There was a time when American’s firmly believed “The Science” and smoking was “good for you.” Why did they believe that? Tobacco companies commissioned scientific studies and published official-looking information that was misleading at best. They showed doctors smoking and recommending it for others. How could we be fooled by that?

When people around us are dying of cancer, how could we ignore the obvious signs and believe the propaganda?

Cigarette manufacturers were a lot smarter than us. They studied us and how we made decisions and how we could be influenced. They learned how to “program” us to believe something. And it worked because we believed it.

Part of the magic was giving tobacco a place on our TV. Tobacco executives knew the public has to inhale to get hooked.

It took decades before we could hear the voices of the actual scientists and researchers screaming, “This stuff is killing you!”

Up until that time, cigarettes were “Safe and Effective” – everyone said so – TV announcers, movie stars, and store owners.

And the families of executives working in the tobacco industry enjoyed a great lifestyle – big homes, new cars, vacations, great food, servants, and community status. Their children felt special and few ever realized their lifestyle was founded on the deaths of millions.

Did American corporations abandon looking for profit by deceiving consumers? After tobacco did they see the error of their ways and go straight? More likely they got better. Each generation taking lessons from the last, they improved their techniques – better control of science, the media, and their consumers.


The corporate playbook improved for Pharmaceuticals.

CONTROL SCIENCE – they had to become the funding source for all grants and make certain colleges and universities could get patents and revenue streams from inventions – this occurred in 1980 with the Bayh-Dole Act. Once all the money came from your industry, you could fund studies that made your product look good and decline to fund things that didn’t. And if a university team at Harvard was working on something that made you look bad, you threatened to defund them and ban them from publishing and presenting at conferences. In order to control science it became apparent you had to corrupt and own the scientific journals so that only papers you liked could get peer-reviewed and published. Science became a “narrative” – a scenario put together by the industry and it’s owners – after all, everything was eventually owned by Black Rock and Vanguard so they set the priorities and industry marching orders. No one had to look very far into history to see that one family created the medical schools and made the drugs that doctors learned to prescribe. Drugs made from fossil fuels.

CONTROL MEDIA – one of the most troublesome issues about getting your product accepted was the pesky media – always able to investigate, and write news stories that didn’t agree with the narrative you were pushing. But once the industry becomes the major payer for advertising for any network or media channel, problem solved. It’s a very short distance from there to putting out “talking points” to every media channel so that people can hear the same message repeated multiple times by every major channel – “it must be true because everyone is saying it.” Now if you allow the industry to advertise their products and take up 50%+ of commercial air time, you have essentially captured not only the media but all the available attention from the consumer. In 1969, the FDA was given the “keys to this car” and promptly set out guidelines for Direct to Consumer Product Advertising which made the U.S. one of the only two countries in the world (New Zealand is the other) to allow direct access to consumers. The possibly unanticipated consequences – the Pharmaceutical companies quickly seized market share on all major channels and became the de-facto “owners” of these stations by virtue of their revenue streams. They now dictate what these media channels can air and pass down talking points on important issues to each channel.


The ideal setup would be to own a few government agencies who on the surface would appear to be responsible for regulating your industry. Then have those agencies make policy affecting everyone in the country – “mandates” of products and policies to have everyone in the country take that product. In addition, the key banks and investment firms would selectively invest for projects that favored the industry and its patents. In fact, the government agencies themselves could own patents and selectively grant those patents created in universities to companies who would in turn share revenue with the agencies. Controlling investment sources would carve out the shape of the industry and control it at the same time.


Of course, in democratic countries you would have to address those pesky congress men and women who believed they control the country and its corporations. But congress is full of people who make $200K but would like to make $2M so enabling the country to treat corporations as the same as an individual citizen would then allow corporations to donate and lobby congress people understanding that corporations have an infinitely higher threshold for paying off actions than most individual donors. How many times would that congress person face decisions between the best interests of the public and the best interests of those giving them $2M a year and their lifestyle and kids education? In 2010, the Supreme Court made its decision on a case Citizen’s United vs. the Federal Election Commission. Big money had always had an outsized influence on political figures, but once a corporation or other such entity gained the same rights to fund elections as a private citizen, the amount of money flowing into politics went ballistic and the average American voice become too low in volume to hear.


