Freedom of Speech and of the Press

This article raises a very good question:  “Does the First Amendment protect global warming deniers?”
The answer is, unequivocally and resoundingly “YES.”
No federal, state, county, or local entity, nor any law enforcement or public business may restrict people’s expression concerning the pros freedom of speechand/or cons of various viewpoints on global warming, climate change, denying, etc. We live in the United States of America, which holds both the freedom of speech and the press in the highest regard. This is NOT Nazi Germany, which repressed the vast majority of free speech and severely punished violators.
 
Our First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
First, once they are properly ratified, all amendments are fully a part of the Constitution: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses rightsshall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.” (Article V).
 
Second, although 1A specifically limits Congress from passing any such law, the Supreme Court has repeatedly expanded that through the “the supreme Law of the Land” clause (Article VI) to mean the United States Constitution supersedes all federal, state, county, and local (municipality) law. Thus, no action by any executive, legislative, judicial branch, or by law enforcement or member of the public can legal violate any provision of the Constitution, including “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
 
Third, countless case law refers to “freedom of speech” as applying to oral utterances, regardless of source, whereas “the press” refers to the written Franklin_the_printer-by-Charles-B-Mills - Young Benjamin at his brother's Printing Pressword, regardless of form (print, offset type, electronic, billboard, etc.). Thus, my blog, as was Benjamin Franklin’s backyard printing press, is every bit as much “the press” as is the New York times. Although Nancy Pelosi would like you to believe otherwise, well, what can I say? She’s the last person I would ever consult on matters Constitutional.
 
Fourth, countless case law willfully ignores the content of free speech when determining whether or not it’s “allowable” under Constitutional law. Thus, t-shirts supporting the murderous revolutionary Che Guevara, are every bit as protected when worn by a teenager cruising the mall as is a t-shirt sporting a happy face.
 
Fifth, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously upheld very strict scrutiny for the exceedingly few restrictions on freedom of speech. Specifically, the only exceptions involve the following:
 
1. Content: Cannot be based upon content, i.e. any restrictions must remain content-neutral, even if the content is highly objectionable. This is the reason the Westboro Baptists can continue to protest military funerals despite the fact that 99% of society finds their behavior utterly reprehensible. Thus, no municipality can allow public protests supporting one side of an issue while denying those who are protesting the opposite side of the issue.
 
2. Time, place, and manner. Municipalities can place limited restrictions on time, place, and manner. For example, driving at 3 am (time) through neighborhoods (place) while blaring one’s point of view over loudspeakers We Will Not Be Silences(manner) violate all three. Such restrictions, however, must remain content-neutral. Thus, you cannot ban one group of protesters under any particular combination of time/place/manner while allowing another. The courts have also observed “similitude,” such that one time/place/manner is considered for all practical purposes as being substantially equivalent to another even details differ. Thus, a municipality cannot ban protests in one neighborhood while allowing them in another.
 
3. Prior restraint: “If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must be able to show that punishment after the fact is not a sufficient remedy, and show that allowing the speech would “surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people” (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.
 
Bottom Line: Any and all claims related to “global warming” and “climate change” must stand on their own merits. The freedom to question the validity of ANY public opinion or policy directly relates to the ability of the people of our nation helping to keep our nation free by limiting the power and authority of all entities, most notably various institutions, including local, county, state, and federal governments, from infringing on our freedom of speech and of the press.
freedom of speech - Charles Bradlaugh

Unfavorable ratings, bimodality, competence, and realty

A recent article said, “Trump is viewed unfavorably by 67 percent of Americans overall.  Big whoop.  The authors would like you to believe that somehow translates into an element of undesirability or an inability to beat the opposition.

WRONG!

Ratings of unfavorability measure a candidate’s clarity, and are NOT indicative of their popularity or their ability to defeat the opposing party’s candidate. Clarity heightens bimodality, which in turn raises the percentage of those who swear they would vote against a candidate. Meanwhile, candidates who are unclear on the issues have a much lower disapproval rating.
 
What actually MATTERS is three-fold:
 
1. Do they have both the education and experience to fix the problems facing our country, and the leadership skills to forge the path to success?
 
