If I Were U.S. President, I Would Get Elected with the Promise to Resign to Work on This Bioregional Platform as More Important
Every American child dreams of being President. However, every American adult understands that simply being President might be pointless or even a distraction for the kinds of political changes they want.
I thought about that when I read that the German Kiwi Kim Dotcom, after an illegal take-down by the United States out of its jurisdiction a year ago, decided to be reborn as a CEO with his Megabox project. Since he had so many complaints about how crazily insane the U.S. had treated him, he was asked what would be his policies if he was U.S. President to rectify this. As I read his admirable list--that trenchantly touched on many topics censored by the U.S. billionaire-driven politics of both left and right--I thought, 'well it's only fair that if the U.S. overreached its jurisdiction, that the irrepressible Kim Dotcom can overreach his in offering such a pie-in-the-sky platform without any pretension he could actually implement it from that position, even if he was U.S. President.'
This is because platforms have nothing to do with deciding the U.S. Presidency. When the going price of the Presidency is nearly 300 million dollars spent by both Democratic and Republican Candidates, what determines the presidency is how many billionaires you have on your side's speed-dial against the other side's list of billionaires on their speed-dial. Even for Kim Dotcom though, the U.S. Presidency obviously has quite a large amount of 'bling' value as people think 'if only the right people could get into that position, things could change, etc.' This is because he thinks (as most likely think) that U.S. Presidents are allowed to make decisive changes.
However, with the position's purchase price intentionally above all realistic possibility of change of policy against the global billionaires anymore, the U.S. President is just the ultimate billionaire's bling purchase. The only 'change' of policy is what faction of billionaires next get to successfully warp either left and right toward their similar globalist policies. Thus the financial and policy organization of the United States--both left or right--has a billionaire's glass ceiling. U.S. Presidential candidates are gophers for the same rarefied aristocratic globalist class that have no loyalties to anything except themselves--except perhaps their loyalty to destroying democratic procedures and using state funds, laws, or wars to enhance their financial portfolios.
1. And if you disagree with following the billionaires' wishes, you are arrested even if you are a legal candidate--see pictures of this reality at the link.). And if you vote for them, well what security do you have in your vote for several generations or more? None.
2. And if you think for a moment that you can organize secession (through what? rigged vote machines?), you are without any pragmatic ideas of how to proceed.
3. And if you think for a moment that armed rebellion works, remember that they have all the guns, drones, and spy satellites and they are just looking for an excuse to use them. So don't encourage their pretexts. The only 'terrorists' in the U.S.A. at present are those pitifully that the FBI has to arm, organize, train, and suggest targets authorized by the FBI itself. Then the FBI arrests them for being patsies instead of terrorists. In a just land, we would arrest the FBI mass psychological manipulators who thought that up.Vid: US Voting Machines Flipping Votes -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkhnS2W4DIEInterview: James Collier (Author, Vote Scam), found statewide vote fraud in 1970; media part of it: calls fake outcome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpyOn9Gkra4After 1963 JFK assassination, e-vote machines, e-vote tabulators, & "Voter News Service" monopoly all came in 1964:Flashback: Vote Fraud New Hampshire for Bush '80 (rigged debate & rigged VP); '88; Clintons(/Bush) '92 & '08; Kerry '04 (vs. Dean)Executive at New Hampshire's Diebold Vote Counting Firm was a Drug Lord: Convicted of Narcotics Trafficking in 1990Post 2001, US analysis shows new e-vote fraud 'priority' only in predictable Black & Democratic voting areas, left Republican areas aloneU.S. Corporate Media cancels last check and balance against vote fraud: first time 19 states without exit poll in national election http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/82281.html?1349659870Vid: Every Single US State Has Hackable Vote Systems14 Timeless Characteristics of Fascism, from comparative study: one of them is systemic vote fraud. How many others does the US exhibit? http://rense.com/general37/char.htm
So other ideas are below. Particularly what is left is rejecting their degradative bad choices of materials and technologies and developing better ones, rejecting their their bad educational curricula for better ones, rejecting their bad financial instruments for better relationships among multiple ones, and rejecting their bad political and judicial dynamics--toward developing more positive political and cultural institutions of citizenship and more positive relations of consumption below as well. Only after that can you expect to develop a politics that might develop a less corrupt, less degradative state--toward a bioregional state.