So let’s apply these lessons learned to the area of pharmaceuticals. But first let’s do a comprehensive review of the real science – those findings that have been mostly obscured but are highly supported by world wide scientific consensus.


America and the world have had Pandemics before and we have rushed to market with emergency vaccines before. In fact, we’ve had plenty of practice and developed a comprehensive and almost fool-proof plan having had a variety of failures. In past Pandemics we’ve “cried wolf” only to discover that predictions of global infection were exaggerated and we’ve introduced vaccines that killed or maimed people so quickly that we’ve had to remove them from the market entirely.

In fact, the current Pandemic is the result of many lessons learned. Having implemented all the above lessons learned, the progenitors of the Pandemic only had to faithfully execute the plan. The four main legs of the Pandemic Stool had been put in place over decades – CONTROL SCIENCE, CONTROL MEDIA, CONTROL INVESTMENT, CONTROL LAWMAKING.

All that would be needed is an escaped virus that was highly contagious and a group of world leaders ready to fall into the trap.

Event 201 used a technology well-known to corporations called “Scenario Planning.” Through a simulation exercise of a Corona Virus Pandemic, the event taught the leaders their available options and allowed them to try each one and observe the simulated outcomes. This method allows the introduction of untried and unproven strategies in an environment that suspends critical thinking. Things like lockdowns of the healthy which have never been used to fight a pandemic, the imprisonment of the healthy and well population instead of the sick, would be tried and imagined outcomes would be presented as if real and reasonable. The same with masks and vaccines. The idea of vaccinating the population in the middle of a pandemic would never pass with most scientists but the leaders in the room would adopt the strategy and be told what the positive outcomes were without discussing the risks. Shell Oil credits Scenario Planning with helping them respond to the oil crisis and by pre-practicing their response, have a leadership team ready to respond quickly and effectively as a competitive edge over other oil companies.

The characteristic of Scenario Planning is the ability to practice and pre-plan a response to an imagined scenario. The strategies and outcomes built into the scenarios and responses are generally widely tested and studied responses that are best among many options with calibrated outcomes. The participants have no way to evaluate and judge any strategic option or outcome and the results are built into the algorithms of each scenario so beyond reproach.

Using the Scenario Planning approach allows the leaders to introduce options like face masks, lockdowns, quarantines, travel bans, and vaccines without critical thinking or valid science. Essentially, for the unscrupulous leader, it represents a way to get world leaders to practice using global health measures you should never use.


Even in operating rooms in hospitals, N95 masks have long been proven ineffective. Doctors still wear them as a tradition but they are unnecessary. When real protection is needed against viral agents, a pressurized “bunny suit” is used to completely isolate the doctor from the patient and the room.

Cloth masks and commercial and retail masks are completely ineffective with the Corona Virus. And in fact, they are extremely harmful according to OSHA and other scientists who have tested CO2 and O2 levels and pronounced them dangerous and ill-advised for more than 30 minutes of use. Add the recirculation of pathogens and you clearly cause an order of magnitude of harm before addressing the well-studied and established psychological issues.

Lowering O2 levels and raising CO2 levels disables the immune system and makes the person wearing the mask more susceptible to infection.


There is no history for locking down a population to prevent any disease. There is history for locking down or isolating those who are sick or infected. There are no scientific studies supporting lockdowns as a method to slow spread. There are scientific statistical studies that show lockdowns have no effect on the bottom line – deaths per million lives.

In the case of COVID-19, it has been proven that lockdowns have had no significant effect on spread of the illness. It can temporarily slow the spread but when comparing countries who have used lockdowns against those who have not, there is no significant advantage between countries in terms of deaths per million lives.

Meanwhile, according to Dr. Zach Bush, the virus can spread via transcontinental air currents which brings into question the wisdom of shutting down flights and countries altogether.


