US public education: Bullshit to train stupefied work animals. ‘Government’ as promised design structure blind to destruction of all Constitutional Rights in a dictatorial neocolonial rogue state (3 of 12)

“One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this… But we tend to take the situation for granted… (the bullshitter) does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up… (Bullshitters) continue making assertions that purport to describe the way things are but that cannot be anything except bullshit.”  ~ Princeton professor emeritus, Harry Frankfurt, 2005 Bestseller, On Bullshit

“[The] erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardised citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.” ~ H.L. Mencken, 1924

Think Nice’s brilliant 5-minute artistic frame for Professor Frankfurt (although there’s likely more to climate change than he mentions [and here, here]):

Stephen Colbert’s 2005 two minutes on truthiness as bullshit’s brother (embedding forbidden by Comedy Central).

This 12-part series addresses an overarching fact about public education: its design of intentional curricular lies of omission and commission to keep our children and the general public powerless, relatively stupid, and controlled work animals.

Importantly, I do not blame education professionals working in good-faith effort to produce high-quality learning from our children; public education exists in a matrix of control for ongoing empires that I’ll explain in detail within the series’ sections. That said, anyone truly educated in one’s field gradually discovers that public education is a ridiculous substitute for what’s most important to teach and learn. This is Emperor’s New Clothes obvious when pointed to, with this paper’s content including factual assertions that no counterarguments exist outside of shallow and misleading bullshit.

The 12 sections (links to be added as the series progress):

US public education: Bullshit to train stupefied work animals:

 **

‘Government’ as promised design structure blind to destruction of all Constitutional Rights in a dictatorial rogue state (3 of 12)

Let’s consider two texts:

  • Magruder’s American Government (2006 California edition, 844 pages for a one-semester class)
  • Pearson’s Government by the People (2014 AP edition, 628 pages in a smaller font for usually a one-semester class)

Both texts go into detailed history and design of the ideals and structure of US federal government. Both texts bury students in quantity of material that almost all of it becomes a blur. Both provide idealistic quotes from political leadership of both parties, framing political disagreements within an overall honest system of government working for the good of the US public and all people around the world.

But this is bullshit, and Emperor’s New Clothes easy to prove for anyone caring to look.

Both texts state a few sentences of American history that summarize the lies we proved in our previous section, and that I document in greater detail in this 11-section series. For this section, we’ll consider just three game-changing elements of proof that the education children receive regarding US Government is bullshit:

  1. The detailed and promised Bill of Rights remains in lip-service propaganda only; destroyed by the very government sworn to uphold it.
  2. The current “War on Terror” is Orwellian illegal, with links to prove it was started with lies known to be false as they were told, and that the US is now most accurately described as a rogue state.
  3. Promises to end poverty are reneged, with a slaughter of ~400 million human beings just since 1996. These are more deaths than from all wars in all human history.

Again, these are just three game-changing examples among ~100, and that said, will take some work to explain, document, and prove. If you have any commitment for truthful and accurate education, I promise this investment of time and attention is among the most powerful civic acts you can take, and will ask you at the end:

  • What does it mean that claimed “expert” authors on US government somehow miss the destruction of the Bill of Rights, illegal wars started on documented lies, and ignore preventable deaths of a million children every month?
  • Because these examples are indefensible to exclude if one was writing a factual account of government in the most important topics of money and lives, does this demonstrate that our children are learning bullshit rather than government?
  • Does the teaching of history and government prepare our children to be responsible and active citizens, or stupefy them to accept ongoing empire from a rogue state?

Example 1:

The destroyed Bill of Rights by the government sworn to uphold it

The owner of Washington’s Blog has the best and most complete documentation I’ve found. Excerpts of just three for relative brevity of just one article; with my strong recommendation to examine the entire documentation:

First Amendment

The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Supreme Court has also interpreted the First Amendment as protecting freedom of association.

However, the government is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.

A federal judge found that the law allowing indefinite detention of Americans without due process has a “chilling effect” on free speech. And see this and this.

There are also enacted laws allowing the secret service to arrest anyone protesting near the president or other designated folks (that might explain incidents like this).

Mass spying by the NSA violates our freedom of association.

The threat of being labeled a terrorist for exercising our First Amendment rights certainly violates the First Amendment. The government is using laws to crush dissent, and it’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny.