The kind of politics swarming around the U.S. and its Presidency now has zero interest in democracy, rule of law, transparency, commodity health, or human and civil rights or the nation itself--much less environmental security, human health, and the general welfare of all. For example:
The U.S. Supreme Court will likely authorize police dogs outside all houses without a warrant; there is already the NDAA that authorizes any president to be a mafia don to kill any U.S. citizen--or anyone worldwide such is the hubris of the billionaires--killed secretly without evidence or trial, including via assassination machines like drones that are armed and fly through the sky. The U.S. courts just approved of that tyranny. Both Obama and Romney love drone assassinations of Americans without trial and approve of appointing themselves judge, jury and executioner simultaneously. These tyrannies of unmanned drones with anonymous killers behind them massacre whole communities like in the past year over 200 group massacres by robots from the sky over Pakistan--and the U.S. is not even at war with Pakistan. Meanwhile, in the U.S, there are illegal 'papers please' checks without warrants or due cause anywhere within 100 miles of the borders (which is most of the U.S. population). Obama as president has been funding and arming Mexican drug cartels. The vote fraud rigging has gone national, etc. The list could go on for miles.
It is all there: the sign of the end of the American experiment, and the rise of the American Frankenstein. It has been going on for years. It is time for a bioregional state that raises from the grave the billionaire-destroyed human rights and civil rights and combines it with greater local democratic control over material issues.
It is little wonder that a recent Rasmussen poll (September 2012) found that Americans considered government corruption to be the second most important issue (at 66% agreeing with that). However, that is hardly being talked about even by the third party candidates. The U.S. is corrupt, the grand majority knows it, yet they are kept from having any other ideas. This corruption is so thorough it mortgages the future. It has an effect on crushing any kinds of checks and balances that exist anywhere including those of other ideas, civil rights, or even the right to choose one's own food, choose one's own medicine, or choose one's own education that might challenge such a consolidated oligarchic feudalism of billionaires in their desire to cripple people intellectually into their serfs.
So the U.S. repeatedly invents pretexts to launch further into a complete police state, repeatedly lowers educational standards, repeatedly defrauds its own currency to destroy the people's wealth, and repeatedly lets recidivist corporations poison people and the environment.The future that U.S. unrepresentative elites want is a transnational feudalism and a seamless global police state without any civil rights for anyone.
The U.S. left or right are warped into this billionaire-biased globalism into dismantling democracy and transparency, with no one representing the people first. Instead Democrats and Republicans both equally take international cash for their 'national' elections. Both want more billionaire-desired centralization, tyranny, secrecy, and power for themselves, while they want everyone else decentralized, monitor-able and out of touch of politics to keep people poor and divided.
The billionaires and their candidates may collectively joust against each other in feudal fashion over which aristocratic families can fund the largest U.S. Presidential campaign pageantry, though always as a group they decide on the pageant's delimited goals and the limited political spectrum of inclusion for those who only support this transnational feudal arrangement they want. Democrats and Republicans appeal to those that are gullible every four years and can be duped into supporting the same global oligarchy for four more years--that they had before--under a different symbolic leadership appeal. And if they support someone else, there's always vote fraud to make sure the votes are uncounted, and there's always arrests of other legal candidates attempting to tell everyone they are actually running for office. So I fail to see how any change can come from elections first, now.
