NASA Begins Developing Robot Bees To Explore Martian Surface

A newly funded NASA project has the goal of developing robotic bees to explore the surface of Mars.  The project, dubbed “Marsbees” will help the space agency get around the red planet by air as opposed to the slow moving land robot, the Mars Curiosity Rover.

Dr. Chang-kwon Kang, an aerospace engineer at the University of Alabama, Huntsville and one of the researchers behind the initiative, said these “robotic flapping wing flyers of a bumblebee size” could “significantly enhance the Mars exploration mission.” The tiny robots would be fitted with sensors and wireless communication devices and would use a Mars rover like Nasa’s Curiosity as a charging point.

Because the rocky landscape on Mars is hard on the Mars rover wheels, NASA researchers are funding ways to explore the Red Planet by taking robotics to fly there instead. “Our preliminary numerical results suggest that a bumblebee with a cicada wing can generate sufficient lift to hover in the Martian atmosphere,” writes Chang-kwon Kang.

The Marsbee robots, on the other hand, could travel quickly across the planet’s surface, beaming information back to the rover, which would also act as the main communication center. Preliminary results from Dr. Kang and his team at the University of Alabama suggest their robots’ insect-like design would allow them to hover in the Martian atmosphere, even though it is far thinner than the one found on Earth.

According to The Independent, the Marsbees will be equipped with oversized wings that should provide the lift required to stay aloft above the planet’s surface. A team in Japan will develop and test the “micro flapping robots”, while Dr. Kang and his colleagues back in the US will model, analyze, and optimize them. The Japanese roboticists have already produced the hummingbird micro air vehicle, one of the few “robotic flappers” capable of flying on Earth.

This isn’t the first time robot bees have been suggested as a solution. In early 2017, scientists discussed using robot bees to help organic bees pollinate crops because of their population decline.

Of course, as with all robotic advancements, with great technology comes great responsibility. The fears of AI are already brewing and with robots likely becoming more technologically advanced in the coming year, those fears are certainly valid. 

8 Things To Consider Before Homesteading On Bare Land

Image source: Pixabay.com

There is something about bare land that appeals to almost all homesteaders.  It’s the clean slate – the dream of being able to turn a piece of undeveloped land into exactly what you want it to be, and the chance to control (at least a bit) of your own destiny.

Before you head out to buy your own piece of bare land, there are several things you need to consider.

1. Building codes & zoning

Before buying any piece of land, the first thing you need to know is the zoning.  Zoning will determine a lot of what you can do with your property — from building buildings, to installing electricity, to cutting trees, to owning livestock.

Once you’ve established the zoning, make sure to check out any and all applicable building codes. In some areas with an agricultural zoning, you may be able to build barns without permits. However, if you are buying land with a forestry or recreational zoning, you may not be allowed to put a building up at all! Find out the rules BEFORE you buy.

2. Easements, accesses and property lines

Be sure before purchasing any bare land that you have in writing exactly how the property is accessed and if there are any easements that you will either be utilizing to access the property, or easements you will be providing others to access adjoining tracts. This also includes finding out about easements afforded to power, water or gas companies. Never assume that an access road is a legal one. Easements and accesses are recorded with the county, so if the owner or realtor cannot provide you with documentation, check there.

Finally, A Backup Generator That Doesn’t Require Gasoline!

In addition, are the property lines clearly marked, and if not, who will pay to have the land surveyed? No one wants to put a fence in the wrong place and end up in a courtroom, so this is a vital thing if you are purchasing raw, unfenced land. (It never hurts to have it surveyed to confirm that fences are in the right place, either.)

3. Electricity

Does the land you are looking to purchase have power already? Are you planning to connect to the power company, or are you planning to put in an off-grid system? These are questions that you need to address before you make an offer on bare land.

In our area, it’s not at all unusual for one street to have utility company power, and the next street for it to be unavailable. Our property is a half mile as the crow flies from the nearest home with utility power, and yet to get it to our place was a quote of over $120,000!

If solar or wind is your plan, pay careful attention to property features that may obstruct the operation of those systems, including timber and hills. You’ll want to visit the property at several different times and get a feel for the feasibility of installing those systems.

4. Water

What water access does the tract have? Does the property have a well already or access to public water? If there is presently a well on the property, make sure you have it tested or the owner has a testing report from within the last few months.

