Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas BANS jurors from reading the U.S. Constitution

Image: Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas BANS jurors from reading the U.S. Constitution
Source: NaturalNews.com
Thomas Dishaw
March 27, 2017

The Bundy Ranch trials are underway, having begun in February of this year. There have already been reports that federal court Judge Gloria Navarro, who is presiding over the case, has dealt several blows to the defense teams throughout the trial. She has allegedly given the prosecution favorable treatment regarding time expansion, granting them over five weeks to present their case. She has, however, refused to do the same for the defense, allowing the six defendants only one week to present their case.

For the upcoming trial of Cliven Bundy, owner of the ranch at the center of the case, Navarro has also refused to allow nationally renowned lawyer Larry Klayman to defend Bundy, whose trial is set to begin in May. Klayman, who is the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for being steadfast in his litigation in support of mostly conservative-leaning and libertarian-leaning issues. As reported by the Las Vegas Review Journal, Navarro said she would not allow Klayman into the high-profile criminal case until he can give her proof that “ethical disciplinary proceedings” against him in Washington, D.C., have been resolved in his favor.

Judge Navarro has now taken her detest for the defense even further and imposed a rule stating that no copies of the U.S. Constitution were allowed in this Federal Courtroom.

According to Redoubt News:

  • Witnesses have told me that the U.S. Marshals have decided that they will no longer allow copies of the U.S. Constitution to be brought into the courthouse. They have even gone so far as to remove them from ladies’ purses to be discarded into the trash. It is not limited to just those that are showing from shirt pockets.
  • Defendant Eric Parker, who has consistently placed a copy of the Constitution in his pocket during these proceedings, was forced to remove it and told to keep it flat at the defendant’s table so the jury could not see it.
  • The jury cannot be allowed to even look at the Constitution!

Eric Parker, known during the standoff as “The Man on the Bridge” or “The Bundy Ranch Sniper,” has been adamant that this case will set a precedent regarding government overreach and constitutional rights. During an interview with Early Rising, the married father of two said, “I believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I believe that those are natural rights, God-given; that the Constitution only reaffirms them. I believe that without defending them, they don’t truly exist.” Having a copy of The Constitution in his pocket during trial no doubt reinforces the virtues of liberty, limited government, and the Constitutionally protected rights that he believes in. Now that symbol is being taken away. (RELATED: Get more news like this at Liberty.news.)

The Bundy Ranch Standoff, or the “Battle of Bunker Hill,” was a six-day standoff between armed ranchers and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials in April 2014. Bundy, a cattle rancher, had refused to pay federal fees after he allowed his cows to graze on so-called public lands. He vehemently disagrees with federal authorities, arguing that the property is where his ancestors first settled in the 1880’s. In 1998, the BLM took Bundy to federal court, which ruled in favor of the BLM, and awarded them $1.2 million. Bundy has refused to pay the fees, and after years of failed negotiations, the BLM showed up to the ranch in an attempt to gather his cattle as payment for the outstanding fees. Bundy, with the help of several other supporters, including his sons, protested the takeover, which the prosecution has presented at trial to be an armed assault against the officers. During the event, the only person injured was one of Bundy’s sons, who was tasered by one of the officers.

A total of 19 people were arrested and jailed in connection with the standoff. Two pleaded guilty and accepted punishment for lesser charges while the remaining others, including Bundy and his sons, pleaded not guilty to conspiracy, assault on a federal officer, obstruction of justice, and several other charges. If convicted of all charges, each defendant could face up to 101 years in prison. Follow more news about outrageous government tyranny at Tyranny.news.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Guns.com

Eaglerising.com

Redoubtnews.com

Reviewjournal.com

300 Word Memories #7 – Freedom

Freedom1.jpg
TheBreakaway | BreakawayConciousness
Zy Marquiez
March 26, 2017

Freedom is arguably the most important idea humanity has ever ruminated upon and realized. Knowing this, then, isn’t it the least bit suspicious that the idea of Freedom isn’t talked about at length in the media, school, or nigh anywhere in society?

One would figure that if the very tenet of Freedom was so important, and the government and those in the upper tiers of society and politics really cared for Freedom, there would be something called the Department Of Freedom in America, ensuring people’s freedom’s don’t get trampled on.  For the record, preventing people from carrying out crimes, and ensuring Freedoms are two very different thing.  Some “crimes” people commit are nothing more than state overreach that ironically trample all over freedom, like say, feeding the homeless.  And no, that’s not a joke.

