USOA v2.0 -- April 2025 -- Education & Outreach Committee -- HelpDesk Support is available... Click here to visit the Contact Page...

Awaken the power in the people !

We the People will allow the Government the following Rights!

The Constitution of the United States:

● https://youtube.com/shorts/Hu3A3hOnD2A?si=v6eK_nqH7AZQsvYE

● 1 We the people https://youtu.be/LsDeqlZUjZg?si=6aJ8s2I_vK0cWhLv

● 2 https://youtu.be/Cqyt0nyjHCM?si=yONTTzm0AaOFyCG8

● 3 https://youtube.com/shorts/ux4l_6v91g4?si=-i2iZeFDa055BPx6

● 4 https://youtube.com/shorts/sx_ql2zgjIs?si=9fEedkIAMy8PsQFp



● 5 https://youtube.com/shorts/IGvbQkw3OeU?si=RhYn8cl9m2WyWgFE

● 6 https://youtube.com/shorts/ONWLUwcrAyE?si=Bs6kSau9pdPHizg2

● 7 https://youtube.com/shorts/B99_n_mW6Js?si=qn5Bnba447ag1U1_

● 9 https://youtu.be/rw1_acN-vHA?si=M8q-uyovYyCAabIK

We use all 50 states and the federal Constitution's Bill of Rights as "people" or "People"
● Null and void it, when it's not in pursuant to the constitution

all laws & acts created by Congress are void if not in pursuant to the federal constitution and all legislative laws & acts from the State of Minnesota are void if they are not in pursuant. To the federal constitution.

These are for the New Deal from FDR as seen in below video. Named the new deal.

Here is examples

● Charity and welfare are unconstitutional

● The new deal .... thei Second Bill of Rights

● March 9th 1933 Congress

● We are the people of Minnesota listed in the preamble ,

●  Article 1 Bill of Rights. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/constitution/#article_1

Minimum contacts

Minimum contacts

NoW here is the Ashwander Rules

Rule 6) Constitutional Estoppel. A party cannot challenge a law’s constitutionality when he or she enjoys the benefits of such law.15 Justice Brandeis stated: “The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.” 16

What Benefits you ask?  The second Bill of Rights as FDR says here >>> https://youtu.be/krzDkGHsjbM?si=oiAitBR28xpc3Vp1

Here is the full text and source link

Ashwander and the Rules of Constitutional Avoidance | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

White Citizen of Minnesota has the full bill of rights v 14th amendment citizen has incorporated rights, as a
U.S. citizen a resident of Minnesota

White Citizen of a Minnesota vs Resident of Minnesota

Resident link >>>  Podcast - Resident Definition Talking About Citizenship  and Drivers licence

Phonebooth Podcast - Talking About Citizenship and Negotiable Instruments 7/1/26

This is a shortcut link
For resident ... maybe watch it from beginning for the full knowledge !

U.S. Constitution Annotated

Article III. Judicial Branch

Section II

Clause I

Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine

Ashwander and the Rules of Constitutional Avoidance

prev | next

ArtIII.S2.C1.10.4 Ashwander and Rules of Constitutional Avoidance

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

From early on, the Supreme Court viewed setting aside Congress’s laws on constitutional grounds as problematic and has avoided doing so “unless such adjudication is unavoidable.” 1 For example, in the 1798 Calder v. Bull decision, Justice James Iredell stated: “If any act of Congress, or of the Legislature of a state, violates those constitutional provisions, it is unquestionably void; though, I admit, that as the authority to declare it void is of a delicate and awful nature, the court will never resort to that authority, but in a clear and urgent case.” 2 Similarly, in the 1819 Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward decision, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: “On more than one occasion, this court has expressed the cautious circumspection with which it approaches the consideration of [whether a law is constitutional]; and has declared, that in no doubtful case, would it pronounce a legislative act to be contrary to the constitution.” 3 And, in the 1827 Ogden v. Saunders decision, Justice Bushrod Washington noted that judicial deference to the Legislative Branch means that laws should be presumed constitutional unless “proved beyond all reasonable doubt.” 4 Later in the nineteenth century, Chief Justice Morrison Waite stated in the Union Pacific Railroad v. United States (The Sinking Fund Cases): “Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt. One branch of the government cannot encroach on the domain of another without danger.” 5

Over five decades later, Justice Louis Brandeis, in his influential concurrence in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, described the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine as “a series of rules under which [the Court] has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision.” 6 The Ashwander Rules7 include:

