States’ rights confronts federal supremacy

Look around. The country is inverted and upside down. As any follower of BREAKING ALL THE RULES knows, States’ Rights are a central position of our paleo-conservative populism. A sincere review of the U.S. Constitution clearly identifies that the Tenth Amendment specifies that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Cornell Law School explains.

“Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation’s border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.

Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens’ constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.

States have limited legislative authority regarding immigration, and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 details the full extent of state jurisdiction. Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 994 details the federal sentencing guidelines for illegal entry into the country.”

Our position and judgments are presented in a Dueling Twin segment on States’ Rights that has our counterpart from the Left contending The Myth of State Sovereignty does not supersede the authority of the Federal Government. Note the irony that such a contention argues that DC power is supreme. Of course this applies if the loony left controls the reins of government and does not apply to the Trump administration that represents the real majority of Americans.

“Myths like state sovereignty are simply grist for the mill of ideological minorities.  Finding themselves deeply out in cold, they warm themselves by burning the Constitution and would love to declare a sovereign republic out of some flyover piece of land whose politics faintly resembles their own.  But their arguments are no more credible now than they were in 1861.”

The difference between our populist advocacies is that BATR supports a representative Republic based upon the rule of law, limited in scope and the consent of sovereign individual states. Read The Philosophy of BREAKING ALL THE RULES. The position of the deranged left is that Democracy supplants a Republic with a centralized authority. Let the words of the collectivist twin speak for itself.

“Historically Americans have chosen a stronger federal government, one capable of looking after the general welfare of its citizens, of maintaining a standing professional army in their defense, one with the power to intervene against states who oppress the civil rights of their citizens, a nation vigorous enough to withstand the competition from other nation states abroad.  The people are quite capable of deciding if this kind of strong national government suits them–and they have answered with a vigorous “Yes.” Anti-federalists like SARTRE can cringe at this choice, but the people, the only legitimate sovereigns in this debate, have spoken.”

Once again, where is the support and advocacy for Federal rule now that the Electoral College has followed the Constitution and President Trump is applying legal compliance to bring rogue States who are violating laws they do not like? Just look to California’s authoritarian commissars for proof that they are adopting the Red Chinese model of totalitarianism and have already seceded from an American union.

Welcome to Chinafornia: The Future of U.S.-China Relations is changing California for the worse. Applying Maoist communism with state centralized fascism is pushing the Golden State into the arms of greater cultural and economic monocracy.

“Under normal conditions, a boom in investment is considered a win for local citizens. But when that money comes from far away investors — especially from a country with a vastly different culture and an authoritarian government — the influx creates thorny tradeoffs. Every benefit California derives from these interactions comes with a potential dark side, one that threatens to spark a nativist backlash against the new arrivals.

Chinese tech and film investors are also pouring into California. They’re seeking out unicorn startups and filmmaking know-how. China’s tech juggernauts have all established research facilities or investment beachheads in Silicon Valley and Chinese filmmakers are looking to work with — or outright acquire — their American peers.

But when Silicon Valley and Hollywood execs return the visit, they are rebuffed. Many of Silicon Valley’s flagship companies — Facebook, Google and Twitter, to name a few — are outright blocked in China. Hollywood studios face sharp limits on the number of films that can enter China and they are often forced to sanitize scripts for fear of offending Chinese government censors.”

These negative impacts have not gone unnoticed in Washington DC. Congress during a session of the Commission on China examines The Long Arm of China: Exporting Authoritarianism With Chinese Characteristics.

“This hearing will examine the Chinese government’s foreign influence operations intended to censor critical discussion of its history and human rights record and to intimidate critics of its repressive policies.  Attempts by the Chinese government to guide, buy, or coerce political influence and control discussion of “sensitive” topics are pervasive, and pose serious challenges in the United States and globally, particularly as China uses technology and the lure of the Chinese market to impose authoritarian practices abroad.”

Some of the areas brought up include:

• The academic whose scholarly paper provides background on the banned Chinese Democracy Party or


• Other politically sensitive issues refused a visa to conduct research in China; or,


• The Hollywood studio that shelves the film script with a storyline involving China’s abuse of the Tibetan people; or,


• The Washington “think tank” that puts out policy papers critical of legislative initiatives that would negatively impact the Chinese government, all the while never revealing their financial ties with senior Chinese officials; or


• The American Internet company willing to censor content globally in order to obtain access to the Chinese market.

