The time has come to make a personal change as an American, ignoring for the moment any partisan politics because for this purpose, party affiliation simply does not matter. Each of us needs to reclaim our individual authority, expressly acknowledged and protected via the Declaration of Independence, U.S. and State Constitutions, including the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments of the Constitution), the cumulative body of laws and substantive due process. That means robustly familiarizing ourselves with the above, especially the Bill of Rights and Declaration.
The reason party affiliation isn't necessary to do this is because it is completely irrelevant. Parties come and go, political affiliations change. Every American's individual rights and authority is apolitical and permanent. What the Constitution does is task government with protecting our rights, and respecting our authority.
America is the only country with a founding framework, that if acted upon as conceived, could resolve many inequities. It was created based on the core principle that if you protect the rights of a single individual, you automatically protect the rights of any group of individuals. Corrections have been made along the way to more accurately adhere to this principle, and still more must be done.
But first, we have to reclaim the authority that empowers our role in America's Republic to see it done. It is our responsibility, not governments. Government is not our keeper; we are its keeper. People around the world grasp this unique and powerful dictum and are looking to us to restore our remarkable government to its proper limitations according to our constitution.
I know no American interested in revolution to install a different form of governance, especially one that enforces centralized planning with global oversight, or promotes group ascendency at the expense of individual rights and autonomy. Instead most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, want to restore the Declaration’sand Constitution's Articles established more than 200 years ago as a blueprint for achieving equality and peace under the rule of law, including economic opportunity, and the pursuit of individual happiness and the potential to thrive. None of which are privileges bestowed by our government, let alone secured by it. America’s founders identified core rights inherent in our humanity, understanding that only we can secure them, therefore deliberately limited government's ability to interfere or intrude upon our inalienable rights.
Our constitutional republic is a bottom-up governance model for which we the people are the most important balancing check of all, yet we have all but abdicated our roles with gradually worsening socioeconomic consequences. Precisely because America is a bottom-up governing model, the people’s active participation is the most important value in the formula and cannot be abdicated without severely undermining order.
Be crystal clear: No one can take your individual inalienable rights away.
The American people throughout the 50 states have to agree to forfeit their right(s) by a defined process in law – constitutional amendments. Otherwise no law legislatively passed, or executively enforced, including administrative rule-making, or judicially ruled as constitutional, has binding authority to remove individual rights.
That said, our rights can absolutely be violated, but only if we permit it. And we are permitting it, mostly by our silence, as well as our woeful lack of challenges to volumes of federal and state administrative overreach that violates each of the three branch's constitutional constraints, stepping all over our individual constitutionally protected rights.
In order to challenge such misconduct, we must fully understand our own constitutional authority to do so. We must reclaim that authority, ours by foundational law. With a comprehensive grasp of the U.S. and State Constitutions, Declaration of Independence, and the substantive due process guaranteed by the Magna Carta and an accumulated body of laws through time, we can formidably bring the necessary challenges for peaceful remedy and far more agreeable country.
Who can blame politicians and bureaucrats for usurping our authority if we will not defend it? Why should any one of them protect our rights if we won't protect them ourselves? Seriously, if we have so little respect for our own authority, refusing to defend and protect our inherent rights when constitutional and statutory violations pile on every year, why on Earth should self-serving politicians and bureaucrats, who greatly benefit from our apathy, inertia, and incurious sloth, not take advantage of such collective civic impotence?
Not Unlike the Hunger Games
Over the centuries, we have moved closer to an oligarchical form of Corporatism, or more accurately Neofascism, recently redefined by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as “Stakeholder Capitalism” as part of its Great Reset (a misleading use of the term “Capitalism” in this redefinition due to the elimination of its core requirement – competition). See the March 2022 Reader edition number 995 for a good explanation of WEF Director Klaus Schwab's Great Reset agenda. The intent is to codify selective economic participation via exclusive private-public partnerships for profit within globally designated regions determined jointly by oligarchical corporations and the governing bureaucracies of the region to be centrally controlled and coordinated by a perpetual self-selecting governing body. Not unlike the Hunger Games.