Plus, since many of the next generation of American youth after every four years think it is their duty to be fooled at least once into supporting one billionaire's boy-toy or another one, you only have to fool suckers that are born every minute. The others, already burned and jaded, stay out of sight in embarrassment that they were duped four years previously. That withdrawal suits the billionaires as their strategy of making the Democrats and Republicans two versions of the same policy. It has been so in every U.S. Presidential election since the election of 1900: the goal being merely to find a bunch of fresh voters in which to harvest the next betrayal of their trusting innocence every four years. 1896 was the last actual competitive U.S. Presidential Election in terms of policy difference. After that, it has been an oligarchic 'circle the wagons' of two versions of the same policy for over 100 years. Perhaps we should update that analogy: the U.S. elites are 'circling their armor-plated limousines' against the rest of the population.
However, unlike Kim Dotcom, I thought on the other hand, that being President or even dreaming to be President would demonstrate that I thought that being President is somehow a priority at this point--something of which I disagree with in fact. I don't think being U.S. President matters anymore, and I don't encourage anyone to dream of change coming through U.S. elections now at all. I don't encourage them to consider that violence is the only other option either. Moreover, I don't encourage them to dream of politicians or of being politicians who would do that change either (at least yet), whether it be dreams about themselves or dreams about others. Other more important things matter. Plus, electoral democratic procedures and open debate have been closed off in a 'no free speech zone.'
So, in this dystopic world of the United States, if I were to have a Presidential Platform to popularize, it would be the following:
The issues in order would be:
- first to get elected and then resign on this platform: that I promise to refuse the position if elected. Because what is important currently is working on building a novel Ecological Reformation of regional institutions since only from that will you see any improvement on the wider cross-bioregional level (previous known as states).
- next, encourage in all watersheds of the world the CDI (Civic Democratic Institution) and CEI (Commodity Ecology Institution) relationships. This is by far the most important catalyzing point, so read it about it at the link. It sets up 'bioregional tribunes' for representing any regional geography's culture, materials, and politics. It is important for regions to get clear on what particular futures they want together, in a democratic and deliberative fashion. There are many ways to keep both gatherings--civic and material--from becoming unrepresentative of a region on these two points as well. This keeps all watersheds of the world on track for democratic deliberation and regional sustainability. This is contrary to the kinds of cultures and material politics that parties set up, with their distant ideological manipulations and splittings (and empty promises or unreliable dependencies). Both sets of bioregional tribunes are an important ongoing living check and balance, in order to construct an ongoing separate regional self-awareness in culture and material concerns that is distinct from how simultaneous multiple distant ideological political parties would attempt to divide a region in a delimited and dependent fashion. It is bioregional capacity building in culture and material politics. It is commons facilitation.
- as a combined meeting hall for these two institutions, construct one demonstration green building in each watershed of the country (or any country); combine it with a farmers market/festival hall; surround it by a garden maintaining heirloom seeds for a regional seed bank (described further below); combine the building it with a citizen's scientific/environmental monitoring station to get data that corrupt governments refuse to collect on air, water, food, and soil quality as well as on regional environmental inequalities and injustices; the building is equipped with regionally sound choices of locally sourced materials and technologies as well as surrounded by an heirloom seed garden--all as symbols of where we are going into the future.
- encourage separate state governments (worldwide) to pass Ecological Bill of Rights expansion of civil and environmental freedoms.
- encourage educational changes including all schools being green buildings with cafeterias of locally sourced organic food or food grown on school grounds as school projects themselves. Only the best for our children and the next generation.
- encourage consumptive changes toward more sustainable choices of regionally sourced materials; encourage jurisdictions to be created for regional 'bionationalization' over development decisions (regional checks and balances on regional environmental common property and balanced ownership scales); put several examples of agroecology, agroforestry, and permacultural projects in every watershed of the world--to learn how to best organize against degradative monocropping.
- So all your seeds aren't in the same basket, and aren't in an international GMO/pesticide corporation's gatekeeping basket since they own the seed banks now and destroy them in their conflicts of interest, set up two or three examples of 'organic heirloom gardens' per watershed as your own seed bank. These are seed-saving and seed-distributing gardens of all examples of heirloom seed varieties of food crops and other varieties that grow well in the region without toxic chemicals and which are connected to the cultural use of the region. These heirloom gardens accept seed donations as well as serve as a 'seed bank' for the bioregional area culturally and materially. These heirloom gardens are for the purpose of learning, feeding the schools, and providing seeds to the schools for (re)planting projects as well. Schools visit all these different material sites as part of the learning process.
