Friday, August 29, 2014

"Gateway Issues Another $3M in GO Bonds!"

From Racine Exposed:

"Slowly but surely, and one GO (General Obligation) Bond at a time,  Bryan Albrecht and his unelected Board are making progress towards borrowing the $49M  requested by Gateway in a Referendum, and which the Taxpayers of the Gateway District rejected.

"Ever since April 2, 2013, when District voters turned down Gateway’s referendum to borrow $49M, Bryan Albrecht and his unelected Board have been making steady progress to turn their failed referendum into a reality through back-door borrowing that goes unreported in local media channels."

Read more:


Anonymous said...


It's only *MONEY* and *DEBT*

Easy Come, Easy Go!

A GO Bond? When did I consent? Where is my signature?


No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority.


BOSTON: 1870.

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.

Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:

We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.

This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.

When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.

Anonymous said...

So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.

So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their object was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.

It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.

Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it.

Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it.

If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.

Anonymous said...

The Authentic:

“Evil Empires: One down, one to go…”

Bumper sticker, anticipating the obsolescence of railroad era continental-scale empires in the information age.

kkdither said...

I've come here 3 times to comment, but am overwhelmed by the massive comments that precced me and have overtaken this blog.

Please limit the number of words that are copied and pasted. Add a link, so those who CHOOSE to follow this train of thought can read further. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Words on a Blog.

Usually - they are free.

And *FREELY* Ignored.

It's a sad, sad day, when someone, in a round about way, tells another person to SHUT UP!

Especially when so many of the articles on this Blog go commentless.

That's what you came here for - right?

Didn't like what you read?

Or insecure that there may be something wrong with your train of thought?

Confused and angry that OTHERS think differently?

It's also *FREE* to be the PC Police.

Piss OFF.

BL Basketcase said...

Please feel free to join in the conversation by posting a comment... New members are always welcome! We believe in free speech, but do not allow malicious comments or personal attacks. Blog authors manage their own blogs and retain the right to remove comments they deem inappropriate.

Anonymous said...

I just tested my scroll wheel, it took me slightly more than 1 second to finish from top to bottom on the comments...OH MY!

kkdither said...

No one told anyone to shut up. The comment concerned the amount of cut and paste materials posted. No one deleted the comments, did they? It is more about the constant renavigation of the blog than the content of what comments were posted..

Looks like you just want to pick a fight. That won't fly with me.

Anonymous said...


Well, YOU started IT!

kkdither said...

Anonymous isn't anonymous to those who have access to IP addresses. I'm really sorry you feel you have to hide your true feelings.

Unknown said...

The Gateway problem is being "exposed" I for one appreciate this information
Thanks irregulars for all your efforts

kkdither said...

Candy summed up my original idea. Thank you. I should have just posted that, but was frustrated and felt impeded, once again, as have others by the takeover of the blog.

Anonymous said...

Kkdither - anon is not picking a fight, just simply pointing out that others have an opinion also.

How exactly did anyone "takeover" YOUR blog that allows anonymous comments by posting their comments? And now you are hunting them down thru their IP address? For what exactly? To ban them from your site? Don't you see the inherent problem with that? What is your motivation? You felt impeded to comment, but then commented twice?

I got 99 problems but ignoring a random comment on the internet ain't one.

legal stranger said...

For those of you who do not know how to hijack an IP address, use the following.

There seems to be a mixed message about blogging and comments.

As for the cat fights - Child's play

BL Basketcase said...

The whole anon thing is meant to be fun....thicken your skin to whoever complains about it. I am sure it is all meant in fun and I myself post occasionally in that persona.

If a blogger hijacks the subject of the blog away from the original topic, then that is more rude than sticking with the topic that is originally posted.
I think Tricky Dicky did stay with the topic and is allowed his opinion, as he did on this particular blog.

I also do not feel Lizardmom should have been brought into this one, as she is an innocent bystander on this one. The insults
thrown back and forth are juvenile
on this blog. I did laugh and it was entertaining.

Everyone has been encouraged to blog so let it be.

Anonymous said...

Wow, you really deleted those comments?

Has JTirregulars turned into the JT? That is pretty ridiculous, and those were pretty harmless remarks with no intentions other than questioning the contradictions concerning comments. I guess now we know what you really stand for...yourselves and only opinions you agree with.

I thought we were friends, and sometimes friends need to be able to be honest with each other. The truth hurts I guess. Maybe you can learn something from this.

If someone points out that you may be wrong about something, do you then hate them for it? If you see someone laying in the road do you drive by them, run them over, nor stop to help them? What if they are black or different than you? No two people are the same. No one is more important than the next. Please keep that in mind through your day, and learn to respect other people's opinions and their right to express them, even on an anonymous blog.

kkdither said...

Please see the newest post to the website. I believe it addresses all of your "anonymous" concerns.