When you widen the lens, you can perceive the various domestic and global systems of opportunity constantly usurping greater control within D.C.'s federal jurisdiction for the past century. However, this administrative assimilation of authorities has escalated over the last five decades with very few challenges, thanks to Americans civically sidelining themselves. The longer we do nothing, the more entrenched the unconstitutional transfer of authorities becomes, making it harder by the year for American citizens to unravel the administrative overreach.
Administrative federal and state bureaucracies are becoming increasingly compromised by regulatory capture by oligarchical corporate influences. For example, the FDA regulators are captured by Big Pharma, the USDA regulators are captured by Big Agriculture, the EPA regulators are captured by Big Oil and the growing green-energy industrial complex. This means these regulatory agencies routinely receive huge funding infusions, lucrative investment partnerships, prestigious appointments, eventually becoming captured via dependency on the fox's benefits at the expense of robustly protecting the hens by approving potentially harmful or dangerous consumer products, services, and precarious business plans so as not to risk losing the benefits.
Similarly, American voters are politically captured by the two-party political machine that, if we are finally honest, has become political theater for elections, and thus unavoidably blurred the lines between the two parties' political allegiances – big donors, global agendas, media cover, and always special interests.
Yet regardless of the amount or degree of political abuse, Democrats will almost never pull the lever for a Republican candidate, no matter how unsuitable the liberal candidate is. And visa versa, Republicans will almost never pull the lever for a Democrat even when their conservative candidate is wholly unacceptable.
Such political self-entrapment provides a continuum of near perfect opportunity for exploitation by media to trigger then cement predetermined emotions and arena mentalities that effectively distract us from real issues, ultimately capturing us in an endless loop of unresolved civic angst, disappointment, and angry cynicism.
More importantly, this political self-entrapment easily maintains the two-party status quo – fossilized career incumbents, an entrenched unelected bureaucracy that actually controls most public-sector activities, and unfettered growth of destructive bipartisan levels of spending via more debt, most of it done with no sunlight or accountability for purposes that are increasingly antithesis to American interests, such as advancing UN Agenda30, heavily subsidizing interests of domestic special interests, foreign governments and/or foreign billionaires, shackling future generations with impossible levels of debt.
And then, like clockwork, we predictably blame the other side because what we actually know about any of our government's activities we could fit in a thimble, making our civic engagement as Americans the weakest contribution this century, even amidst an economy-crushing pandemic. Like I said, we must make some changes as Americans first, tackle our civic responsibilities second by reclaiming our individual authority, then we can deal with politics and the rest from a position of authentic strength.
Additional examples of regulatory interventions, ignoring the unreasonable timing for implementation in the midst of high inflation, include recent supply chain disruptions brought on by onerous, expensive, unmanageable regulatory impediments. For example, (1) trucks older than five years old could not access CA ports to haul stranded cargo, or (2) raising Diesel Exhaust Fuel (DEF) requirements, an additive standard mandated in semi-tractor trailers' fuel tanks, without first ensuring cross county availability of the new fuel for truckers hauling long distances, and (3) limiting the weight of the cargo truckers are permitted to haul in single loads, creating inconsistent cargo tonnage from state to state for long-haulers, and reducing their profitability by reducing their payload.
The Biden Administration tried blaming supply shortages of gasoline on Putin's invasion of Ukraine as the overarching cause for the steep price hike consumers are paying for domestic gasoline. But it doesn't explain why big oil producers are more profitable than ever by billions of dollars, especially thanks to capturing a larger share of the U.S. domestic market due to over regulation of the smaller oil producers who cannot compete in such a deliberately onerous regulatory environment. Some smaller producers were subsidized to not produce, so there is that perverse incentive. And government coffers are also enjoying higher gas tax revenues across the board.
Add to targeted regulatory abuse, three oil refineries went offline due to explosions in 2022, affecting supply. On February 21, 2022 the Marathon Garyville, Louisiana oil refinery exploded into flames due to a hydrocracker. Exxon-Mobile Lockwood, Montana experienced an explosion on March 26, 2022, the cause is unknown. And on June 17, 2022, there were three explosions at the Girard Point Refinery, one of two refineries that make up the Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining Complex in southern Philadelphia. Again, the causes for these three explosions are also unknown. But if these refineries are subsidized, or compensated for their damages and lost production beyond insurance reimbursement, there are arguably perverse incentives afoot.