Fourth Amendment

The 4th Amendment prevents unlawful search and seizure:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But the government is spying on everything we dowithout any real benefit or justification.

Indeed, experts say that the type of spying being carried out by the NSA and other agencies is exactly the kind of thing which King George imposed on the American colonists … which led to the Revolutionary War.

And many Constitutional experts – such as Jonathan Turley – think that the police went too far in Boston with lockdowns and involuntary door-to-door searches.

Fifth Amendment

The 5th Amendment addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But the American government has shredded the 5th Amendment by subjecting us to indefinite detention and taking away our due process rights.

The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen on U.S. citizen without any due process. And see this.

For example, American citizens are being detained in Guantanamo-like conditions in Chicago … including:

▪Brutality

▪Being held in secret

▪Not even telling a suspect’s lawyer whether his client is being held?

And see this, this and this.

As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

There are additional corruptions of 5th Amendment rights – such as property being taken for private purposes. And the right to remain silent is gone.

The percentage of prosecutions in which a defendant is denied a grand jury is difficult to gauge, as there is so much secrecy surrounding many terrorism trials.

Example 2:

Illegal Wars of Aggression started with known lies; the US devolved into a rogue state

Again, this is an Emperor’s New Clothes point to understand a simple, simple law, then compare that law to facts anyone can point to and which nobody claims doesn’t exist. These obvious and important facts most important to lives and “investment” of resources are all obscured with “official” rhetoric, corporate media reporting, and public education of empty platitudes with ridiculous lies of omission and commission. This bullshit is sooooo easily defeated, with just a little intellectual integrity and moral courage.

Let’s look at just this one concept of illegal and lie-started Wars of Aggression (although I could go paragraph by paragraph to refute factual claims throughout these public education texts).

Government by the People (page 530):

In the broadest sense, the primary goal of U.S. foreign and defense policy is to protect the nation and world from international threats such as terrorism, poverty, dictatorships, piracy, and attacks against its own people. Doing so requires more than building strong borders, however, and isolating itself from the rest of the world. The Untied States tried that prior to World War I and II, and failed to prevent the call to war. As one of the world’s great superpowers, the United States still has a wide range of obligations, including promoting democracy abroad in nations such as Iraq, providing help to victims of disaster such as the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, promoting greater economic ties across all nations, and fighting terrorism.

Btw: the text has zero, zip, zilch attention to ending poverty or hunger, which I’ll detail in our third example. The text index does have a reference to Hustler magazine, but nothing for hunger or poverty.

Page 533:

Preemption Versus Provocation: For most of its history, the United States has waited to be provoked before going to war. Although there is considerable debate about what constitutes a provocation to war, preemption assumes the Untied States can attack first when it believes another nation constitutes a very serious threat. This approach was at the core of the war in Iraq, which was based on the notion that the United States had to stop weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, or nuclear arms, before they could be used.

… The war in Iraq is an example of preemption, which some experts call the nation’s first “war of choice.” Prior to Iraq, the Untied States engaged in war only in direct response to a first attack by an adversary. Believing that Iraq continued to hold weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration decided to force Saddam Hussein from his dictatorship before he could use those weapons against the United States. The president’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice also argued that the United States had a moral obligation to remove Hussein from power, even if doing so meant war. “This is an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors, and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, on all of us,” Rice told the British Broadcasting Corporation in August 2002. “There is a very powerful moral case for regime change. We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing.”

American Government (page 402)

In his second inaugural address in 2005, President George W. Bush expressed the values underlying American foreign policy:

“We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. … Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.”

Evaluating the Quotation: How might the President’s comments be applied to events in the world today?

page 485 (under a picture of Machiavelli):

With the war in Iraq, President George W. Bush expanded the historic policy of deterrence to include the doctrine of preemptive war. That doctrine holds that this nation has the right to conduct a preemptive war – a first strike war – against any power that it believes poses a significant threat to the security of the United States.

page 489:

The World Remains Dangerous:

Convinced that Saddam had not honored those promises (chemical and biological weapons destruction, abandoning acquiring nuclear weapons) and that Iraq had secretly amassed large stores of weapons of mass destruction, President George W. Bush determined to hold Iraq to account in 2002. Efforts to persuade the UN Security Council to support that move proved unsuccessful. But at his ring, both house (sic) of Congress did adopt a joint resolution authorizing the President to take those actions “necessary and appropriate” to eliminate Iraq’s “continuing threat to the security of the United States and to international peace.”