- Furthermore, given the corruption possible in forms of green labeling administered from far away, instead keep labeling local. In addition to the CEI's other purposes, I encourage that the CEI (commodity ecology institution) as well is the administrative reviewer and issuer of the bioregion's locally controlled green certification and green labeling program. The CEI administrates a 'bioregional green logo.' This logo can be awarded to any businesses that makes items for sale (including though hardly limited to food creators) to certify and to symbolize that their practices and products fit well within the local bioregional relationships better than other products available, cleanly and greenly. "Buy bioregional" in other words. Certify such best practices and best products in your region so that consumers in the region--as well as outside the region--can trust they are helping by their purchases to move toward that bioregional future of greater regional choices in any region. The 'bioregional green' logo lets consumers know what are the region's best sustainable and regionally-integrated practices of waste handling and creation of products in materials available. Even the regional currency can be given the regional logo--or it can loose it by bad administration. So the CEI can award and revoke such a label as well. Even reviewing any certification every two years (or upon complaint to the CEI) can be an instructive part of the school's education of how to keep regional democratic sustainability. The 'bioregional green logo' can be a general policy issue of how to issue ongoing course corrections and recognitions of excellence toward that bioregional future.
- encourage federal, state, and local governments to make all their buildings become green buildings--to generate their own electricity in different regionally sound ways and to be off any electrical grid as a sign of clientelism to corporations and lack of autonomy. Instead, government buildings should all be various regionally sound green buildings, and all transportation, computers, paper, foods, etc. used by the bureaucracy and elected representatives and their staffs should be entirely sustainable and keyed to supporting these regional issues by their institutional purchases as well. Otherwise, they erode their own country and destroy it. These better infrastructural issues are sorely required in the quickly decaying infrastructures of the United States. A great green rebuilding campaign across schools, local democratic institutions, agricultural reorganization, and government buildings, can re-energize the economy and the spirit of the country--or any country for that matter.
- encourage watersheds to be the mandated 'natural' form for electoral districting and for judicial districting--a district that never changes or is manipulated by incumbents' gerrymandering--only its apportionment weight changes in certain situations. This is because people share the same regional environmental concerns politically and legally in due process--whether they are left or right. Green is hardly an ideological politics--except when people attempt to force it to be when they are a dangerous combination of the gullible and authoritarian; green is actually regional representation and pro-humanistic. It is cross-ideological, and as such, it translates poorly into a co-opted ideology of left or right:
The argument of the bioregional state is that sustainability is unachievable without formal democratic institutional change (that would interact with other institutional additions in educational frameworks, local consumptive issues, and financial issues).
Other people have offered other methods to get to sustainability of course. What about these different methods to get there? Other routes are only indirect, susceptible to corruption, and have a history of backsliding.
First, however, the bioregional state argues that a single informal party is a poor strategy for change to sustainability. A single party can be corrupted like the fading greenness of Die Grunen in Germany (discussed at that link above).
Second, a single party it is a poor strategy for sustainability because support for greenness comes from across the left-right spectrum seen in above polls for global supermajorities supporting green politics. This makes a single informal party a poor strategy for mobilizing toward sustainability. It is perhaps ultimately self-defeating and self-divisive of the commonality of views on greenness to attempt to fit 'green' into one party framework. (That being said, I do support various forms of green parties however just without expecting that the model of political change for sustainability can ever be achieved by a singular party).
Third, the bioregional state argues that with so many solutions already in evidence though simply unapplied, it is unable to be said that there is a lack of solutions that is keeping sustainability from occurring.
