Obama’s Last SOTU: Unabashed Hypocrisy on Parade

Obama-fake_tearsDeconstructing Obama’s 2016 State of the Union Address

Master confusifier, Ericksonian hypnotist, psychopathic narcissist, and man-of-enigmatic-past Barack Hussein Obama showed up before the assembled Congress to hit his mark and perform the ritual of spinning comforting fictions and confusion about what’s going on with “America.” This speech is embedded with a mass of odd and contradictory suggestions that fly past before anyone can possibly process them.

Obama is like a kiddy pool, shallow even at the deep end, but up on the podium he’s primed to deliver to us the deep feelings that assure us that we’re still human, and share the values of the fake man. Yes, I did listen to it, and this edit is my brave attempt to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

A nauseated look at Mr. Obama’s last State of the Union address (as prepared for delivery, from Whitehouse.gov) – text being commented on is in Bold Red, my comments are bold and in (parentheses):

 Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans,

Tonight marks the eighth year I’ve come here to report on the State of the Union.  And for this final one, I’m going to try to make it shorter.  I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa.

I also understand that because it’s an election season, expectations for what we’ll achieve this year are low.  Still, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constructive approach you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families.  So I hope we can work together this year on bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform, and helping people who are battling prescription drug abuse. We just might surprise the cynics again.

But tonight, I want to go easy on the traditional list of proposals for the year ahead.  Don’t worry, I’ve got plenty, from helping students learn to write computer code to personalizing medical treatments for patients.  And I’ll keep pushing for progress on the work that still needs doing.  Fixing a broken immigration system.  Protecting our kids from gun violence.  Equal pay for equal work, paid leave, raising the minimum wage.  All these things still matter to hardworking families; they are still the right thing to do; and I will not let up until they get done.

But for my final address to this chamber, I don’t want to talk just about the next year.  I want to focus on the next five years, ten years, and beyond.

I want to focus on our (your) future.

We live in a time of extraordinary change – change that’s reshaping the way we live, the way we work, our planet and our place in the world.  It’s change that promises amazing medical breakthroughs, but also economic disruptions that strain working families.  It promises education for girls in the most remote villages, but also connects terrorists plotting an ocean away.  It’s change that can broaden opportunity, or widen inequality.  And whether we like it or not, the pace of this change will only accelerate.

America has been through big changes before – wars and depression, the influx of immigrants, workers fighting for a fair deal, and movements to expand civil rights.  Each time, there have been those who told us to fear the future; who claimed we could slam the brakes on change, promising to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control.  And each time, we overcame those fears.  We did not, in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the “dogmas of the quiet past.”  Instead we thought anew, and acted anew.  We made change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward (what promise, exactly?) to the next frontier, to more and more people.  And because we did – because we saw opportunity where others saw only peril (WTF does that mean?) we emerged stronger and better than before (as always, forever without end, Amen).

What was true then can be true now.  Our unique strengths as a nation – our optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery and innovation, our diversity and commitment to the rule of law – these things give us everything we need to ensure prosperity and security for generations to come.

In fact, it’s that spirit that made the progress of these past seven years possible.  It’s how we recovered from the worst economic crisis in generations. (Lie)  It’s how we reformed our health care system, and reinvented our energy sector; (made “health care” unaffordable and brought the Fracking disaster to America) how we delivered more care and benefits to our troops and veterans, (Lie) and how we secured the freedom in every state to marry the person we love (made it possible for gays and lesbians to enter into marriage contracts with an authoritarian government).

But such progress is not inevitable.  It is the result of choices we make together (Lie – the people of the United States make NO CHOICES as we are OWNED – thanks, George)And we face such choices right now (get ready, and keep the KY Jelly handy).  Will we respond to the changes of our time with fear, turning inward as a nation, and turning against each other as a people?  Or will we face the future with confidence in who we are, what we stand for, and the incredible things we can do together? (totally hyperbolic, insincere, flattering BS – or THIFBS)

So let’s talk about the future, and four big questions that we as a country have to answer – regardless of who the next President is, or who controls the next Congress.

First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy? (when we hear this, do we just roll over and grant him credibility when he says this is what he wants?)

Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us – especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change? (OK, confusing conflation of Memes: We know what they want to do with their technology, and it’s clear that “climate change” is code for using technology to control us more)

Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman? (code for “Stop Gun Violence” as well as a Big Lie – We ARE the world’s policeman – at least until the UN is sent in with “Responsibility to Protect” the world FROM us)

And finally, how can we make our politics (control people to) reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst? (trick question: this is something that “politics” can never do – We each, individually need to bring what’s best in us to the table)

Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact (hypnotic suggestion): the United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world (OMG, LIE, LIE, LIE).  We’re in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history (Lying With Statistics – LWS).  More than 14 million new jobs (what kind of jobs?); the strongest two years of job growth since the ‘90s (LWS); an unemployment rate cut in half (LWS).  Our auto industry just had its best year ever (with unsold inventory building up to avoid layoffs and most cars now sold with Sub-Prime Loans).  Manufacturing has created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years (LWS).  And we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters. (LWS)

Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction (Lie – and a hypnotic induction to ignore what you see all around you).  What is true – and the reason that a lot of Americans feel anxious – is that the economy has been changing in profound ways, changes that started long before the Great Recession hit and haven’t let up (Lie and crazy-making).  Today, technology doesn’t just replace jobs on the assembly line, but any job where work can be automated (economy’s fine, who needs a job?).  Companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and face tougher competition (poor bubbies).  As a result, workers have less leverage for a raise (and we’ll keep manipulating things to make this more true).  Companies have less loyalty to their communities (OLIGARCHS have less loyalty to their fellow humans).  And more and more wealth and income is concentrated at the very top (but there’s no decline here).

All these trends have squeezed workers, even when they have jobs; even when the economy is growing (Lie).  It’s made it harder for a hardworking family to pull itself out of poverty, harder for young people to start on their careers, and tougher for workers to retire when they want to.  And although none of these trends are unique to America, they do offend our uniquely American belief (THIFBS) that everybody who works hard should get a fair shot (Lie – the Elite Planners do not believe this).

For the past seven years, our goal has been a growing economy that works better for everybody (Lie)We’ve made progress (Lie).  But we need to make more.  And despite all the political arguments we’ve had these past few years, there are some areas where Americans broadly agree (i.e. when not overcast, the sky is blue with chemtrails) .

We agree that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job (no opportunity without programming).  The bipartisan reform of No Child Left Behind was an important start (and Common Core is finishing the job), and together, we’ve increased early childhood education (what does that mean?), lifted high school graduation rates to new highs (by lowering standards), and boosted graduates in fields like engineering (who have to move back in with their parents and get a job flipping burgers).  In the coming years, we should build on that progress, by providing Pre-K for all (earlier programming), offering every student the hands-on computer science and math classes that make them job-ready on day one (and don’t teach pesky critical thinking), and we should recruit and support more great teachers for our kids (as long as they’re fine with dumbing children down).

And we have to make college affordable for every American (let’s cut Bernie off at the pass with Elite-sanctioned Socialism)Because no hardworking student should be stuck in the red (which is why we made it impossible to remove student debt with bankruptcy).  We’ve already reduced student loan payments to ten percent of a borrower’s income.  Now, we’ve actually got to cut the cost of college.  Providing two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student (good slave) is one of the best ways to do that, and I’m going to keep fighting to get that started this year.

Of course, a great education (what do you think that means?) isn’t all we need in this new economy.  We also need benefits and protections that provide a basic measure of security (the nanny state will protect you from cradle-to-grave – If we have the funding).  After all, it’s not much of a stretch to say that some of the only people in America who are going to work the same job, in the same place, with a health and retirement package, for 30 years, are sitting in this chamber (is this some kind of sick joke?).  For everyone else, especially folks in their forties and fifties, saving for retirement or bouncing back from job loss has gotten a lot tougher (most seniors don’t have squat, so we’ll tell you what your options are)Americans understand that at some point in their careers, they may have to retool and retrain (how about a “customer service” job after your engineering career went to India?)But they shouldn’t lose what they’ve already worked so hard to build (unless, of course, your pension was already stolen).

That’s why Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever; we shouldn’t weaken them, we should strengthen them.  And for Americans short of retirement, basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today (and they will ALWAYS be there, no matter what, Praise the Fed)That’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about (Lie).  It’s about filling the gaps in employer-based care (like we all have) so that when we lose a job, or go back to school, or start that new business, we’ll still have coverage (that we can’t afford).  Nearly eighteen million have gained coverage so far.  Health care inflation has slowed (Lie)And our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law (LWS).

Now, I’m guessing we won’t agree on health care anytime soon.  But there should be other ways both parties can improve economic security.  Say a hardworking American loses his job – we shouldn’t just make sure he can get unemployment insurance; we should make sure that program encourages him to retrain for a business that’s ready to hire him (intense training for Walmart greeters).  If that new job doesn’t pay as much, there should be a system of wage insurance in place so that he can still pay his bills (I’m smelling that Nanny State…).  And even if he’s going from job to job, he should still be able to save for retirement and take his savings with him (what planet is this guy from?).  That’s the way we make the new economy work better for everyone (everyone that counts, that is).

