“Don’t Gamble With Ohio’s Future” — Or Don’t Gamble With Ohioans’ Freedom? A Direct Response to the Property Tax Coalition

The 10TV story and Nextdoor shares are everywhere right now: a shiny new coalition calling itself “Ohioans to Protect Public Services” is warning that abolishing property taxes will cause chaos, higher sales/income taxes, and a “public safety crisis.”

I watched the segment. I read their website. I looked up the members. Here’s the unfiltered truth — and why their talking points collapse under scrutiny.

Who Is Really Behind “Ohioans to Protect Public Services”?

They boast of “more than 65 organizations” and an “unusually broad alliance.” In reality, the list is dominated by public employee unions and government-dependent groups:

  • AFSCME Ohio Council 8, Ohio Education Association, Ohio Federation of Teachers, Ohio Nurses Association, Ohio AFL-CIO, and multiple building trades councils.
  • Sheriffs’ associations, fire chiefs, school boards, county commissioners, municipal leagues, and township associations.

This isn’t a grassroots uprising of everyday Ohioans. It’s the same coalition of labor unions and bureaucracies that have benefited from ever-rising property taxes for decades. Curt Steiner (veteran GOP lobbyist and PR man) and Jen Detwiler are their public faces. They are not neutral educators — they are defending a system that extracts wealth by force.

Five Counterpoints the Coalition Hopes You Never Hear

1. “Broad alliance” is marketing. Good things do not justify coercive tax extortion. The Zero Aggression Project nails it: just because police, fire, and schools are valuable does not mean the current funding method is moral or necessary. Extortion is extortion, whether the victim is a homeowner or a business. The coalition’s member list proves this is about protecting revenue streams and union power, not protecting Ohioans.

2. Ohio’s Constitution already gives schools (and local government) plenty of non-extortion funding options. The vast majority of allowable school funding mechanisms under the Ohio Constitution are not based on property tax extortion. Instead of forcing schools to run constant hat-in-hand levies that distract from actual education, we should use the tools the Constitution already provides. Property taxes have become a lazy, addictive crutch. Time to break the habit.

3. People will voluntarily fund critical services — racketeers hate that. Ohioans already voluntarily support churches, charities, private schools, mutual aid, and community projects at extraordinary levels. The coalition’s real fear isn’t “lost services” — it’s lost control.

Under the current system, a tiny fraction of voters (often far below quorum) decides to extort everyone else, including people who never voted and may not even live in the district. Critical decisions about surveillance (FLOCK cameras), police/fire monopolies, and spending almost never go to a true community vote. Voluntary funding returns power to every individual. That terrifies the racketeers.

4. The real “public safety crisis” is union control of public safety. Public employee unions negotiate contracts, then turn around and demand ever-higher taxes every few years — or else. That’s not public safety; that’s arm-twisting the populace. Abolishing the extortion funding model forces accountability. Communities that actually value safety will fund it voluntarily and directly. Monopolies and mandatory extraction are the problem, not the solution.

5. Tax extortion would be a crime if anyone else did it — and the founders explained why. The Just Powers Clause of the Declaration of Independence is crystal clear: governments may only exercise powers that individuals already possess and choose to delegate. Individuals do not have the right to point a gun at their neighbor and demand money for “services” the neighbor may not want or use.

Government is not a special class of “authorities” with monopoly rights to do things no one else may do. It is simply the subset of things we all may do that we delegate because we’re busy living our lives.

When a system is unjust, corrupt, and meets the classic definition of racketeering — as the current property tax regime does — it does not need “reform.” It needs to be eliminated and replaced with just, voluntary forms of funding that restore voice and freedom to every Ohioan, not just the small fraction who vote to extort people they’ve never met.

The Bottom Line

Brian Massie and the AxOHTax volunteers have collected 305,000 signatures in a genuine grassroots effort. They’re short for November but still collecting until July 1 and ready to keep going in 2027 if needed. (They still need to reach the 413,488 valid signatures required by the Ohio Secretary of State.)

The coalition’s fear campaign is classic protection-racket rhetoric: “Pay us or terrible things will happen.”