When the CDC changed the definition and procedures for recording cause of death they set the stage for a campaign designed to create fear and panic among the population. By the same token, the use of the PCR test at Cycle-Times (“CT”) over 20, was designed to produce escalating case counts to further emphasize the supposed danger of the virus.

Now many doctors objected to recording cause of death “COD” as COVID, but Minnesota Senator Dr. Scott Jensen was one of those whose medical license came under review for his public comments. Many doctors lost their licenses for speaking out against the COD issue but also for any dissenting comments against vaccines or COVID policies. Still in spite of widespread objection to the policy changes, the financial incentives for hospitals kept them largely quiet and therefore the numbers of COVID deaths were highly inflated and many highly published and accomplished scientists published studies that showed the infection fatality ratio “IFR” (how many actually die after infection) to be comparable to a seasonal influenza except in the case of people over 65. Inflating the death rate was clearly a strategy designed to support the “Shock and Awe” campaign required by the planners of the Pandemic.

The inventor of the PCR test (Kary Mullis) said it was not useful or fit for use to support virus testing of any kind. He went on record as stating the test would indicate a wide range of findings of the presence of a virus or virus particle dead or alive. Because the test uses a succession of cycles to amplify the test sample, it can find an indication of a variety of viral particles both alive and dead. The use of this test with high cycle counts insured that a large portion of the population would show a positive result as testing proceeded whether showing symptoms or not. The CDC made sure the cycle count specifications issued to labs was almost double the useful setting.

Why did the CDC have the power and authority to create these conditions? In the record of patents we find that years prior, the CDC had patented the Corona Virus along with all products and derivatives so that any testing, products, or procedures would have to be granted by them.

The Shock & Awe campaign of course required the control of the media to ensure that every channel would deliver the same “talking points” emphasizing the death rates and case rates. By keeping the population fearful and having plenty of visual cues to remind everyone of the danger (masks, lockdowns, signs on stores, etc.) the fear generated a higher degree of compliance which the CDC and FDA needed in order to force everyone in our country to get vaccinated.

As the vaccines are now in emergency use and fifty percent of the population has been vaccinated, the campaign has now turned to pitting the vaccinated population against the unvaccinated. The message is saying that the disease lives in the unvaccinated and they are killing our grandparents. People who admit to being unvaccinated are now being attacked on the street, in buildings, on elevators, in parks, and widespread violence against unvaccinated is becoming routine and clearly government-sponsored.

In New York and soon other states, they are moving to ban unvaccinated people from restaurants and stores. The authorities feel vaccination is important enough to threaten the ability to feed your children.


This is the idea that the human mind can be controlled and reprogrammed using psychological techniques. It is thought to be a long and arduous process involving torture and deprivation, including the breakdown of the personality. In fact, this explanation and common belief could not be further from the truth.

In fact, the programming of the human mind becomes very easy when that human is experiencing fear. The limbic system is activated by fear and the frontal cortex where we do most of our logical thinking is disabled. Max Major did an exercise on America’s Got Talent that demonstrated just how easy “Inception” (the infiltration of the subconscious to implant an idea) really was. Jason Christoff explains how easily the mechanism works.

So having control of the media so you can repeat the narrative over and over, and having the ability to instill fear, and pretty soon you have human beings reacting irrationally about those evil unvaccinated persons who have no reason to resist vaccination other than being uncaring and wanting to kill your parents.

Here is a list of beliefs that can be easily disproven but are in current use to program most of the population.