I also know Speaker Ryan has talked about his interest in tackling poverty (like in the NFL, and giving it brain-damage)America is about giving everybody willing to work a hand up (Lie), and I’d welcome a serious discussion about strategies we can all support, like expanding tax cuts for low-income workers without kids (we care so much we’re gonna steal less).

But there are other areas where it’s been more difficult to find agreement over the last seven years – namely what role the government should play in making sure the system’s not rigged in favor of the wealthiest and biggest corporations (yeah, we’ll reign in “corporations,” but certainly not your Owners)And here, the American people have a choice to make (yeah, Slavery or, em, Slavery).

I believe a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy.  I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed, and there’s red tape that needs to be cut.  But after years of record corporate profits, working families won’t get more opportunity or bigger paychecks by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at the expense of everyone else; or by allowing attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered.  Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did (Lie – it was all planned).  Immigrants aren’t the reason wages haven’t gone up enough; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns.  It’s sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts.  In this new economy, workers and start-ups and small businesses need more of a voice, not less.  The rules should work for them (I’m lying – we have no intention of allowing this).  And this year I plan to lift up the many businesses who’ve figured out that doing right by their workers ends up being good for their shareholders, their customers, and their communities, so that we can spread those best practices across America (thank you, satan).

In fact, many of our best corporate citizens are also our most creative (like, em, making money out of thin air).  This brings me to the second big question we have to answer as a country:  how do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges (while we continue to dumb you down and reinforce your Stockholm Syndrome conditioning – Hard, eh)?

Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there.  We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget.  We built a space program almost overnight, and twelve years later, we were walking on the moon (don’t want to miss a chance to catapult this propaganda).

That spirit of discovery is in our DNA (yeah, we have American DNA, changes when you cross the border – Unless you’re a terrorist)We’re Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver (and Charlie Hebdo – BTW this is THIFBS).  We’re Grace Hopper and Katherine Johnson and Sally Ride.  We’re every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley racing to shape a better world.  And over the past seven years, we’ve nurtured that spirit (thank you, satan).

We’ve protected an open internet (Lie), and taken bold new steps to get more students and low-income Americans online (how about a little DEVICE, Scarecrow?).  We’ve launched next-generation manufacturing hubs, and online tools that give an entrepreneur everything he or she needs to start a business in a single day (there’s room at the top – Just check out Mark Zuckerberg!).

But we can do so much more.  Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer (with chemotherapy, radiation or surgery).  Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources they’ve had in over a decade.  Tonight, I’m announcing a new national effort to get it done.  And because he’s gone to the mat for all of us, on so many issues over the past forty years, I’m putting Joe in charge of Mission Control (ground control to Major Tom)For the loved ones we’ve all lost, for the family we can still save, let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all (yow, a GIGANTIC pile of steaming lies).

Medical research is critical.  We need the same level of commitment when it comes to developing clean energy sources (so we can put inventors’ work under National Security patent findings, or if need be, kill them – RIP Stanley Meyer).

Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it (we’ll be branding you a terrorist “Denier” and disappearing you under NDAA)You’ll be pretty lonely (in detention), because you’ll be debating our military (water-boarding is NOT torture), most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people (mind-control is a thing of beauty), almost the entire scientific community (official science WORKS), and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.

But even if the planet wasn’t at stake; even if 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record (Lie)until 2015 turned out even hotter (Lie)why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future? (now we’re gettin’ to the truth of the matter)

Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history.  Here are the results.  In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power (sorry about those birds).  On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal – in jobs that pay better than average.  We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy – something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support.  Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent (Fracking Rawks!), and cut carbon pollution (carbon pollution? – oh that’s right, we don’t “debate the science”) more than any other country on Earth.

Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either (ha, take that Vladimir).

Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from dirty energy.  Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future – especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels (OK, I’ll just say this once: petroleum is NOT “fossil fuel” – ‘nuff said).  That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage (charge for) our (we do own the whole damn world) oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet (don’t plan on commuting to work)That way, we put money back into those communities (Lie) and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system (oh yeah, get you out of those darn cars and into Bullet Trains, that’ll do ‘er).

None of this will happen overnight, and yes, there are plenty of entrenched interests (not like my bosses on Wallstreet) who want to protect the status quo.  But the jobs we’ll create, the money we’ll save, and the planet we’ll preserve – that’s the kind of future our kids and grandkids deserve (just make sure they get “their shots”).

Climate change is just one of many issues where our security is linked to the rest of the world.  And that’s why the third big question we have to answer is how to keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build everywhere there’s a problem (isn’t that what god made nukes for?).

I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air (Ericksonian suggestion #2).  Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker.  The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth (that’s right, we will HURT you).  Period.  It’s not even close.  We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined (this is something to brag about?)Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world (USA, USA!).  No nation dares to attack us or our allies (except, perhaps, ISIS) because they know that’s the path to ruin.  Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office (what surveys can he possibly be talking about?), and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead (unless of course they’re not people under the thrall of Western propaganda, in other words, terrorists) – they call us.

As someone who begins every day with an intelligence (perhaps this word has been degraded) briefing, I know this is a dangerous time (there are people who want to hurt us). But that’s not because of diminished American strength or some looming superpower (ISIS, ISIS, ISIS, ISIS…).  In today’s world, we’re threatened less by evil empires and more by failing states (like places that are TOTALLY BANKRUPT?)The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation (if we have our way), rooted in conflicts that date back millennia (you are getting sleepy…)Economic headwinds blow from a Chinese economy in transition (if “something” goes wrong with our economy, it’s their fault)Even as their economy contracts (neener, neener, neener), Russia is pouring resources to prop up Ukraine (WTF?) and Syria – states they see slipping away from their orbit.  And the international system we built after World War II is now struggling to keep pace with this new reality (it couldn’t happen to nicer guys).

It’s up to us (you, to do as you’re told) to help remake that system.  And that means we (the Royal we) have to set priorities.

Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks (and, yes, we do mean HOMEGROWN terrorists).  Both al Qaeda and now ISIL (ISIS, IS, whatever, our cherished creature) pose a direct threat to our people, because in today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life (remember Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, Yugoslavia, Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc. ad nauseum), including their own (war on the proles), can do a lot of damage.  They use the Internet (Mainstream Media) to poison the minds of individuals inside our country; they undermine our allies (including our Greatest Ally, Israel).

But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands.  Masses of fighters on the back of (very cool) pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments (board rooms) or garages (Federal buildings) pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped.  But they do not threaten our national existence.  That’s the story ISIL wants to tell; that’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit.  We don’t need to build them up to show that we’re serious (but to advance the Hegelian Dialectic), nor do we need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is representative of one of the world’s largest religions.  We just need to call them what they are – killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed (as the State is designed to do).

That’s exactly what we are doing (not quite)For more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries to cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology (how’s that working for us?).  With nearly 10,000 air strikes, we are taking out their leadership, their oil, their training camps, and their weapons.  We are training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria (from their governments, after all they’re “failed states”).

If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, you should finally authorize the use of military force against ISIL.  Take a vote.  But the American people should know that with or without Congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as terrorists before them (like the empire of the West).  If you doubt America’s commitment – or mine – to see that justice is done, ask Osama bin Laden (don’t make me lie again!).  Ask the leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, who was taken out last year, or the perpetrator of the Benghazi attacks, who sits in a prison cell (hold on a sec, has Hillary finally been detained?) .  When you come after Americans, we go after you.  It may take time, but we have long memories, and our reach has no limit (grandiosity knows no bounds…).

Our foreign policy must be focused on the threat from ISIL and al Qaeda, but it can’t stop there. For even without ISIL, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world (we have think-tanks working on it) – in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in parts of Central America, Africa and Asia.  Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks; others will fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees.  The world will look to us (what world is he referring to?) to help solve these problems, and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians.  That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.

We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis (are there no nukes?).  That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately weakens us.  It’s the lesson of Vietnam, of Iraq – and we should have learned it by now (you’d think).

Fortunately, there’s a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power.  It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies; but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight (mush, you huskies).

That’s our approach to conflicts like Syria, where we’re partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace (of the dead).

That’s why we built a global coalition, with sanctions and principled diplomacy, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.  As we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war (I want some of what he’s smoking).

That’s how we stopped the spread of Ebola in West Africa.  Our military, our doctors, and our development workers set up the platform that allowed other countries to join us in stamping (i.e. rolling) out that epidemic.

That’s how we forged a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open (monopolize) markets, protect (screw) workers and the environment, and advance American (predatory) leadership in Asia.  It cuts 18,000 taxes on products Made in America, and supports more good jobs (in countries where folks work for poverty wages and manufacturers can pollute and then sue us if we try to interfere).  With TPP, China doesn’t set the rules in that region, we do.  You want to show our (ignorance is) strength in this century?  Approve this agreement.  Give us the tools to enforce it.

Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, setting us back in Latin America.  That’s why we restored diplomatic relations, opened the door to travel and commerce, and positioned ourselves to improve (“improve”) the lives of the Cuban people.  You want to consolidate our leadership and credibility in the hemisphere?  Recognize that the Cold War is over.  Lift the embargo.