Ohioans deserve better. We deserve a system where critical services are funded by willing participants through voluntary contributions and the patient, long-term building of endowments — stable, growing, perpetual funding sources that serve communities for generations — instead of the current racket of scheduled arm-twisting levies backed by threats of foreclosure and asset seizure. (Just look at Harvard’s $56.9 billion endowment and how voluntary capital sustains world-class institutions without coercion.)

Support the AxOHTax petition and help collect the remaining signatures. Share the real story. And remember: the only power government legitimately has is the power we freely give it.

Who Opposed Nuking Japan?

Repost of Scott Horton ‘s X post linked below…

“The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” —Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

“In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. … The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’ The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude.” —Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

“The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.” —Herbert Hoover

“[T]he Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945 … up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; … [I]f such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the bombs.” —Herber Hoover

“I told [Gen. Douglas] MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria.” —Herbert Hoover

“MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” —Norman Cousins

“General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster. I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. He wants time to think the thing out, so he has postponed the trip to some future date to be decided later.” —Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades

“[General Douglas] MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants…MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off…” —Richard Nixon

“The Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and the Swiss. And that suggestion of giving a warning of the atomic bomb was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted. In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb.” —Under Secretary of the Navy, Ralph Bird

“The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.” —General “Hap” Arnold

“[Gen.] Arnold’s view was that the dropping of the atomic bomb was totally unnecessary. He said he knew the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision, and Arnold did not feel it was the military’s job to question them. … [Arnold’s view was]: when the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander-in-Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion.” —General Ira Eaker, Deputy Commander of U.S. Army Air Forces

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” Adm. Nimitz

“The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons … The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” —Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

“Truman told me it was agreed they would use it, after military men’s statements that it would save many, many American lives, by shortening the war, only to hit military objectives. Of course, then they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was just what they wanted all the time.” —Adm. Leahy

“The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. … The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.” — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command

“[LeMay said] if we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he’s right. He, and I’d say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?” —Robert MacNamara

“The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment … It was a mistake to ever drop it … [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” — Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr.

“I concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945. Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands scheduled for 1 November 1945 would have been necessary.” —Paul Nitze, director and then Vice Chairman of the Strategic Bombing Survey

“[E]ven without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” —U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946

“Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. Washington decided it was time to use the A-bomb. I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.” —Ellis Zacharias Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence

“When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. Many other high-level military officers concurred.” —Brigadier General Carter Clarke, the Military Intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors

“The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. —Carter Clarke

“I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used… the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal… was that the weapon should be demonstrated over… a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo… Would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation… It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world.” —Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss

“In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the retention of the dynasty had been issued in May 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the Japanese government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clear cut decision. If surrender could have been brought about in May 1945, or even in June, or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the Pacific war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.” —Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew

And for what it’s worth, then-Army Chief George Marshall wanted only to hit military facilities with it, not cities.

“It will not be long before we are reduced to savagery. We are the barbarians within our own empire.” —Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind

“This doctrine of progress is a most interesting instance of the blind and foolish confidence of Americans in the God Progress. … Thus far, apparently, it has been progress toward annihilation, an end to be accomplished, perhaps, by the improved atomic bomb? We have dealt more death and destruction in the space of ten years than the men of the Middle Ages, with their Devil, were able to accomplish in a thousand.” —Russell Kirk

“The atomic bomb was a final blow to the code of humanity. I cannot help thinking that we will suffer retribution for this. For a long time to come I believe my chief interest is going to be the restoration of civilization, of the distinctions that make life intelligible.” —Richard Weaver, author of Ideas Have Consequences

SOURCE: https://x.com/scotthortonshow/status/1952795871915196800

On the Extravagance of State-Sanctioned Mourning

Once again, the machinery of government grinds into motion, not for the protection of rights or the administration of justice, but for the glorification of its own agents. The recent funeral procession for a fallen officer, complete with a cavalcade of vehicles and a suspension of normal civic activities, stands as a testament not to the virtue of the deceased, but to the audacity of a system that claims dominion over our purses and our persons.