In March 2003, the Untied States and Great Britain, supported by a number of smaller nations, launched the second Gulf War, code-named Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Let’s unpack this bullshit.

These typical texts state:

  • flowery patriotic rhetoric of claimed intent with presidential quote of such intent.
  • The US can engage “preemptive war” if “threatened.” Neither text mentions the crystal-clear letter and intent of treaties after two world wars to prevent Wars of Aggression that are always bullshitted as “necessary” and “self-defense.”
  • There was legitimate concern of “weapons of mass destruction.”

The easy refutation of this bullshit, and easily verified to anyone caring to look; amended from a previous paper:

“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.” – President Kennedy, June 10, 1963

Unlawful Wars of Aggression: The US/UK/Israel “official story” is that current wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.” The Emperor’s New Clothes fact here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific in war law, and US/UK/Israel armed attacks on so many nations in current and past wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.”

Addressing three nations and several wars again seems ambitious for one academic paper, and again, these are all simple variations of one method:

  1. Ignore war law.
  2. Lie to blame the victim and claim “self-defense.”
  3. “Officials,” corporate media, and public education never state the Emperor’s New Clothes simple and obvious facts of war law and war lies.

Proving unlawful wars with massive deception is easier when the scope is broadened to see the same elements in three cases.

Importantly, a nation can use military, police, and civilians in self-defense from any attack upon the nation. This is similar to the legal definition of “self-defense” for you or I walking down the street: we cannot attack anyone unless either under attack or imminent threat. And, if under attack, we can use any reasonable force in self-defense, including lethal.

Two world wars begat two treaties to end nations’ armed attacks forever. They are crystal-clear in content and context:

  • Kellogg-Briand Pact (General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy as official title)
  • United Nations Charter.

Both are listed in the US State Department’s annual publication, Treaties in Force (2013 edition pages 466 and 493).

Article Six of the US Constitution defines a treaty as US “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that US policy may only complement an active treaty, and never violate it.

This is important because all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution (including public school teachers in many states) are sworn to honorably refuse all unlawful war orders; military officers are sworn to arrest those who issue them. Indeed, we suffer criminal dishonor if we obey orders for armed attack when they are not “self-defense,” and family dishonor to so easily reject the legal victory won from all our families’ sacrifices through two world wars.

Treaty 1. Kellogg-Briand: General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy:

The legal term renounce means to surrender access; that is, to remove that which is renounced as lawful option. This active treaty (page 466 “Renunciation of War”), usually referenced as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, states:

ARTICLE I

The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II

The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

Treaty 2. United Nations Charter:

It’s helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation’s legislature’s consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation’s armed attack.

The preamble of the United Nations includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”

The UN purpose includes: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace…”

Article 2:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…

Article 24: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Article 33:

  1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
  2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan (or IraqSyriaUkraine, Iran [hereherehere], Russia, or claims about ISIS or Khorasans). The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation’s government.

The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.

American Daniel Webster helped create the legal definition of national self-defense in the Caroline Affair as “necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.

In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definitionno party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy. 

Another area to clarify is the US 1973 War Powers Act (WPA). The authorization by Congress for US presidential discretion for military action in Afghanistan  and Iraq references WPA. This act, in response to the Vietnam War, reframes the Founders’ intent of keeping the power of war in the hands of Congress. It also expressly limits the president to act within US treaty obligations; the principle treaty of use of war being the UN Charter.

This means that presidential authority as commander-in-chief must always remain within the limitations of the UN Charter to be lawful orders. It’s not enough for Congress to authorize use of force; that force must always and only be within the narrow legal definition of self-defense clearly explained in the UN Charter. Of course, we can anticipate that if a government wanted to engage in unlawful war today, they would construct their propaganda to sell the war as “defensive.” The future of humanity to be safe from the scourge of war is therefore dependent upon our collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in BSEmperor’s New Clothes claims of self-defense.

Governments have been vicious killers over the last 100 years, using “self-defense” to justify their wars. The US has started 201 foreign armed attacks since WW2, causing the world’s peoples to conclude in polling that the US is indeed #1 as the most threatening nation to world peace. These US-started armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. These US armed attacks have war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis, and continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression.

The most decorated US Marine general in his day warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars, and W. Bush’s Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind, that government will continue with such actions to “create our own reality” no matter what anyone else might say.

The first round of US current wars, the attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, continues this history as a deliberate act of unlawful war, not defense that was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The burden of proof the US would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his letter to the UN Security Council invoking Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.

Article 51 requires self-defensive war coming from an attack by a nation’s government, which the CIA and FBI refute in the case of the Afghan government with the terrorism on 9/11. Self-defense ends when the attack ends. The US war began four weeks after 9/11 ended; making the US war one of choice and not defense. Article 51 ends self-defense claims when the UN Security Council acts. Resolution 1373 provides clear language of international cooperation and justice under the law, with no authorization of force.

This evidence doesn’t require the light of the UN Charter’s spirit of its laws, but I’ll add it: humanity rejected war as a policy option and requires nations to cooperate for justice under that law. The US has instead embraced and still embraces war with its outcomes of death, misery, poverty, and fear expressly against the wishes of humanity and the majority of Americans. These acts are clearly unlawful and should be refused and stopped by all men and women in military, government and law enforcement.

Some war liars argue that UN Security Council Resolution 687 from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire. The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it.

The categories of crime for armed attacks outside US treaty limits of law are:

  1. Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit),
  2. Treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.

All 27 UK Foreign Affairs Department attorneys concluded Iraq war is unlawful: I wrote in 2010:

“All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.

“This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood, who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their unanimous legal opinion in writing.

Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”

“UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he “changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars.

“Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force:

John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the UN:

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

“The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.”

The UN Charter is the principle law to end wars; designed by the US to produce that result. That said, West Point Grads Against the War have further legal arguments of all the violations of war from US attack and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, including further analysis of the UN Charter and expert supporting testimony. Another resource for documentation and analysis is David Swanson’s War is a Crime.

Ironically, Americans would never allow a favorite sport such as baseball or football to be similarly destroyed by such Emperor’s New Clothes lies to those rules/laws. We care far too much, and would demand justice in this area. Of course, public education makes it a point to care about sports, just as the Roman Empire encouraged care of gladiator games.

Lawful war analysis: Negroponte’s letter invokes a legal Charter Article of self-defense in contrast with the loss of over 3,000 lives on 9/11. The letter portends legal evidence of al-Qaeda’s “central role” in the attacks and claims military response is appropriate because of al-Qaeda’s ongoing threat and continued training of terrorists. This reasoning argues for a reinterpretation of self-defense to include pre-emptive attack while lying in omission that such an argument is tacit agreement of current action being outside the law.

The US Army’s official law handbook provides an excellent historical and legal summary of when wars are lawful self-defense and unlawful War of Aggression in a seven-page Chapter One.

Importantly, after accurately defining “self-defense” in war, the JAG authors/attorneys explicitly state on page 6 that war is illegal unless a nation is under attack from another nation’s government, or can provide evidence of imminent threat of such attack:

“Anticipatory self-defense, whether labeled anticipatory or preemptive, must be distinguished from preventive self-defense. Preventive self-defense—employed to counter non-imminent threats—is illegal under international law.”

However, despite the US Army’s law handbook’s accurate disclosure of the legal meaning of “self-defense” in war, they then ignore this meaning to claim “self-defense” as a lawful reason for US wars without further explanation (details here).

President George Washington’s Farewell Address, the culmination of his 45 years of political experience, warned of the primary threat to America as “the impostures of pretended patriotism” from people within our own government who would destroy Constitutional limits in order to obtain tyrannical power:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.”

Young Abraham Lincoln wrote eloquently to defend the US Constitution from unlawful tyrants within our own government. In Congress, he spoke powerfully and truthfully that the President’s claims for armed attack and invasion of a foreign country were lies. Although war-mongers slurred Lincoln’s name at the time, history proved him correct in asserting the President of the US was a war-mongering liar:

“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.”

Lincoln also wrote that “pre-emptive” wars were lies, and “war at pleasure.”

Those of us working to end these illegal Wars of Aggression have found zero refutations of our documentation that address war law. All we’ve ever found are denial and unsubstantiated claims of “self-defense” while having to lie about the legal limits in that term. Therefore, We the People have an obvious solution: arrests of .01% “leaders” for the most egregious crimes centering in war, money, and lies (4-part series on arrests with videos).

I appreciate the readers who invested their civic responsibility to read and verify this clear evidence that current US wars are not even close to lawful.

For brevity in one article, I’ll include links that just as easily document these wars were started with known lies as they were told, and that the US government now is best described as a rogue state.

Please: invest the time to read the above two links.

Example 3:

Poverty-murder of 400 million people since 1996 in slow, gruesome agony: Crimes Against Humanity

Again, Government by the People (page 530):

In the broadest sense, the primary goal of U.S. foreign and defense policy is to protect the nation and world from international threats such as terrorism, poverty, dictatorships, piracy, and attacks against its own people. Doing so requires more than building strong borders, however, and isolating itself from the rest of the world. The Untied States tried that prior to World War I and II, and failed to prevent the call to war. As one of the world’s great superpowers, the United States still has a wide range of obligations, including promoting democracy abroad in nations such as Iraq, providing help to victims of disaster such as the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, promoting greater economic ties across all nations, and fighting terrorism.

And again, this bullshit claim to care about poverty as a primary goal of US foreign policy is contrasted by having zero mention of “poverty” in its index. In limiting the lies of omission and commission of public school US government texts to just three areas, I selected war and poverty as essential because of its effect on the most people and with the highest cost of dollars.

The facts on how easy the US and all other “former” colonial nations agree we could end poverty once and for all, forever, but would end the use of those nations’ natural and human resources to enrich a .01% neocolonial class.

“Crimes against humanity” include any of the following acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

  • murder;
  • extermination;
  • enslavement;…
  • the crime of apartheid;
  • other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury.

– International Criminal Court (ICC)

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (1), the hunger-ending organizations RESULTS (2), and Bread for the World (3) estimate that 15 million people die each year from preventable poverty, of whom 11 million are children under the age of five. Jeffrey Sachs says the total deaths are closer to 8 million (4). Either way, poverty causes more human destruction every year than those claimed in the Holocaust.

The total deaths from poverty in the last 15 years is conservatively greater than from all wars, revolutions, murders, accidents, and suicides in the 20th century (5). In the past 20 years, the total deaths from poverty probably eclipse all the above categories of death in all known human history; ~400 million (6).

Make sure you get this: in the lifetimes of our students, human beings have allowed other people in poverty, mostly helpless children under the age of five, to die before our eyes in slow, gruesome, painful death in numbers greater than all of the catastrophic events in all recorded human history.

Crucial to the case to prove Crimes against Humanity as intentional policy is the fact of ongoing “Developed Nations’” reneged promises to end poverty since 1969 (and here) (7). For 18 years I was a volunteer leader for RESULTS, and participated in education for Congress and heads of state on solutions for ending poverty that are technically so easy and affordable that all counter-arguments were ended, both academically and politically. We championed two UN Summits for heads of state: the 1990 World Summit for Children (largest meeting of heads of state in world history) and the 1997 Microcredit Summit (topic of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize). All “Developed Nation” leaders attended, smiled for the cameras, and agreed to end poverty without expressed doubt, counter-argument, or concern. Full documentation of all poverty facts is here; main points regarding solutions:

  • The developed nations promised a mere 0.7% of their income to end all aspects of global poverty. The US typically underfunds this promise by ~400% (providing just 1/4th the promise).
  • The American public believe we give 25% of our budget to foreign aid, and are willing to give 10% (~$380 billion for 2015). The amount invested is actually ~$30 billion/year. The US spends over $600 billion/year on the military. The total amount to end poverty is ~$100 billion combined from all the developed nations a year for ten years. In contrast to the policy we receive, the .01% oligarchs “legally” hide $20 to $30 trillion in offshore tax havens in a rigged-casino economy designed for “peak inequality.” This .01% parasitic loot is twenty to thirty times the amount to end global poverty forever.
  • Ending poverty reduces population growth rates in every historical case, reduces strains on resources, and according to the CIA is the best way to end global terrorism.

This is ongoing Crimes against Humanity because it’s systemic premeditated attack that rejects world summit promises to end poverty, and instead willfully chooses these humans’ murder, extermination, and inhumane great suffering, the most serious bodily harm, and crippling mental injury. These Crimes against Humanity are highlighted by the .01%’s chosen policies that renege not only from promise, but from law.

The choices to kill in lie-began unlawful wars, ensnare the world in escalating and unpayable debt, then allow the debt-burdened and war victimized to die in the hundreds of millions with ongoing lies by officials, corporate media, and public education are Emperor’s New Clothes-obvious Crimes against Humanity.

The US Declaration of Independence is honored for asserting unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for each and every human being. The most cruel violation of these cherished ideals is intentional sadistic policy for 20,000+ children to die from preventable poverty each and every day while engaging in unlawful wars, piling-on debt as criminal fraud by calling it “money”, and the opposite of representative government by Orwellian constant lies to the public.

6-minute artistic expression for our futures from PuppetGov:

So! As promised, I ask you:

  • What does it mean that claimed “expert” authors on US government somehow miss the destruction of the Bill of Rights, illegal wars started on documented lies, and ignore preventable deaths of a million children every month?
  • Because these examples are indefensible to exclude if one was writing a factual account of government in the most important topics of money and lives, does this demonstrate that our children are learning bullshit rather than government?
  • Does the teaching of history and government prepare our children to be responsible and active citizens, or stupefy them to accept ongoing empire from a rogue state?

Do you have any defense of our US government “leaders” and/or US Government course texts given just these three areas of factual consideration?

If you’d like to consider a more objective interview of US government foreign policy as empire, I recommend this 28-minute interview of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges by Abby Martin.

**

endnotes:

  1. UNICEF. State of the World’s Children Report 2006: Excluded and Invisible: http://www.unicef.org/sowc06/pdfs/sowc06_chap1.pdf
  2. RESULTS. Child Survival: https://web.archive.org/web/20080527011602/http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=241
  3. Bread for the World. Hunger Facts: International: http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html .
  4. The UN Millennium Project. The End of Poverty: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/TimeMagazineMar142005-TheEndofPovertysmall1.pdf
  5. Assuming 15 years of poverty deaths totaling 300 million and 20 years at 400 million (poverty deaths have decreased over the past 20 years) compared to the estimates from Scaruffi, P. “Wars and Genocides of the 20th Century.” http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html  (along with the relatively smaller numbers for murders, accidents, and suicides) and from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll .
  6. A safe estimate given the population growth rate of the 20th century and a global population of ~1.6 billion in 1900.
  7. OECD. History of the 0.7% ODA Target: http://www.oecd.org/dac/aidstatistics/45539274.pdf . DAC Journal 2002, Vol 3 No 4, pages III-9 – III-11, revised June 2010. Millennium Project. The 0.7% target: an in-depth look: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/press/07.htm .

**

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 (and here). 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.
  • diogenes

    Highschool history textbooks lie, sure enough. Always have, always will. That’s what textbooks are for. Not teachers, textbooks. That’s why school administrations want teachers to “stick to the book.” The problem is the institution. Highschool needs a complete redesign. Its “content” has diminished toward nil starting after the Second World War (like so many toxic things in America). It is a huge waste of time. What it should teach it mostly doesn’t and what it should teach could be delivered in 2- years, rather than four. It is mostly boredom. It dulls the mind and teaches people that learning and mental activity are boring, pointless, and futile. This is intended. The institution will never change itself. Change has to happen elsewhere, outside, by individual initiatives.

    • Carl_Herman

      I agree we could brief our children much more effectively and efficiently. For 18 years I was one of many leaders of the citizens’ lobby for ending poverty, RESULTS. I helped shape and deliver 300 briefs for members of Congress and anyone else in academics, media, and interested organizations. We/I discovered that a conversation with a committed listener could cover enormous data within a few minutes, along with providing access to documentation for verification that we always recommended testing before taking action.

      Among the committed to actually learn what’s most important to know, we earned respect and pride with the power of concise and precise information that literally was/is worth trillions and did/can save millions of lives (literally ~100 million so far, mostly from microcredit). This type of education is a big deal.

      The immediate future of education upon victory (hang in there, it’s just not our call as planetary guests rather than management) will include Truth (verifiable and comprehensive facts), Technology (this will make learning faster and more effective), and Love (with a little practice, psychopathic parasites will have nowhere to hide as we see them for what they are).