If the Marxists limousine liberals get their way, they would apply the very nature of China’s authoritarian model, by basing its power on controlling their multicultural comrades, governed by sprawling bolshevik elites, who wants to impose their rule on the rest of our country.

Who dares to claim this is a valid application of States’ Rights? A California secession should reflect and be divided among dissenting factions of current state citizens. However, this approach would never be allowed since the radicals became the Sacramento establishment. Take this theme to its logical conclusion. If California would actually separate from the rest of the union, would China move in with their system of top down compliance? No doubt a surfer beach version of Tiananmen Square would not be allowed to ride the curl.

Like in the example of the Dueling Twin episode, the indoctrinated left has been so programmed that they are now promoting the desirability of despotic rule. This is a far cry when protesting activists would push back for personal freedom and defend individual civil liberties. Dissenters back in the 1960’s would view the central government as the enemy of the people. Those days are long gone.

Today the most obscene dictators and thugs are leftist psychopaths. This cult reads from their venerate Red Book. “Communists must never separate themselves from the majority of the people or neglect them by leading only a few progressive contingents in an isolated and rash advance, but must take care to forge close links between the progressive elements and the broad masses. This is what thinking in terms of the majority means.”

Just ponder this precept. Encourage the self-proclaimed enlightened inteligencia to embed the doctrine – tyranny of the majority – in the minds and culture of the masses. In plain English this defines the failure in any DEMOCRACY.  Apply this standard to the anti-Christian California secular society and your end result produces a war against Federal authority.

Well, avoiding a war against the Washington District of Criminals could have merit. However, a revolt out of the Hollywood/BayArea progressive axis certainly would not be an improvement. Could the final response be a military enforcement of Federal law? Will Governor Jerry Brown Be Arrested, Prosecuted and Imprisoned…is a scenario that cannot be ignored.

President George Washington set the precedent. “The Whiskey Rebellion also occupies a distinguished place in American jurisprudence. Serving as the backdrop to the first treason trials in the United States, the Whiskey Rebellion helped delineate the parameters of this constitutional crime. Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as “levying War” against the United States. During the trials of the two men convicted of treason, Circuit Court Judge William Paterson instructed the jury that “levying war” includes armed opposition to the enforcement of a federal law.”

States such as California are actually precipitating a civil war. What’s next, a mutual defense treaty between La La Land and Beijing? Is there any doubt what the response of Federal authorities would be?

Via BATR

---

Featured Image: Randy Robertson/Flickr

The post States’ rights confronts federal supremacy appeared first on Intellihub.

Does Federal Government’s Land Ownership Violate the Constitution?

MANY PEOPLE ARGUE THAT THE BUNDYS ARE WRONG, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN MILLIONS OF ACRES OF LAND.

By: Loren Edward Pearce   August 7, 2017

In 1803, Governor Morris, the principal proofreader and editor of the finished Constitution, confessed that he would have liked to have written the Property Clause so that Canada and Louisiana, once acquired, could be governed perpetually as federal provinces. He acknowledged, however, that there was little he could do to further that vision, because his fellow delegates did not agree with him. Those delegates adopted the Property Clause amid an almost universal assumption that its most important function was to promote land disposition and the creation of new states! [Letter from Morris to Henry W. Livingston (Dec 4, 1803)]

Morris, a federalist (proponent of centralized, national government), knew that his colleagues would not go for the centralized, federal retention and control of large territories or property.

The anti federalists (no centralized control) were worried about too much federal (centralized) control and the federalists consented to the Enumerated powers doctrine that was embedded in the constitution meaning that unless it was specifically listed as an enumerated power, it automatically defaulted to the states.

WHAT PART OF “FEW AND DEFINED” DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?