While the loss of any life is a tragedy to those who feel its sting, we must demand an answer to a simple question: by what right does the government decree that some deaths merit public mourning above others? The laborer crushed in a factory mishap, the miner buried beneath a collapsed shaft, the farmer felled by an unforeseen stroke—all these souls depart this earth with no less claim to dignity. Yet their passing provokes no grand cortege, no public spectacle. Is their sacrifice of lesser weight? Or is it merely that they lack the badge of state favor?

This lavish display comes not without cost. The public treasury—filled by the compulsory tribute exacted from every citizen—was plundered to fund this pageantry. Roads were seized, commerce halted, and the time of countless individuals commandeered, all without so much as a whisper of their consent. In a society grounded on justice, such honors would be the work of voluntary hands, paid for by those who freely choose to give, not wrung from the unwilling under the lash of taxation.

Some will cry that these processions lift the spirits of those who serve or remind the people of sacrifices made in their name. But if these ends be so noble, why must they be purchased with coercion? Let those who find virtue in such displays open their own purses. Let them band together of their own will to pay their respects. To force all to join in this ritual, through the theft of their resources and the disruption of their lives, is to trample the very principles of liberty and consent underfoot.

This practice is no mere trifle; it is a symptom of a deeper rot—the notion that the state may do as it pleases, heedless of the rights of the individual. It is the same arrogance that fuels every tyranny, from the smallest overreach to the most monstrous oppression. If we are to call ourselves a free people, we must cast off not only the great chains but these petty shackles as well.

Let us then resolve to end this unjust custom. Let us call upon the government to cease its extravagant shows and confine itself to its sole legitimate purpose: the defense of individual rights. And let us, as free men and women, honor whom we will, in the manner we deem fit, without dragging others into our choices. For in this act, we uphold not only our reverence for the departed but our fidelity to the cause of liberty and justice for all.

Why Text and Icons Look Bigger on One Monitor—and How to Fix It

By Mark Noble, Contributing Editor
Published: March 3, 2025 | 40° North Blog


If you’ve ever set up a dual-monitor configuration only to find that text and icons appear noticeably larger on one screen compared to the other—despite identical resolution settings—you’re not alone. This frustrating quirk can disrupt your workflow, strain your eyes, and leave you questioning your setup. Thankfully, the culprit is often a simple Windows setting that’s easy to correct. In this guide, we’ll dive into why this happens and walk you through the steps to restore harmony to your multi-monitor experience.

The Scaling Conundrum: Why Size Varies Across Monitors

Windows 10 and 11 are designed to adapt to a variety of displays, from compact laptop screens to sprawling 4K monitors. To achieve this, the operating system uses a feature called display scaling, which adjusts the size of text, icons, and other interface elements based on a percentage value. By default, Windows might apply different scaling settings to each monitor, especially if they differ in size, resolution, or pixel density (DPI).

For instance, a 27-inch 4K monitor might default to 150% scaling to keep elements readable, while a 24-inch 1080p display sticks to 100%. If your monitors are set to the same resolution but show different sizes for text and icons, mismatched scaling is likely to blame. Let’s fix that.

Step-by-Step: Equalizing Your Monitors

Here’s how to ensure your monitors display text and icons at the same size, creating a seamless and professional setup:

1. Open Display Settings

  • Press Windows Key + I to launch the Settings app, or right-click the desktop and select Display settings.
  • Navigate to System > Display.

2. Check Scaling for Each Monitor

  • Scroll to the Scale and layout section.
  • Click on the first monitor in the diagram at the top of the screen (labeled “1,” “2,” etc.).
  • Note the percentage under “Change the size of text, apps, and other items” (e.g., 100%, 125%, 150%).
  • Repeat this for the second monitor.

If the percentages differ—say, one monitor is at 150% while the other is at 100%—you’ve found the issue.

3. Match the Scaling Percentages

  • Select the monitor with the scaling you prefer (e.g., 100% for sharper, smaller elements).
  • Click the percentage dropdown and choose the same value for the other monitor.
  • Windows may prompt you to sign out and back in to apply the changes—go ahead and do so.

4. Verify the Results

  • Once signed back in, compare the two screens. Text, icons, and apps should now appear uniform in size.
  • If they still look off, double-check the resolution settings under Display resolution to ensure they match your intended setup.

