress of which has already passed the house.”
Thus we see, that the Republican Party of 1860 - which was at the time, the more progressive of the two {according to the old, classical definition of the word} - held to the principle of establishing Homesteads (read, Homes) in the wilderness of the West, for the dispossessed and underprivileged working men. -And after the Civil War, for the Freed Slaves. This came to pass, in Kansas.
Indeed, for the families of the poor and downtrodden, to borrow a little Marxist Jingo. Karl Marx himself, you may not be aware, established a correspondence with Abraham Lincoln.
The Republican Party Platform of 1860 was adamantly opposed to the Extension of Slavery in the West:

“8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.”
And it endeavored to speak to the economic needs of Farmers, Mechanics & Workingmen:
“12. That while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence."
All I am suggesting, Jefferson, in my recitation of American History, is that the “Grand Old Party” return to the principles upon which it was founded. I hope that Donald Trump and Doctor Ben Carson are listening...
I fail to see your logic. Why should the homeless issue not be a state responsibility? I know that Democrats favor government control, oversight and in general intrusion by the big Federal government, but really! Moonbeam and son of Moonbeam need to suck it up and stop ignoring the problem.

[Mayacaman]

sealwatcher wrote:

Gaslighting on the Federals? According to this guest on Democracy Now, housing is a federal issue and has been since the founding legislation: https://www.democracynow.org/“Nothing Ends Homelessness Like a Home”: Advocates Slam Trump’s Attack on SF & Homeless People

Quite so.

cyberanvil wrote:

In 1976, the Homestead Act was repealed with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which stated “public lands be retained in Federal ownership.” With provisions for homesteading in Alaska until 1986. Alaska was one of the last places in the country where homesteading remained a viable option into the latter part of the 1900s.

Just because the Feds closed the Public Lands to occupation by humankind in 1976, does not absolve them of the responsibility of taking action today, when Homelessness has grown endemic and has become a national disaster & disgrace.

cyberanvil wrote:

Why should the homeless issue not be a state responsibility? I know that Democrats favor government control, oversight and in general intrusion by the big Federal government, but really! Moonbeam and son of Moonbeam need to suck it up and stop ignoring the problem.

Mayacaman wrote:

INMO, the Crisis must be solved by all concerned agencies - both Federal & State governments, working in harmony. Also, we, as citizens can not fob off all of the responsibility for doing something about it on 'the government' - because it is a humanitarian crisis, and it affects all of us. No man is an island.

cyberanvil wrote:

Sorry, but I really don’t play the captive audience role very well. Haven’t I related before that other pursuits limit my time here. You really only need to jump to the bottom line of your dissertation because…….well it’s not going to work. And another 411, my solution won’t be taking place either. And yet, my solution is the most reasonable, most likely to succeed and the most cost effective.

No one is forcing you to be a "captive audience" Jefferson. No one. If you lack the patience to wait for the ultimate package I am preparing at the end of my series of lessons, you can leave the station anytime you wish to. The train shall arrive on time eventually without you.

I would appreciate it, also if you would not drop useless memes like the caveman one above. They add nothing to the dialog. Could you please delete it? I hesitate to call you a troll, yet your behavior as a kibitzer is borderline trolling.

[Mayacaman]

Anyone who has ever flown over the North Coast Range in California, Oregon, or Washington State in a small plane has seen and can appreciate just how much of the terrain of the Pacific Northwest is empty of human habitation.

Much of it - far too much, indeed - is owned by private Timber corporations, which/who obtained hundreds of thousands of acres of the Public Domain by an elaborate system of Fraud, in the late nineteenth, into the early twentieth centuries.

Herein lies the solution to the "Homeless Crisis" : Occupy the Wilderness

It has been Looted from the Public Domain. The Timber Corporations have harvested generations of trees, and have made Billions upon billions of dollars off of it already.

I am not suggesting a lawless approach to this Occupation. It should be done decently and in order. But it should be done.

If the Federal government and the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) can be persuaded to make lands available, and to subsidize the establishment of intentional villages for the homeless, all well and good.

If it takes a group of concerned Citizens, and a PAC, armed with a battery of radical lawyers to take on the Timber companies, and wrest possession of the timber-lands currently held in "possession" by the Timber Corporations, then so be it.

We can not rely on either the Federal government =OR= the State governments to "fix" the Homeless situation in America. They must be goaded into action by the People - the middle class householders who still have homes, and the working poor; families who can handle the responsibility of a 4.444 acre parcel on former timber land.

The Homeless, also should be allowed at least the opportunity of a small 9 x 12, two story, earth-rammed block house with a fir ceiling, and a parcel of .49377777778 of an acre {that's almost half an acre} in planned, supportive, self-sufficient, agricultural communes, in the former timber-lands.

No one should be homeless in America. This land is a vast and rich continent - still. There is much empty space. It is a crime against humanity that so much of the Land of North America is owned by private, for-profit Corporations.

That this is so, is a serious violation of the spirit of the 1860 Republican Party Platform, the platform upon which Abraham Lincoln ran, for it stated:

“13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty, and we demand the passage by congress of which has already passed the house.”