James Madison, a supporter of centralized government, wrote:

“The powers delegated by the proposed constitution of the federal government, ARE FEW AND DEFINED. Those which are to remain in the state governments, ARE NUMEROUS AND INDEFINITE. The former (federal government) will be exercised principally on external objects, a war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, AND PROPERTIES OF THE PEOPLE; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.” FEDERALIST NO. 45

Another respected federalist, James Wilson, stated:

“I leave it to every gentleman to say whether the enumerated powers are not as accurately and MINUTELY DEFINED, as can be well done on the same subject, in the same language…nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are LIMITED AND DEFINED by the following, “for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”, it is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given (enumerated), shall be effectually carried into execution.”

Did you get that?  Many people claim that congress was vested with powers to do whatever it damn well pleased, in other words, to pass the laws that it sees fit to pass for whatever reason, or no reason, because the people, from which all power flows, elected them to pass laws, by majority vote, and that if there was any conflict with the constitution, the unlimited powers of congress would trump all other considerations.  Many federalists today, claim that congress is the most powerful entity in the land because they can overcome executive vetoes and Supreme Court decisions by obtaining enough votes to overturn them.

The proponents of federal land control like to cite a Supreme Court decision which gave congress power “without limitation” to do what it wants with land.  United States v. City of San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29 (1940).

But, Wilson is saying that is not the case.  Congress does not have unlimited powers with land or anything else.  Congress cannot exceed the enumerated powers granted to it by the supreme law of the land, the constitution.  The only way congress can get around those enumerated powers is by constitutional amendment which requires ratification by 2/3 of the states.

Under the Property Clause, congress had power given to it to “dispose” of property that it had acquired through treaty. It had a right to retain property for the purpose of fulfilling its limited mission as enumerated, i.e, forts, docks, navies, armies, post offices, etc.  But, millions of acres of land owned by the federal government is in direct opposition to Madison’s statement, “few and defined”.

WHY ISN’T WASHINGTON, D.C. A 1000 SQUARE MILES?

To illustrate this prevailing sentiment against federal control of real estate and property, the historical record shows through letters, transcripts and journals that considerable time and energy was spent debating the size of the federal enclave, Washington, District of Columbia. Territory that had not been made a sovereign state, was often called a “district”.

The framers argued over the 10 mile square size (100 square miles) of the District of Columbia because they worried that it was big enough to become a haven for a large standing army with munitions, or engaging in business and commerce outside its scope of its agency and that it would also be a haven for other forms of corruption and favoritism often found in centralized governments such as the British government who they had just fought.

Many argued that 10 mile square should be reduced to 1 mile square which was plenty big enough for the limited federal government to conduct its limited powers. Therefore, with this kind of mistrust of centralized, federal government, anything bigger than 10 mile square was out of the question, unless it served the enumerated purpose of the federal government, which Madison clearly stated was very limited.

If, as many federal supporters claim, congress has unlimited powers to do whatever it damn well pleases, then why limit themselves to 10 miles square?  Why not 100 miles square or 1000 miles square for the capitol of the USA?

INTERPRETING THE PROPERTY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION

THE PROPERTY CLAUSE, Art 4, Sect 3, Cl 2
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

THE ENCLAVE CLAUSE, Art 1, Sect 8, Cl 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–

The bias and presumption was towards disposal of Territory and other Property that allowed the federal government to fulfill its Enumerated, delegated and LIMITED powers.

During the time of the Louisiana purchase, the Northwest territories, real estate acquired by treaty with Mexico, the federal government sold, as quickly as they could find buyers, all that real estate in its possession, in order to reduce the national debt. It was the intention of the federal government, under Jefferson and others, to return the land to the private use of the people who could then petition the Congress for statehood.

It was the Northwest ordinance where we get the “equal footing doctrine” where states are admitted to the union on an equal footiing in all respects.

In the controlling and landmark decision, Pollard Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)
“This right originated in voluntary surrenders, made by several of the old States, of their waste and unappropriated lands, to the United States, under a resolution of the old Congress, of the 6th of September, 1780, recommending such surrender and cession, to aid in paying the public debt, incurred by the war of the Revolution. The object of all the parties to these contracts of cession, was to convert the land into money for the payment of the debt, and to erect new States over the territory thus ceded; and as soon as these purposes could be accomplished, the power of the United States over these lands, as property, was to cease.”

