US illegal: History of rogue empire REQUIRING arrests in the present. Stealing half of Mexico in 1848 despite Congressman Abraham Lincoln’s proof of President Polk’s OBVIOUS lying treaty violation (3 of 11)

“The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.”  – President Harry Truman, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman (1974) by Merle Miller, pg. 26.

3-minute video: Police, Military – Was your Oath sincere?

2-minute video: US imperialism 1800 – 1900:

This article series is among hundreds in alternative media that explain, document, and prove that the United States continuously engage in the viciously destructive policies of a rogue state, with a required and obvious citizen response to call for arrests of those .01% leaders of these crimes centering in war, money, and corporate media lies. The eleven parts of this series are also from my paper on teaching critical thinking skills to high school students in classes of US History, Government, and Economics.

Eleven sections:

  1. Introduction to define ‘rogue state’ as perfect match with US illegal Wars of Aggression, Crimes Against Humanity, dictatorial government
  2. The US violated ~600 treaties with Native Americans to steal Native American land. A treaty is signed by a US President, approved by 2/3 vote of the US Senate, and under Article VI of the US Constitution becomes US “supreme Law.” These ongoing “in your face” violations of “supreme Law” became the precedent to typical hypocritical and unlawful US policies of the present.
  3. US President Polk lied to Congress (with their approval) to initiate War of Aggression on Mexico. The result was the US illegally stealing 40% of Mexico in 1848. Congress opposed Abraham Lincoln’s crystal-clear explanation as a member of Congress that the Adams-Onís Treaty placed the so-called “border dispute” 400 miles within land forever promised to Mexico and forever promised as outside any US claim.
    1. The US violated our treaty with Hawaii and stole their country in 1898.
  4. The US reneged on promises of freedom after the Spanish American War to impose colonialism on the Philippines, and install US-friendly dictators in Cuba. US military slaughtered resisters, calling them yesterday’s version of “terrorists.”
  5. The US entered WW1 upon no national security threat to the US, and imprisoned the 3rd party presidential candidate for challenging “official reasons” for war.
  6. The CIA had several covert wars; perhaps most important in today’s context of war on Iran: “Operation Ajax” that overthrew Iran’s democracy and installed a US-friendly and brutal dictator.  When that dictator was overthrown and Iran refused another, the US aided Iraq to unlawfully invade and attack Iran from 1980-1988; killing up to a million Iranians. If the US lied and acted twice to unlawfully overthrew Iran’s democracy within many of our own lifetimes, shouldn’t we assume first another lie-started unlawful war today?
  7. The Vietnam War followed US permission to cancel the election to unify the country. The US stopped democracy to keep a friendly government, and perhaps to have ongoing live weapons testing and development. War escalated with the Gulf of Tonkin incident,  deliberate provocation to manipulate a false-flag event for “defensive” war.
  8. Perhaps most disturbing is the King Family civil suit that found the US government guilty in the assassination of Dr. King (and here). Corporate media, including our text publishers, omit this history. The King family’s conclusion is that Martin was assassinated to prevent his “Occupy DC” plan beginning for the summer of 1968 to end his version of today’s wars.
  9. We now know from Congressional reports that all “reasons” for war with Iraq were known to be false as they were told.
  10. The two “reasons” for war with Iran are as false as the “reasons” for war with Iraq: Iran never threatened Israel, and Iran’s nuclear energy and medicine programs are IAEA-verified as completely safe and lawful.

**

Stealing half of Mexico in 1848 despite Congressman Abraham Lincoln’s proof of President Polk’s OBVIOUS lying treaty violation (3 of 11)

“At first blush, a man is not capable of reporting truth; he must be drenched and saturated with it first.”  – Henry David Thoreau, I to myself: an annotated selection from the journal of Henry D. Thoreau, 1837. 

Thoreau, like Abraham Lincoln in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives recognized the claimed “reasons” for a “defensive war” against Mexico in 1846 were obvious lies when inspected. Lincoln:

“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”

And Lincoln in a letter to his law partner:

“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’”

The US taking Texas as a state in 1845 was in direct violation of the Adams-Onís Treaty that guaranteed all the land that is now the Southwest US to forever belong to Mexico (signed in 1819 with Spain, and formally transferred to Mexico in 1831). The border was the Sabine River, between modern-day Texas and Louisiana.