2. Do they have the savvy to know what works vs the idealism to try what they think will work (but probably won’t)?  Idealism never solved any problem, and never will.  It has, however, lead many nations down the primrose path to destruction.
3.  Will their supporting votes (the only ones that matter) be enough to beat the supporting votes of the opposition?
For some reason, a number of blitheringly idiotic people continue to highlight Trump’s unfavorability rating as if it had anything to do with reality.  If our country had a bimodal voting system, where you could cast one positive vote for the candidate of your choice as well as a negative vote against the candidate you think would be the worst in office, then unfavorability ratings would matter.
Since our voting system involves only one positive vote, however, unfavorable ratings simply do not matter.
Get over it.

Trust and Competence: A quick analysis of the 2016 candidates

There’s only one competent candidate I trust:  Trump.  All other candidates have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are either untrustworthy or incompetent:
 
UNTRUSTWORTHY::
 
Cruz: Liar, cheat, swindler, and complicit in election fraud
 
Clinton: Liar, possible murderer, and self-acknowledge felon (both gross negligence in handling classified information as well as intentionally destroying official government records)
 
INCOMPETENT::
 
Sanders: His blitheringly idiotic and obviously socialist economic policies would utterly destroy all aspects of American prosperity should they ever be implemented. They’re classic examples of what NOT to do, and are prime fodder for Economics professors and students at high school, undergraduate, and postgraduate levels for decades, at least until the next blitheringly idiotic socialist comes along.
 
Kasich: During his long, 18-year history as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, he helped cut the Navy’s A-12 bomber, ostensibly due to cost overruns, and favored the multi-service F-35, which has far, far greater cost overruns. He pushed through the BRAC bill. He’s outstanding at cutting costs, even when doing so cuts operational capability, not only in the military, but in many other government circles, as well.
Please take the time to thoroughly research all candidates before choosing your favorite.  Our nation’s very survival depends on it!

Should America Apologize to Japan for Dropping Nuclear Weapons in World War II?

The White House indicated President Barack Obama may visit Hiroshima during his final visit to Japan next month.  His spokesman said “Obama would like to see the world rid of nuclear weapons,” and ” ‘symbolically’ there’s probably ‘no more powerful illustration of that commitment than the city that contained the victims of the first use of that weapon.’ ”

Put simply, Barack Obama wants to apologize to Japan for America’s use of nuclear weapons to end World War II.

The truth is, America should NEVER apologize to Japan. We ended the war in the most humane manner possible, saving SIXTY TIMES the number of Japanese casualties that would have resulted from conventional warfare.  Furthermore, casualties of war peaked in World War II.  The deterrent value of nuclear weapons is incalculable, but it’s safe to say that during the second half of the 20th century, global wartime casualties would have been between 4 and 10 times greater without nuclear deterrence.

During the summer of 1945, Operation Downfall was the conventional alternative to using nuclear weapons.  It involved the direct invasion of Japan, and comprised of two parts, Operations Olympic and Coronet, that would have resulted in Japanese casualties upwards of 20 million, as predicted by the Vice Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff, Vice Admiral Takijir? ?nishi. This was based on the fact that there were 2.3 million Japanese Army troops prepared to defend the home islands, backed by a civilian militia of 28 million men and women, and the mindset at the time is that all would have fought to the death for their Emperor.

American predictions were somewhat less, estimating the invading Allies would suffer between 1.7 and 4 million casualties in such a scenario, of whom between 400,000 and 800,000 would be dead, while Japanese fatalities would have been around 5 to 10 million.

Let’s average the American estimate, 7.5 million, with the Japanese estimate, 20 million. Result: 13.75 million Japanese deaths.

Reports of casualties for Nagasaki and Hiroshima vary, but even at the highest ends of the scale, they amount to approximately 160,000 immediate deaths with another 66,000 dying by December, 1945, for a total of about 226,000.

Compare these two figures, and please note that one figure is 61 times greater than the other:

1. Casualties of NOT using nuclear weapons: 13.75 MILLION

2. Casualties of USING nuclear weapons: 226 thousand.

If we had NOT used nuclear weapons, more than SIXTY TIMES as many Japanese people, mostly civilians, would have lost their lives. As it is, both targets were specifically chosen for their military nature in an attempt to minimize civilian casualties.

If the numbers are difficult for you to imagine, consider the following representation:

Casualties as recorded, using nuclear weapons:
.

Casualties that would have occurred had we not used nuclear weapons:
…………………………………………………….