Troubleshooting Tips

  • Mixed Resolutions? If your monitors have different native resolutions (e.g., 1080p vs. 1440p), scaling adjustments might still result in slight visual differences. Consider setting both to the same resolution if feasible.
  • DPI Differences? High-DPI monitors (like 4K displays) might require higher scaling to remain legible. In this case, experiment with percentages to find a balance that works for both screens.
  • Still Uneven? Update your graphics drivers via your GPU manufacturer’s software (NVIDIA, AMD, or Intel) to rule out display glitches.

A Unified Desktop Awaits

With just a few clicks, you can banish the annoyance of mismatched text and icon sizes across your monitors. Whether you’re a productivity enthusiast juggling spreadsheets or a creative pro editing across screens, a consistent display setup is key to staying focused. Windows’ scaling feature is powerful but occasionally overzealous—now you’ve got the know-how to tame it.

Have you run into this issue before? Let us know your multi-monitor tips in the comments below! For more Windows troubleshooting, check out our guides on optimizing performance and mastering external displays.

Follow Mark Noble on X @MarkNoble for more tech insights.

How to Give Your Older Surface Keyboard a One-Tap Copilot Shortcut

  1. If you’ve recently embraced Windows Copilot and want a dedicated key to launch it—much like the modern Surface keyboards that ship with a ready-made button—you’re in luck. The trick? A simple PowerToys remap that gives older hardware a sleek upgrade.
  2. First, ensure Copilot is pinned to your taskbar in the first slot. Next, install Microsoft’s PowerToys and head into its Keyboard Manager. Remap your right Windows key to send “Win (Right) + 1,” which corresponds to launching the first pinned app. With that done, a single press instantly fires up Copilot, making it feel as if your legacy keyboard was always built for Windows 11’s AI-driven helper.
  3. It’s a tidy hack: no scripts, no complicated workarounds—just a few clicks to seamlessly integrate Copilot into your daily workflow. That’s how you bridge the gap between old and new hardware, and get back to working smarter in seconds.

    image

Automating SEO Infrastructure with AI: My Experience with Sitemap Updates

In the world of SEO, keeping your website’s sitemap up-to-date is crucial for ensuring search engines can crawl and index your site effectively. Traditionally, updating these sitemaps manually is a tedious and error-prone task. However, with the advent of AI tools like Grok, I used my extensive experience in prompt engineering to develop a way to automate this process, significantly improving efficiency and accuracy. Here’s how I did it, and why AI is becoming an indispensable tool for SEO professionals.

The Challenge

Sitemaps need to reflect the most current state of your site, including when pages were last modified. This is vital for SEO as it helps search engines prioritize pages that have been recently updated. However, with a dynamic website, this can mean frequent manual updates, which is not only time-consuming but also prone to human error.

Enter AI Automation

Using Grok2 Beta, I developed a PowerShell script to automate sitemap updates. Here are the key features of the automation process:

  1. Dynamic File Path Handling:

    • The script accepts a repository path as an input parameter, making it flexible for use across different projects.

  2. Commit Date Verification:

    • It checks the last commit date for each sitemap file in the repository using Git logs. This ensures that only files which have been modified are reflected in the sitemap update.

  3. Sitemap Parsing and Updating:

    • The script parses the existing sitemap.xml file, updates the <lastmod> tag for each URL based on the last commit date, and then saves these changes back to the file.

  4. Backup System:

    • Before making any changes, the script creates a backup of the original sitemap with a timestamp, ensuring there’s always a rollback option.

  5. Error Handling and Logging:

    • Robust error handling with detailed logging helps in debugging and ensures the script doesn’t fail silently.

  6. User Interaction:

    • There’s an escape mechanism for users to cancel the operation if needed, enhancing the script’s usability.

Implementation Steps

  • Script Execution: With just one command, I can now kick off this PowerShell script for any site, automating what was previously a manual process.

  • Time Saved: The automation has cut down hours of work into a seconds, allowing for more frequent updates without the overhead – especially as part of a DevOps pipeline.

Benefits

  • Consistency and Accuracy: AI-driven updates reduce human error, ensuring every change is captured in the sitemap.