American leadership in the 21st century is not a choice between ignoring the rest of the world – except when we kill terrorists; or occupying and rebuilding whatever society is unraveling.  Leadership means a wise application of military power (da boss wants you should give us your resources), and rallying the world behind causes that are right.  It means seeing our foreign assistance as part of our national security, not charity.  When we lead nearly 200 nations to the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change (yeah, the climate’s gonna stop changing any time now) – that helps vulnerable countries, but it also protects our children (with heavy metal nano-particulate protection).  When we help Ukraine defend its democracy (fascists), or Colombia resolve a decades-long war, that strengthens the international order (and what order is that?) we depend upon.  When we help African countries feed their people and care for the sick (how about some GMO’s and some vaccinations?), that prevents the next pandemic from reaching our shores.  Right now, we are on track to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS, and we have the capacity to accomplish the same thing with malaria (did Barack finally hear about MMS? – oh, didn’t think so)something I’ll be pushing this Congress to fund this year (just put it on the tab).

That’s strength.  That’s leadership.  And that kind of leadership depends on the power of our example (we can only pray that people don’t learn by example).  That is why I will keep working to shut down the prison at Guantanamo:  it’s expensive, it’s unnecessary, and it only serves as a recruitment brochure for our enemies.

That’s why we need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion.  This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong.  The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith (Lie).  His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that “to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.” (and we’re well on our way)  When politicians insult Muslims, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid bullied, that doesn’t make us safer.  That’s not telling it like it is.  It’s just wrong.  It diminishes us in the eyes of the world.  It makes it harder to achieve our goals.  And it betrays who we are as a country (I think that’s getting pretty clear to most folks by now).

(Cue the Ericksonian Cheerleading and entrainment push):

“We the People.”  Our Constitution begins with those three simple words, words we’ve come to recognize mean all the people, not just some (funny, that’s not the way the Courts interpret it); words that insist we rise and fall together.  That brings me to the fourth, and maybe the most important thing I want to say tonight.

The future we want – opportunity and security for our families; a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids – all that is within our reach (flagrant Lie).  But it will only happen if we work together.  It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates (these debates are not on the agenda – At all).

It will only happen if we fix our politics (I thought they were already fixed).

A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything.  This is a big country, with different regions and attitudes and interests.  That’s one of our strengths, too.  Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security (blah, blah).

But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens (whom we’re working to divide with distrust even as I speak)It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic (and our society is devolving at breakneck speed despite the “empathy and good intentions” of our hierarchical overlords).  Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested (such as the known facts that 19 hijackers with box cutters brought us to our knees on 9/11 and “Adam Lanza” killed 27 people at Sandy Hook Elementary), and we listen only to those who agree with us (I’m listening to you, Barry).  Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention.  Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest (so I guess it’s all working then).

Too many Americans feel that way right now (and we have plans to deal with them).  It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency – that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better.  There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.

But, my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task – or any President’s – alone.  There are a whole lot of folks in this chamber who would like to see more cooperation, a more elevated debate in Washington, but feel trapped by the demands of getting elected.  I know; you’ve told me.  And if we want a better politics, it’s not enough to just change a Congressman or a Senator or even a President; we have to change the system to reflect our better selves.

We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around.  We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families and hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections – and if our existing approach to campaign finance can’t pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution.  We’ve got to make voting easier, not harder, and modernize it for the way we live now (repeat after me: voting brings change, voting brings change…).  And over the course of this year, I intend to travel the country to push for reforms that do.

But I can’t do these things on my own.  Changes in our political process – in not just who gets elected but how they get elected – that will only happen when the American people demand it (Lie)It will depend on you (staying in “your place” and listening to your betters).  That’s what’s meant by a government of, by, and for the people (hey, just who are these “people?”).

What I’m asking for is hard.  It’s easier to be cynical; to accept that change isn’t possible, and politics is hopeless, and to believe that our voices and actions don’t matter.  But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future (and Charlie Brown is gonna kick that football one of these days)Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure (is this a prediction?)As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background (or to Wake the Flock up, withdraw our consent to be governed and cease compliance with a violent, illegitimate system).

We can’t afford to go down that path (da boss wants you should stay in line).  It won’t deliver the economy we want, or the security we want, but most of all, it contradicts everything that makes us the envy of the world (like the platinum mastercard and tailgate parties).

So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen (14th Amendment citizen, with “privileges” and “responsibilities” – You did consent to this, yes?) .  To vote.  To speak out.  To stand up for others, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable, knowing that each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, stood up for us.  To stay active in our public life so it reflects the goodness and decency and optimism that I see in the American people every single day. (I’m getting’ all teary eyed now…)

It won’t be easy.  Our brand of democracy is hard.  But I can promise that a year from now, when I no longer hold this office (oh please, oh please, anybody but Obama – hey, it worked with Bush, right?), I’ll be right there with you as a citizen – inspired by those voices of fairness and vision, of grit and good humor and kindness that have helped America travel so far.  Voices that help us see ourselves not first and foremost as black or white or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native born; not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans first, bound by a common creed.  Voices Dr. King believed would have the final word – voices of unarmed truth and unconditional love.

They’re out there, those voices.  They don’t get a lot of attention, nor do they seek it, but they are busy doing the work this country needs doing.

I see them everywhere I travel in this incredible country of ours.  I see you.  I know you’re there.  You’re the reason why I have such incredible confidence in our future.  Because I see your quiet, sturdy citizenship all the time. (and you’re saying to yourself: I will stay inside my box)

I see it in the worker on the assembly line who clocked extra shifts to keep his company open, and the boss who pays him higher wages to keep him on board.

I see it in the Dreamer who stays up late to finish her science project (better not be a free energy device if you know what’s good for you), and the teacher who comes in early because he knows she might someday cure a disease (if, of course, the “cure” is patentable).

I see it in the American who served his time, and dreams of starting over – and the business owner who gives him that second chance.  The protester determined to prove that justice matters, and the young cop walking the beat, treating everybody with respect, doing the brave, quiet work of keeping us safe.

I see it in the soldier who gives almost everything to save his brothers, the nurse who tends to him ‘til he can run a marathon, and the community that lines up to cheer him on.

It’s the son who finds the courage to come out as who he is (that’s right, Dad, I’m an anarchist), and the father whose love for that son overrides everything he’s been taught (Son, now I see – We don’t need a monolithic authority that arrogates to itself the power to use deadly force to protect it’s interests).

I see it in the elderly woman who will wait in line to cast her vote as long as she has to; the new citizen who casts his for the first time; the volunteers at the polls who believe every vote should count, because each of them in different ways know how much that precious right is worth. (Don’t forget to vote, and vote often!)

That’s the America I know.  That’s the country we love.   Clear-eyed.  Big-hearted.  Optimistic that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.  That’s what makes me so hopeful about our future.  Because of you.  I believe in you.  That’s why I stand here confident that the State of our Union is strong (Boston Strong!).

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Advertisements

UN Agenda 21 Still Advancing Worldwide

UN Agenda 21 Still Advancing Worldwide

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be — we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.” – G.H.W. Bush Speaking at start of first Gulf War, 1991

What is Agenda 21? — Quoting from the UN website: “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”(sic)

equity-environment-economy-350Many have said that Agenda 21 is now outdated policy that’s fallen into neglect. This is far from true. For example, among many other things, the slow-motion train wreck of our ongoing world economic collapse supports UN Agenda 21, and the UN conference on “Post-2015 Sustainability Agenda” coming this September is a clear reiteration. Apologists say that Agenda 21 is only “Soft Law,” a policy that has no teeth. But they’re lying. In 20 years, through stealth implementation, this plan has become embedded in local policies all over the United States. It’s called Sustainable Development. Wherever you see it you’ll find “The 3 E’s:” ecology, economy, equity. In the upcoming UN conference, where the Jesuit Pope Francis will be appearing to promote his recent encyclical, they’re being called “People, Planet and Prosperity.”

Agenda 21 emerged full-blown from the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) aka The Rio Summit, in 1992. 16 to 17 thousand “delegates,” who were somehow given official status as officers of the UN, travelled from all over the world to take part in an 11 day party in Rio De Janeiro, where they were presented with Agenda 21, The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, a more than 300 page document that they were asked to approve, though it seems unlikely that many of them could have had time to even read it. Unsurprisingly, they voted to accept it, and it was suddenly official United Nations policy for the world.

I recently spoke with a delegate to Rio from Santa Cruz, who took exception to the way I’ve characterized the Rio Summit above. After more than 20 years, she entirely believes that the document was created by agreement at Rio, that its ideas and principles are unimpeachable, and that it has only been improved on since then. This is the genius behind the ways this program of worldwide social engineering has been rolled out, as well-meaning people are enrolled as supporters through poetic-sounding but fuzzy phrases, pledges of concern for the masses of humanity, and clever misdirection.

In fact, the Agenda 21 document was largely a creation of Maurice Strong, a mysterious man with a double-tracked career as both a high official at the UN, and as a billionaire financial insider extracting the Earth’s resources in the petroleum and mining industries. Strong first took the world stage prominently as “Secretary General,” a title the UN, for whatever reasons, adopted directly from communist and socialist organizations, of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972.

Strong’s very scant bio on Wikipedia says that he “met a leading UN official in 1947 (when Strong was just 18) who arranged for him…to serve as a junior security officer at the UN headquarters in Lake Success, New York” (before the new UN building was built on land donated by the Rockefellers in Manhattan). Just one year later, Strong became a trainee in a high-powered brokerage in Canada, “where he took an interest in the oil business,” and was transferred to an office in “the Alberta oil patch.” There he was quickly hired as an assistant to an oil-industry leader, Jack Gallagher — All while maintaining his connections at the UN.

In 1971, before the conference in Stockholm, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, entitled “Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet”. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for that first UN meeting on the environment. This was the world’s first “state of the environment” report. Following the Conference, Strong became the Chairman of the new United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), until 1975, and served as a member of the Brundtland Commission (below).

The 1972 conference was followed by several other major conferences as well as sets of meetings all over the world laying out the shape of this emerging globalist agenda. Despite the elusive nature of this long process and the ways it’s remained under the radar of the mainstream media, it has somehow remained on track with constant reiterations. In 1976 there was the UN Conference on Human Settlements which produced a Declaration containing 26 principles concerning the environment and development, an Action Plan with 109 recommendations, and a Resolution.

Here is an excerpt from the Conference Preamble: “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.  Private land ownership is also the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes

This preamble is followed by 65 pages of very specific land use recommendations. Among the many recommendations are: A-1) Redistribute population in accord with resources, D-1) Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources, D-2) Control land use through zoning & land-use planning, D-3) Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government, D-4) Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform, and D-5) Owner rights should be separated from development rights which should be held by a public authority.

Then, in the fall of 1983, the 38th Session of the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to create a commission “to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development to the year 2000 and beyond” (emphasis added). Gro Harlem Brundtland, former (and later) Prime Minister of Norway and Vice President of the Socialist International (sometimes called “the cradle of globalism”) was appointed to chair the commission. In her forward to Our Common Future, the 400 page report from what would become known as The Brundtland Commission, she wrote, ” ‘ A global agenda for change’ – this was what the World Commission on Environment and Development was asked to formulate. It was an urgent call by the General Assembly of the United Nations…” With this conference, the term “sustainable development” first appeared.

It’s from this long-term plan which emerged 20 years before the 1992 Rio Summit, that the many seemingly friendly terms such as Sustainability, Smart Growth, Resilient and Walkable Communities, and High Density Urban Mixed-Use Development come. It seems like no one had never heard these phrases 10 years ago but that now they’re everywhere we look. Among other key terms are: Equity, Affordable housing, Consensus, Social Justice, Human Settlements, Watershed, Facilitator, Best Management Practices, Outcome Based Education. Habitat Restoration, Quality of life, Benefit of all, Public/Private Partnerships, Common good, Collaborative, Inter-disciplinary, Stakeholder, School to Work, Visioning, and the all-important Regional. If you see these terms, particularly in combinations, you can be sure you’re looking at language dedicated to implementing this agenda.

In 1992, 172 governments attended the Rio Summit, with 116 sending heads of state. There were also 2,400 people from UN-connected NGO’s. Then President George HW Bush was there on Prince Charles’ yacht, where he signed the Agenda 21 document with absolutely no legal standing to do so.

In 1993, shortly after Bill Clinton took office, Nancy Pelosi helped, with 33 original cosponsors, to introduce legislation “to implement Agenda 21.” The bill passed the house, but was stopped in the Senate. But with clearly international pressure to advance the program, in June 1993 Democrat Clinton created The President’s Council on Sustainable Development which has placed Sustainability Officers in every federal department and agency since then. This has resulted in administrative regulations enforcing Agenda 21 policies as (possibly fraudulent) hard law, and in huge distortions in federal funding that have forced States to adhere to federal dictates.

biodiversity_wildlands_map-capture

An international treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was also presented at the Rio Summit for signing, and was eventually brought to the U.S. Senate for ratification in 1994. At first, it looked like it would pass, but at the last hour, text from a book Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), which was not to be published for another year and a half, was leaked to staff of Senators, along with the now well-known Biodiversity Wildlands Map, which showed graphically the plan to move Americans off the land and into dense “human settlement zones.” The Convention wasn’t ratified, while the MSM reported that the GBA book did not exist. Congress has, so far, refused to implement Agenda 21 as policy for the United States of America. But it has been advanced by Presidential edicts.

The End of Natural Property Rights — UN policy on “land” has been clear since the 1976 Conference on Human Settlements. Its preamble on land quoted above continues:

“Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

“Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies.”

This makes obvious the position of the UN policy makers that private property is now to be considered as a social asset to be controlled by “the public.” The exact nature of this public is, however, not clear. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says, “No person shall… be deprived of… property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” But the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 Sec 2 says, “Property shall not be arbitrarily taken.” This is a crucial difference. Somehow “the public” can take private property from you, as long as it’s not done “arbitrarily.”

Santa Cruz County seems to have been targeted for early implementation of Agenda 21. Two years before Agenda 21 was unveiled in 1992, the voters of the County passed Measure C, “The Decade of the Environment ” containing many of the key tenets of the UN Program, and which has been reaffirmed every ten years by the Board of Supervisors, and is reported on regularly by the Planning Department.

Cover-SC_County-Local_A21-bThe Supervisors also fell into step with the Agenda in 1993-94 when they “officially approved the process” of the “Sustainable Santa Cruz: Local Agenda 21” 100-page planning guide created by Action-Santa Cruz County and the Santa Cruz Chapter of the United Nations Association. This type of document was directly called for in Agenda 21 itself — In Chapter 28, “Local Authorities Initiatives,” the first objective listed is “(a) By 1996, most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on ‘a local Agenda 2I’ for the community…” Of course, this directive was unknown in most of the rest of the U.S.

In our society the direct taking of peoples’ properties is, so far, unacceptable to most people. What has happened instead, certainly in Santa Cruz, is the use of permitting processes, zoning and taxation, including the infamous “Red Tags,” to gradually take away the productive use of their land from property owners without compensation. Though a relatively small county, Santa Cruz has, after LA County, the second-largest planning department in the State. There are currently thousands of red tags on record here, and, according to some counts, hundreds of owners have been forced off their properties, which have, in many cases, been transferred to insider “Private Partners” through practices many say are corrupt. Frequently, after the new owner appears, zoning is changed or permits are issued for new uses.

It is getting increasingly hard to get permits for single family homes, while permitting is easier to get for “High Density, Mixed Use” (typically floors of small apartments above retail spaces of questionable utility – AKA “Stack n’ Pack” housing). The Santa Cruz Supervisors are in the process of creating a new tax to fund this high-density “Low Income” housing through an “Affordable Housing Assessment” on all new construction, including additions, in the County. This will raise the cost of building a house by perhaps tens-of-thousands of dollars.

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives — or ICLEI (pronounced Ick-ly) is a UN NGO that had it’s founding meeting in 1990 in the General Assembly chamber at the UN building in Manhattan. ICLEI staff wrote one of the chapters of the Agenda 21 document, under the direction of Maurice Strong. Santa Cruz City and County have both been members of ICLEI since its inception, though this has been made as obscure as possible by local officials over time. ICLEI works to bring top-down policies from the UN globalist agenda to local communities under the guise of being guided by its membership.

ICLEI was directly involved in the creation of California bills AB 32 and SB 375, mandating severe ongoing restrictions on our “greenhouse gas emissions” in the name of the heavily-pushed and yet highly questionable theory of “global warming” caused by CO2. ICLEI was then hired by hundreds of cities and counties in California to help them draft the “Climate Action Plans” mandated to help reach the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals set in AB 32. This is a serious conflict of interest violation by this formal arm of the UN.

Regionalism — Regional “governance” is a concept that has been advancing in the U.S. since World War II. Regionalism has been extended across America primarily through executive presidential action, including Nixon’s creation of multi-state Federal Regions, and through confusing provisions of Congressional “Acts” which require the action of Regional Planning Agencies or Councils of Government (COG’s) in order to secure the more and more essential federal funding needed for major public works. Regional Agencies are composed of appointed officials from all levels of local government, and are not subject to direct input by voters. Our local COG is the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), founded in 1968, two years after the U.S. Model Cities Act set up the framework for AMBAG to be a funding conduit.

The COG for the nine Bay Area Counties is ABAG, the Association of Bay Area Governments. ABAG, is working with ICLEI to create the “One Bay Area” program. One Bay Area is a major initiative to promote the top-down plan to implement Agenda 21 around the San Francisco Bay. This plan for a region containing 7.5 million people, is designed to entirely remake the region in the image of Smart Growth, high-density housing and government transportation planning.

Over the next 20 years 630,000 new residential units are projected by ABAG. ALL residential construction specified by the plan is be multi-family housing. 80% of this housing must be within ½ mile of the plan’s designated “transit corridors” (permits will not be granted outside these zones). One corridor, the El Camino Real, running from San Jose to San Francisco, will be transformed into a series of government controlled Stack ‘n Pack smart growth developments. The plan is that all private vehicles will be banned from what is to then be called “The Grand Boulevard.” Through the ABAG COG, the federal government has committed more than 300 billion, mostly highway tax dollars to this “Plan Bay Area.”

Locally, something similar but more modest is being proposed under the newly rechristened “Sustainable Santa Cruz County” Regional Transportation Plan, where the eventual centerpiece will be a widened “Soquel Drive Corridor” from Dominican Hospital to Aptos, where hundreds of units of Stack n’ Pack housing will be built, close to planned public transit to include the much ballyhooed “Rail Trail” and possible train service. As part of enrolling us into this planned “sustainable” development, public “consensus” meetings have been held regularly by the Planning Department and Sustainable Santa Cruz County for the last few years.

Recent Advances in the Globalist Programs for Sustainable Development — In 2015 we are seeing two major events to promote and re-energize global population control, and a very curious confluence of globalist social engineering and the Roman Papacy. From Sept. 25 to 27 the UN will be holding its “Post-2015 Sustainability Agenda” conference at its New York headquarters, accompanied by an appearance of Pope Francis doing a formal presentation of his monumental ecologist encyclical “Laudato Si” (praised be). This conference is a clear extension of the Millennium Summit in 2000. Instead of the 8 “Millennium Development Goals” set there to be realized by 2015 (none have been), we are being given 17 this time, to be done by 2030. I will only share Goal 17 – “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.” Suffice it to say that The Agenda for the 21st Century slogs on.

Then, from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11 in Paris, France, will come the massive propaganda onslaught of COP21, billed as “The UN Climate Conference.” Actually, COP stands for Conference of the Parties of the Kyoto Accords, so it’s interesting to see the event subsumed under the UN. While even the 2014 IPCC report, in its section on the real climate science, admitted that there has been no significant warming of the planet for the last 15 years or so (despite the desperate pleas of upcoming disaster contained in the report’s “summary for decision makers”), we are now being lobbied relentlessly about “climate change” by the corporate media (and NPR) to prepare us for a draconian “carbon suppression regime” they hope to create at this conference. Any “carbon” taxes arising at this 12-day event are rumored to be, for the first time, going directly to the UN (“a credible United Nations”).

I’ll briefly touch upon the apparent synchronicity of Pope Francis’ encyclical with the huge world effort to push the United Nations. While it’s easy to see why many people find some of the ideas expressed in it to be moving, even poetic, to me they seem rather diffuse and confusing. More than that, the Pope’s focus on pushing the need to respond immediately to a posited “climate crisis” and to problems eerily like those driving UN sustainable development, is quite striking. Some in the “climate reality” community are elated that the spiritual force of the Pope’s message may put their quest for a serious solution to carbon “pollution” over the top. If so, it will have been very convenient.

Bruce Tanner is a researcher, writer and videographer on deep politics, deep history and the structural nature of the (non-existent) ego. He and his wife Cynthia live in Santa Cruz, California, where they organized the local THRIVE Solutions Group. This article was originally published in Connection Magazine, Santa Cruz.

 

 

 

Is Pope Francis’ encyclical really about protecting “the planet and the poor?”

Email reply to a friend after being emailed links to an article by David Suzuki raving about Pope Francis’ encyclical “Laudato Si” and a link to the encyclical itself, which was described as “a rare mix of poetic beauty and the appropriate use of intelligent thought”:

Hi (name withheld),

I would urge you to do more research into what’s going on here. Suzuki has been pushing the AGW meme for quite some time now, in the face of, and without commenting on, peer-reviewed scientific papers that show that the temperature on Earth is driven primarily by the Sun’s magnetic field.

A French scientist, Philippe de Larminat, characterized by the MSM as a “climate doubter” (better than “denier” I guess) was barred from appearing in Rome at the April climate summit sponsored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences in preparation for the recent encyclical. As far as the proponents of AGW theory are concerned, there is no need to even look at evidence that suggests that it might be a major mistake to talk about taking the life-giving power of fuels containing carbon molecules away from people in the developing world, who desperately need them for survival.

I think I previously gave you a DVD with the documentary on the work of Henrik Svensmark, The Cloud Mystery, which covers the difficulties he had back in 2005-2006 publishing his peer-reviewed paper proving the energetic and chemical pathways by which cosmic rays create showers of particles called muons which cause the formation of microscopic nuclei for low-altitude clouds, which have the effect of cooling the Earth. An article I wrote on this back in 2010 can be found at https://berealtruth.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-cloud-mystery/. In that, I lay out the information in the documentary that shows persuasive evidence that the Earth has remained in regular cycles of heating and cooling for hundreds of millions of years, and has been cool within the parameters of these cycles even at times when there was more than 10 times the amount of CO2 presently in our atmosphere. You can read about Svensmark’s work and its implications in more detail in a book he co-authored with the great science author Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars.

Even Al Gore has admitted that the correlations between atmospheric temperatures and CO2 that he stressed in An Inconvenient Truth, show that the rise in CO2 lags behind the rises in temperature by a matter of years. You can also see the current work of retired NASA scientists to present information contesting the AGW theories at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/. Another factor in the current rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is the dramatic uptick in volcanic activity we’re having worldwide, which greatly increases the amount of gasses being emitted.

The papal encyclical largely implies that there is a moral imperative to, in protecting our Earth Mother, do what we can to prevent climate disaster. He says this is particularly necessary to protect the impoverished of the world, without mentioning the potential disaster for them of any kind of “carbon” rationing regime. Also, if there is an imperative to protect the Earth and its people, why is there no mention of the ongoing geoengineering agenda which Dane Wigington has documented is now killing the forests of the world (not to mention poison us all with a cocktail of toxic heavy metals)?

Why has the Pope weighed in on this issue at this time, even going so far as to appear at the U.N. in concert with the upcoming conference on “the Post-2015 Sustainability Agenda” (i.e. an updated iteration of Agenda 21)? Could it be to provide momentum in preparation for the COP21 conference in Paris in Nov. and Dec.? Can it be that the global elite agenda needs to bring in a “carbon” suppression program rapidly now, before it becomes utterly obvious that the Earth, due to the drastic reduction in the solar magnetic field that’s been underway since the mid-1990’s, indicated by the very weak solar maximum last year, is most likely leading to a longer term cooling trend? This has been shown by the infamous “hiatus” that NOAA recently got caught cooking data in an attempt to try to deny is even happening. Even the 2014 IPCC report, which had a powerfully propagandistic “Summary for Decision Makers,” admitted that there has been no warming for 15 years in the scientific part of the report. Given that the IPCC has been pushing for draconian measures against the world population for nearly 2 decades, why would they include that information if it were not true?

I’m suggesting that there are reasons other than “settled science” and a need to protect the population of the world for what’s going on now. It doesn’t make sense to give the Vatican unquestioned moral leeway as somehow representing unimpeachable ethics, in the face of Rome’s history of controlling people over the centuries, including recent decades, and in particular, playing games with scientific knowledge. If the science were “settled,” why would people on the AGW bandwagon be rejoicing that this encyclical is the element that can push their efforts for control of the world population over the top? Shouldn’t the truth do that?

In Lak’ech,
Bruce

A Reply to a Question on “Chemtrail Debunking”

This is a response to a volunteer for the Coalition to End Toxic Aerosols (CETA) campaign. She was having a discussion by email with a friend, and her friend started sending her articles that, in her friend’s opinion, showed that Geoengineering is the product of the imaginations of that flaky and excitable species known as “Conspiracy Theorists.” One of the links she sent me to look at is: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/what-are-chemtrails.htm – My reply is below:


The article on How Stuff Works (such a cozy name for a website – simply some homey common sense…) is a professionally created propaganda piece. These types of articles are deliberately created to give people who don’t want to see what’s happening over their heads and consider its implications, because understanding the information would be devastating to their worldviews, an excuse to defer to the debunkers as experts. People then will present this propaganda to their friends that are just trying to tell them about real programs that are affecting the lives of them and their loved ones, to continue to fend off the bad news – news that calls into question the nature and trustworthiness of the government and the health systems, among other things. These types of articles generally never actually look at the data that people exposing the geoengineering agenda present. They give people pat answers that seem to make sense on the surface, but that don’t hold up on examination. I will list some of the data points that contradict this kind of thinking below:

1) The article is careful to stress that the people who say that something is being sprayed in the sky are Conspiracy Theorists. This should be a big clue to anyone reading this. The term was created by the CIA in the wake of the Warren Commission Report on the Kennedy assassination to scare people away from looking at the severe inconsistencies and implausibilities of that cover up.

2) Contrails have always been made of ice particles, appearing at high altitudes where the air is very cold. There is a formula for calculating how long they will linger based on altitude, barometric pressure, temperature and humidity. The laws of physics have not changed suddenly at the end of the 1990’s. Contrails do not linger for hours from horizon to horizon and spread out to create dead-looking scummy clouds that often have strange rainbow hues in them where they refract the sun.

3) The materials from the geoengineering spray have been observed to precipitate to the ground and can be observed as major flurries of powders, tiny fibers, or even web-like strands that can cover large areas of ground. These materials have been gathered and tested and they contain the usual suspects: Aluminum oxide and salts, Barium and Strontium salts and other heavy metals, as well as other man-made substances.

4) People have gotten very sick and died after heavy spraying in some places. In Britain in the early 2000’s there was a wave of spraying that jammed the emergency rooms, and so many people died that they needed to bring in refrigerated trucks to use as temporary morgues.

5) Modern High-Bypass Fan Jet Engines are almost incapable of leaving contrails except under the most extreme conditions – The turbo fans that are the main drivers of the engines force massive volumes of non-combusted air around the center combustion chamber, which dry out the exhaust and cool it down, inhibiting the formation of ice particles.

6) Engines have always left other particulates and chemicals in their exhausts. Why did they start appearing differently around 1996 or so? Some analysts have said that more modern engines actually burn cleaner. Again, the laws of physics did not change.

7) People in many locations have tracked the air traffic of the planes leaving geoengineering plumes. Most of them do not appear in logs of commercial traffic. Many of them are flying in prohibited military airspace. The planes also leave their aerosols in obvious weather formations where parallel or grid patterns will appear in concentrated areas that have demonstrated potential to affect weather systems. I have personally seen massive sets of parallel plumes sprayed over Death Valley, the high Sierras, and Baja California, where clear skies in the mornings were completely whited out by the afternoons in areas where there was no logical reason for commercial air traffic.

8) The ingredients of the aerosol plumes have been found in air, on surfaces, in running and standing water, in snow and in the soil. In the soil, aluminum and barium have been found around structures, but not in the soil beneath them. It raises the ph level in soil. In Shasta County, Francis Mangels has found that the soil has generally gone from around 5.8 ph to 6.7 – he’s found much high alkalinity in some places. This raised alkalinity is inhibiting the ability of plants to absorb nutrients and shrubs and trees are dying even where water is plentiful around creeks, etc. The materials have been found in newly created ponds at very high levels. In streams around Shasta the aquatic insect life has been reduced 90 percent or more and fish are starving. Mangels also found aluminum at 61,000 parts per billion in snow on Mt. Shasta. This is not a form of aluminum that occurs in nature, it’s been refined and processed.

9) There are many patents for doing geoengineering that call for precisely the materials that are being found in the wake of the spraying. The patents call for nano-particulates (in some patents smaller than 10 microns) which will float in the sky as long as possible. Nano-particulates have special chemical properties. They are immediately absorbed by the capillaries in the lungs and enter the bloodstream, where they cross the blood-brain barrier without interference. These materials are found in peoples’ blood and hair samples. Nano-particulates are also explosively flammable, which gives an explanation for the much hotter and more dangerous wildfires that have been observed and commented on by fire-fighters in many places.

10) Kristen Meghan, who was an Air Force Base Bio-Environmental Engineer, is a whistle blower who has come forward at great risk to her own safety. She saw the inventory manifests of the geoengineering materials that were coming onto her base, as well as the biological tests on the Air Men and Women on the base that showed the presence of these materials in their bodies.

11) There are dozens of photographs of different kinds of spraying equipment installed inside what appear to be passenger-type jets. Some show patent numbers on the tanks which correspond to patents on environmental aerosol processes.

12) One of the features of the “Polar Vortex” in the Eastern U.S. and other freak storms is the fall of what’s sometimes called “wet snow” that doesn’t melt in a normal way, when the temperatures are above freezing, even up into the low 50’s. People have noticed that this snow often has a chemical smell.

People don’t seem to remember what natural weather looks like anymore. Many younger people have never seen it during their lifetimes. Many don’t want to look at the sky now. How to help people realize what’s going on directly over their heads is a great challenge for us. For instance, I don’t recommend forwarding this email to your friend. You possibly need to spend time with your friends and find out what their core concerns are before trying to present them with specific information. It’s likely that they have fears about issues that stand in the way of being able to listen to ideas that trigger them. Listening is something that needs to go both ways. If you can master deep listening you will likely find the dynamics of your conversations shifting.

It’s important to understand that programs with these kinds of massive impacts will pervade all social institutions. The people who are doing this know that their actions are wrong. It only makes sense to speculate that they’ll use all of the resources at their disposal to keep people from knowing what’s happening or from interfering with their strategies.

And here is a link to a talk by Geoengineering whistle blower Kristen Meghan, in which she comments on the “debunking” sites Metabunk and Contrail Science. Those sites are part of a network of sites all put up by one man who many believe is a government disinfo operative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA&spfreload=10

Learning to share controversial information is an art.

There is No “Government”

This is a comment that I put up on Foster Gamble’s recent blog post: PEOPLE STANDING FOR JUSTICE
(http://www.thrivemovement.com/people-standing-justice.blog)

If we look at it carefully, there is actually no such “thing” as government. What we call government is an organized structure composed of people using the concept of government as an organizational principle under their direction. Under this principle, the preservation and actualization of the imaginary structure of government itself is the preeminent imperative. The constantly propagandized need for this structure is the multifaceted and mind-numbing justification for the use of whatever means are necessary to protect and preserve, not the people who are supposedly subjects of the government, but the government structure itself. Whatever means necessary include the use of lethal force. History shows that the levels of lethal force used are limited only by the technological tools at the disposal of government actors and their ability to control the reactions and consciences of the governed. The latter is sometimes called manufacturing consent.

While the population can work, often at the cost of extreme suffering and sacrifice, to limit the irrationality and violence of the structures to which they’re subject, we see that over time people taking the role of government officials always tend to enlarge the scope of their powers, as well as the power of the technology and systems they control. The nature of the government concept inevitably attracts people without ethics against the misuse of power into pursuing power in its structure. In fact, the only way to succeed in rising to power is to abandon ethical considerations and, again, to use the means necessary to prevail over other state officials. As John Trudell said, “Their violence works. It hardly ever fails.”

A simple analytic for the validity and legitimacy of human behavior is to see if it involves violence or aggression toward other people or toward living systems. If it does, then we must be called by clear realization to not support it, whatever the rationale or justifications. As people seem to be realizing very rapidly now, it is impossible for us, however lofty our notions or rhetoric, to reach an ethical result through unethical or aggressive behaviors. This is not a matter of compiling a complicated set of rules, but by a clear seeing of what’s going on under our noses. Adopting such a simple ethic is certainly not the easiest course for our egos to take. It can be very rigorous and demanding. On the other hand, if we really want to transcend the cycles of violence and increasing suffering and destruction in which we’re now embedded, this ethical consistency and determination will be more easy than any other alternative

My Comment on Chuck Norris’ article arguing against “allowing” Americans to use cannabis

Cannabis_Saddhu

Posted at: http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/chuck-norris-smokes-marijuana-debate/

Cannabis has more than 60 phytocannabinoids, molecules that dock with receptors in every organ system in the human body and tend to contribute to our health in many ways. No other plant on Earth has been found to contain more than one of these substances. Cannabis has been used as a medicine and psychotropic REMEDY and sacrament by cultures all over Asia, Europe and Africa for thousands of years. The Constitution clearly says that the U.S. Government only has the limited powers specifically granted to it in the document, which do not include controlling what people use for their health, physical or psychological.

People who use cannabis tend to see things outside of the boxes that Americans tend to be forced into mentally by our, arguably pathological and dominating, culture. Many of the positive aspects of the 60’s youth culture were no doubt due to this effect. When cannabis was (Unconstitutionally) “outlawed,” under the influence of industries that competed with non-psychoactive industrial hemp, 30% of the medicines sold in pharmacies in the U.S. contained cannabis. What is the true explanation of why it was suppressed? What possible legitimate justification or jurisdiction is there for people who disagree with its use, to dominate users through lethal force, imprisonment, property theft or other social sanctions?

Thanks-God-for-Cannabis

Michael Hastings demise was no accident – his car was BOMBED

Car-morningAfter

Please, this was not “a suspicious car accident.”

The photo above clearly shows that Michael Hastings car was bombed. The entire front of the driver’s side of the car has been blown away.

The video linked HERE, from LoudLabs News, shows clearly that Hastings’ car hood was not crumpled from striking the palm tree, but blown away from the drivers side of the car and did not even hit the tree. MORE THAN THAT it also shows that the driver’s side front quarter of the car WAS GONE, and not even touching the tree (no serious impact damage to the palm).

The video and the photo above show that the front of the car up to the drivers side door wasn’t there. Moreover, his engine and transmission were blown 60 yards down the road, not in the direction of his car supposedly striking the tree. They landed on the far curb of the 4-lane road with no skid marks. His front right wheel was also down the road in the direction the car was traveling when “something happened.” See diagram of crash scene HERE

The tranny of the car extended well back into the passenger compartment, implying that the powerful explosive was likely placed below the passenger compartment, in order to provide the momentum to blow the drive train 60 yards forward and to clear the firewall upward doing it.

It’s time to stop pussy-footing around about this event. Hastings was assassinated.

The Multiple Prongs of Agenda 21 (slight return)

Agenda_21_Cover-500px

The Multiple Prongs of Agenda 21 (slight return)

Agenda 21 is an action plan or blueprint for a future desired by its creators. This desired future is shrouded in feel good environmentally protective development and innovation, otherwise referred to as green, green movement, and/or environmentalism. Sadly, Agenda 21 is an utter ruse for representing, to many activists and activist groups, a darkly dystopian future as being utopian. There is a larger picture to Agenda 21 that many people either refuse to acknowledge or are determined to deny.

Agenda 21 is one of several pincers in a concerted program. Most people don’t realize precisely what Agenda 21 does, and many don’t acknowledge that it will be a nightmare for the vast majority of humanity. Unless you’re a Bureaucrat, Technocrat, Bismarkianist or member of the elites, as well as a psychopath/sociopath, Agenda 21 is nowhere near a utopia. Its principle underlying tenet is rigid control, with the destruction of rights, liberties and freedoms and their transformation into mere privileges at the discretion of those in control.

Unfortunately, Agenda 21 is much more sophisticated, as it is coupled with multiple prongs that implement its active development. The first is Bismarkianism; this is a three-stage process using a bait and switch to manipulate people into tolerating and accepting expansion of centralized control through globalized governance.

The first stage is socialism, as this creates incentives for the populace to support implementation of public-private partnerships, rewarding fiefdoms, and granting benefits that pacify the populace. Once this stage is in place, public relations or propaganda is used to shift into national socialism that entails making many of these public-private partnerships into permanent parts of the state apparatus.

It isn’t much of a stretch to speculate that after the next economic crisis strikes the United States, public-private partnerships will start becoming fully merged. It looks like the first solid official merger will be of government with banking, through the Federal Reserve. With this centralized public-private government-banking partnership, established in 1913, and with the addition of the corrupt and unprosecuted fraud of designating banks as Too Big To Fail, the result will be a private banking authority with official state power. Public-Private mergers can then repeat this Progressive meme to enable the acceptance of the official establishment of totalitarianism, the creation of an invisible oligarchy with absolute authority.

Some readers may be skeptical about this. However, this will facilitate the approaching “democracy” movement. Masses will be manipulated into denying the rights of various minorities. Congress will become little more than a rubber-stamp under the President’s authority, no longer a separate Constitutional body with checks and balances separating it from the “Unitary Executive.” Centralization will be able to further entrench itself through welfare and warfare aka bribes and “security.” This is perhaps the main mechanism driving Agenda 21, as it combines welfare, interstate commerce, re-interpretation of the supremacy clause, and national security.

The next prong is the Malthusian and Eugenicist merger and re-imaging of Eugenics through Neo-Malthusianism and women’s health/reproductive health. The Neo-Malthusianism prong is perhaps the most hidden of the prongs, though with more visible components such as women’s health/reproductive rights and transhumanism. These prongs would not be complete without the supranational/universalist movements. This is where Agenda 21 operates as a supranational action plan to be coordinated through local implementation, completely altering the Constitutional relationships of local, state and national governments to become regional government “stewards” or soviets of the supranational body. In this particular case, the supranational body and its subsidiaries will be evolved from the United Nations.

These make up a non-exhaustive list of the prongs of Agenda 21 and what they are designed to do. This is to consolidate and expand power behind a centralized authority under the control of the global elites.

Agenda 21 is not compatible with inherent individual rights and freedoms. It is a Collectivist movement. One of humanity’s oldest struggles is between individualism and Collectivism under elite control.

The difference between a collective and a community is that: In a community a group of individuals live in proximity to one another and people work together through cooperation for mutual benefit, protection, and livelihood. Collectives operate under mandates for each individual to accept “rights and responsibilities” dictated by the governing body, which creates separate categories of individuals with different statuses in order to promote its control. This is divide and rule, like a hive or ant colony, not a community. Every individual’s benefit to the Collective is really his or her benefit to the governing regime; the individual is of little to no inherent value in such a system.

In the movie Swordfish, the John Travolta character asks “If you could cure cancer but had to kill one child, could you kill that child?” The Collectivist answer is not only a resounding ‘YES!’ it also dictates that the child should gladly be willing to die, even in great pain “for the greater good.” Why is this relevant? Agenda 21 strips individuals of their unalienable rights, liberties, and freedoms and instead grants them privileges and responsibilities at the governing regime’s discretion. This is slavery. The whole march of the United States toward the despotism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism of a Police State, and the erosion of the Constitution, which supposedly exists to protect natural rights, is driven by Agenda 21, with its Neo-Malthusianism and planned full merging of public-private partnerships under state authority. In fact, Agenda 21 names every human being in the world, as well as everything in Nature, as only a piece of capital and a resource to be inventoried and allocated. This is an enslavement designed to force people to love, yearn for, and even insist on the servitude of all, the ultimate triumph of Collectivism.

Agenda 21 is an action plan that is being implemented at the local level but is derived from the supranational institution of the United Nations; it is a plan or blueprint designed to turn us all into collective capital and resources. We are to be enslaved with privileges that can be revoked in an instant at the whim of any bureaucrat placed over us by the elite consensus, and with the forced responsibility to do their bidding. Agenda 21 is shrouded in feel good activism from the environmental/green movement; its implementation can only be halted through informing ourselves about what Agenda 21 is and refusing to comply with its implementation.

Agenda 21 operates under the rubric of sustainable development that plans for environmental accounting of human, land and resources in the interests of the Collective. It mandates that every human project needs to be given permission by the soviet control apparatus. Every one of us is to be only a resource under the control and allocation of sustainable development. Bill Gates once announced that the only way to bring down CO2 emissions will be to bring population, consumption and production down to near zero. Sustainable Development effectively means suppressing class mobility, consumption, freedom and, ultimately, population. These policies will result in widespread starvation, war, poisoning and despair. This means that Agenda 21 is an action plan hiding its true intentions behind a smokescreen of feel good activism to enable its full tyrannical implementation in the name of environmental welfare.

 Adapted with liberties from: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/the-multiple-prongs-of-agenda-21.html

What is Voluntaryism?

Poster_Board-e-700

What is Voluntaryism?

“The thought of how much the human race would have advanced without government simply staggers the imagination.”  Doug Casey, 1979

Voluntaryism is a name for a new model of human organization that can revolutionize world society to release people’s untapped and suppressed potentials.

Introduction from Voluntaryist.com: “Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The Voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.”

The converse of Voluntaryism is often called Statism, or the idea there can exist a collective authority that supersedes the authority of individuals.

This Statist ideology pervades our culture and our world. This situation is often accepted by us as simply being “the way it is.” If we look at this carefully and clearly however, we’ll see that “the State” can only ever be a conceptual fiction under which individual humans act using this imagined collective authority. This has developed and has been perpetuated over thousands of years by rulers and their minions, who were under the erroneous and delusional impression that it created advantages for them that made their lives easier and more prestigious.

  • It seems reasonable to speculate that over these many generations of living under governments, there have been intelligent yet psychopathic members of the power elite who have recognized the utility of more social control – of enhancing the hypnotic power of the imaginary institutions they command through psychological manipulation of the populations, the bureaucratic minions and enforcers, and even of those believing themselves the nobility or legitimate leaders.

Because most of us have accepted that this collective power is The Way It Is, we are conditioned to shy away from the consideration that it is never legitimate for us to give this imaginary State invasive privileges that we can’t exercise as individuals.

If people are to be responsible for providing their own abundance, then it is arguably in our own best interest that those around us are as strong and capable as possible, so society can flourish as a whole. Harming others’ abilities to perceive life with clarity and think critically about what they see would therefor only be hurting ourselves. Another corollary to this is the idea that when we attack others, we also feel attacked ourselves at a subconscious level. What goes around, comes around. We then live in a world of fear. This fear is increased if we face irrational, authoritarian, defensive and psychopathic behaviors by “Leaders,” “Representatives,” or officers invested with a belief in their power over us.

  What we now experience as the “educational system” is a highly sophisticated product of many generations of psychological enhancement that operates directly counter to what common sense will tell us will build a strong society.

To truly come into my own power, I must first accept others coming into theirs without any conditions or personal preferences.

  In our current model, we are hypnotically addicted to the idea that we must attain preeminence over others.

  • If I want to promote this unspoken necessity for power, a set of hidden strategies tends to be constantly generated and updated in my mindspace.
  • I tend to see people not as the unknowable mysteries they are, but only as resources for getting advantages prioritized in my hidden strategies. If I don’t see them as having value for gaining preeminence, they have no interest or value for me.
  • Crucially, to advance in rank in society, one needs to serve the interests of people above oneself in the pecking order. This begs the question of just what is being served when one rises to the top of an institution.

In order to open the flow of energies (goods and services) from others – and from Source – I need to open my inner source, for energies to flow outward, producing value that is under demand by my fellow beings.

  Because of the repressive strategies used by people operating “under color” of authority – Typically as “governments” or government-privileged institutions, i.e. corporations – we are now impeded from offering many kinds of essential goods or services that can potentially solve critical issues we now face.