  • the virus is deadly
  • the vaccines are safe and effective
  • the delta variant is more deadly than the alpha virus
  • the delta variant is only carried by the unvaccinated
  • masks work to prevent spread
  • social distancing and lockdowns prevent spread
  • the virus was not manmade
  • the vaccines are not killing people
  • children need to be vaccinated because asymptomatic spread is a real thing
  • there are no therapeutic drugs that are safe to prevent and treat COVID

To illustrate how these beliefs work, let’s take just one of them and unpack the facts and motivations. We’ll take the last one…

Hydroxychloroquine “HCQ” has a 65-year history for treating Malaria and in many of the countries who use it across all cross-sections of the population, it has proven safe and effective against Malaria. It has been used in many countries as an “over-the-counter” medication to allow a large population to freely use it like aspirin or ibuprofen. Ivermectin has a similar 45-year history and track record for fighting parasites in a very safe and effective manner. Ivermectin won a Nobel Prize – one of only two ever awarded to a drug. They have been proven safe and effective for small children and pregnant women. And in fact, if you review countries worldwide for death rates from COVID, you’ll find that the countries with the lowest COVID death rates are those who use these drugs across the entire population.

And yet these drugs are banned. You might even realize that you cannot get an Emergency Use Authorization “EUA” from the FDA unless there are no alternatives for treating COVID. Therefore the vaccine makers cannot tolerate any current medication or drug existing that treats COVID because it would stop the use of a vaccine and stop the EUA authorization in the first place.

Thousands of doctors have been using these drugs along with other treatment protocols to treat patients with almost alarming success. Their primary goal has been to prevent hospital visits but depressing the symptoms of COVID and preventing COVID altogether are other benefits. In order to use these drugs you must prescribe them “off-label” which is to say your doctor plans to use them for a purpose other than the primary diagnosis which is Malaria. Doctors in private practice and even clinical settings prescribe off-label frequently and pharmacists just fill the prescription. Since COVID, doctors report that pharmacists are refusing to fill their prescriptions mainly due to corporate edicts in spite of the fact that the person’s own doctor is best suited to decide whether a particular medication should be used or not. Yet independent pharmacies still fill these prescriptions and millions of patients have been treated preventing them from going to a hospital or developing more serious symptoms. The “off-label” use of these drugs is already well-established for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.

If you believe at all today that these medications are dangerous and ineffective, it is not because it is true, but rather because you have been programmed to believe it is true. The WHO tried to conduct tests and publish a study on the safety issues of HCQ but it was withdrawn when it was established that the doses used in the study were lethal because they were two or three times the maximum safe dosage. This study killed volunteers.

And if you have any strong reactions to any of the other beliefs on the list above, you probably now recognize that the reason you react strongly to that belief is because you have it, you’re been programmed, and you don’t have even one book or scientific study to prove why you believe it.

It is possible that the techniques associated with brain washing have been in use for 1000s of years although they’ve become much easier since the introduction of radio and television. The U.S. is one of the very few countries in the world that allows pharmaceutical advertising and via the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, allows large corporations to act like citizens. Therefore, all the doors are open to programming the public to believe anything required.

Commercials for pharmaceuticals are designed to use the techniques of brainwashing so that you’ll believe a product is safe and effective even though you just heard 30 seconds of warnings about the side effects. Benefits are emphasized with pleasing visuals and exiting statements and images of people functioning normally while side effects are delivered in a monotone with no visuals. The benefits delivery programs the subconscious while the warnings of side effects do not.

The Congress of the United States, among all others countries, gave these companies the ability to program the population over television and the internet. Family doctors receive many of their patients for the sole purpose of prescribing a drug that the patient saw on TV and believes is safe and effective. Most patients get a prescription for these drugs without any knowledge of “informed consent” – the knowledge of how many people get side effects, and how many die. Patients rarely understand the extent of side effects until they suddenly experience them and begin at that point asking questions that should have been answered before taking the drug. This is how brainwashing works.


The best way to define disinformation in this pandemic is anything that disagrees with the official narrative. Notice this includes a simple dissenting opinion. Doctors are losing their licenses for expressing dissenting opinions, a cornerstone of traditional science.

Who designs the official narrative? In the case of American news outlets and social media, it’s the CDC and FDA. These agencies are fully captured by the companies they regulate so clearly they get their narrative from Pharma, Gates, and Dr. Fauci.