Since this idea is so vital, and arguably the main premise of our Democratic Republic, one could argue that because the very core of this ideal is central to our society myriad courses all over America would be brought about to bring this to light.  Predictably, such is not the case.

Ask yourself, why is that so?  Why is it that The United States, the so called paragon of Freedom, does NOT teach Freedom or hold Freedom courses in its school system or universities?  Sure, Freedom is mentioned here and there, and mostly in a historical context of the past, if it is taught at all.  It takes a rather percipient individual in order to come the terms with the possible truths of those questions.

The very tenet of Freedom runs anathema to Govern-ment, which literally means to govern the mind.  Another one of those notions that school doesn’t teach you.  Now isn’t that interesting…

Instead of the system of government and public schooling laying the foundation for which people may learn about Freedom, why it’s so valuable, what it took to secure it, and why hundreds of millions have died over time seeking it, the opposite takes place.  The system is all about forbidding freedom by the application of crushing conformity, as award winning teacher and researcher John Taylor Gatto has exhaustively shown in all of his books, each of which shows documentary evidence of this going back more than a century.

The system being about conformity, and not about Freedom, is not a theory when countless documents from institutions talk about molding the individual from the ground up.  If you want further information, please read:

The True Purpose Of Modern Schooling
Dumbing Us Down
A Different Kind Of Teacher
Weapons Of Mass Instruction

Regardless, its time individuals take cognizance that the system is how it is because it’s been molded to be this way, although it wasn’t always like that.  Likewise, if the conformity crisis that continues to grow with impunity unabated, the future world we will walk upon will be a perfect fusion between the iron fist George Orwell showed was possible in 1984, and the velvet first Aldous Huxley showed in A Brave New World.  And that, my friends, is a very scary position, because we are on those very tracks as we speak.

Freedom is indispensable, and the comptrollers know this.  The last thing the comptrollers wish to do is have people discuss what Freedom truly means.  Such conversations lead to people seeing the full potentiality of freedom and those pulling the strings don’t want people contemplating such far-reaching ideas.

The notion of Freedom challenges everything, from the ground up, in every single life, in every single country.

Ask yourself, when is the last time you ever had a conversation about Freedom – the idea itself.

The fact that such an important tenet is overlooked – and rarely spoken about in our everyday life – should go to show how easy it is to overlook critical components in our lives, even though it seems the ideals are ever-present.  However, as many folks who’ve had their rights infringed upon know, at a moment’s notice, any individual’s Freedoms may be trampled upon.

Where are we going as a society?   How far will the infringement continue before people draw their line in the sand concrete and say enough is enough?

Hopefully none of us ever have to find out.  Then again, many people think the same thing and  end up getting railroaded by the system.

Perhaps its best to heed those examples before our very lives become the next examples of infringement.

Be proactive.

Ponder Freedom, and ponder it quite deeply.  For most days, most people don’t think of Freedom at all.
___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________
About The Author:

Zy Marquiez is an avid book reviewer, researcher, an open-minded skeptic, yogi, humanitarian, and freelance writer who studies regularly subjects like Consciousness, Education, Creativity, The Individual, Ancient History & Ancient Civilizations, Forbidden Archaeology, Big Pharma, Alternative Health, Space, Geoengineering, Social Engineering, Propaganda, and much more.

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Imagination Rises Out Of The Jaws Of Defeat

Imagination&Obstacles
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
March 14, 2017

“Imagination should be used, not to escape reality, but to create it.”
– Collin Wilson

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.  For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire word, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
– Einstein

Imagination is the skeleton key to life, for it opens all the doors that allow the individual to venture through all of the possible roads of life.  Having the option to venture upon the unknown to travel the roaring roads of life allows the individual not only to become more cognizant through life experience and learn from such ventures, but also to employ imagination in order to seek and attain mastery of the self.  This allows the individual the ability to live life to the fullest extent.

This is why it’s vital to respect the creative consciousness of the individual, because there is no path imagination won’t venture upon, there is no solution that can’t be attained by the open-minded skeptical individual who ceaselessly seeks to attain understanding through constant employing of the triumvirate that is the heart, mind, and spirit.

As imagination is employed boundlessly, a more thorough understanding of life is achieved with the acquisition of experience and wisdom each new day brings forth.  This serves as further impetus for the individual as they continue to seek new untapped ground to learn from while also exploring the conscious streams of life, because they realize with each new set of experiences, new possibilities arise, new solutions are to be had.