Lincoln attempted to force President Polk to report to Congress and answer several pointed and brilliantly-worded questions from Lincoln that would prove Polk’s claimed “border dispute” was really ~400 miles into agreed-upon land of Mexico. I invite you to read Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions” for yourself as an example of why Lincoln is considered to be one of the most brilliant writers in all American history.

Consider these maps that prove Lincoln’s points that President Polk violated the Adams-Onís Treaty to lie of a massive land theft of Texas, then lying that Mexico invaded the US when it was the US invading Mexico, and waging a War of Aggression to steal more prime land from Mexico. This initial battle upon which Polk made his claim was at the current border between Texas and Mexico:

Thoreau refused to pay his taxes to support the unlawful war, and was jailed. Despite Lincoln having all the facts on his side, because the president, majority of Congress, and majority of the press wanted this war as an expression of the racistManifest Destiny,” Lincoln didn’t have the votes to pass the Spot Resolutions. In fact, Lincoln was called “unpatriotic” and “Spotty” in derision by both parties’ “leadership” and the press.

Lincoln became so unpopular from these intentional lies and propaganda that he had no chance for re-election.

A treaty is the “Supreme law of the land” in Article Six of the US Constitution. In this case, when a US president and Congress had the votes to violate a treaty and the Constitution in order to take land and resources, they lied, went to war, and took the land and resources.

The war killed over 50,000 Mexicans and over 5,000 Americans, and is a clear historical precedent for US “leadership” to choose lies, dictatorship, and War of Aggression rather than truth, limited government under the law, and peace.

Although this history of the Mexican-American War is uncontroversially factual and as far as I’m aware undisputed among professional historians, corporate media-published high school textbooks will only state that the causes of war were a “border dispute” and repeat President Polk’s claims that Mexico invaded the US with “American blood shed on American soil.”

This is a massive lie of omission and commission to not communicate at least the preceding few paragraphs.

If your text explained that a US President was the war-mongering liar that Lincoln exposed in the Spot Resolutions, and that Congress voted in criminal complicity to shred a US treaty, lie to the American public about who invaded whom, and be guilty of war-murdering tens of thousands of human beings, would you look at current US wars from the benefit of that accurate history?

This war is vitally important to understand because it sets the precedent of a US president lying, violating clear treaty, and the US stealing resources at the expense of thousands of deaths of US soldiers, and many multiples of those deaths of the people we attacked. Then, as today, the majority of Americans believed their “leaders” in ignorance of the facts, and without media’s coverage of clear voices like Abraham Lincoln’s to explain the facts.

The result of the war was the US taking almost half of Mexico’s land. Although historians note that freshman member of Congress Abraham Lincoln was/is correct that the president lied and violated a treaty with criminal complicity of Congress, both parties’ and media propaganda allowed the war to move forward without criminal prosecution. The House of Representatives had enough votes to censure the president for, “a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States” (47), but not to impeach.

You may be thinking, “But Abe Lincoln’s life was forever ago and a completely different time!”

Maybe. Maybe not. Consider this story: When I was about 10 years old, my grandfather said, “Shake my hand.” I did. Papa then told me, “You are two handshakes away from shaking Abe Lincoln’s hand. When I was your age, an old-timer would sit at a bench at July 4th celebrations. Everyone would shake his hand because he shook Abe’s hand when he was campaigning for president in 1860.” If you shake hands with me, that puts you three handshakes away from shaking hands with Abraham Lincoln.

You may be more than three handshakes away from the current US president.

Please don’t believe any expert or me if this war on Mexico violated a treaty and therefore the US Constitution; use your critical thinking skills. This is as easy as a baseball rule analogy that when a person knows the rule when a runner is safe or out at first base, there’s no need to ask anyone. If you know that:

  • a treaty is defined in Article Six of the US Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land,”
  • the US had the Adams-Onís Treaty with Mexico (originally with Spain and formally transferred to Mexico in 1831; map here) in crystal-clear language regarding the areas of the now Southwest US (including Texas with all the “border dispute” lands because the Sabine River between Louisiana and today’s Texas was the agreed border):  “The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the territories described by the said line, that is to say: The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories lying west and south of the above-described line; and, in like manner, His Catholic Majesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories east and north of the said line, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, renounces all claim to the said territories forever.”
  • Therefore, the US Supreme Law was to forever recognize Texas and the now Southwest as Mexico’s land.