In order to mechanize Censorship on social media, companies like FB use “fact checkers” – the term was first used to describe the activities of companies who purported to have the ability to research and discover the true facts of something. Today, these fact-checkers are used to compare statements posted online to official narratives from the CDC and FDA and sometimes the WHO. Since these sources don’t always agree, it is sleight of hand and most likely the case that the most stringent policy will be adopted.

Clearly using these techniques a private company can honor a commitment to a government entity to censor content that disagrees with the government narrative without violating the 1st amendment protecting free speech (until you realize they are acting as an “agent” of the government). At least, “optically” this appears to be what’s happening. But most Americans know that this is just a not-so-clever way of getting around the government’s commitment to the 1st amendment. As soon as Congressman Adam Schiff wrote the first letter to social media companies asking them to censor disinformation, the government officially entered the business of denial of the 1st amendment.

Any social media company that doesn’t play along (like Parler) gets put out of business entirely.

But let’s look at “unintended consequences” which are typically things that are unforeseen by the framers of laws. A noted and highly published and respected scientist has an opinion on something contained in the official narrative and is censored for an article stating perhaps some research and an opinion. So now a highly credible “dissenting opinion” is censored as well. And scientific debate which is the foundation of real science is stopped by censorship.

Certainly, there are some kinds of disinformation that we would like to censor. Opinions based on facts that are “manufactured” and have no clear basis in science. All news content is beset by this phenomenon. People who know that some people will believe news content without checking the sources and facts disseminate information – a different narrative if you will – and seek to influence others to adopt a negative narrative. Of course, you might defend this by saying, “Let the consumer of information beware.” And caution people to be more discerning in how they consume information.

We also have the problem of dissemination through social media of “hate speech” and organizing military action against the U.S. or “insurrection.” That topic is outside this discussion but I acknowledge it exists as another problem driving censorship.

Dr. Anthony Fauci seems to be one of the few people in America who can give an opinion that becomes “narrative” without citing even one scientific study to support this opinion. In fact, the chief science advisor to the president should have the burden of showing thousands of highly credible scientific sources all over the world but he does not. And of course the reason is highly transparent and visible – he has a conflict of interest – he benefits from vaccine sales and has strong relationships with vaccine sellers including Gates Foundation, not to mention a 50-year history of controlling the NIH narrative and business operations that bring billions to the CDC and FDA as well as distribute trillions to his chosen projects.

So can we actually sensor disinformation without stopping scientific debate? Can we encourage healthy dissent – one of the backbones of the American Republic? Or does censorship hold the seeds of dictatorship and fascism? Is censorship a “slippery slope” which once embarked on cannot be stopped until it erases anything against the official narrative?

Does Dr. Fauci’s lack of scientific input and credibility speak loudly enough? I can today, using Zoom or similar technology, place a call and discuss with 1000 scientists the issue of vaccination, lockdown, masks, etc. What would stop Dr. Fauci from doing this in order to formulate a scientific opinion based on the broadest input? Of course, I also know why he doesn’t do that. The over-whelming worldwide scientific opinion is that lockdowns and masks don’t work and are detrimental, that the vaccines should be stopped now, and that our health agencies in the U.S. should be taken to the Hague Tribunal for crimes against humanity. These are not opinions held lightly and these actions are underway at the writing of this article.


Another tool in the toolkit of our public health agencies and vaccine advocates/investors is the ability to cancel dissenting opinions. The most used approach is to discredit the authors. Everyone thought the Great Barrington Declaration would stand because you could not discredit its authors – leading scientists from Oxford, Princeton, and Harvard. But much to our surprise, the “machine” that Gates and others have constructed over the past decade mobilizes an impressive number of bloggers, media channels, and social media drivers, who succeeded in cancelling (at least temporarily) the scientific opinions in the paper.

I believe that Gates and others anticipated that this pandemic would attract many dissenting opinions which would need to be cancelled in order to survive.