So, should America “apologize” for using nuclear weapons, thus ending the war FAR sooner and with VASTLY FEWER casualties?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

We didn’t start the war, but we certainly ended it, and in the most humane manner possible: “This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo]. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one.” – Diary of President Harry S. Truman, from various pages on July 17, 18, and 25, 1945.

Separation of Church and State Primer

“The religious group, which will run the ark’s operations, won a federal court ruling in January that clarified that it can make religious-based hires even as it seeks a Kentucky tourism tax incentive worth millions.”
 
“We are a religious group and we make no apology about that, and (federal law) allows us that,” Ham said Thursday. “We’re requiring them to be Christians, that’s the bottom line.”
 
Those of you who think for one second that “separation of church and state” is a part of U.S. law need a history lesson. Most people, including a lot of anti-religious historians, get this horribly wrong, possibly by intent, as the many letters our Founding Fathers wrote clarifying the matter are readily available in the Library of Congress, if not online. I know this for a fact, personal first-hand knowledge, for I spent an appreciable portion of the summer of 1982 holding them in my white-gloved hands as I read through hundreds of the more than 50,000 documents kept in what was then The American Heritage room of the Library of Congress.
With that in mind…
 
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
 
The first part prevents Congress from allowing the establishment of any official religion or church. It was craft specifically to avoid the problem of the period, whereby England had established the Church of England as the “official” religion while persecuting all others. Some folks in Congress wanted to establish Christianity as the official religion, but most of the authors of our Bill of Rights wisely knew that if they did that, the next step would be to define which denominations were “acceptable” as “Christian,” and the saga of religious persecution that drove millions out of Europe would infect the United States and fester our freedoms forever.
 
The second part is much clearer, and simply means that Congress can NOT interfere with the free practice of religions. Subsequent decisions by various federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have established this applies at all judicial and legislative levels throughout our country.
 
BOTTOM LINE: Those who attempt to use Thomas Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” clause found ONLY in his letter to the Danbury Baptists are committing the SAME religious intolerance and persecution our Founding Fathers escaped from Europe and were trying to prevent here in the United States.
 
If you believe otherwise, you’re a Constitutionally illiterate idiot and are in serious need of an objective Civics class taught by someone who is not an anti-Constitutional atheist.
 
 

Useful Training Videos

A number of folks have asked me about training materials.  “Training for what?” is my first question.  “Well, for whatever might happen” is usually the response.  So, with that in mind, I’ve begun collecting links to training videos available online that might help myself and others who find themselves in situations involving natural disasters, violent crime, and both unarmed and armed conflict (riots, rebellion, insurrection, terrorism, military operations other than war (MOOTW), civil war, and war.

I am doing so, however, only with the explicit and express understanding that these resources are not available on this website, but rather, are routinely available elsewhere online; these resources are only to be used to support the law, not violate it; that by “law” I refer first and foremost to the U.S. Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article V), and all subsequent local, county, state, and federal laws lawfully adhering to the U.S. Constitution.  As always, this website’s Disclaimer Page applies.

Quantico, our Second Amendment, and Reality

In the latest episode of Quantico, a (very) fictitious portrayal of life for new FBI field agent recruits at Quantico, an equally fictitious Senatorial Bitch gave a short speech that is all too real in our nation’s capital: “I’d like to acknowledge the brave men and women who defend our campus today. That includes one of our own, Trainee Perales. Three-hundred and thirty. That’s the number of mass shootings in this country in 2015. An average of almost one per day. I am tired of this. And you should be, too. You are being trained to carry a weapon, to respect the power of a gun, to understand that it is a privilege to be earned, not a right given to anyone who…”
 
The Senatorial Bitch was cut off by a disapproving stare from her son, a member of that class. He knew better.
 
So do we.
 
Our right to keep and bear arms is NOT a “privilege.” If is an ABSOLUTE right, one given by God himself, and reflected in our Bill of Rights as applying universally, without encroachment. That’s the way our Founding Fathers wrote it, and clearly with that specific intent, as they certainly wrote other limitations into both our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
 
But not into our Second Amendment. That “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is absolute.
 