Furthermore, the court stated that the federal government had no municipal or sovereign authority from the constitution over those lands,

“The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. When Alabama was admitted into the union, ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES, she succeeded to all the rights of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and eminent domain which Georgia possessed at the date of the cession, except so far as this right was diminished by the public lands remaining in the possession and under the control of the United States, for the temporary purposes provided for in the deed of cession and the legislative acts connected with it. Nothing remained to the United States, according to the terms of the agreement, but the public lands. And, if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative, because THE UNITED STATES HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO EXERCISE MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION, SOVEREIGNTY, OR EMINENT DOMAIN, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A STATE OR ELSEWHERE, EXCEPT IN THE CASES IN WHICH IT IS EXPRESSLY GRANTED.”

Congress could not use the Property clause as a pretext or excuse, to obtain property outside the scope of its limited powers!

In M’Culloch v. Maryland:

“Should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal (Supreme Court), should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.”

Congress could retain treaty land for military purposes, even without State legislature approval, but only because military land was essential to the general welfare of the United States and was an enumerated right of congress. The retention of non-enumerated land, land that did not fulfill its role as a federal government, could not be retained but must be disposed of.

THE ENUMERATED POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO NOT INCLUDE NATIONAL PARKS, NATIONAL MONUMENTS AND WILDERNESS REFUGES.

If Congress, and the people, want to set aside vast tracts of land for environmental or heritage purposes, they must do so through private trusts or with state legislature approval.

Today, we have the federal government controlling 400,000 square miles of real estate (approx. 700 million acres), running it like a business, by buying, seizing, confiscating, selling and leasing property as they, the federal bureaucrats, deem appropriate with little citizen oversight.

Contained within those 700 million acres, are billions of dollars of natural resources: minerals, petroleum, gas, coal, timber, crops, etc.  The control of such wealth, lies in the hands of a few politicians and bureaucrats.

The massive size of the BLM has led to it forming its own Enclave, with its own federal government consisting of an executive branch (bureaucratic executives), its own judiciary (administrative law judges) and its own legislature (rules and regulations) and even its own well equipped police force for enforcing its executive decisions and its rules and regulations. This was not the intent of Governor Morris or his colleagues when ratifying the new constitution.

INCESTUOUS RELATIONSHIPS

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada has taken advantage of this “scope creep”, this vast, unconstitutional behavior of the present day government, by using his power and influence to get his former senior adviser appointed to the top post in the BLM.  Confirmed by a 71-28 Senate vote on April 9, BLM chief Neil Kornze served as a former senior adviser to Reid before he joined BLM in 2011, serving for the past year as the agency’s principal deputy director, according to a CBS local television news report broadcast in Carson City, Nevada.

From this incestuous relationship, has come evidence that Reid and his son, Rory, made moves that could line their pockets and give them more political leverage with the lands surrounding and on the Bundy property.

In addition to having his hand picked Kornze as head of the executive branch BLM, Harry Reid locked in the judicial branch with his nomination of Gloria Navarro as chief justice in the Las Vegas federal court.  As chief justice, she can supervise all the cases and assign to herself the cases in which she and Harry have a particular interest.

Although the solar deal with China may have fallen through, on a much grander scale, there is evidence of conspiracy and collusion in how the trillions of dollars of public lands may be used for the benefit of a few people.  There is growing evidence that a few people, like Harry Reid, are using public lands as collateral for debt swaps.

This is what the constitution framers wanted to avoid. This is why they limited federal power and limited control over real estate. This is why those limitations have been eroded, manipulated and in some cases deleted, because it serves powerful interests to have power to be concentrated in a few hands, exactly what the colonists shed their blood trying to change.

THOSE WHO CONTROL THE LAND, CONTROL EVERYTHING

The Bundy patriarch, Cliven, and his four sons, sit in pretrial, pre conviction prison, based solely on the power and authority of one person, Gloria Navarro.  Ammon Bundy has often claimed that, “everything comes from the land and he who controls land, controls everything.”   The powerful few who reside in the federal government, understand this principle and for that reason, will spare no cost, spare no lie, spare no corruption and spare no lives or suffering of the innocent, to get their way.

Redoubt News

.

Sheriff Arpaio on Trial: Prosecution or Persecution?

“With over 55 years of law enforcement experience, Sheriff Arpaio has always followed and enforced the laws on the books. Now, the DOJ wants to put him in prison for enforcing the very laws he swore an oath to uphold,” Mr. Fotis said in a Monday statement.

Washington Times

Arizona’s Joe Arpaio, once known as “America’s toughest sheriff,” was back Monday where he has long been most at home — in the spotlight — although not for the reasons he would have preferred.

Months after losing his re-election bid, the 85-year-old former Maricopa County sheriff went on trial in Phoenix on misdemeanor criminal contempt-of-court charges, a case his foes have praised as long overdue and fans have denounced as a “political prosecution.”

Federal prosecutors argued that Mr. Arpaio willfully disobeyed a 2011 injunction barring him from enforcing federal immigration laws by detaining 170 suspected illegal aliens from December 2011 to May 2013.

After U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement refused to accept the suspects in 2012, the sheriff’s office tried a workaround by taking them to Border Patrol.

“He thought he could get away with it,” prosecutor Victor Salgado said in his opening argument, according to ABC15. “He never thought this day would come.”

Defense attorney Jack Wilenchik called the prosecution of Mr. Arpaio “shameful and outrageous,” as reported by the Phoenix New Times.

Mr. Arpaio became a national figure during his 24 years as sheriff with headline-grabbing moves such as requiring prisoners to wear pink underwear and erecting a tent city for offenders.

The trial has gained national attention with the defense’s attempt to call Attorney General Jeff Sessions as a witness, which the Justice Department has resisted, saying Mr. Sessions was a senator during the relevant period and that the defense has failed to show extraordinary circumstances.

The proceedings, playing out before a packed courtroom, began on Monday with a victory for the prosecution: Hours beforehand, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Mr. Arpaio’s request for a jury trial.

Instead, the former lawman will have his fate decided by U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton, a Clinton appointee, in a trial expected to last eight days. If found guilty, Mr. Arpaio faces a maximum six months in jail.

The prosecution called former Arpaio counsel Tim Casey, who said he told the sheriff that he must either arrest detainees on state charges or release them, instead of detaining them solely on suspicion of being in the country illegally.

Mr. Casey said he told the sheriff and his subordinates, “Arrest or release. Those are the options,” The Arizona Republic reported.

Opinion on the case is sharply divided. James Fotis, president of the National Center for Police Defense, accused the Justice Department of “deep state bias,” noting that prosecutors filed the charges two weeks before the Nov. 8 election.

“With over 55 years of law enforcement experience, Sheriff Arpaio has always followed and enforced the laws on the books. Now, the DOJ wants to put him in prison for enforcing the very laws he swore an oath to uphold,” Mr. Fotis said in a Monday statement.

Read more at gopusa:  http://www.gopusa.com/sheriff-arpaio-on-trial-prosecution-or-persecution/

H/T: JK

America Too Broke to Fix Crumbling Infrastructure? “Bridges, Roads, Airports In Long Term Collapse”

Public domain image, CC0 (source)

This article was written by Michael Snyder and originally published at the Economic Collapse blog.

Editor’s Comment: It is certainly solid to suggest that the entire national infrastructure is in bad need of an overhaul. Bridges, roads, tunnels, sewage, water pipes, the electric grid and more are corroded, toxic, faulty and blemishes. They reflect the vibrance and prosperity of the country, and it is no surprise to find the worst cases of these failing public works in some of the most economically depressed areas of the country, with high unemployment, and in the big cities where too many people are crammed together and overflowing the various utilities and roadways.

The problem adds to the deep structural problems, with economic growth and a return of good jobs necessary to balance the investment, but also needed to stimulate boosted productivity, spending and commerce. The federal debt is bloated and prone to complete disaster. Personal households, cities and states, and many businesses are all prone to bankruptcy, debt implosion and foreclosures and closed doors. The big question is how to get out of the financial hole that has everyone so captive… it’s a big question, but the answers somehow never seem to surface – and it is my suspicion that the powers that be want it that way, with most everyone too desperate to challenge their power.

Can the quagmire be overcome? Will a make over fix the bigger problems Americans are facing?

11 Deeply Alarming Facts About America’s Crumbling Infrastructure

by Michael Snyder

No matter what your particular political perspective is, if there is one thing that virtually everyone in the United States can agree upon it is the fact that America’s infrastructure is crumbling.  Previous generations of Americans conquered an entire continent and erected the greatest system of infrastructure that the world had ever seen, but now thousands upon thousands of those extremely impressive infrastructure projects are decades old and in desperate need of repair or upgrading.  The near catastrophic failure of the Oroville Dam is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

We should be constructing the next generation of infrastructure projects for our children and our grandchildren, but instead we are in such sorry shape that we can’t even keep up with the maintenance and upkeep on the great infrastructure projects that have been handed down to us.

Once upon a time nobody on the entire planet could even come close to matching our infrastructure, but now our crumbling infrastructure has become a joke to much of the rest of the industrialized world.  Sadly, this is just another symptom of our long-term economic collapse.  We simply are not able to put as much of our money toward infrastructure as previous generations of Americans did, and as a result we have a giant mess on our hands.

The following are 11 deeply alarming facts about America’s crumbling infrastructure…

#1 According to the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, nearly 56,000 bridges in the United States are currently “structurally deficient”.  What makes that number even more chilling is the fact that vehicles cross those bridges a total of 185 million times a day.

#2 More than one out of every four bridges in the United States is more than 50 years old and “have never had major reconstruction work”.

#3 America does not have a single airport that is considered to be in the top 25 in the world.

#4 The average age of America’s dams is now 52 years.

#5 Not too long ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the condition of America’s dams a “D” grade.

#6 Overall, the American Society of Civil Engineers said that the condition of America’s infrastructure as a whole only gets a “D+” grade.

#7 Congestion on our highways costs Americans approximately 101 billion dollars a year in wasted fuel and time.

#8 According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, over two-thirds of our roads are “in dire need of repair or upgrades”.

#9 In order to completely fix all of our roads and bridges, it would take approximately 808 billion dollars.

#10 Federal spending on infrastructure has decreased by 9 percent over the past decade.

#11 According to Bloomberg, it is being projected “that by 2025, shortfalls in infrastructure investment will subtract as much as $3.9 trillion from U.S. gross domestic product.”

The quality of our infrastructure affects all of our lives every single day.  For instance, we all simply take it for granted that safe, clean drinking water is going to come out of our taps, but recent events have shown that is not necessarily always going to be the case.

Just ask the residents of Flint, Michigan.

Water pipes, sewer systems and water treatment facilities all over the nation are aging and are in desperate need of repair.  Of course the exact same thing could be said about our power grid.  It was never intended to handle so many people, and on the hottest days of the summer the strain on the grid is very evident.

And of course the power grid is exceedingly vulnerable to an electromagnetic pulse event, and this is something that I covered in my book on getting prepared.  It has been projected that it would only cost a couple billion dollars to harden the grid against an EMP event, but our politicians refuse to spend the money.

Meanwhile, President Trump is completely correct when he says that our airports look like something that you would see in a third world country.  Most of our airports are at least several decades old, and they are definitely showing their age.

But things are even worse when you look at other systems of mass transit around the country.  While other nations such as Japan and China are investing huge amounts of money into high speed rail, we are doing next to nothing even though what we currently have is absolutely pathetic.

I could go on and talk about our ports, schools, waterways, parks, etc. but I think that you get the point.

President Trump’s instincts are right on the money when he says that he wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure.  Without a doubt, we desperately need it.

The problem is that we are flat broke.

We are 20 trillion dollars in debt, and we are adding more than a trillion dollars to that total every year.

So where are we going to get the money?

It is easy for liberals to say that we should raise taxes, but how much more are you going to squeeze out of U.S. consumers?  Two-thirds of the country is living paycheck to paycheck, and we just learned that U.S. household debt has risen to a grand total of 12.58 trillion dollars.

Once upon a time, America was the wealthiest nation on the entire planet and we could afford to construct bold, new infrastructure projects from sea to shining sea.

But today we have the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world and we can’t even afford to repair what we already have.

When I speak of our long-term economic collapse, this is precisely the sort of thing that I am talking about.  We have clearly been in decline for a very long time, and anyone that would suggest otherwise is simply not being honest with you.

This article was written by Michael Snyder and originally published at the Economic Collapse blog.

---