  • Governments generally claim monopoly power to represent the interests of people, often called “citizens,” within the conceptual area – i.e. “State” – over which they claim to have “jurisdiction” – or control. Marc Stevens teaches that “the State” claims legitimacy as a “body politic” which has jurisdiction over citizens: “persons” who make a pledge of allegiance in return for the State’s duty of protection. However, within the U.S. no court has ever ruled that government has incurred any liability for failure to protect its citizens.

One area in which people such as Marc Stevens are producing value for others is in teaching them to protect themselves from invasion and usurpation of their time and energies by people trying to use others to gain illegitimate advantages for themselves. Ultimately, these kinds of services can develop into voluntarily accessed alternatives for many of the functions of “governments.”

  This is highly inconvenient to the purveyors of the worldwide system of control by violence. The system is now coming under the unprecedented threat of the awakening of populations the elite ruling consensus depend on to provide the skills and energy to maintain their hegemony.

  It seems that now, in the early 21st Century, the control agenda has become so developed and pervasive that it is threatened by the arising of any human capabilities not under direct control of the elites. In particular, new ideas in the areas of energy, health, agriculture, social organization and human development directly menace the interlocking institutions of repression.

  • As new technologies emerge to empower the “peasant classes” to transcend their dependence on entrenched systems, Statist cabals will be driven to choose between escalating their use of violence, or acquiescing to change.

The idea of political power is that any means necessary must be employed to enroll the levels of agreement and compliance in the population to attain desired political goals. This amounts to coerced control; war by other means. Once a political process has secured the impression of agreement, or “manufactured consensus,” then State violence is employed in enforcing “democratic” policy. In this sense, political methods violate the basic principles of Voluntaryism.

  As to how we can “get there from here,” the specific pathways are not yet clear. However, if we commit ourselves and adhere to the principles of Voluntaryism, this clarity is certain to emerge. If we steadfastly refrain from violation of others’ lives, are faithful to voluntary agreements we make, and are always open to feedback, criticism, and correction of mistakes, methods of development and social organization we’re not yet aware of will be found. If we lose our resolution and cut corners, we will return to the descending course of our increasingly dangerous fall into corruption.

The transition to an all-voluntary society is the paradigm shift that most of humankind now intuits is coming. The idea is radical: going to the root of the delusions and illusory goals that have plagued us throughout history. Yet at the same time, it is very simple. As we go on, we will feel and intuit more easily those times when thoughts arise of acting in violation of the Sacred Space of others. Avoiding those mistakes, we will gradually feel more free, and more unencumbered with troubled consciences and fears. As these skills begin to become realized, we’ll be on the verge of entering a new world.

What is Voluntaryism? Click to download a PDF version of this article.

Are You a Voluntaryist? Click to download an 8 1/2″ x 11″ PDF of the flyer above the article.

in Order to form a more perfect union… (a discussion)

In_Order_to_form
This is a discussion that we had on a local activist email list in June:


(list member 1):
As I understand it, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the law of the land, it is our form of government. It is not a partisan issue. It is said to be at the balanced center of govt control and none.
Of course they make it a party issue, and those wanting less control or more will not cease to push it in their desired direction.
LM1
___
(my reply):
What does “the law of the land” mean? Is that a legal term? What IS the United States of America? It can’t be “the land,” because that was obviously here a while before 1776.

If The Constitution for the United States of America is “our form of government,” how did we become party to it? Is it a contract that is binding on us, and if so, what is the evidence that we are parties to it? As I understand it, when it was created, of the 42 delegates remaining at the time of the document’s adoption, 35 were trained as attorneys. It’s generally stated by people writing about the drafting that the document was signed by 39 of the drafters, who, if so, would then be actual contractual parties to a formal agreement. However, if you look at the bottom of the signed parchment, it clearly says “In Witness (HUGE LETTERS) whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names”- So, the “signers,” almost 90% of whom were trained as attorneys and well aware of the legal significance of their signatures, were witnesses, not bound by the document.

The 14 states that ratified it did that through simple majority votes of state conventions that, like the populations that elected them, were exclusively white, male property owners. How, exactly, did the incredibly small (the state conventions ran from 26 to 271 delegates each) portion of the populations of the states they “represented,” derive the lawful authority to bind the entire population that happened to live on a patch of land that preexisted the formation of the “body politic” that actually composed “the state” to The Constitution? And, even if you think that a binding contractual agreement was, somehow, thereby created at that time, what is the evidence proving the agreement, made by men who are now dead well over 150 years, now binds us to that contract? Why should anyone have ANY control over anyone else other than to be able to stay them from violating their lives?

What exactly is this “state?” Where does it derive it’s “just powers,” and are those powers created only by a voluntary agreement of all parties?

Taking a rigid position that now, faced with unprecedented social, practical and environmental stessors, we need to return to a legal structure created under wildly different circumstances and with a very different population than we have today, may not be wise. The government supposedly “limited” by The Constitution has certainly not been stopped short of extreme invasions of lives, both of “foreigners” and of “citizens.” The point seems to me to be to focus merely on preventing violations against others lives rather than on “governing.” In particular, it seems that knowledge of the crucial nature of learning how to have a society governed solely through voluntary agreements, always by all parties to such contracts, is what should guide us now to a truly balanced center.

Bottom line: Does such a thing as a “government” really exist at all? If your answer is yes, how do you defend its legitimacy?

These are the questions facing us in this time,
Bruce
___
(list member 1):
Down the rabbit hole we go. You bring up excellent questions. What to do now is the big elephant question in the room, and certainly learning from the past is part of it.
Webster’s 1828 + 1913 dictionary defines government as:

Gov”ern*ment (?), n. [F. gouvernement. See Govern.]

1. The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation; as, civil, church, or family government.

2. The mode of governing; the system of polity in a state; the established form of law.

I suppose it all (the Constitution) came about by the guys that jumped on it and there were many bystanders or just unrepresented parties not participating in the process. So it happened. If it can all be disqualified from the onset or some time around the Constitutional Convention, we still need to figure out what to do now.
LM1
___
(list member 2):
The way I see it, the Constitution a way of saying “we recognize the rights all are born with, and will protect them”. The constitution does not represent our rights, it’s really more like an oath.
Personally, the work I do is to preserve and protect those unalienable rights- and while the Constitution is an excellent document proclaiming protection of those rights it’s still only that- a document. It’s the spirit behind that document that makes it more than “just a piece of paper”.
That spirit is, I believe, the key to it all. That spirit is love, honor, bravery, and integrity.

Note: It’s rather interesting that the word “government” can be broken down into 2 parts, “Govern” which in Latin means to control, and “Ment” which in Latin means mind…. This of course is being hotly debated, could it really be just a coincidence??
LM2
___
(my second reply):
I would prefer not to be questioning the ideas of people for whom The Constitution symbolizes cherished values, but I think it’s time to look at these things with the rose colored glasses off.

Do you think that saying “we recognize the rights all are born with, and will protect them” was the intention of the trained attorneys drafting the Constitution? If that’s the case, why was the Supreme Court then made into a monopoly gatekeeper on a court system that has consistently ruled that the government has no responsibility to protect anyone?

What is this idea of “rights” in the first place? The first principles of natural law are to do no harm to others and honor your agreements with them, essentially meaning don’t use aggression or deceit. Don’t these two principles embody ALL of the so-called rights? Putting a handful of cases in enigmatic legalese into a Bill of Rights simply further muddied the waters. Under a truly effective system of law (what Common Law could be), there should be a remedy for all harms done. This is impossible under a thicket of statutes that provide ample room for all kinds of chicanery and evasion, to the point where major violators are given retroactive “immunity” from having to redress the damage they’ve done, etc.

Warm and fuzzy feelings about our noble founders good intentions (gone bad) will not go to the heart of the matters we face. A structure of government is created by people whose intent is to govern, or as you point out, control, society (i.e. the peasants, us). The spirit we need now, in my opinion, is one of unequivocally honoring the integrity of others, recognizing that when we don’t the person most harmed by the omissions is ourselves. If we have such a spirit (and volumes can – and probably will – be written about it’s meanings and implications) a “special piece of paper,” the meanings of which are stretched, ignored and disputed in order to gain illusory advantages by invading others’ lives, becomes a distraction from the truth of the immediate situation right now.

The obfuscation of the present moment is what has lead to a situation where a battle to “control of the minds” of the population of the world is proceeding apace. People must know in their bones that being invaded is not acceptable, and be allowed to see when that’s happening to themselves or others. When that spirit emerges and pervades society, the sanguine honoring of sacred documents will become irrelevant. In order for that to happen, we first must, each, stop pushing anyone else into circumstances or agreements they don’t enter into voluntarily, with full disclosure.

Just possibly, though I’m highly skeptical, The Framers were trying to do the best they could in 1787. However, quite evidently, it didn’t work. They created a document that merely masqueraded as a social contract. What we need now is some kind of social contract that people can become members to voluntarily (or not) and leave at their will if they find it has been misrepresented or changed behind their backs. This would be a free market, providing services to members that are not compulsory. It is not clear how we can do this, yet from my perspective this is the mission we must choose to accept.

Bruce