If there’s not well but there is water, you may be looking at putting a well in yourself. Installing a well can be quite costly, depending on the depth. You’ll want to check with your realtor, the property owner, neighbors, the county, or local well drillers to get an idea on what depth and cost of well installation will be. Keep in mind, though, that no two properties are the same. For instance, our well is at a depth of 330 feet, and yet our neighbor whose well is a quarter mile from our own and further down the valley is at a depth of around 600 feet. Still, it’s good to have an idea of what depth you are likely to be at.

Depending on the location, there is also the possibility that the property will not have or have access to water. In that case, you may be looking at a cistern situation, with water being delivered from an outside source. Do your homework first – good water is essential!

5. Septic

Very seldom does a tract of bare land have a septic, but it does happen on occasion. This is especially likely if there was previously a home or if anyone has lived on the land with an RV. If there is one, then get the usual details — size rating, installation date, who put it in, and last service date.

Most likely, you’ll be putting in a septic system yourself, so again, be sure you know what the codes require. There is a significant difference in price from a traditional system to something more in-depth such as a sand filter setup. Know what to expect before you buy.

6. Soil & drainage

Soil and drainage are two items that not everybody stops to think about when buying land.

When looking at drainage, look for natural features such as creek beds, dry creeks, depressions, etc. What doesn’t look like much in dry weather may become a lake or roaring river during the wet season. Also, are there spots with good drainage that will allow for buildings such as a house or barns? If not, you may be looking at bringing in soils or rock to build areas up before construction can begin.

Furthermore, it’s important to know what type of soil a property has, especially if you plan to garden or house animals. Rocky ground or hard clay can be miserable to put fence posts into, and sandy soils may not keep posts in! You may also have trouble planting or growing trees in rocky or sandy ground. Amending soils or building raised beds can be costly if you plan to have a very large garden, so be sure to do a little investigation on the front end.

7. Predators

Researching the predators in your area is a very big deal if you have small children or plan to raise livestock. This can include the big animals such as mountain lions, bears, coyotes, wolves, and bobcats, but also small critters like fox, skunks, opossum and raccoons, which are all threats if you plan to raise and free-range poultry.

Additionally, if you plan to have an orchard or large garden and are looking at property in the heart of a heavy deer population, this is something you’ll have to consider. Keeping critters out is often more costly than keeping them in!

8. Neighbors

You might be thinking this one is unimportant, but from personal experience I can tell you that neighbors can make all the difference when it comes to enjoying your homesteading space. I’m not saying that you need to be best friends with your potential neighbors, but getting a feel for who they are will save you heartache down the road.

Buying a bare piece of land to build your homestead on can be a wonderful adventure if you do your due diligence on the front end and keep these items in mind.

What advice would you add? Share your thoughts in the section below:

How To Grow A Garden When You Don’t Own Land

Image source: Pixabay.com

There is hope for apartment dwellers and renters who want to guarantee their food security. If you think you must own land to begin, think again. There’s no reason why you can’t start right away.

Growing Food Indoors

Select food crops that thrive indoors. You can grow mushrooms and sprout beans with little to no special equipment. If you have a sunny windowsill or if you purchase indoor plant lighting, you can grow dwarf carrots, radishes, beans, peas, tomatoes, peppers, eggplants or lettuce. Many herbs also will thrive indoors.

Container Gardening

Container gardening is perfect for many renters. A few pots on an apartment balcony can supply you with lots of food. If you have a bigger area, such as a patio or lawn, you can grow even more. Don’t discount shady areas; plenty of food will grow in partial sunlight.

Looking For Non-GMO Herb Seeds? Get Them From A Company You Can Trust!

You don’t need to buy expensive pots, either; salvaged containers will do just fine. If you have more space, you can build large raised beds using scrap wood; this is a good solution for an unused corner of a yard, patio or deck. You

Image source: Pixabay.com

can grow a sustenance garden on a sunny balcony:

• Strawberries: Hanging baskets are perfect for strawberries; look for baskets at least 8 inches deep, or make your own.


• Tomatoes and peppers: Grow these in five-gallon pots or planter boxes in a sunny spot. Make sure they stay warm and get plenty of water, and you should get a nice yield.