Regardless of the path one takes, with each new obstacle that arises, the individual grows further with each new choice made.  The more one grows, the more capable one feels.  The more capable one feels, the more they accomplish.  And the more they accomplish, the more they grow.  Therefore, growth serves as a catalyst for additional growth and experience, which is all fueled by endless inspiration of being able to tackle any problem that arises with the employment of imagination.

This is why imagination and creativity will continue to serve as an engine of growth by which the individual evolves, ultimately raising their quality of consciousness with each new well thought out and pondered idea that is ruminated upon deeply.  This growth undoubtedly couples to the life lessons that help us persevere through life doggedly, while also serving as sparks that ignite the embers of creativity.

As individuals embrace the resonant feeling of inspiration and creativity that follow the use of imagination and how those spawn new streams of consciousness and possibilities, they realize that imagination is the one tool in life that cannot be overlooked.  Without imagination, one cannot achieve anything.

And when imagination and inspiration couple, there is no end in sight to the type of accomplishments an individual may unleash.

New ideas arise, old shackles melt, and imagination becomes the key to a healthy and fulfilling life.

The precious and vast streams of consciousness that abound us are the canvas upon which imagination artfully creates its dreams – the individual’s dream.

In fact, writer, philosopher and naturalist Henry David Thoreau once intimated saliently:

“This world is but canvas to our imaginations.”

Humanity is here to create, and individuals cannot create without imagination.

Imagination leads to dreams, and dreams lead individuals to change one’s life; dreams help individuals inspire others; dreams have also throughout history helped change the course of civilization.  All of these dreams that are inherently woven within the core of our being, and are entwined within the web of life serve to vault the pallid, mediocre, and dull components of life into a completely different constellation of possibilities altogether.

Individuals whose insights and aspirations made them employ imagination in creatively unique ways, time and time again turned seemingly inalterable tides of destiny and transformed them into something new and fresh hitherto inconceivable.

Individuals such as Einstein, Steve Jobs, Michael Jordan, The Beatles, and more, all had ‘epic failures’.  And yet, failure does not define them.

They imagined something better, something greater.

They imagined a better life for themselves, made a plan, CHANGED their paths, and each set a new rousing course the likes of which nigh nobody has followed.  Promptly, the jaws of defeat were smashed shut and not allowed to feed on their dreams.

Countless individuals such as the above have shown that when individual mindsets are lucid and precise, there is nothing that can stop them and their imagination.

Doubt no longer exists.

The insipid fades into the past.

Obstacles become opportunities.

Setbacks become turning points.

Life’s journey becomes an inspiring adventure.

And the creative individual becomes ultimately free.

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.

Note: This Article was originally submitted to TheNewAgora – Elect To Govern Yourself and was published in their online and print magazine which features many great articles about a variety of salient and interesting topics.
___________________________________________________________
Zy Marquiez:

Zy Marquiez is an avid book reviewer, researcher, an open-minded skeptic, yogi, humanitarian, and freelance writer who studies regularly subjects like Consciousness, Education, Creativity, The Individual, Ancient History & Ancient Civilizations, Forbidden Archaeology, Big Pharma, Alternative Health, Space, Geoengineering, Social Engineering, Propaganda, and much more.

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Deep State Neuroscientists Believe They Can Turn Off Free Will

Deep Brain Electrical Stimulation Shown to Improve Memory | 33rd ...
Source: TheMindUnleashed.com
Nathaniel Mauka
March 9, 2017

Neuroscientists have argued whether we even have free will, but now they want to turn it off.

The Libet Experiment

In the 1980s scientist Benjamin Libet conducted an experiment. He ‘discovered’ that what seems to be free will or the conscious choice to do or not do something is really just the observance of something that has already happened. This completely rocked the foundations of what most thought of as a prerequisite for being human, and the long-held religious view that free-will must always be honored.

Libet recorded people’s brainwaves as they made spontaneous finger movements while looking at a clock. The participants in the study were to tell researchers the time at which they decided to wave their fingers. Libet found that there were several milliseconds of preparatory brain activity prior to the time that people reported the conscious act of waving their fingers. His findings were taken as gospel that free will did not exist. Now we call this preparatory action of the brain the ‘readiness potential.’