That’s as it should be, for the moment one allows ANY encroachment on the tiniest issue, they tip that slippery slope towards allowing encroachment on all issues until the right no longer exists AT ALL. This is WHY our Founding Fathers rendered this an absolute prohibition in its final form. They knew that some day, power-hungry people who are ignorant of what it takes to maintain freedom, or worse, those who specifically attack it, for whatever reason, would, and rather incessantly, whittle away at our freedoms.
 
As for me, I learned how to shoot when I was nine, at the hands of a Navy officer and a former Army officer. I received additional training from accomplished hunters in my early 20s, and formal training throughout my own career as an Air Force officer beginning in my mid-20s. I qualified at the expert level on every military weapon system on which I trained, including the M-8, the M9, and the M-16.
 
I am the first to tell you that one does NOT have to be in the military to become a firearms expert! All it takes is an appreciation for firearms in general, some self-discipline, and the desire to learn and improve.
 
My point is that the Senatorial Bitch’s idea that only FBI agents and other law enforcement types are qualified to use firearms in an active shooter situation is totally, 100% BOGUS. It’s elitist bullshit, designed to create a class situation separating the haves from the have-nots.
 
DO NOT BELIEVE IT!!!
 
I firmly believe everyone in the U.S. who has NOT demonstrated a clear reason as to why they should not be allowed to keep and bear arms SHOULD be allowed to keep and bear arms, and I fully support Constitutional Carry via either open or concealed means, your choice.
The Reality Is that EVERY U.S. citizen’s right to keep and bear arms is Constitutionally protected.  Sadly, the reality is also that far too many self-appointed watchdogs get this horribly wrong.

Solving America’s Problems Requires Clear Thinking

Yesterday I stumbled across a rather insightful editorial by Bart Hinkle at the Richmond Times.  He demonstrated such clear thinking that I wrote the author a letter, presented here with minor corrections for spelling, punctuation, and grammar:

I found your recent article to be very insightful.  It is a fascinating look at what ails America today. It boils down to dereliction of duty to “support and defend the Constitution” at ALL levels of government.

I concur with you that Congress has failed to do its duty to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” almost certainly because the loyalty of many Congressman to their party or various idealistic excursions has increasingly eclipsed their loyalty to the proven reality of the Constitution.  Sadly, we see the same thing in the Supreme Court, which should never be the case.  With respect to the points you made in your article, I believe additional factors have come into play, including the increasing fear of being labeled politically incorrect, and the corresponding unwillingness to take necessary and more permanent actions against elected officials who refuse to abide by “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Shortly after retiring from my career as an Air Force officer, I began working to educate people on the dangers facing our nation, particularly from the erosion of the absolute moral base our Founding Fathers cautioned was essential to the long-term health of our nation.  With such a moral base, even an imperfect Constitution and its resulting society would survive, as leaders would retain the same principles, precepts, and moral values held by the framers.  The resolution of unanticipated issues would naturally incline towards the time-tested precepts which have served our nation so well for so long.  Without such a moral base, even a perfect Constitution would eventually fail.  A nation lacking proper morals would be increasingly opposed to Constitutional principles and values, until its leaders began ignoring increasingly larger portions of the Constitution, eventually leaving it behind altogether.

Our Founding Fathers did a miraculous job crafting our Constitution.  It is extremely difficult, however, if not impossible, to create a legal foundation capable of fighting the erosion of society when that society’s elected and appointed leaders, either out of ignorance or willful malice, fail to follow the written legal foundation.

In light of this perspective, I submit to you three additional avenues of failure, along with some proposals for amendments that might be able to stem the flow of our nation’s life-blood, even restore proper function in the presence of decreasing loyalty to the Constitution:

Failure 1:  Education of the people:  Sadly, too many Americans are voting for government officials at all levels not because of what a candidate can do for their country, but because of what a candidate can do for them.  This self-seeking behavior and failure to delay gratification ultimately results in poorer results.  Candidates are rarely able to deliver on their campaign promises.  When a person believes rhetoric promising him or her a better life, and votes for that candidate, they wind up doing little to work hard and secure that life for themselves.  Instead, they wait around for the candidate to make their lives better.  When that fails, they become embittered at the “other guy” their candidate blames as the problem, or they become embittered with the system itself.