  • Scalability: The solution scales effortlessly across multiple sites, something manual methods can’t match.

  • Efficiency: What used to take days can now be done in moments, freeing up time for strategic SEO activities.

Sample AI Prompt for Similar Automation

Write a PowerShell script that automates the update of 'sitemap.xml' for a Git-managed website. The script should:
- Accept a repository path as an argument.
- Check the last commit date of each file in the sitemap.
- Update the 'lastmod' tag in the sitemap for each URL based on this date.
- Create a backup of the original sitemap before making changes.
- Provide detailed logging for debugging purposes.
- Handle potential errors gracefully.
- Include a user cancellation option during execution.

Implementing AI for SEO tasks like sitemap updates not only streamlines my workflow but also ensures that my websites are always SEO-ready without the need for constant manual interventions. This project with Grok is a testament to how AI can transform mundane tasks into automated, efficient processes, showcasing yet another compelling reason why integrating AI into SEO strategies isn’t just beneficial—it’s essential.

If your organization could benefit from similar bottleneck automation, reach out to us at Melon Bark . Let’s automate your business processes and unlock new levels of efficiency and effectiveness together.

From Coercion to Choice: Proposing Ethical Funding Models for Public Services

Note: This was submitted to the Delaware Gazette on 2024-10-16.

Dear Editor,

I am writing to share my concerns about the upcoming levies on the November ballot for Genoa Township. I’m disappointed that our township officials haven’t looked into voluntary ways to fund these needs, like using “suggested contributions.”

Instead of forcing people to pay through levies, we could consider a charity model where “suggested contributions” are based on how much the community wants different levels of service. This approach would let us adjust services, equipment, and staffing based on what people are willing to give. It respects individual choice and makes our system more accountable, unlike the current method that imposes financial burdens through required taxes.

Also, it’s important to mention that Genoa Township Fire is unionized. While unions have played important roles in the past, using mandatory tax money to support public employee unions raises questions about fairness and accountability. In this situation, there’s an unspoken pressure that if we don’t approve the levies, essential services might be cut back or stopped. This can feel like we’re being forced to pay under threat of negative consequences. But this pressure comes from officials at the top, not from our hardworking public employees who care about serving our community. From my own experience, I know our public employees are good people. That’s why they, and those who support them, should prefer more stable and fair ways to fund their work.

Moreover, the Fire/EMS levy doesn’t have an end date, which means we lose the chance to vote on it every five years. My suggestion would allow the community to increase or decrease financial support at any time, keeping accountability similar to other areas where we choose how to spend our money.

The idea of “suggested contributions” would involve setting up a trust fund to cover the basic needs of the department indefinitely. This ensures that essential services are always provided, even as our community grows. If the fund ends up with extra money, it could be used to improve Fire/EMS services in our area, help neighboring communities (since we rely on them for mutual aid), or be returned to the public if we reduce the need for these services by practicing good fire safety, driving carefully, and living healthy lifestyles.

It’s important to note that the “suggested contributions” model is just one idea. There are many possible solutions available in voluntary systems. Different voluntary funding options could even exist side by side, giving us multiple ways to support essential services. There are many fair alternatives to the practice of forcing people to pay taxes—and these aren’t just theories; they reflect how we already live much of our lives when government force isn’t involved.

Lastly, the Declaration of Independence says that governments get their rightful powers from the consent of the governed. Just because a service is necessary and people are willing to pay for it doesn’t mean we can ignore these principles by giving the government powers it shouldn’t have. No individual has the right to force their neighbors to pay, so we can’t justly give that power to the government. We need to stand against compulsory taxation and demand a fair, voluntary funding model.

Thank you for considering my views.

Columbus Partnership “Local Ownership” Ignores Reality

Dear Mr. McDonald,

Your August 5th, 2024 emailed Columbus Region letter extolling the virtues of ownership as the path to wealth is, at best, a half-truth. While ownership may indeed create wealth, it is imperative to recognize the underlying mechanisms that distort this seemingly straightforward path. The recent actions of Intel, a so-called “national champion,” serve as a stark reminder of the fallacies inherent in your argument.