The more gruesome deliberate supply disruptions relative to food, and by association grocery items, are brutal and make no sense whatsoever. Rembrandt Enterprises in Thompson, Iowa is one of the nation's largest producer of eggs. In March 2022, a single solitary chicken tested positive for Avian flu using a PCR test, infamous for its unreliability in detecting disease depending on the cycle thresholds used (a variable completely under the control of the tester). After which 5.3 million chickens were locked in their coops and barbarically, cruelly roasted alive, then mass buried using bulldozers. This inexcusably inhumane horror was based on the PCR test result of one lone chicken. This is one story among many terrible stories of recent mass killings of chicken flocks.
And then there is the mysterious death of 10,000 cattle in Kansas due to heat. I have yet to meet a single person who believes that is the real cause. How did that rancher manage to lay 10,000 cows head to hoof, approximately 10 cows deep in side-by-side rows along the highway for miles, with their four limbs sticking straight up indicating they were still in rigor mortis? Something is just wrong with the narrative for this event. Kansas livestock, like Iowa and Illinois livestock, are no strangers to weeks of 100 degree temps during the day, cooling off at night.
It is also hugely suspect that in 2021/2022, 27 U.S. food-processing plants/facilities have been taken out of production due to mysterious fires and explosions, including two that were destroyed by planes crashing into them a week apart. The probability of these 27 accidents occurring randomly is statistically impossible, meaning these facilities were arguably sabotaged yet no investigations are reported.
The Green New Steal Needs More Debate
The recent passage of Congress's $480 billion Chips and Science Act of 2022, which appropriates $280 billion to climate change and green projects, among other things, via the Department of Energy's (DOE) Science of the Future initiatives, could use some additional explanation considering its meteoric upward spiraling budget increases in just five years to fund much of the Administration's agenda for climate change and green goals. For instance, is all this massive funding advancing domestic goals, or is there more of the Biden Administration's slippery excising of amendments in this bill forbidding China's participation in our domestic semiconductor and chips manufacturing?
The nearly trillion-dollar science budget includes the recently authorized Office of Science with a raise from $7.5 billion to $8.9 billion in 2023, then increasing to $10.9 billion annually by 2027, to support nearly 29,000 researchers from industry, universities, national laboratories, and other federal agencies.
Also included in this Act is a herculean boost of 40 percent to $1.5 billion in 2023 increasing to $2.3 billion by 2027, for the DOE's National Institute of Standards and Technology For The Future, which supports … wait for it … research in standards and technology.
Finally the DOE's National Science Foundation for the Future gets the prize with an increase in overall funding of $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2023, increasing to $10 billion and growing at an average annual rate of 8 percent to $13.8 billion in fiscal year 2027! (Note: This does not include the foundation's new Directorate's separate budget of $1.85 billion in fiscal year 2023 with an average annual increase of 36 percent to $5.1 billion in fiscal year 2027, for a grand total of $18.9 billion to direct investments in critical research-enabling infrastructure.)
The following link provides fact sheets on these initiatives. Considering the half-trillion dollars authorized for these three initiatives, on principle alone, an independent watchdog should specifically track every nickle of these allocations for return on investment. (Science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/division_b_sst_fact_sheets.pdf)
No matter how you skin this fat green cat, it's still just a lot of old fashioned crony corporatism (not capitalism because it is missing Capitalism’s core element: competition), with the same usual greedy control freaks at the public trough, such as $10-trillion-under-management private equity Blackrock dangling access to capital, using its newly established ESG scoring, in front of potential recipients who must meet Blackrock's scoring threshold.
ESG compliance, nonsensical as an actual business viability/health measure, can't generate a nickle of profit, but instead signals corporate alignment with WEF's Great Reset goals and Agenda30 globalization. The question lurking is how is ESG compliance justified as a measure of capital worthiness when it minimizes positive, successful revenue-generating market forces, such as efficient resource allocation, input/output controls, and labor productivity based on relevant skills, and instead prioritizes far broader environmental, social, governance attributes that apply whether you are a coffee shop or a pump manufacturer. When you really understand this truthy-ism, you will be able to see much more through your widened lens.