In addition, a very large number of doctors have been threatened with losing their license and livelihood. Paul Thomas of Oregon lost his license for publishing vaccine data from his pediatric practice. The information was deemed harmful to patients with regard to vaccines but some would argue it was only supporting “informed consent” – a right we have had since the Nazi war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg. His license was just recently re-instated after 10 months with a strong warning. Many others doctors who haven’t received the press that Dr. Paul has had are still waiting for their license to be restored. Clearly a doctor talking about the use of alternatives to vaccines, or treating their patients for COVID is something the public health community was prepared to enforce as they’ve acted uniformly and very quickly across the U.S. In the case of Senator and Dr. Scott Jensen of Minnesota, it’s clear that the visibility turned the medical board the other way on a plan to remove his license.

There are many hospitals across the United States that do not have a treatment for COVID. It is not because treatments do not exist but rather because the CDC and FDA have said their is no recommended treatment and backed that up with action – having doctors removed and even delicensed for trying to treat the patient. Essentially this means the CDC and our U.S. government have taken over the job of the doctors. The doctors may no longer look at a patient, see they have blood clotting, and prescribe and treat the patient with known and effective treatments for that condition. A ventilator to a patient with symptoms of blood clotting in the lungs, inflammation, and pneumonia is a death sentence. There is a financial incentive for hospitals for placing a patient on a ventilator.

Groups like America’s Front Line Doctors “AFLD” have suffered numerous affronts including the early shutdown of their website without notice, shunning by the press on numerous press releases, as methods to “cancel” or “erase” their efforts at educating the public about results derived from their practices and hospital service. Still this group continues to grow, now thousands of doctors worldwide, and in terms of their impact. They have significant resources now and their data about therapeutic drugs such a HCQ and Ivermectin is very convincing and well-supported. There is also now a national network of doctors who will prescribe these protocols so that people who want to gain access to preventive and life-saving treatment can get it.

Of course the ultimate “cancel culture” effort is currently being waged against unvaccinated citizens whereby the president is encouraging those vaccinated to attack those unvaccinated because they are “killing our friends and family”. These kind of messages are picked up by the mainstream media in an echo chamber that incites violence against everyone who even looks like they’re unvaccinated. This hate campaign of course ignores the science that clearly says those who have had COVID are naturally immune and if vaccinated are highly likely to have side effects that could kill them. The Cancel Culture is to erase or otherwise defeat the unvaccinated at any cost. The country may never recover, especially when they learn the truth about the misinformation that drove them to attack their fellowman.


It’s clear that the U.S. will continue to push on censorship via social media and most of section 230 will be neutralized. This will force social media to go “over-kill” on censorship and cancellation which will cause some seriously egregious 1st amendment violations but most specifically for scientists, doctors, researchers, and those doing serious scientific work, it will close down all channels for sharing of information and scientific debate.

It is also clear that the U.S. intends to close down all channels besides social media that currently allow scientific dissent. Unfortunately, unintended consequences are far beyond the shallow thinking that goes into congressional actions. Pharma and Gates have already captured the scientific journals that formerly carried papers that were peer-reviewed and commented by scientists all over the world. These are now useless for the scientific process. These actions will require that the scientific community develop it’s own independent forum for debate as an “underground” function so that Pharma and Gates cannot influence them. But that process will be less visible to the public even though PUBMED would usually carry any published study, it’s clear that Pharma and Gates won’t allow that.

With Pharma and Gates firmly in control of the official narrative, the field will be clear for the continuation of the pandemic and the medical takeover. But this will cause a backlash and strengthen the citizens who are replacing social media and mainstream media with an alternative media channel that will carry and support science and the truth.


What skills are required to become a senator, a president, or vice president? How do those skills relate to the skills required to lead a country?

If we take a snapshot of todays requirements, it would appear that to get elected we need to be able to assess what the people want, become popular with the people by talking about those things, convince the people we’ll do what we say, convince the people that we have years of experience at managing one or more companies successfully, and solving problems. A candidate also needs to demonstrate strong leadership qualities such as decisiveness, a commanding style, a strong reaction to right and wrong, the ability to think under fire, to seek and accept wise advice, debate, negotiate, raise money, and more.