The Department of Education and liberal school systems has been largely complicit in this area of demise by lowering and even eliminating the bar in vital areas like civics and history while cluttering the educational landscape with requirements that eclipse a child’s opportunity to obtain a full, well-rounded education suitable for understanding how human society really works.  This is really the root problem of what’s going on in America.  If the people stopped electing those who are undermining our Republic, the problem would largely disappear.  Our Republic would be preserved.  Sadly, many people are no longer capable of correctly assessing the worth of a candidate, or envisioning the long-term effects of electing a candidate.

Possible solutions:  Eliminate the Department of Education and use those funds at the state level to provide for a more graduated pay scale for teachers instead of the current rise and cap pay curves; raise standards required of teachers; ensure those standards reflect the requirements addressed as outlined above.

Failure 2:  Personification of the corporate:  No serious student of the Constitution would ever conclude that our Founding Fathers meant to give business the same access to our government as We the People, much less a 1000% greater influence over Congressional decision-making.  The fallout from this decision has lead to increasingly darker decisions being made by Congress, ones that treat citizens as cattle to be mined for their ability to be skimmed for a fat, corporate/federal profit, instead of the rightful rulers of our once-great nation.

Possible solution:  Check Citizens United with an amendment that declares corporate anthropomorphization to be verboten.  Ensure it reaffirms the Constitution’s focus on We the People under sovereign States as the rightful owners of our own country.

Failure 3:  Senators and Representatives are too similar.  This arose as a result of the 17th Amendment.  Article I, Section 3, which used to read:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…”  The Amendment now reads:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…”  While I understand this was an attempt to solve problems involving legislative corruption and deadlocks, I do not agree it was the best solution.  For all intents and purposes, what we now have are a House and a Senate that look very similar.  Even dividing Congress into two houses makes little sense when the people elect one Representative from their district and two more to represent the State as a whole.  Why not instead simply elect “general Congressmen,” and scrap the two-house system?

Possible solution:  Repeal the 17th Amendment.  The original issue is that “There was a sense that senatorial elections were ‘bought and sold’, changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate.”  That sounds the same as it is today, so what problem was actually solved?  If none, then that’s strike one against the 17th Amendment.  As far as electoral deadlocks, the solution is simple:  Require states to provide for a tiebreaker, much as we have for the Supreme Court and the Senate.  An example might be, “In case of tie, the Assistant Governor will cast the tie-breaking vote.”  They could also flip a coin, roll die, or spin a wheel.  States could choose whatever method they want, so long as it’s expedient.  To help deter delays in breaking such ties, simply stipulate that if the states fail to provide two Senators, those positions will simply remain unfilled and the State will be underrepresented in Congress, something no State wants to face.  Our Constitution set the precedence for that by requiring percentage votes of “members present” for many things, including very important things, such as treaties and impeachment.

Bart, I thoroughly enjoyed your article and have bookmarked you in the hopes of reading many more to come!

Sincerely…

Here is Bart’s response:

Thank you for the note. You raise some very interesting points.

All the best,
B.

It was my pleasure.  

Most Wrongful Death Awards Are Just Plain Wrong

I’d like to say something that is absolutely wrong with the way courts award wrongful death judgements. Take this case, for example:
 
A bench from a folding table attached to a wall fell on a 7 year-old boy, killing him. The family filed a $10 million lawsuit. “The suit accuses the New Milford School District, the borough’s police department and other parties of acting negligently by failing to properly maintain the bench and failing to properly supervise the young athletes.”
 
Whether or not the school or the police department are culpable has nothing to do with my analysis, and I’ll leave that for judge and jury to decide.
 
My point of contention has to do with requested “damages” in this and similar cases.
 
The amounts are almost always utterly absurd.
 
Point 1: No one knows what a boy that’s only 7 years old would make in his lifetime. Therefore, using a known statistical value is the only fair and objective approach.
 
Most courts never do that. Instead, they base damages on what they think individuals or organizations might actually be able to pay, which often puts payers into severe debt, bankruptcy, or totally out of business, even if 99% of their business provides a useful benefit to society as a whole or their family and others. As a result, businesses often fold. Entire families are ruined.
 
That is NOT “justice.” It’s a miscarriage of justice.
 
That’s STRIKE ONE against our judicial system.
 
Point 2: The few courts that do (attempt to) use an objective value almost always use one that’s wrong in two ways.
 
First, they use a combined family income (currently around $51,000 annually. That’s wrong as it includes income from other wage-earners, and not the average wage earned by any single individual, which is currently around $35,000, or roughly $31,000 after state and federal taxes.
 