The new concentration for economic growth is being directed toward a global green industrial complex that may or may not be a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. Some climate scientists passionately insist we are experiencing the highest levels of CO2 in history, while other climate experts just as earnestly counter-claim CO2 is at historically lowest levels ever.
Which is it? Who do we believe? Why can't we have these critical debates with climate experts from both sides of these climate issues so we can make informed decisions based on evidence that goes beyond just predictive modeling. After two decades, we should have volumes of real-world evidence to direct viable climate solutions, yet the vast majority of climate science is still dependent on computerized predictive modeling based on a trove of subjective inputs, which in and of itself drives legitimate controversy, especially when most of the predictions generated, according to various International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) documents and research, have to yet come true.
Another climate controversy is carbon credit offsets, including the creation of the carbon credit exchange that functions like a commodities exchange, arguably not reducing a micron of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Look closer and you'll see the carbon credit exchanges are creating, bundling, and trading carbon commodities as derivative combos, some born of new technologies trying to balance (offset) CO2 emissions with capture and sequestration (storage) out of thin air, literally, to meet an internationally agreed upon goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Again, some credentialed climate scientists are admitting “net zero by 2050” is an unrealistic, unachievable goal. So is it or isn't it? We deserve to have this debate once and for all based on the massive appropriations authorized by Congress over the next five years for projects toward achieving net zero. (TheConversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368)
There are other proposed solutions that also deserve meaningful debate, such as where is the justifiable offset created by transitioning to electric vehicles that require plugging into coal-fired electric grids to recharge the lithium batteries that power the vehicles? Replacing a single household's two gasoline-fueled cars with two electric cars will require doubling the electric power delivered to that one household. How is this considered a renewable solution when the energy source that powers the two electric cars is still coal, and lots more of it, let alone green and lean energy efficiency?
Finally, have you seen the horrific child labor in countries mining/stripping the lithium from the ground necessary for batteries that power the electric green dream machines once they are charged via the coal-powered electric grids? Or the obscene scarring of the land itself once a lithium mine is depleted. Spare me the green consolation prize for this largely ignored wickedness.
Think Through the Next Plandemic
Far too many of us continue to comply with unjustifiable government intrusion and overreach mandated as emergency mitigations, from the benign to the absurd to the dangerous, due almost entirely to politics. Not science, not economics, not health, certainly not common sense.
We are vaccinating and boosting with experimental gene therapies redefined as vaccines for a disease that is lethal to only 0.003 percent of the human population with significant comorbidities. This suggests we are making these decisions based mostly on politics because none of us has a clue as to what is actually contained in the highly controversial injections that have unendurable efficacy, hence further boosting. We now have clinical proof that vaccinating for the majority of humans to prevent death, hospitalization, and reinfection of COVID is inferior to the immunity acquired from getting and recovering from COVID using early treatments available worldwide.
Instead, we are blindly trusting a handful of arguably compromised public figures and media cartels, all of whom relentlessly claim the vaccines are “safe and effective” but to date have not produced a single long-term clinical trial study that proves this assertion. But that is never the judgment. It always boils down to a feeble-minded conclusion based on politics: Vaccinated folks are liberal/left, and unvaccinated folks are conservative/right.
And here we go again. In parts of the country, we are ramping up to mask our children for eight-hour school days again, and ourselves based on the latest pop-up variant, or not masking at all as COVID cases climb again, according to the nightly news' relentless display of the colorfully macabre case-counter plastered on the screen 24/7. This made-for-TV graphic was provided by the Event 201 design crew, who used it for its own coronavirus pandemic simulation held at John Hopkins a mere three months before it actually erupted in real life. What are the odds of that?
With no lethality looming for adults, statistical zero risk to children, it must follow that we are complying based on politics, otherwise the 100-to-1 studies proving masks don’t stop viral respiratory infections would permanently dissuade us from such a filthy mitigation. Conclusion: Liberals wear masks; conservatives don't wear masks.
Worst of all, we are actually considering vaccinating children based on politics, because most of us know there are no earthly benefits to them for doing so. Especially compared to the real health risks from the injections themselves, according to the CDC's unprecedented growth in its Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database of shocking adverse reactions from the COVID injections. Where and what are the risk-benefit calculations for injecting children with experimental mRNA gene therapies redefined as vaccines? Pfizer, Moderna, and the FDA produced none. What possible justification is there when no medical science exists (actual data from controlled clinical trials) to support such potentially dangerous protocols? I would be relieved to be proven wrong, but to date there is no confirming clinical evidence, especially long-term safety and efficacy data for developing children.
Also worth noting is that most of the current testing, including over 900 new PCR and antigen rapid tests for both hospitals and home kits, are enjoying wide distribution amidst public skepticism relative to the tests' accuracy, especially considering the frequent mutations producing new variants. The medical community could dispel past anxieties by better educating the public to avoid repeating the same mistakes made during the first two years' of the COVID pandemic.
Recall that the PCR testing used for the first two years (2020-2021) to diagnose COVID-19 was banned by the CDC at the beginning of 2022 due to its gross inaccuracy and unreliability, generating as high as 90-95 percent false positives. Does that mean that anyone with a false positive did not actually have COVID-19 in that period? The CDC's bundling of COVID deaths with those of influenza and pneumonia (CI&P) in its mortality tables would suggest this is possible, as does the reclassifying of death certificates nationwide to reflect COVID was not the primary cause of death.
The CDC and FDA would go a long way in reassuring the public that the hundreds of different rapid PCR and antigen tests currently in use are not only substantially more reliable, but are also definitively able to distinguish between influenza and coronaviruses, let alone can reliably detect SARS-CoV-2, unlike the previous PCR testing which used unreliable cycle thresholds of 38-45 all but guaranteeing a positive result. Interestingly, when PCR testing mRNA vaccinated patients, the cycle thresholds were lowered to 28 or below, greatly decreasing the chance of a false positive thereby increasing the reliability of a positive PCR test result should one occur.
Sadly, EUA has become a severely compromised designation after FDA's deficient data informing its EUAs for vaccinating babies and toddlers up to four years of age, and for eliminating any future clinical trials for reformulated COVID vaccines and boosters going forward.
This means that future new mRNA COVID vaccines and boosters administered using EUA will not require clinical trials for safety and efficacy before injecting the public. As stunningly irresponsible as this policy is, it is amplified exponentially by the provisions in the Public Preparedness and Emergency Response Act (PREP Act) that gives blanket immunity for any and all harm to vaccine manufacturers, providers, nursing homes, healthcare workers, anyone administering the injections and/or providing COVID care.
Such broad immunity from liability shields the healthcare industry, from the most diligent and careful to the most incompetent and careless. PREP also provides perverse incentives to providers and caregivers by creating an umbrella of immunity for associated healthcare for COVID. Add this to the additional monetary reimbursements for all things COVID and it gets uncomfortable in appearances.
The Emergency Use Authorization hinges on the federal and state governments declaring an emergency specific to COVID. Without it, reimbursements for COVID care stop, and more importantly, so does all COVID testing, and all but two injections would be prohibited. The only fully FDA approved mRNA vaccines are Pfizer's Cominarty, authorized for 12 years and up, but to date unavailable in the U.S.; and Moderna's Spikevax authorized for 18 years and up. This would mean millions of EUA-approved COVID vaccine doses and boosters, already purchased with billions of U.S. tax dollars, would stockpile and eventually be trashed due to limited shelf life.
By invoking emergency powers via the Emergency Powers Act (among other associated legislation, including amended Act for COVID), our state and federal governments have a grandiose notion of far greater authority, and also have immediate access to a huge source of funding specifically set aside for such declarations. Already lawsuits and court interventions are prevailing on behalf of employees who were denied religious exemptions by employers mandating injections, not to mention deficient informed consent where adverse reactions occurred. Without the clinical trials required for EUA that affirm wide-spread claims of “safe and effective,” the PREP Act may not provide the complete liability shield relied upon, nor is it likely provisioned as such n the CARES and/or Emergency Powers Acts, either.
These health-emergency authorities are at the heart of a growing opposition worldwide to the World Health Organization's efforts to corral these very powers for itself under a new International Pandemic Preparedness and Response Treaty to be released in May of 2024 unless it is stopped by the majority of 194 member countries required to participate to make it binding on us all. It is a completely unconstitutional endeavor, as it cedes our individual, constitutionally protected rights to a foreign body, and that is simply not allowed.