But do the skills needed to win an election guarantee the quality of leadership of a country? What if a leader is misled by carefully-crafted “facts” that pushes him in the wrong direction? What if his or her advisors discover his “hot buttons” and push them to achieve predictable reactions? What if he or she reacts too quickly and doesn’t pay attention to the science gained from thousands of world-leading scientists and not from the biased opinion of one science advisor?

The skills required to lead in today’s complex society are different than what might have been required in times gone by. Today we see leaders that say, “Trust me” and “Why don’t they trust me?” instead of leaders who say, “This is a very hard decision we face. 25,000 have died after vaccination. 20,000 have died after getting a COVID diagnosis and that number is highly suspicious. Vaccines do not prevent spread of COVID. And just as many people are getting COVID after vaccination as without it. Masks don’t work. Natural immunity appears to be a strong protection against infection. So you have to decide. Our recommendation is to get vaccinated but this is your decision. Some of you might get the vaccine and die. Some might get it and avoid COVID. We can’t promise anything. This is an experimental vaccine. I don’t want anyone forcing anyone else to do this. It is your decision.”

Now what happens to trust when a leader tells it like it is using the best uncensored science available?

This is a different skill set. It requires integrity. And it’s a much deeper understanding of what the public is thinking and feeling, and how you can connect with them. Leaders must connect with the people and understand what they’re thinking, not drive and coerce them to act not in their best interest.

Leaders must resist being influenced by fake or expedient science. To be valid, science must be the result of a very strong consensus of scientists world wide. The idea of a single science advisor would never occur to a good leader.

Leaders must understand their role in government. They swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution. The constitution by the people, for the people, and of the people. There is a difference between commanding the people and leading the people. Even when it comes to public health, a leader may advise the public of the truth but cannot force them to adopt a narrative or action based on how they interpret the truth.

It’s confusing…Citizen’s United made us begin to believe we were trying to please corporations because they were now “people” under the constitution but they’re not. They’re entities who can and will spend an enormous amount of money to get their way. They will corrupt congress and thwart climate change ruining the environment to get their way. They will resist new energy sources until the surface temperature in Florida is 150 degrees and then sell air conditioned huts to live in.

We need to realize that our current system of selecting leaders values and promotes the wrong candidates. We are being given choices among Evil or Very Evil to vote for. The election is rigged in that no leaders can make it to the primaries. Only money operates in the current system and only the interests of the elite have influence over our choices for leader. We will never see a president or congressional leaders with the true skills America requires unless we change who we select candidates. This would mean doing away with Citizen’s United, implementing serious election reform, passing a voting rights bill at the federal level that insures a minimum standard for voting laws in every state.


Most people have never been to a constitutional law class or attended a lecture from a constitutional scholar. Even if you did, you might miss the point of the  underlying structure and purpose of the constitution. Some serious thought from our founders went into thinking ahead as to what could go wrong and how to prevent it.

A key tool of the founders was the checks and balances, the division of power, and ways to have one branch of government hold the others accountable. After many years of use and most mis-use, these features have become obscured. In past administrations you might have thought the DOJ (Department of Justice) for instance, works for the President. But the DOJ was conceived as a completely separate entity working for the people to protect against violations of the constitution and laws.

Very simply, the President does not command you. Ours is a government by and for the people. The people were always at the top of the food chain, the states were always representative of the people and superior in all ways to the federal government and the President. The federal government was to adopt the minimum of laws and controls it would take to coordinate the best interests of the states. The “best interests of the states” was to be the will of the people.

Under the constitution, government was put in place to serve the people and protect our god-given rights. These are not privileges but rather they are god-given rights to be protected by government – both state and federal.

The congress should represent the people.

In that understanding, if the people do not march out onto the streets when the federal government tries to control us, it is assumed that any action by the federal government has our agreement. You should think carefully about what Florida and Texas are doing because right now those may be the only examples of a state operating in accordance with the intent of the constitution and the will of the people.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *