(Natural News) I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer recited in many public schools. While some have criticized its excision, the reality is most Americans don’t agree with all or parts of the pledge.
An increasing number of Americans don’t believe in the Christian God the pledge acknowledges. Some don’t respect our flag and feel as though it is a sign of repression. Others don’t believe our country is just or righteous or moral. Scores more don’t think we have much liberty left.
These divisions and disagreements have been exacerbated – intentionally, and by several actors – in the Age of Obama and Trump. President Obama only averaged a 47.9 percent approval rating; President Trump, so far, is averaging about 41.2 percent. Both presidents elicited very strong emotional support or disagreement among the electorate; both have seen partisanship widen and harden.
The end result is that we are no longer a nation of Americans – but rather citizens of American regions, factionalized along religious, political, social and cultural lines. People living in the south have little in common with people living in the north; the east and west coasts have little in common with people living in the Midwest; the Northwest has little in common with people living in the Southwest.
These divisions are beginning to manifest themselves in increasing calls for secession, a concept that was allegedly resolved by our Civil War but which today is getting renewed interest from Americans living all over the country.
During the Obama years, Texas and Texans who supported secession were mercilessly mocked and derided by the political Left as being out-of-touch kooks who were taking their hatred of the president to extreme levels.
In addition to secession movements in California and Texas, movements are also afoot in Oklahoma, Maine, Utah, West Virginia and New York’s Long Island, among others. In North Carolina, there was a recent legislative effort to overturn the state’s ban on secession.
“We have two diametrically opposed philosophies in our country, and we’re just not getting anywhere,” said Edward Meisse, a supporter of the Yes California secession group that just disbanded, but has since been replaced by another group that has vowed to collect enough signatures to put the issue before voters in 2018. “I think we should allow states to secede so California can be California and Texas can be Texas.”
Dwayne Yancey, editorial page editor of TheRoanoke Times, wrote a largely satirical piece in March titled, “Should Southwest Virginia secede from the rest of Virginia?” But he believes as tens of millions of Americans do that the national government – and often their own state governments – do not reflect their values or mores.
“Historically we have felt left out, and a number of those issues are coming to a head,” said Yancey, whose portion of the state is largely rural, white-dominated and poor.
The problem states and secession movements face is both legal and practical. In 1869, just four years after the end of the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that the U.S. is “an indestructible union.” The late originalist Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a letter in 2006 that “if there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” Scalia further pointed to the Pledge of Allegiance’s “one nation…indivisible,” as further evidence that states have no legal or constitutional right to secede. (RELATED: Ron Paul’s good news: De facto secession movement is underway as states reject federal supremacism)
Other experts aren’t so sure. They point to the 10th Amendment, which gives states authority to decide issues not explicitly reserved to the federal government. And while the process for admitting states into the union is specifically covered in the Constitution, our nation’s founding document is silent on secession.
Regardless, the secession movement is growing, and while neither Congress nor the Judicial Branch is on board with allowing states to leave, you have to think neither entity would want states choosing the revolutionary path if left with no other choice, as our founders did.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
On this episode of “Watching the Hawks” Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace examine how the sins of our nuclear testing past are haunting the world’s water supply today. Then they find out just how much it costs to be a helpful citizen in Oregon, apparently fines and lawsuits. Sean Stone unveils part 2 of his interview with the President of “Project Censored” Peter Phillips and discovers just why the mainstream cable news network’s only seem to talk about the same stories every single day. Finally, they discover some strange, fascinating, and mysterious patterns on the ocean floors in both the Arctic and the Antarctic sea floors.
Truthdig columnist and Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges addresses fascism and the rise of the Trump war machine in the keynote speech at the “After Trump and Pussy Hats” event in Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 3, 2017.
Introductions by Cecilia Point of the Musqueam First Nation and Lee Lakeman of Vancouver Rape and Women’s Relief Shelter.
In my long experience in Washington, vice presidents did not make major foreign policy announcements or threaten other countries with war. Not even Dick Cheney stole this role from the weak president George W. Bush.
But yesterday the world witnessed VP Pence threaten North Korea with war. “The sword stands ready,” said Pence as if he is the commander in chief.
For Trump, the presidency is a fund-raising device. If his VP, National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, UN Ambassador, CIA Director, whoever, want to start wars wherever, that’s just more memorabilia to raffle off for a $3 donation.
As a result of Trump’s failure to govern his own government, we have VP Pence telling Russia and China that there could be a nuclear exchange on their borders between the US and North Korea. Although Pence is not smart enough to know, this is not something Russia and China will accept.
Washington worries about North Korea having nuclear weapons, but the entire world worries that Washington has nuclear weapons. And so many of them. World polls have shown that the majority of the world’s population are far more concerned about the threat to peace posed by Washington and Israel than by Iran, North Korea, Russia and China.
Pence prefaced his “the sword stands ready” remark with “the United States of America will always seek peace,” which after Serbia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and Syria is as false a statement as it is possible to make. From Washington’s perspective it is always Washington’s victims that are “reckless and provocative,” never Washington.
The US stands for war. If the world is driven to Armegeddon, it will be Washington, not North Korea, Iran, Russia, or China, that brings life on earth to an end.
Trump’s ‘armada’ turns toward North Korea as White House defends misleading remarks The White House stood by President Donald Trump’s recent talk of a Navy strike force on its way to the Korean peninsula, after the USS Carl Vinson was spotted thousands of miles away, headed in the opposite direction. The fleet has since […]
Long gone is Trump the peacemaker, now showing his true colours as a President who wants to go to war with more countries than Obama. Every time he opens his mouth he is making a complete idiot of himself. Claiming that he sent missiles to Iraq instead of Syria. He has no idea who he […]
In his lengthy interview with AFP on Thursday, Syrian President Bashar Assad mused that the American “Deep State” was more responsible for pelting his Sharyat airbase with 59 cruise missiles than President Donald Trump.When the interviewer proposed that the retaliatory missile strike marked a drastic change in Trump’s position on Syria, Assad insisted the U.S. and Syria could still be partners in fighting terrorism, once Trump wrested control of Washington away from the military-industrial complex.
“If they are serious in fighting terrorists, we’re going to be partners, and I said not only the United States. Whoever wants to fight the terrorists, we are partners,” said Assad, in the transcript provided by Syria’s SANA news service.
“This is basic for us, basic principle, let’s say,” he continued:
Actually, what has been proven recently, as I said earlier, that they are hand in glove with those terrorists, the United States and the West, they’re not serious in fighting the terrorists, and yesterday some of their statesmen were defending ISIS. They were saying that ISIS doesn’t have chemical weapons. They are defending ISIS against the Syrian government and the Syrian Army. So, actually, you cannot talk about partnership between us who work against the terrorists and who fight the terrorism and the others who are supporting explicitly the terrorists.
Assad said the American missile strike was “the first proof that it’s not about the President of the United States — it’s about the regime and the Deep State, or the deep regime in the United States.”
He said the Deep State “is still the same, it doesn’t change.”
“The president is only one of the performers on their theatre, if he wants to be a leader, he cannot, because as some say he wanted to be a leader, Trump wanted to be a leader, but every president there, if he wants to be a real leader, later he’s going to eat his words, swallow his pride if he has pride at all, and make a 180 degree U-turn, otherwise he would pay the price politically,” said Assad.
Asked if he anticipated another U.S. attack, Assad replied:
As long as the United States is being governed by this military-industrial complex, the financial companies, banks, and what you call deep regime, and works for the vested interest of those groups, of course. It could happen anytime, anywhere, not only in Syria.
Assad lamented that his military could not retaliate against the American ships that fired cruise missiles at Syria but expressed hope the Russians might do it for him.
“For us, as a small country, yeah, of course it is, everybody knows that. It’s out of reach. I mean, they can have missiles from another continent. We all know that. They are a great power, we’re not a great power. Talking about the Russians, this is another issue,” he said.
The short answer is, disinformation and propaganda, which is the domain of mainstream media. When people are confused, when truth is hidden, when agendas are presented as life or death options, and when the public has no clue about which laws government is bound to, then anything goes.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Washington has murdered entire countries in whole or part: Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, parts of Syria and Pakistan. Millions of Muslim peoples have been killed, maimed, orphaned, and dislocated. The dispossessed and dislocated are filling up the American Empire that destroyed their lives. The American genocide of nations has had the full support of “Western civilization” and the print and TV media of Western journalism. Every transparent lie out of Washington’s mouth has been repeated by European, Canadian, and Austrailian heads of state and by the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and all the rest of the presstitutes of the Western world.
Trump is the fourth US president in a row who takes refuge in blatant lies as his justification for war crimes. The Western world has chosen lies and rejected truth.