• Beans and peas: Build a trellis along a wall, and plant the beans and peas along the bottom in a box. You can train the plants to climb and make good use of vertical space.


• Lettuce, kale and herbs: Grow in a trough or planter at least 12 inches deep. You can reseed these throughout the growing season to maximize the harvest.


• Carrots, radishes and turnips: These will need a deeper pot or box, but will usually flourish to fill whatever space is available.


• Potatoes: Plant seed potatoes in a narrow, deep box, leaving space for each plant. You also can construct a potato box, which will allow for more potatoes in less space. To start immediately, try growing potatoes directly in a sack of soil.


• Apples, cherries, figs and pears: Fruiting trees can be grown in larger containers. You also can train fruit trees to grow in confined areas.


• Squash, cucumbers and melons: If you have a wider space, plant these in 12-inch deep soil. Remember that these plants will spread a bit.

The key to growing food in a small space is to use every available square inch. If your balcony has a railing, consider putting planter boxes on either side of it. Use vertical space with trellises and hanging baskets. Stagger pots, with smaller pots using up spaces between larger pots.

Community Plots and Other Alternatives

If you have no usable space for growing food, look into community gardening. In many urban areas, community gardens (or allotments) are run by dedicated individuals trying to produce food for their families and make food security more accessible. Rules will vary, but in most cases, you will work the garden or your portion of it in exchange for square footage. Resources and knowledge are often shared, and this can be a great way for an urban farmer to get started.

If you cannot grow your own food, look into community supported agriculture and farmers’ markets. At the very least, supporting local growers means you’ll have access to their resources. If you develop strong relationships with local producers, you may even find yourself in a bargaining position should food security become an issue. You can have some security in knowing that you are supporting food production in your region.

Don’t let urban dwelling or renting stop you from ensuring your food security, and don’t leave it in unknown hands. Everyone can take immediate action to begin growing some or all of the food necessary for survival; you might just need to get creative.

What ideas would you add to our list? Share your thoughts in the section below:

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

.

How To Find The Best Deals On Off-Grid Land

Many Americans who are tired of the rat race often dream of an off-grid life by a picturesque lake … but they never do anything about it.

This week’s guest on Off The Grid Radio had those same dreams – and he acted on them. His name is Gary Collins, and he traded his big California home and consumerism lifestyle for a simpler off-grid lakeside life in Washington state. And he’s not looking back.

His name is Gary Collins, and his new book, “Going Off Grid: The How-To Book Of Simple Living And Happiness,” details everything he learned during his off-grid venture.

He tells us:

• How to find the best deals on off-grid land.


• Why he chose to use contractors instead of building his home by himself.


• How he made $10,000, simply by selling his possessions, before moving off-grid.


• What off-gridders need to know about water rights before buying property.

Finally, Gary tells us why he is skeptical about tiny homes.

If you’ve considered moving off-grid, or you simply enjoy learning from adventurous people, then this week’s show is for you!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 26:36 — 24.4MB)

Stealing from the citizenry: How government goons use civil asset forfeiture to rob us blind

“Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property. Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head.  With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.”—“ Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture,” Institute for Justice

In jolly old England, Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor.

In modern-day America, greedy government goons steal from the innocent to give to the corrupt under court- and legislature-sanctioned schemes called civil asset forfeiture. In fact, according to The Washington Post, “law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did.”

This is how the American police state continues to get rich: by stealing from the citizenry.

Here’s how the whole ugly business works in a nutshell.

First, government agents (usually the police) use a broad array of tactics to profile, identify, target and arrange to encounter (in a traffic stop, on a train, in an airport, in public, or on private property) those  individuals who might be traveling with a significant amount of cash or possess property of value. Second, these government agents—empowered by the courts and the legislatures—seize private property (cash, jewelry, cars, homes and other valuables) they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity.

Then—and here’s the kicker—whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, without any charges being levied against the property owner, or any real due process afforded the unlucky victim, the property is forfeited to the government, which often divvies it up with the local police who helped with the initial seizure.

It’s a new, twisted form of guilt by association.

Only it’s not the citizenry being accused of wrongdoing, just their money.

What this adds up to is a paradigm in which Americans no longer have to be guilty to be stripped of their property, rights and liberties. All you have to be is in possession of something the government wants.