In baseball, you can (and do) say, “I know where first base is. I know when a runner is clearly safe or out at first base.” In this “current event” of life and death from our past, you can and should say, “I know what a treaty means. I know what a border means. I know when the US is 400 miles over the border that was defined in a treaty that they’re obviously into Mexico and not on American soil.”

You may even artistically add, “Duh.”

Perhaps this famous quote makes better sense now:

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” ~ George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1.

**

Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.

**

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here).

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Brockland A.T.

    Let’s make America great again! (… by making it democratic again) Proportional representation, an idea whose time has come.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS62N5b5L7Y

    • Carl_Herman

      Brockland A.T.: do you think this mathematical improvement is possible without the thesis of this article series: the US is a rogue empire demanding arrests of its “leaders”?

      If so, explain how these criminals will allow fair elections and free consideration of ideas, including facts of their .01% criminality centering in war, money, and lies?

      If you find the US leadership is not criminal, please explain how the wars are legal, for just one example.

      If you’d like to amend your promotion (which I agree is far better than what we have, even excluding the gamed elections), I respectfully offer a position of promotion after enough of us are awake to the existing criminal system, and arrests have cleared the way for honest consideration of alternatives.

      • Brockland A.T.

        The People are as awake as they’re going to be. You, on the other hand, are out to lunch.

        If Hilary hasn’t been arrested by now over her emails, forget about arrests of anyone else over the bigger stuff. It would seem winner-take-all elections favour the opportunistic and amoral among The People.

        There’s little point in demanding arrests if the electoral system can’t put the amoral minority in its place. Arresting their own guilty will never be an election issue for partisans. Of course it is the Year of the Monkey and The Donald and Hilary don’t get along; her partisans may not be able to save her.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3460204/Trump-d-prosecute-Clinton-elected-m-going-make-server-scandal-center-campaign-against-her.html

        Outlier events aside, no pro-rep, no arrests. Which is more logical to call for? Electoral reform, which challenges many vested interests while being an achievable goal; or arrests of the guilty, which just ain’t happening under the present system – or it would have already. You’re simply reinforcing a sense of powerlessness and non-action.

        There’s also a danger to your call for arrests. Although Trump arresting Hilary would be something righteous, under America’s clunky democratic system, its can easily become a tool for political strongmen to legally remove opponents. They make arrests in the populist sense you’ve adopted in tin-pot dictatorships and struggling democracies. Of political opponents, not real criminals.

        “… As if the ravaging of Africa and the subjection of vast populations for
        the benefit of the elite few is not enough, in recent times, African
        leaders have began to use anti-corruption and embezzlement charges as
        political tools to keep their opponents out of contention and perpetuate
        their own administrations and, with that, their own self enrichment.”

        http://www.nyasatimes.com/2013/07/02/the-shameful-self-enrichment-legacy-of-african-political-leaders-z-allan-ntata/

        One prominent partaker of your ‘arrests’ strategy is Brazil. At first they seemed to be arresting real criminals, then the remaining criminals – still under investigation and obviously guilty themselves – hijacked the Car Wash investigation to destabilize the elected government. It helps to have connections with U.S. colour revolution advisors.

        Unfortunately the Brazilian Senate, is elected by simple majority, making it harder for educated people to take a stand.

        https://www.rt.com/op-edge/342821-brazil-dilma-rousseff-impeachment/

        Arrests in Brazil were made to thwart democracy and remove political opponents of neoliberalism. In fact historically, populist calls for arrest without meaningful trial are the preferred method of quashing democracy.

        Calling for arrests is empty sensationalism. Being able to vote the bums out is the real first step upon awakening. Voting in people willing to make the system responsible and accountable is the next step. Needed arrests – in accordance with rule of law and safe from coup – is the next step after. But you want to jump immediately to populist calls for false order.

        Democracy is the guardian of Republican law and order. Of course the Establishment knows that in their head and tries to thwart it, main street knows that in their heart and tries to achieve it. And what you know and stand for is… unclear. Arrests are a double-edged sword.

  • May 15, 2016 Under the Constitution, Should the NSA Exist? Is the NSA Constitutional? Learn how it was created in total secrecy – and decide for yourself.

    “My view is this: Under the Constitution, the NSA shouldn’t even exist.” -Michael Boldin, Tenth Amendment Center

    https://youtu.be/RqmNvNH23xU

  • Here is the full list of engagements and history for Empire America from 1776 to 2015.

    February 20, 2015 America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776

    The U.S. Has Only Been At Peace For 21 Years Total Since Its Birth.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d7c_1424878482