What Libet’s experiment failed to consider though, was manifold. It is possible that people were only conscious of an action milliseconds after a subconscious realization. It is possible that they could not indicate their intent as fast as their physical bodies could carry it out – a delay in physical vs. mental activity that has been well documented, and it is also possible that the cognition of an anticipated event is cognized well before the actual event, because the entire causal field is changed by our consciousness, as evidenced by recent experiments in physics. This is called the observer effect as it refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed.

Libet implies that the conscious decision act is divorced from fee will, in that it is acted out nonconsciously, and that the subjective feeling of having made this decision is tagged on afterward – however – we already know from vast amounts of research from Jung and others, that we know a lot more than we consciously allow ourselves to honor.

Nonetheless, Libet’s experiment has weathered such criticism and the implications have been replicated with even more advanced equipment including the use of FMRI technology and the direct recording of neuronal activity using implanted electrodes.

How to Reprogram Or Eliminate Free Will

These studies all seem to point in the same, troubling conclusion: We don’t really have free will. So why then are neuroscientists trying to remove our free will?

A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers in Germany, has scientists backtracking on their original assumption that we have no free will.

The German researchers worked backwards in a way, from Libet’s experimental protocol, using a form of brain-computer integration to see whether participants could cancel a movement after the onset of the unconscious preparatory brain activity identified by Libet.

If they could, it would be a sign that humans can consciously intervene and “veto” processes that neuroscience has previously considered automatic and beyond willful control. There were more complex methods utilized including the use of colored lights, but in short, they found we could easily undo actions and “veto” them – a sign of undeniable free will.

A quote from the lead researcher, Dr. John-Dylan Haynes of Charité – Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, becomes telling in order to discover how neuroscientists working for the deep state could override our own free will,

“A person’s decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves. They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement. Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought.”

These findings were supported by a French study which found that “nonconscious” preparatory brain activity identified by Libet is really just part of a fairly random ebb and flow of background neural activity, and that movements occur when this activity crosses a certain threshold.

And even more studies confirm what we all suspected regardless of early scientific findings – that we all act consciously, perhaps to different degrees, but certainly with free will.

When we form a vague intention to move, they explain, this mind-set feeds into the background ebb and flow of neural activity, but the specific decision to act only occurs when the neural activity passes a key threshold — and our all-important subjective feeling of deciding happens at this point or a brief instant afterward.

“All this leaves our common sense picture largely intact,” they write, meaning we can break a chain of events (determinism), but that also implies a certain responsibility for our actions.

The Cooperation of Subconscious and Conscious Awareness

All these studies do suggest, though, that our free will requires healthy partnerships between conscious and unconscious systems. In special circumstances like playing musical instruments, engaging in sports, or driving a car, we apparently recruit specialized unconscious agents with the ability to carry out certain acts quickly without conscious “permission.”

If these “unconscious” agents can be reprogrammed, then we can be controlled, essentially by “disabling” our free will – at least according to pedantic science.

Attempts to Destruct Free Will

Aside from using drugs like scopolamine, known to wipe our subconscious plates clean, so that new, possibly nefarious programming can be installed, and obvious mind control techniques admittedly researched by the CIA (with the help of Stanford Neuroscientists, and others) along with additional intelligence agencies of our government, there are subtle programming methods used every day in the form of subconscious messages in advertising. There are even cell phone apps meant to control the free will of the user. You can imagine what other technologies have been employed.

My advice? Use your free will to override unwanted subconscious programming. If it requires both conscious and ‘non’ conscious compliance, to remove free will, then we can at least interfere by utilizing our conscious awareness and removing tacit consent. That ought to keep the physicist busy for a while, at any rate, and the deep state wasting our tax dollars on more Mind Kontrol experiments.

Read More At: TheMindUnleashed.com

Are We Still in a Feudal System of Property?

crown

Source: TheDailyBell.com
March 5, 2017

Do you own property? How does it feel to have a piece of land that is yours, that no one can take from you?

Unless of course, you don’t pay your yearly rent, or rather property tax, to the town.

And then of course the government could always just take your land for “public use” providing “just compensation,” a price which will be decided by the government.

Oh and the government could also steal your land for private use, because they decided “public use” can include tax revenue gained from the land.

And if you are suspected, not convicted, of a crime, governments in many states can take your land through civil asset forfeiture.

Do you have water on your land? Even a drainage ditch means the EPA really owns it.

Private property means sovereignty for the individual; something the power elites cannot stomach.