Intel, after receiving substantial financial support through the CHIPS Act, has announced plans to lay off approximately 15% of its workforce. This decision, made in the wake of receiving taxpayer-funded bailouts, underscores a critical flaw in your narrative: the illusion of ownership and control. The workers, who are the backbone of such enterprises, are discarded in the name of financial efficiency, revealing the precarious nature of their supposed “ownership” in the form of employment.

Moreover, your assertion that ownership is the bedrock of economic strength fails to address the fundamental issue of true ownership. In reality, no individual or entity can genuinely own anything when they are effectively renting it from the State through a system of tax extortion. This so-called ownership is nothing more than a temporary privilege granted by the State, contingent upon continuous payment and compliance with its demands.

The quote you selected from Henry Louis Gates—“People who own property feel a sense of ownership in their future and their society. They study, save, work, strive and vote. And people trapped in a culture of tenancy do not.”—is particularly poignant. It highlights the psychological and societal benefits of ownership. However, as I’ve established, the racketeering state ensures that all of its human livestock are trapped in a culture of tenancy. This is because it benefits the elites controlling society when people rely on the State to provide for their future. This is why the Social Security Ponzi scheme is allowed to thrive. And it’s why the statists complain so bitterly about those who put forward a vision of the future and effectively execute upon it, as Elon Musk is doing.

The notion that local ownership inherently fosters community care and reinvestment is equally flawed. The State’s protection racket ensures that any wealth generated is siphoned off through taxes, leaving little room for genuine reinvestment. The illusion of local wealth creation is shattered when one considers the relentless extraction of resources by the State, which leaves communities impoverished and dependent (I’m sure you’re well aware how heavily local Government relies on State and Federal funds to complete even small projects). Typically, if no external funding is available, the project never makes it off the drawing board.

Your call for awareness of who owns critical assets and infrastructure is, therefore, a call to recognize the true nature of our economic system. It is not one of genuine ownership and control, but one of perpetual subjugation to the State’s demands. Until we address this fundamental issue, any discussion of ownership and wealth creation remains a superficial exercise in futility.

In conclusion, while your intentions may be noble, they are misguided. True economic strength and resilience can only be achieved by dismantling the State’s protection racket and allowing individuals to genuinely own and control their property without the constant threat of extortion.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Noble

How to Reconnect Your Generac Generator to Google Nest WiFi Mesh Network

If you have a Generac Generator Mobile Link Support and you want to monitor it remotely, you might have encountered some problems with the Wi-Fi connection. I had the same issue and I want to share with you how I solved it.

I bought a Generac Generator last year and I got a one-year Mobile Link trial to get an extended warranty. Mobile Link is an app that lets you check the status of your generator from anywhere. It was working fine until July 7th of 2023, when my trial expired and my generator coincidentally lost its WiFi connection. I tried to reconnect it to the free tier of the Mobile Link service many times, but nothing worked. I contacted Generac support asking how to reconnect my generator to a WiFi network if it has become disconnected, but their responses were unhelpful and didn’t help me to resolve the issue.

I was frustrated, until I saw that others were installing separate 2.4 GHz networks to address the issue with no luck and realized that the problem might be related to my Google Nest WiFi Mesh network. I have two nodes in my house, one base node and one mesh node. Maybe the generator was confused about which node to connect to. After all, it worked fine for a year before with no issues.

So, here’s what I did to fix it:

  1. I unplugged the mesh node temporarily, so that only the base node was active.
  2. I used the Mobile Link app to set up the generator to connect to the Guest network instead of the main network. This is a good idea for security reasons anyway, because you don’t want your generator to have access to your main network and it’s not necessary for this feature set.
  3. I checked the Mobile Link app again and I saw that my generator was online with signal strength ranging from 7-30%.

I did notice that some of the run log data was missing. It only showed me the run history for the past two weeks, not since it failed in July, so storage space must be limited. And it also oddly showed me that it connected on January 31, which was weird because that was after the weekly test, but it didn’t show the exercising as having run.

Here is the Reddit forum where other people discussed their experiences with Generac generators and Wi-Fi connections.

I hope this helps you if you have a similar problem. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know below.