Motorists have been particularly vulnerable to this modern-day form of highway robbery.

For instance, police stole $201,000 in cash from Lisa Leonard because the money—which Leonard planned to use to buy a house for her son—was being transported on a public highway also used by drug traffickers. Despite the fact that Leonard was innocent of wrongdoing, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the theft on a technicality.

Police stole $50,000 in cash from Amanee Busbee—which she planned to use to complete the purchase of a restaurant—and threatened to hand her child over to CPS if she resisted. She’s one of the few to win most of her money back in court.

Police stole $22,000 in cash from Jerome Chennault—which he planned to use as the down payment on a home—simply because a drug dog had alerted police to its presence in his car. After challenging the seizure in court, Chennault eventually succeeded in having most of his money returned, although the state refused to compensate him for his legal and travel expenses.

Police stole $8,500 in cash and jewelry from Roderick Daniels—which he planned to use to purchase a new car—and threatened him with jail and money-laundering charges if he didn’t sign a waiver forfeiting his property.

Police stole $6,000 in cash from Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson and threatened to turn their young children over to Child Protective Services if they resisted.

Tenaha, Texas, is a particular hotbed of highway forfeiture activity, so much so that police officers keep pre-signed, pre-notarized documents on hand so they can fill in what property they are seizing.

As the Huffington Post explains, these police forfeiture operations have become little more than criminal shakedowns:

Police in some jurisdictions have run forfeiture operations that would be difficult to distinguish from criminal shakedowns. Police can pull motorists over, find some amount of cash or other property of value, claim some vague connection to illegal drug activity and then present the motorists with a choice: If they hand over the property, they can be on their way. Otherwise, they face arrest, seizure of property, a drug charge, a probable night in jail, the hassle of multiple return trips to the state or city where they were pulled over, and the cost of hiring a lawyer to fight both the seizure and the criminal charge. It isn’t hard to see why even an innocent motorist would opt to simply hand over the cash and move on.

Unsurprisingly, these asset forfeiture scams have become so profitable for the government that they have expanded their reach beyond the nation’s highways.

According to USA Today, the U.S. Department of Justice received $2.01 billion in forfeited items in 2013, and since 2008 local and state law enforcement nationwide has raked in some $3 billion in forfeitures through the federal “equitable sharing” program.

So now it’s not just drivers who have to worry about getting the shakedown.

Any American unwise enough to travel with significant amounts of cash is fair game for the government pickpockets.

In fact, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been colluding with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and local police departments to seize a small fortune in cash from American travelers using the very tools—scanners, spies and surveillance devices—they claimed were necessary to catch terrorists.

Mind you, TSA agents already have a reputation for stealing from travelers, but clearly the government is not concerned about protecting the citizenry from its own wolfish tendencies.

No, the government isn’t looking to catch criminals. It’s just out for your cold, hard cash.

As USA Today reports, although DEA agents have seized more than $203 million in cash in airports alone since 2006, they almost never make arrests or build criminal cases in connection to the seized cash.

For instance, DEA agents at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport stole $11,000 in cash from college student Charles Clarke—his entire life savings, in fact—simply because they claimed his checked suitcase smelled like marijuana. Apart from the sniff test, no drugs or evidence of criminal activity were found.

Christelle Tillerson was waiting to board a flight from Detroit to Chicago when DEA agents stole $25,000 in cash from her suitcase, money she planned to use to buy a truck. Tillerson was never arrested or charged

Joseph Rivers was traveling on an Amtrak train from Michigan to Los Angeles when police stole $16,000 in cash in a bank envelope—money the 22-year-old had saved up to produce a music when he arrived in Hollywood—based solely on their groundless suspicions that the money could have been associated with drugs.

How does the government know which travelers to target?

Through surveillance of Americans’ domestic travel records, by profiling train and airport passengers, and by relying on a “network of travel-industry informants that extends from ticket counters to back offices.” In one instance, the DEA actually promised to give a TSA security screener a reward for identifying luggage with large sums of cash: the more cash found, the bigger the reward.

Starting to notice a pattern?

First, the government claims it needs more powers and more weapons in order to fight crime and terrorism: the power to spy on Americans’ communications and travel; the ability to carry out virtual and actual strip searches of Americans’ luggage, persons and property; the authority to stop and interrogate travelers for any reason in the name of national security.

Then, when government agents have been given enough powers and weapons to transform them into mini-tyrants, they’re unleashed on an unsuspecting citizenry with few resources to be able to defend themselves or protect their property.

So much for those long-cherished ideals about the assumption of innocence and due process.

For example, the federal government attempted to confiscate Russell Caswell’s family-owned Tewksbury, Massachusetts, motel, insisting that because a small percentage of the motel’s guests had been arrested for drug crimes—15 out of 200,000 visitors in a 14-year span—the motel was a dangerous property. As Reason reports:

This cruel surprise was engineered by Vincent Kelley, a forfeiture specialist at the Drug Enforcement Administration who read about the Motel Caswell in a news report and found that the property, which the Caswells own free and clear, had an assessed value of $1.3 million. So Kelley approached the Tewksbury Police Department with an “equitable sharing” deal: The feds would seize the property and sell it, and the cops would get up to 80 percent of the proceeds.

Thankfully, with the help of a federal judge, Caswell managed to keep his motel out of the government’s clutches, but others are not so fortunate.

Gerald and Royetta Ostipow had their Michigan farm and property seized, including a classic muscle car, and then sold by the local sheriff’s office. As USA Today reports:

The Ostipows were required to provide a $150,000 cash bond before they could begin the legal proceedings to contest the forfeiture and get their property back. But they couldn’t afford to. An appeals court later overturned the Ostipow’s hefty bond requirement… But the ruling didn’t stop the nightmare for the couple who were never charged with a crime. They still had to win a court case seeking the return of hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of property taken from the Ostipow’s rural Michigan home, including a cherished classic car. Eventually, an appeals court found that the property was wrongly forfeited. But it was too later to recover the car. With the odometer mysteriously bearing an additional 56,000 miles, police had already sold the car and spent the proceeds.

Despite the fact that 80 percent of these asset forfeiture cases result in no charge against the property owner, challenging these “takings” in court can cost the owner more than the value of the confiscated property itself. As a result, most property owners either give up the fight or chalk the confiscation up to government corruption, leaving the police and other government officials to reap the benefits.

Under a federal equitable sharing program, police turn asset forfeiture cases over to federal agents who process seizures and then return 80% of the proceeds to the police. Michigan police actually get to keep up to 100% of forfeited property.

This is what has become known as “policing for profit.”

According to USA Today, “Anecdotal evidence suggests that allowing departments to keep forfeiture proceeds may tempt them to use the funds unwisely. For example, consider a 2015 scandal in Romulus, Michigan, where police officers used funds forfeited from illicit drug and prostitution stings to pay for …  illicit drugs and prostitutes.”

Police agencies have also used their ill-gotten gains “to buy guns, armored cars and electronic surveillance gear,” reportsThe Washington Post. “They have also spent money on luxury vehicles, travel and a clown named Sparkles.”

So what’s to be done?

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are now ruled by a government so consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population as to be completely unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.

Our freedoms aren’t just being trampled, however.

They’re being eviscerated.

At every turn, “we the people” are getting swindled, cheated, conned, robbed, raided, pickpocketed, mugged, deceived, defrauded, double-crossed and fleeced by governmental and corporate shareholders of the American police state out to make a profit at taxpayer expense.

President Trump has made it clear his loyalties lie with the police, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has previously declared his love for civil asset forfeiture, the Supreme Court keeps marching in lockstep with the police state, and the police unions don’t want their gravy train to go away, so there’s not much hope for federal reform anytime soon.

As always, change will have to begin locally and move upwards.

Some state legislatures (Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Ohio) are beginning to push back against these clearly unconstitutional asset forfeiture schemes. As the National Review reports, “New Mexico now requires a criminal conviction before law enforcement can seize property, while police in Florida must prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that property is linked to a crime before it’s seized.”

More than legislative change, however, what we need is a change of mindset on the part of the citizenry. We need to stop acting like victims and start acting like citizens with rights.

Remember, long before Americans charted their revolutionary course in pursuit of happiness, it was “life, liberty, and property” which constituted the golden triad of essential rights that the government was charged with respecting and protecting.

To the colonists, smarting from mistreatment at the hands of the British crown, protecting their property from governmental abuse was just as critical as preserving their lives and liberties. As the colonists understood, if the government can arbitrarily take away your property, you have no true rights: you’re nothing more than a serf or a slave.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was born of this need to safeguard against any attempt by the government to unlawfully deprive a citizen of the right to life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Little could our ancestral forebears have imagined that it would take less than three centuries of so-called “independence” to once again render us brow-beaten subjects in bondage to an overlord bent on depriving us of our most inalienable and fundamental rights.

Yet if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

Enough is enough.

Via Rutherford Institute

Featured Image: Phil Roeder/Flickr

How investors can profit from the growing Lithium boom

As Tesla fires up its $5-billion (USD) battery gigafactory to mass produce lithium-ion batteries in a historical turning point, lithium prices are set to explode, there has never been a better year to be a lithium company. 

Tesla began mass production of lithium-ion batteries in the first week of January 2017, and by the end of the year, it will have led to a doubling of global battery production capacity. By 2018, Tesla predicts it will churn out 35 gigawatts of batteries per year. It’s a massive amount that surpasses more than what the rest of the world combined produces.

To put it more succinctly, Tesla’s Nevada Gigafactory alone will lead to a doubling of global battery production capacity next year already—and with such limited supply availability, it means a bull run for lithium. If lithium grows at its expected rate of 16 percent annually, it will be the fastest-growing commodity of the century–and junior lithium companies may turn out to be the fastest-growing companies of the century.

Lithium X Energy Corp. (TSX.V: LIX) (OTCQB: LIXXF) is a small-cap lithium company with a large resource (> 1 million tonness LCE) and a dream team that has stormed the new supply scene in a way that would have been unthinkable just a couple of years ago.

Not only does the company have a world-class lithium resource in one of the sweetest lithium spots in the world, but it also has a world-class technical and financial team with a strategic vision that has the potential to turn this into a billion-dollar company.

Here’s why:

#1 Flawless Sector Fundamentals

Lithium stocks continue to rise, and analysts view 2017 as the strongest lithium rise yet because of Tesla’s Model 3 demand. The demand is not even in question: Tesla’s already got some 370,000 reservations and is looking to deliver 100,000 before the end of the year. It’s more a question of supply meeting demand at this point.

Lux Research, a leading independent research, and advisory firm, believes the electric vehicle market will grow to $10 billion within the next four years, while Navigant Research forecasts sales of electric vehicles to increase from 2.6 million in 2015 to over 6 million in 2024.

Last month saw the highest number of EV sales in the U.S.—ever, with sales up 37 percent in 2016 from the previous year. The consensus is that the startup of Tesla’s battery gigafactory will boost that sales growth further and faster.

In the meantime, Tesla isn’t alone—it’s got competitors, and the battery gigafactory scene is heating up quickly. Those competitors need lithium, too.

Demand is set to soar. According to Deutsche Bank, demand for lithium will rise from 209,000 tonnes in 2016 to 534,000 tonnes in 2025.

#2 Prime Lithium Land

When we talk about lithium, we aren’t talking about very many prime locations. More than 70 percent of the world’s known lithium reserves are in the ‘lithium triangle’ of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. In the U.S., not only is Nevada ground zero for the American lithium boom, but it’s also host to the only lithium mine in the United States—and Lithium X has prime projects in both places.

LIX has a market capitalization of $110 million (USD), but its lithium properties tell a story with a potentially much higher price tag. Other lithium companies operating in the ‘lithium triangle’ have markets caps ranging from $15 million (USD) to $1 billion (USD).

The company is developing its 8,156 hectare Sal de Los Angeles project, situated in the prolific ‘lithium Triangle’ in Salta Province, Argentina. LIX owns the right to mine lithium on 32 claims here, nearby major miner FMC Corp’s Fenix deposit at Salar de Hombre Muerto—one of the biggest lithium operations in the world. Here, Lithium X and its predecessors have already invested some $20 million (USD). And so far, resource estimates confirm the significance of the deposit.

More importantly, Lithium X is also the largest land holder in Nevada’s Clayton Valley, the only producing lithium area in the entire United States. The company has over 15,000 acres in Clayton Valley, adjacent to Albermarle’s Silver Peak mine, the only American lithium producer right now, and about three hours from Tesla’s gigafactory, where flipping the on switch has just created the start of a market frenzy.

#3 Best Operational Team in the World

Though lithium is the hottest commodity of our time, lithium companies—in their purest form—are actually rare. There are only a small number of lithium mining companies on the TSX.V compared to the enormous number of gold companies listed.

What this means from an investor’s viewpoint is that talent is everything with this commodity, and real talent is hard to come by because few have the raw lithium industry executive experience necessary to develop this commodity in a sudden demand surge atmosphere.

It also means that there is a heated battle on to steal the best lithium executives because everyone knows this is where the winners and losers will be determined on this playing field.

It’s also what makes Lithium X stand out. A brief look at the executive set-up here and it all becomes clear: We’ve got people, projects and capital, the three pillars of the mining business and the key to identifying the most promising early-stage mining opportunities.

• Eduardo Morales leads the operating team and has 36 years of experience, former CEO of Rockwood Litio Ltd. And former President of Rockwood Lithium Latin America, who developed Salar de Atacama from grass roots all the way up to a world leader in the production of battery grade lithium carbonate. Thanks to Morales leadership, Rockwood was sold to Albermarle Corporation in 2014 for $6.2 billion (USD).

• Paul Matysek, Lithium X’s executive chairman, is a geochemist and geologist and also a corporate entrepreneur. He’s built up and sold four companies in the past 10 years for over $2.3 billion (USD)—and that includes lithium. 

Brian Paes-Braga, founder and CEO of Lithium X, is a visionary whose touch has so far turned pretty much everything to gold.

• It also helps immensely that equity financing and corporate structuring are the purview of Fiore Advisory, led by Frank Giustra, a Canadian business mogul who really needs no introduction and whose mining prowess is legendary. Giustra’s reputation for financing high-level, successful natural resource deals means capital follows him around automatically. In fact, the industry calls it the “Giustra Premium”. This is where we see the ‘smart money’ getting into lithium at the right time.

And there’s no question about commitment, with roughly 20% insider ownership. They won’t settle for anything short of another big success.

Indeed, from their perspective, success is imminent. The company is advancing full speed ahead and looking to convert resources into reserves at a fast pace. In Argentina, construction on a 2,500-tonne pilot ponding facility should be permitted within the next 6 months, or sooner, in a JV agreement, and the contractor for this project is ready to mobilize. This will be a major step towards full-scale lithium production.

The LIX dream team has extensive experience and demonstrated success in Argentina, and just as importantly, the capacity to raise money. And in the emerging lithium boom, those who advance fastest in the race to production will be rewarded handsomely. LIX is working on its feasibility study, which is the last technical step to production–where investment turns into profit.

With Tesla already fired up and the hunger for lithium-ion batteries more voracious than ever before, the race to new lithium production is on, and it will be the best and brightest executive team that win when the dust on this energy revolution settles.

Elon Musk has already said Tesla “needs to absorb the entire world’s lithium production” adding that he, “will seek American lithium sources first. ” With Tesla already inking early stage supply agreements in the Clayton Valley region already… the time to move on this opportunity is now.

We fully expect Lithium X (TSX.V: LIX) (OTCQB: LIXXF)—whose ambition is to become a billion-dollar company—to emerge on the top when that happens. 

By James Burgess of

By James Burgess of Oilprice.com



Legal Disclaimer/Disclosure: This piece is an advertorial and has been paid for. This document is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase or subscribe for any investment. No information in this Report should be construed as individualized investment advice. A licensed financial advisor should be consulted prior to making any investment decision. We make no guarantee, representation or warranty and accept no responsibility or liability as to its accuracy or completeness. Expressions of opinion are those of Oilprice.com only and are subject to change without notice. Oilprice.com assumes no warranty, liability or guarantee for the current relevance, correctness or completeness of any information provided within this Report and will not be held liable for the consequence of reliance upon any opinion or statement contained herein or any omission. Furthermore, we assume no liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage or, in particular, for lost profit, which you may incur as a result of the use and existence of the information, provided within this Report.

Featured Image: Steve Jurvetson/Flickr

Comment Policy: Threats of violence, foul language, bullying, and spam will not be tolerated and may be flagged.