Second, they fail to deduct normal living expenses that the wage earner would have to spend. The include rent, utilities, groceries, sundries, insurance, clothing, transportation, medical, communications, entertainment, and many others. Even the best of savers could rarely hope to lower expenses below the $28,000 level, leaving them with just $3,000 per year.
 
THAT’s their net income after taxes and household expenses. THAT’s what they average over their lives. THAT’s their wealth contribution.
 
Over 40 years of earning wages, that comes to just $120,000. It does NOT come to 83 times that amount, the $10 million for which the parents are asking. Such an award is ABSURD.
 
That’s STRIKE TWO for being absurdly off-target in their estimates of an individual’s life-time worth.
 
Point 3: Almost no court includes the expenses required by the parents to bring their children to the point where they’re productive wage earners. “The average cost of raising a child born in 2013 up until age 18 for a middle-income family in the U.S. is approximately $245,340.” Thus, a child who is already 7 years old would incur an additional 11 years. 11/18 x $245,340 = $149,930.
 
That’s another $150,000 the parents would shell out just for that wage earner to earn $120,000 beyond age 18.
 
That’s STRIKE THREE for the courts failing to consider a very pertinent reduction in a $120,000 award by $150,000 to ZERO.
 
Hey, courts – get it right. Yes, the death of a child is indeed very tragic. Nothing can replace the loss of one’s child. For the average child in this situation, however, THERE ARE NO ACTUAL MONETARY DAMAGES TO BE AWARDED, and by awarding anything, all the courts are doing is punishing the innocent families of many for the failure of one individual to do their duty.
 
Again, this is NOT justice. It’s a travesty of justice, a mockery of the very nature of justice.

Monsanto’s Big Lies

When someone recently commented, “Let us get rid of Roundup and you will know true famine,” I knew that Monsanto’s big lies had reached epidemic proportions.
Monsanto’s Two Big Lies:
1.  Organic crop yields are but a small fraction of GMO+glyphosate crop yields.
2.  We’re about out of arable land, so we have to make every square meter count.
Enter Mon$anto’$ expen$ive and health-threatening GMO product$ and glyphosate chemical$ to $ave the day…  Right?

Phooey!

Thankfully, modern science from more than 100 different studies, as well as the most accurate world fact book on the planet dispels both of these myths like Hank Aaron knocks homers out of the park.

The first FACT is that when farmers use multi-cropping and crop rotation, organic crop yields are between 91% to 92% the yield of conventional, GMO+glyphosate agriculture (Source).

Reference:

Yang, S.  (2014).  Can organic crops compete with industrial agriculture?  Berkeley News.  University of Berkeley, CA.  Retrieved from: http://news.berkeley.edu/2014/12/09/organic-conventional-farming-yield-gap/

The second FACT is that while 10.57% of land in all countries around the world is arable, only 1.04% is being used to grow crops. That’s a utilization rate of just 9.84%. The world could actually grow TEN TIMES the amount of crops that are currently being grown by using simple organic farming techniques (Source).

References:

CIA (2016).  The World Factbook:  Land use.  Central Intelligence Agency.  United States Government.  Retrieved from:  https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2097.html?countryName=&countryCode=&regionCode=n

CIA (2016).  The World Factbook:  Area.  Central Intelligence Agency.  United States Government.  Retrieved from:  https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2147.html

 I thank GOD that someone had the presence of mind to study the 115 studies and come up with the real answers.  I also thank GOD that I learned math well enough to actually make sense of the world.
 
Conclusion:  Organic farming can — most certainly — feed the world using only current arable land, TEN TIMES OVER.
The lie that Monsanto feeds world governments, that the company’s GMO and glyphosate products are somehow “absolutely necessary” to stave off world hunger, is pure bullshit, designed for no other reason than to control the world’s food supply for vast economic gain by means of its patented GMO/glyphosate “solution” to a problem that doesn’t actually exist.
This is the same con game deBeers has been using for centuries, sitting on more than 99% of all the world’s diamonds in their vaults in order to keep the price of store-bought diamonds in settings artificially high.
 
Please stop swallowing Monsanto’s world-dominating swill. That road leads to nothing but economic SLAVERY.
 
We the People are BETTER than that.