Connect with us

Alternative News

July 4th, 2018: Should We Be Celebrating Independence, Or Fighting For It?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The history of America can be seen as a testimonial of a slow and steady degradation of human liberty and self-determination.

  • Reflect On:

    Do the words and ideas of the founding fathers give you an idea about our natural right to freedom and self-determination? What would happen in America if a majority of people has an awareness of what we are naturally entitled to as human beings?

July 4th celebrations in America in recent years have been tinged by the suspicions of a growing number of citizens that their independence has long been revoked.

advertisement - learn more

Independence means more than having one’s own government on native soil and no longer being considered a ‘colony’ of another power; it also means that one’s own government is in full subservience to the will and the liberty of its people.

It is with such convictions that writings such as Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense became widely considered to have been influential in the decision on the part of American colonists to declare their independence from Britain.

Condemnation of The English Constitution

In his pamphlet, Paine characterizes government as a necessary evil, not a boon or device for human liberty in any iteration. Governments arise by necessity when a population gets to a certain size wherein rule by the collective becomes too unwieldy.

The implementation of government by a people, which was the task ahead of American colonists who sought independence, were informed by analyses of the form of government that Americans had suffered under, namely the English Constitutional Monarchy. Paine’s brief comments on it begin to reveal its shortcomings:

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.

advertisement - learn more

First.—The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king.

Secondly.—The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers.

Thirdly.—The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.

To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things:

First.—That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.

Secondly.—That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the king, say they, is one, the people another; the peers are an house in behalf of the king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself.

What we see here, and this is common to just about every government in the world, is that those who have power (in this case, the monarchy) wish to retain their power, but under severe pressure from awakening people, are forced to accede some of the power to a branch of government that purportedly represents the people (i.e. the House of Commons).

In actual fact, the way the structure plays out almost always allows the powerful to maintain power, mainly through the deception that the people (here the commons) actually have a say in important matters. It’s really a big show, whereby small loopholes and backdoors always exist or are surreptitiously created to allow the powerful (the King and the Aristocracy, in this case) to maintain the ability to eventually get exactly what they want in all but the most trivial matters.

The American Constitution

It is with the foreknowledge of all these hazards of government that the founding fathers crafted the American Constitution. But it was not immediately after declaring independence from Britain that the constitution was made. It must be understood that the 13 States at that time were acting as fundamentally independent countries, only loosely tied together by virtue of having a common oppressor they had just escaped from.

There didn’t seem to be any rush for the individual States to bind themselves more firmly into a joint constitution, mainly because they didn’t want to give the central government more power, fearing it would endanger the rights of states and individuals. However, soon after America won its independence from Great Britain with its 1783 victory in the American Revolution, it became increasingly evident that the young republic needed a stronger central government in order to remain stable. According to this History Channel article on the constitution, this is what happened when planners met and fiercely debated policy through the summer of 1787:

They developed a plan that established three branches of national government–executive, legislative and judicial. A system of checks and balances was put into place so that no single branch would have too much authority. The specific powers and responsibilities of each branch were also laid out.

Among the more contentious issues was the question of state representation in the national legislature. Delegates from larger states wanted population to determine how many representatives a state could send to Congress, while small states called for equal representation. The issue was resolved by the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a bicameral legislature with proportional representation of the states in the lower house (House of Representatives) and equal representation in the upper house (Senate).

The Degradation Of Liberty

Without getting into details, one could say that the history of America since the signing of the Constitution, while dotted with many great achievements, is a testimonial to the slow degradation of the liberty of its citizens. Those very things that the founding fathers were so gravely aware, and tried to safeguard against–the influence of the wealthy and powerful, the dangers of centralized power and the frailty of individuals within those seats of power–have swooped in over time and, like the English monarchy and aristocracy, have managed to maintain and even far increase their own power and control at the expense of individual liberty.

In fact, it could even be argued that the commons of the late 18th century in England had more sway when it came to governmental policy than American citizens today. A 2014 study done by Martin Gilens of Princeton University entitled ‘Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens’ came to the following conclusions:

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it… if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

There Is A Resistance

Despite all this, I believe things are not all doom and gloom. There are and always have been citizens in America who are aware that the country is not living by the original dictates of the constitution, and have been speaking out to take the power from the central authorities and the elites and restore it to individuals. For it is a natural right, not only for Americans but for all of humankind, that each individual is sovereign and self-determining, and any government set up by self-determining people is tasked with serving those people.

In this way, the creation of America has always been our best hope, an experiment in the emancipation of human individuals that has not yet run its course. Note the words of Thomas Paine:

The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling.

We are, then, all in this together, trying to create a society and a world which protects and honors our natural right to sovereignty and individual self-determination. The more we equip ourselves with the knowledge and prudence the founding fathers had in putting together the safeguards that a properly adhered-to Constitution would provide, the more likely we will be able to guide this experiment to a successful outcome.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

UAF 9/11 Study Concludes “Fires in WTC Could Not Have Caused” Building 7 To Collapse

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The final report of an extensive four-year computer modeling simulation that was followed by a robust peer review process concludes that WTC 7 could not have collapsed as a result of office fires, as the official NIST explanation claims.

  • Reflect On:

    Does it seem like full disclosure in many areas, including 9/11 truth, are being held back in order to burst into public awareness simultaneously?

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth announced on March 25th that the final report from researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on the destruction of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001 has been completed. And as expected, it debunks the official story:

The UAF team’s findings, which were the result of a four-year computer modeling study of the tower’s collapse, contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded in a 2008 report that WTC 7 was the first tall building ever to collapse primarily due to fire.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse,” said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study’s principal investigator. “The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column.”

The final report, entitled A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 – Final Report, includes clarifications and supplemental text based on public comments submitted in response to a draft report released by UAF and AE911Truth on September 3, 2019.

The UAF team’s final report is the result of an extensive four-year computer modeling effort that was followed by a robust peer review process. The peer review included dozens of public comments as well as external review by two independent experts, Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski of Analytical Service Company, a leading expert in structural mechanics and finite element modeling, and Dr. Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.

What’s Next?

Richard Gage, president and founder of AE911Truth, said that “It is now incumbent upon the building community, the media, and government officials to reckon with the implications of these findings and launch a new full-scale investigation.”

advertisement - learn more

Of course, asking for a new full-scale investigation has always been the mandate for AE911Truth. One would suspect that if an investigation has not been launched by now, when a majority of the public believe something is being hidden from them about 9/11, no amount of proof about the falsity of the official statement will be able to get the ball rolling.

Still, the work that continues to be done by AE911Truth and its allies among the 9/11 victims’ families keeps this issue in the spotlight, and reminds us that important facts about 9/11 have yet to be revealed, facts that question the very nature and motivations of our government and other powerful institutions. The 9/11 activists will now use the findings in the report as part of a formal “request for correction” that the group plans to submit to NIST in the coming days. Richard Gage noted,

“The indisputable errors documented in our request for correction will give NIST no way out of correcting its deeply flawed report and reversing its conclusion that fires were the cause of the collapse.”

An admission by NIST that their conclusions about the reasons for the WTC 7 collapse is tantamount to an admission that explosives had been pre-planted in this building for this event, so we shouldn’t hold our breath. It would bring down the entire house of cards that is the official 9/11 narrative.

As I mentioned in a previous article ‘The Implosion Of Building 7 Remains The Irrefutable “Smoking Gun” Of A 9/11 Inside Job,’ the presumption of a controlled demolition would dictate that WTC Building 7 must have been slated to be hit by a plane like the other 2 towers, as part of the master plan of the perpetrators. When that was part of the plan was botched, they decided to ‘pull it,’ in the recorded words of the building’s owner Larry Silverstein. The lame “offices fires” explanation, something that had never happened before in the world to a high-rise building, was the only one that was left for them to use.

The Takeaway

Truth is coming, about 9/11, about JFK, about hidden technology, ETs and about a hundred other things. It seems to me that full disclosures of all of these have been held up, or are creeping along very slowly, as if they were being loaded into a cannon for one huge explosion of truth that is set to have a profound impact on our collective consciousness. Rather than being impatient for one particular disclosure or another, I believe it’s best to try to see a pattern that relates to the readiness of the collective mind, and do our part to prepare ourselves.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Wins Key Court Case In Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A key victory came yesterday for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe as a Washington DC court ruled the Army Corps of Engineers must perform an Environmental Impact Statement to show the Dakota Access pipeline will not negatively affect the tribe's land.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we seeing further shifts in the old paradigm of money first and environment second? Are we seeing the power of relentlessly standing up for what you feel will make humanity and nature thrive?

This is a huge victory for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota. Their relentless energy towards having a full environmental impact statement (EIS) done with regards to the Dakota Access Pipeline that would run through their land and potentially impact their water supply, has finally paid off. This will bring the future of the Dakota Access pipeline into question entirely.

A Washington DC court ruled that the US army corps of engineers must conduct a full EIS given that their existing permits violated the National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa).

“After years of commitment to defending our water and earth, we welcome this news of a significant legal win,” said the tribal chairman, Mike Faith. “It’s humbling to see how actions we took to defend our ancestral homeland continue to inspire national conversations about how our choices ultimately affect this planet.”

You may recall from 2016, the Sioux Tribe rallied and inspired millions all over the world to help in getting behind the movement to raise awareness about the environmental impact of this pipeline. People travelled from all over the world to join the tribe on the ‘front lines’ as clashes sometimes became violent between water protectors and police, as well as pipeline workers.

I recall being down in North Dakota covering this story and was amazed by the sheer amount of people coming to support, as well as the efforts police were taking to silence journalists from covering the story. Cell phone jammers were used to stop those on-site from live streaming what was going on. Independent media were the only form of media in Standing Rock for months until eventually, mainstream media showed up. There appeared to be a long-standing solidarity within mainstream media to portray water protectors as violent and to avoid telling their side of the story when it came to the pipeline. This was why independent media was so important at that time.

In December 2016, the Obama administration denied permits for the pipeline to cross the Missouri River and effectively ordered a full EIS to be done in order to determine what alternative routes could be taken as well as what impact the pipeline may have on the tribe’s treaty rights. Yet, during the first week of Donald Trump’s presidency, he signed an executive order to expedite construction of the pipeline. Construction of the 1,200-mile pipeline was completed in June 2017.

advertisement - learn more

Not long after, the tribe challenged the permits and won. The Army corps of engineers were ordered to redo its environmental analysis, but they did so without taking into consideration tribal concerns or expert analysis. This was likely to allow it’s the transport of oil to continue until they were again sued.

Finally, as this Wednesday, federal judge James Boasberg determined that the environmental analysis by both the companies behind the pipeline and the corps was severely lacking, and the track record of Sunoco when it comes to oil spills is not promising, and “does not inspire confidence”, he added.

The fresh court-mandated EIS will be more in-depth than the assessment already completed by the corps – and could take years to complete. Next, the court will decide if the pipeline will be shut down while the EIS is being completed and until the EIS is approved.

“This validates everything the tribe has been saying all along about the risk of oil spills to the people of Standing Rock,” said Jan Hasselman, an EarthJustice attorney.

The Takeaway

The news of this Standing Rock victory may fall on distracted ears and minds at the moment considering the current global focus on the Coronavirus pandemic, but this is a big victory that shows the power of collective action and moving to stand up to actions of those who do not make the entirety of human ‘thrivability’ a part of their paradigm, but who instead operate from a space of disconnection and capitalization.

This news comes as I recently released my latest film Regenerate to everyone for free. The film re-examines our current mainstream approach to climate change and instead looks at our relationship to land, life, nature, money and each other as a whole. I propose that it is here where we will find the solutions we are looking for to truly allow our environment and each other, to thrive. You can check out the trailer below, and watch the full film here.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

How We Can Regenerate Our Environment & Planet (Documentary)

Published

on

20452664 - Image: 123RF

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    New documentary called Regenerate: Beyond The C02 Narrative explores how we can truly regenerate our environment. The current mainstream focus on C02 is not the answer.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we viewing the earth as a mechanical machine? Are we living in a society built on disconnection? Do we value maintaining the status quo more than creating a thriving life for all?

I have a new film I want to share with you, one that I was very passionate about creating because I believe it has the power to truly change the way we think about our environment.

I’ve been researching the topic of climate change for over 10 years, and the one thing I can honestly tell you, no matter what political side you are on or what you think the science says: the topic is very dizzying. No, it’s not as simple as the oil companies are faking science to show dangers to our climate are not as bad. No, it’s not as simple as lowering CO2 emissions, in fact, that is an incredibly misleading narrative. What we have to do is much different than that.

One thing I will say is this, many of the current propositions we see from governments, companies and mainstream media are designed to work within our economy. Economy first, environment second. They are also designed not to have humanity question their relationship with things like nature, money, life, who we are and why we are even here. They are designed to maintain the status quo. For that reason, they are often linear, mechanical ideas that disregard the true nature of the earth and the environment.

Those who have really gone deeply into the subject of climate change see this very quickly: you cannot simply solve our climate woes by planting more trees or lowering CO2 emissions, as you are just looking at one TINY aspect to the puzzle, and this direction won’t actually help the planet, it will only make us think we are helping.

Coming to these realizations over the last 10 years is what inspired me to create a film that would unite people. It’s a film that doesn’t argue about who’s to blame, what the causes of climate change are and so forth, it’s instead a film that looks at the core of the issue, and how we can actually create the changes that are needed at this time.

In short, the biggest challenge we face right now is that we live in a mindset and paradigm of disconnection and linear, mechanical thinking. This has led to the creation of a world that takes only individual parts into consideration, and not the whole. This thinking provides the experience of what it looks like to create from disconnected and destructive points of view. Sifting out of this thinking and state of being, into one of connection, is the challenge before us. When we do this, it will begin to reshape policy, choices, actions and creations that influence our world, way of living and how we relate to the earth.

advertisement - learn more

Due to the Coronavirus lockdown everyone is experiencing right now at home, I’ve decided to make the film Regenerate: Beyond The CO2 Narrative, free for everyone to watch.

Below is a trailer to check out the film. If you wish to watch this film entirely, click here.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!