Government Can Take Your Land

You are probably familiar with Kelo v. New London, the 2005 Supreme Court case in which a woman’s dream home was stolen from her using eminent domain, authorized by the Fifth Amendment. Her property was handed over to the private corporation Pfizer. Since the corporation pays higher taxes, that was considered public “use” of the land.

Basically the bigger the business, the more land they can steal, authorized by the federal government.

Some states, like Indiana, strengthened laws to prevent this from happening.

But if there is one thing government is good at, it is being creative in their oppression.

Charlestown Indiana is trying a new tactic: fine private property until the owners can hardly afford to live there. Then, waive those fines if they sell their property to a developer.

The fines are issued for things like tall weeds in the yard, torn window screens, and chipping paint. The fines are usually $50 per day after assessment, and the residents usually won’t receive them immediately. So when the city issues three fines, and notifies the homeowners five days later, the homeowner owes $750 in fines immediately, increasing by $150 per day, unless they sell their home to the developer.

Did I mention this is a low income neighborhood filled with retirees?

Feudalism Reorganized

Bottom up approaches mean freedom; individuals control their property, which they organize into larger voluntary groups controlled by those individuals. But feudalism was the opposite. The King owned all the land, and awarded some to the Lords, who likewise reigned over the serfs.

Originally America was supposed to resemble the former, where individuals had the most power over town governments. Local officials then controlled state government, which controlled federal government. Now it is the opposite, where the feds issue orders to the states, and the states control the towns.

And each government really controls all the land in their territory, and graciously allows us peasants to rent it from them, unless and until they decide to take it back.

The big question many have is, if the government cannot steal private property for actual public use, then how would we get projects like roads done? This is just like the Kings used to provide roads, and the Lords protection. We need them, right?

But in a non-feudal system, our “superiors” would have to offer actual just compensation. How can the government consider something just compensation if the owner of the property gets no say in that? The government somehow comes up with a market value, but that is not necessarily the same as the value to the homeowner.

Real just compensation is whatever the homeowner will accept. At some point, Kelo would have sold her property, she just hadn’t been offered enough money yet. If Pfizer really wanted it that bad, they could have offered her $1 million for a $300,000 house. If she still said no, up the price until she says yes! How bad does Pfizer want her land?

Would highways have been way more expensive to initially build? Probably. But why are highways immune from economics? Maybe they weren’t worth the price, which includes the oppression and precedent of kicking people out of their homes for the greater good!

Maybe some better form of transportation would have been born out of free market economics. Instead it is taken for granted that highways and roads are a good thing. Yet we are still burning fossil fuels to get places, and allowing the economic waste of individual car ownership.

We are now stuck in an outdated transportation system; just one of many bad result from not having ownership over “our own” land.

Marx Would Be Proud

Private property doesn’t really exist in America, seeing as local, state, and federal authorities can tell you what you can and cannot do with it, as well as charge you money for occupying it.

These authorities can also use various methods to take the land from you altogether. Even if they give you what they decide is “just compensation” it still means the land is not owned by you, because you have no say in whether or not to sell the land, nor in the price.

Hopefully we can work towards a private property system where individuals actually own their land. And then, they would have actual control, like sovereign nations, over their land, and over how they interact with their neighbors.

Do you think we can (or should) get their in our lifetimes? Comment what you think.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

War On Free Speech – Power Of The States Vs. Power Of Federal Government: Who Cares?

censorship
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 2, 2017

There are 50 countries in the US. They’re called states.

All right, that’s an exaggeration. They are states. But they could be countries.

If you don’t think so, consider the 2015 state budget of tiny Rhode Island: $8.9 billion. The 2016 budget for the nation of Somalia was $216 million.

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States [government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 11th Amendment reads: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

If you combine these two Amendments, you begin to see the considerable powers granted to the states.

Of course, now, relatively few people care about these powers. They should, but they don’t.

The Civil War over the issue of slavery convinced a majority of Americans that states’ power was a bad thing—and it had to be remedied when high moral principles and intolerable suffering were at stake.

This premise was, however, expanded to include almost any issue on which the federal government wanted to assert its supremacy.

Which is where we are now.

And the Congress has been more than happy to cement that assertion of overweening federal power, by passing budgets that hand over huge sums of money to the states—otherwise known as bribes for giving in and surrendering.

The states lost that war without a shot being fired.

There is another way so-called “Progressives” look at illegitimate and unconstitutional federal power: it is the wonderful solution to problems the states refuse to solve for themselves.

If a state or states can’t see the wisdom of regulating an industry that pollutes, the federal government must step in and take control. When it does, the control is hailed as a victory.

But is it? The solution, in the long run, can be worse than the problem. As time passes, the federal government exerts more and more power over the states—any one of which could rightfully claim it has the size and money to rank as a country.

America, more and more, becomes a single entity, ruled from above, at a great distance, by a gigantic vampiric bureaucracy. This is exactly the kind of centralization the Republic’s Founders tried to avoid.

Conventional wisdom asserts that the states will do great harm to their citizens, because the states are locally inept, corrupt, ignorant, and cruel, whereas the federal government is kinder, gentler, more humane, and wise. The states are more likely to be run by greedy businessmen, while the federal government can maintain greater distance and rule with equanimity and fairness.

This is largely propaganda, and now, in 2017, it is difficult to run tests of the conventional wisdom, because the federal government has taken such major blocks of states’ former powers into its own hands.

But here is an example of such a test: the US Department of Education, a federal agency. It employs a mere 4400 people, and it has a staggering annual budget of $68 billion.

What in the world are those 4400 people doing with that much tax money and money printed out of thin air?

Here is the defining statement from the Department’s website:

ED’s 4,400 employees and $68 billion budget are dedicated to: “Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds [throwing giant sums of money at the states while binding the states to all sorts of rules and conditions and guidelines and bribes.].”

“Collecting data on America’s schools and disseminating research [surveillance, data mining, profiling, invasive pseudoscientific psychological screening].”

“Focusing national attention on key educational issues [propaganda, indoctrination, useless public relations, b.s.].”

“Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education [preempting the states’ ability to handle those issues themselves].”

The individual states could run and fund their own schools. Of course, they wouldn’t have the $68 billion each year to work with, but that would be their problem to solve.

The fact that it isn’t their problem now speaks to the federal policy of piling up insupportable budget debt to the sky and then pretending it doesn’t exist. “Here’s 68 billion dollars. No problem. We’ll print more when we need it.”

So the test would be: eliminate the US Department of Education.

Turn back the full responsibility for education to the states.

Perhaps then, the states would realize how insane their own governments are, because those governments, too, are running on the fumes of unpayable debt.

A rude awakening for all concerned, at every level? Most certainly. But the degree of overarching federal power would shrink a bit.

And in the long run, that is a good thing. An important thing.

And the next step would be individual communities within the states taking back control of their own schools. And many more parents homeschooling their own children.

The whole operation is called Decentralization.

And it starts at the top, where the biggest power grab of all occurred. Where the Constitution was stepped on, twisted, co-opted, ensnared, burned, scrapped, defamed, ignored, and ridiculed.

Think about this. How many schools in America, all of which receive gobs of federal money, actually teach the Constitution in a serious way, article by article, amendment by amendment, day by day, through all grades, with increasing depth and sophistication?

None.

As in: NONE.

Why should the schools teach the Constitution? After all, they’re sucking in money from a federal government that opposes the document and its essential separation of powers.

Coda: There are people who think what I’m proposing is beyond the pale. For example, what about the great civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s? It resulted in the passage of federal legislation that changed the landscape of America and canceled racism in many resistant states.

Yes, and it also resulted in Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, which was launched in 1966, and continues in one form or another to this day. Trillions of dollars have been poured into inner cities, and the conditions in those areas are far worse than in 1966.

How can that be? It can be, because along with the money came Dependence on the federal government. Lifelong dependence. Which was the actual motive behind the whole operation. It was no favor to the poor. It was a war on the poor. Honest programs aimed at developing self-sufficient businesses were cast aside and purposely rejected. Why? Because they could have worked. Because they would have lifted people up.

But instead, we now have equality. Equality of dependence. That was the federal ruse. That was the op.

What looks like federal intervention on behalf of the high moral ground turns into a long-term enduring disaster.

The solution to the problem turns out to be worse than the problem.

Why should we care about fake morality, devised to appear like a gift from the gods?

We should care about the self-sufficiency, power, imagination, and visions of many individuals. We should support the work that springs from those wells of deep energy.

The Constitution, in its own way, was an attempt to establish a platform from which those qualities could emerge.

It limited the force that could be applied from the highest controls of government.

Perverse criminals at every level rise and fall. But the Founding ideas and ideals remain. And so do the individuals who grasp them and live in freedom.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.