Rule 1) The Rule against Feigned or Collusive Lawsuits. Parties to a case must be adverse to each other. Justice Brandeis stated: “The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions ‘is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest, and vital controversy between individuals.’” 8

Rule 2) Ripeness. The court should not resolve constitutional questions prematurely. As Justice Brandeis wrote: “The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it’” 9 and “'[i]t is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.’” 10

Rule 3) Judicial Minimalism. The court should decide questions of constitutional law narrowly. Justice Brandeis stated: “The Court will not ‘formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.’” 11

Rule 4) The Last Resort Rule. If possible, a court should resolve a case on non-constitutional grounds instead of resolving it on constitutional grounds. Explaining this rule, Justice Brandeis stated: “The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question . . . if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed . . . . [I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.” 12 He further added: “Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground.” 13

Rule 5) Standing and Mootness. The complainant should suffer an actual injury; as Justice Brandeis noted: “The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation.” 14

Rule 6) Constitutional Estoppel. A party cannot challenge a law’s constitutionality when he or she enjoys the benefits of such law.15 Justice Brandeis stated: “The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.” 16

Rule 7) The Constitutional-Doubt Canon. Courts should construe statutes to be constitutional if such a construction is plausible. Explaining this requirement, Justice Brandeis noted: “'When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.’” 17

Footnotes
1
Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944).
2
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 399 (1798) (Iredell, J.). Justice James Iredell further noted that the inverse was also true: “If, on the other hand, the Legislature of the Union, or the Legislature of any member of the Union, shall pass a law, within the general scope of their constitutional power, the Court cannot pronounce it to be void, merely because it is, in their judgment, contrary to the principles of natural justice. The ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject . . . .” Id.
3
Trs. of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518, 625 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.).
4
Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213, 270 (1827) (Washington, J.) ( “But if I could rest my opinion in favour of the constitutionality of the law on which the question arises, on no other ground than this doubt so felt and acknowledged, that alone would, in my estimation, be a satisfactory vindication of it. It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favour of its validity, until its violation of the constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.” ).
5
Union Pac. R.R. v. United States (The Sinking Fund Cases), 99 U.S. 700, 718 (1878).
6
Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 346 (1936) (Brandeis, J. concurring). In Ashwander, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in a plurality opinion upheld Congress’s constitutional authority to construct the Wilson Dam and dispose of the resulting electric energy. Id. at 326–30. Justice Brandeis argued that the Court should not have addressed the constitutional questions involved in the case, because Ashwander had not suffered an injury sufficient to bring the suit. Id. at 341–44. The Constitutional Avoidance Canon guides all federal courts. American Foreign Serv. Ass’n v. Garfinkel, 490 U.S. 153, 161 (1989).
7
Ashwander, 297 U.S. at 346–48 (Brandeis, J. concurring). The Constitutional-Doubt Canon is sometimes referred to as the Avoidance Canon.
8
Id. at 346 (quoting Chi. & Grand Trunk Ry. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 345 (1892)). The Rule Against Feigned or Collusive Lawsuits corresponds to the adversity requirement discussed in .
9
Id. at 346–47 (quoting Liverpool, N.Y. & Phila. S.S. Co. v. Comm’rs of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885) and citing Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420, 553 (1837); Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 , 96 (1879); Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423, 462–64 (1931); Abrams v. Van Schaick, 293 U.S. 188 (1934); and Wilshire Oil Co. v. United States, 295 U.S. 100 (1935)). The ripeness requirement is discussed, in .
10
Ashwander, 297 U.S. at 347 (quoting Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 295 (1905)).
11
Id. (quoting Liverpool, N.Y. & Phila. S.S. Co. v. Emigration Comm’rs, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885)).
12
Id. (quoting Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 213 U.S. 175 , 191 (1909); Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 538 (1911)).
13
Id. (citing Berea Coll. v. Ky., 211 U.S. 45 , 53 (1908)).
14
Id. at 347–48 (citing Columbus & Greenville Ry. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99–100 (1939); Concordia Fire Inst. Co. v. Illinois, 292 U.S. 535, 547 (1934); Corp. Comm’n of Okla. v. Lowe, 281 U.S. 431, 438 (1930); Sprout v. South Bend, 277 U.S. 163, 167 (1928); Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923); Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 (1922); Heald v. District of Columbia, 259 U.S. 114, 123 (1922); Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 621 (1915); Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152, 160–61 (1907); Tyler v. The Judges, 179 U.S. 405 (1900)). Standing and mootness are discussed, in and , respectively.
15
Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245, 255 (1947) ( “[I]t is an elementary rule of constitutional law that one may not ‘retain the benefits of the Act while attacking the constitutionality of one of its important conditions.’” (citations omitted)). See also Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 316 (1925) ( “[O]ne cannot in the same proceeding both assail a statute and rely upon it. Nor can one who avails himself of the benefits conferred by a statute deny its validity.” (citations omitted)).
16
Ashwander, 297 U.S. at 348 (citing St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 469 (1923); Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co. 244 U.S. 407, 411–12 (1917); Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Garland, 124 U.S. 581 (1888)).
17
Id. (quoting Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 , 62 (1932) and citing ICC v. Or.-Wash. R.R. & Navigation Co., 288 U.S. 14 , 40 (1933); Lucas v. Alexander, 279 U.S. 573, 577 (1929); Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331, 346 (1928); Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142, 148 (1928); Mo. Pac. R.R. v. Boone, 270 U.S. 466, 471–72 (1926); Panama R.R. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 390 (1924); Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 17–18 (1922); Texas v. E. Tex. R.R., 258 U.S. 204, 217 (1922); Baender v. Barnett, 255 U.S. 224 (1921); United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 401 (1916); United States v. Del. & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366, 407–08 (1909)).

● Finally don't be a Joe..
Biden - "You Know the Thing" Remix

Biden - "You Know the Thing" Remix

WHATS THE THING?

Res---- the Thing in a trust

In Rem--- jurisdiction

In rem jurisdiction is a court's ability to make valid judgments regarding a thing. A court must have in rem jurisdiction to issue a valid judgment in a lawsuit

Latches

Latches

☆ Share this out ☆

Details: Category: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; Hits: 14

THE ABUNDANCE PARADIGM: WHY AI FORCES A RETHINKING OF MONEY ITSELF — PART 1

By Ellen Brown on May 11, 2026

Ellen's Facebook Page

A Universal Basic Income (UBI) has long been proposed as a way to cushion the blow of jobs lost to automation. Under that model, everyone receives a modest monthly payment – enough to cover basic needs and prevent extreme poverty.

But Elon Musk has gone further. On April 16, he posted on X:

Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI.

Rather than a subsistence stipend, Universal High Income (UHI) would be a level of income allowing ordinary people to live well in a world where machines do most of the work. Musk has also said that AI and robotics are the only things that can solve the massive U.S. debt crisis.

That sounds promising, but where will the government get the money to pay the UHI? Critics say any government that tried it would go bankrupt. There are also other concerns, which will be addressed in Part 2 of this article. Here we will look at the financial underpinnings: why UHI is even thinkable, why AI forces a reexamination of how money enters the economy, why the current system cannot scale to meet what is coming, and the implicit transition needed to meet that challenge.

Why the Current Money System Cannot Scale

The national debt of the U.S. government just topped $39 trillion. China’s is $18.7 trillion. Japan’s is $8.6 trillion. Those of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are each in the multi-trillion-dollar range. Collective global debt now stands at $353 trillion, 305% of the world’s annual economic output. So even if, hypothetically, everything produced in the world in a year were applied toward liquidating the debt, it still would not be enough to pay it all off.

In fact the debt can never be repaid, because of the way money currently enters the system. Nearly all of the money supply today is created by banks when they make loans. Banks do not lend their existing capital. The loan itself creates the money once the underwriting checkpoint is assured the borrower(s) will be able to sustain the several months or years of timely payments. The bank adds the loan amount to the asset side of its balance sheet and balances that sum with the same amount on the liability side. When the borrower withdraws or transfers the funds, either the bank takes them from its reserves in “vault cash” or the Federal Reserve debits the bank’s digital reserve account at the central bank. But the lending bank typically has funds coming into its reserve account at about the same rate as they are going out, so its reserves are continually replenished. Thus a very small reserve account can support a much larger money creation engine. For decades before the Fed discontinued the reserve requirement in 2020, it hovered at around 10%.

The chief problem with this debt-based system is the interest, which the bank does not create in its original loan. For a typical long-term loan, interest can double the total tab or more. Where is the money to come from to pay this added liability? Across the system as a whole, it must either come from more borrowing or from existing funds. In the case of governments, that means issuing interest-bearing bonds or tapping taxes and other revenues. The interest on the debt compounds, meaning the government is paying interest on interest. This makes the debt increase exponentially, until it is mathematically unsustainable. Seems a foreclosure is the goal as signed off on by a borrower. Then bankruptcies occur, of banks or even whole governments. Booms turn into busts, and the cycle begins again.

Today, interest on the federal debt is the second largest budget line item after Social Security, exceeding $1 trillion. Meanwhile, workers are losing jobs to AI/robotics, shrinking the income tax base. The system is clearly unsustainable.

How to Raise Demand to Scale to the Upcoming Supply

A Universal High Income would replenish the shrinking tax base by replacing the lost wages of unemployed workers. But where will the money come from to pay the UHI? The only sustainable solution is for the government to issue it interest-free. That does not mean through the Federal Reserve, which creates money in the same way banks do: it buys federal interest-bearing securities with accounting entries. The Fed collects the interest, which it is supposed to return to the Treasury after deducting its costs. But since 2008, its costs include paying interest on the reserves of its participating banks, which consumes its profits. (See my earlier article here.)

The only interest-free, debt-free solution that will actually increase the money supply sufficiently to match the projected productivity of AI/robotics is for the money to be issued directly by the Treasury.

This is not a radical new idea. It is authorized in the U.S. Constitution, which provides in Article 1, Sec. 8, that “The Congress shall have Power To … coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof .…” Abraham Lincoln used government-issued “Greenbacks” to avoid a crippling debt to British-backed bankers. Debt-free government-issued money was also the funding mechanism by which the American colonists succeeded in creating a thriving economy and liberating themselves from the oppressive yoke of the British Empire.

In his 1729 pamphlet “A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency,” Benjamin Franklin argued that a lack of currency was a tax on industrious farmers and producers, and that a reliable, locally issued paper currency was the “oil” for the gears of trade. The “Nature and Necessity” of this currency was to facilitate the movement of goods between neighbors. Franklin observed that the British strategy of keeping the colonies short of cash was a method of economic suppression. By forcing the colonies to use gold and silver, which were constantly drained back to London to pay for imports, the Crown kept the colonies in a state of permanent debt and low productivity. When the money supply matched the productive capacity of the people, universal prosperity resulted without inflation.

This logic evolved into the “American System of Political Economy” championed by Henry Carey, economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln. He wrote:

Two systems are before the world… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. … One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.

In the context of the 21st century, the “oil” that best lowers the friction of trade is debt-free government-issued money similar to Lincoln’s Greenbacks and colonial scrip. Rather than implementing a radical financial innovation, we would be returning to our roots.

Inflation or Deflation?

The chief objection to the colonies’ paper “scrip” was that they tended to over-print, so that “demand” (money) outstripped supply. Too much money chasing too few goods produced price inflation. But in the 21^st century, we will soon have the opposite problem: too little money chasing too many goods. Machines don’t need food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical treatment or other services. So who will buy those goods and services?

Money needs to be issued to human consumers, and not just to a few wealthy human consumers serving as debt brokers thriving on interest. To create sufficient demand for the voluminous output of AI/robotics, it needs to go to the whole national population, evenly distributed. Not only can UHI work in that sort of abundant supply without producing price inflation; it is actually essential to prevent deflation.

In a conversation on X, Musk wrote:

In a normal economy, issuing more money simply increases the dollar price of the existing output of goods & services, meaning people do NOT get more stuff. If AI/robotics massively increase goods & services output, then you actually MUST issue dollars to people or there will be massive disinflation.

As paraphrased on Yahoo Finance (reposted from Benzinga), Musk wrote that handing out more dollars becomes a problem only when the economy’s supply of goods and services fails to surge alongside the money supply. His claim is that AI and robotics could lift production so sharply that the bigger risk would be falling prices, not rising ones.

But aren’t falling prices a good thing? In this case, no. Prices would be falling due to a lack of demand, meaning producers can’t find customers for their products. They wind up laying off workers and eventually going bankrupt. When spread across the whole economy, the result is a deflationary spiral: prices fall, businesses lose revenue, and the economy contracts, not because production is inadequate but because purchasing power is insufficient. The result is recession or depression. In the Great Depression of the 1930s, food was rotting in the fields while people were starving, because they were out of work and had no money to spend.

Job cuts from AI are already happening. According to the same Benzinga article:

Evidence of near-term strain is showing up in corporate announcements: employers disclosed more than 27,000 job cuts linked to AI in the first quarter of 2026, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. The outplacement firm said that figure was up 40% from the same period a year earlier.

Robert Reich reports that wages are around two-thirds of the typical corporation’s total cost, and that in the first four months of 2026, big U.S. corporations cut over 128,000 jobs.

How Soon Will All This Happen?

Another Benzinga article, reposted on Yahoo Finance on March 16, detailed Musk’s projected time frame:

Speaking remotely to the Abundance Summit last week, Musk told XPRIZE founder Peter Diamandis that the global economy is on the verge of an explosion so massive it defies historical precedent.

“I’d say the economy is 10 times its current size in 10 years,” Musk said, before quickly clarifying that the growth could be even more explosive. “Greater than,” he added, framing the projected shift in economic output as a “fairly comfortable prediction.” …

Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity Is Near, sees AI reaching Artificial General Intelligence (human-level intelligence across virtually all domains) by 2029, and full transformative abundance by 2045.

Other experts question these time projections, but a radical transformation of traditional manufacturing and trade is likely to happen sometime in the reasonably near future. The question is, will the money system transition soon enough to rescue all the laid-off workers from homelessness and famine?

The Sovereign Wealth Fund Alternative

There is another model for distributing the gains of automation, one that can be phased in gradually as the AI workforce expands. It comes from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI. In an ironic twist, Altman and Musk, who jointly founded OpenAI in 2015, are now locked in a high-profile legal battle over whether Altman diverted Musk’s $44 million investment to transform what was conceived as a nonprofit “for the benefit of humanity” into a highly lucrative for-profit enterprise.

That dispute aside, Altman’s alternative model for sharing AI-generated wealth is a national sovereign wealth fund seeded by the profits of AI and robotics. His proposed American Equity Fund would take public stakes in the companies and technologies driving automation, capture a portion of the resulting productivity gains, and distribute them as universal dividends. The Fund would not replace a Universal High Income but would complement it.

This approach has several advantages. It ties payments directly to real output, scales automatically with productivity, and can be introduced gradually, avoiding the shock of issuing large payments before the supply side has fully expanded. It would resemble the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes oil revenues to residents, except that here the resource would be the most powerful general-purpose technology since electricity.

Conclusion: A New Monetary Logic for a New Productive Era

For centuries, money has been issued as a claim against the future productivity of human labor, repaid from the income that labor generates. The logic of this debt-based system collapses when machines become the primary producers of goods and services. Then the limiting factor becomes purchasing power — the ability of human beings to access the abundance their own technologies create. That requires a monetary architecture that expands with output rather than debt, and distributes income not through wages alone but through mechanisms tied to the productive capacity of the whole system.

Universal High Income and a sovereign wealth fund are two ways of doing that. One ensures a stable floor of demand; the other ensures that the public shares in the gains of automation. Both would be grounded in real production. But for the public to have access to those gains, the money supply needs to expand in proportion to the expanding pool of goods and services. This can be done by restoring the innovation our forefathers baked into the Constitution: debt-free money issued by the government itself.

How to fund a UHI without triggering inflation or driving the government into bankruptcy is the first objection critics raise, but there are others. They argue that people would stop working or stop learning, that society would collapse into idleness or chaos, that life would lose meaning without jobs, that the government would have the power to control how people spend their money. Will a UHI ring in the promised utopia or lock us into a state-controlled digital prison? Part 2 of this article will address those concerns.

_______________

This article was first posted as an original to ScheerPost.com. Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.tom of Form

_______________

Here is my comment awaiting moderation on Ellen's blog as I do hope I survive the decision of her moderator:

James Allen Homyak, an inventive and creative Minnesotan, contends that as natural thinking and critical thinking Americans begin to privately employ a non-big-tech open source operating system solution inside their households (directed to assist and empower in virtually every facet of living) to provide knowledge management and decision support, for fitting more precisely within the DYNAMICS OF THAT HOUSEHOLD, people would become empowered in many unique ways blocked for over a couple centuries by CORRUPT BAR MEMBERS and ROBBER BARONS long gone. Unfortunately their devastating effects lived on in the corporatized shifting of the "balance of power" away from younger generations and dreaming families. Set on making a buck for a distant shareholder populace.. Jim loves to call people's attention to Ellen's content on his own portal.

Perhaps one day home ai will obsolete the need for massive data centers to data mine and control the subservient masses.

_______________

Now if Jim did something like this as he plans, the definition of a.i. would become very likely some better sets of words:

Active Inquiry

Actual Intent

Actionable Intelligence

Recent Discoveries

USOA Latest Content

The Actual Factual States