On the contrary, it is political, economic, and technological corruption and gatekeeping against the massive supermajorities of the world that is keeping us from sustainability. Corruption is keeping us from living in representative democracies and maintaining a representative developmentalism. This corruption keeps us living within crony raw material regimes instead of arrangements more democratic and consumer-choice driven that would look closer to the commodity ecology arrangement instead of commodity arrangements that destroy the planet.
In existing democracies many conflicts of interest keep unsustainability in place. Only by creating additional formal 'ecological checks and balances' can we address these conflicts of interest and innately allow our political economies to be more directly 'in sync' with this global support for environmentalism, sound economics, and sound health practices.
To summarize,  unsustainability is corruption and conflict of interest.  This corruption is created by 'out of sync' formal institutional arrangements in states that create an informal gatekeeping on politics, instead of formal institutions creating representation in politics.  This gatekeeping and unrepresentativeness has a developmental effect toward environmental degradation and self-destruction  contrary to public support.  It is additionally contrary to polls showing sustainabilility to be the supermajority and popular concern of the world.
This is why the bioregional state approaches sustainability as requiring a more competitive democracy--to remove the informal corrupt gatekeeping frameworks to make the state a democratic institution 'in sync' with environmental concern, formally. The bioregional state would do this through over 60 additional 'ecological checks and balances'.
Our policies are so radically undemocratic and out of sync with public preferences in energy, technology, investment choices, and political parties 'in power'--because they are keeping out other parties from competition via corrupt vote regulations or voting methods that the bioregional state would solve. Gerrymandering is important for how corrupt, unsustainable states maintain themselves as well.
Getting over this morass of formal/informal corruption interactions requires identifying the many conflicts of interest in 'still incomplete' democracies that require more 'ecological checks and balances' to demote informal gatekeeping and unrepresentative developmental policies. Sustainability is a completed democracy with many additional checks and balances against formal and informal power corruption that would made developmental policy feedback automatically more represenative and ecologically sound.
Several other more technocratic or even genocidal methods have been proposed of course for sustainability. The book argues against these as well, from a green humanism point of view. From the book description:
"Toward A Bioregional State is a novel approach to development and to sustainability. It proposes that instead of sustainability being [fourth] an issue of population scale, [fifth] managerial economics, or [sixth] technocratic planning, an overhaul of formal democratic institutions is required. This is because environmental degradation has more to do with the biased interactions of formal institutions and informal corruption. Because of corruption, we have environmental degradation. Current formal democratic institutions of states are forms of informal gatekeeping, and as such, intentionally maintain democracy as ecologically “out of sync”. The bioregional state argues that we are unable to reach sustainability without a host of additional ecological checks and balances. These ecological checks and balances would demote corrupt uses of formal institutions by removing capacities for gatekeeping against democratic feedback. Sustainability is a politics that is already here—only waiting to be formally organized."Only additional formal 'ecological checks and balances' can bring our political economies 'in sync' with our already existing global support for environmentalism, sound economics, and sound health practices.
- encourage state and local governments to accept regional currencies as legal tender for debts public and private; multiple currencies are required as a check and balance between store of value and exchange value in the financial infrastructure--giving people more choices for a stable value for currency more free from manipulations of larger investors, banks, currency flows, or even governments. Every state should have its own regional currency acceptable for tax purposes, in addition to wider federal money, for a check and balance between currencies to allow people to avoid the destruction of their wealth by currency inflation. They can move their wealth between currencies whenever this is seen to be occurring, further reducing such inflationary manipulations from the grass roots side. The CEI (commodity ecology institution) is full of such local sustainable material choices that equally accept such local currencies as legal tender, particularly in the watershed's main farmer's market mentioned above.
- encourage state and local governments to have paper ballots and remove electronic voting and tabulating machines that have been demonstrated to rig elections worldwide; e-voting machines are fraudulent means of holding an election. They only implant a single global e-mafia over elections of countries worldwide.
- after all that is done, start running people for office on the platform of decentralizing media and balancing the property relations in all watersheds in the country to avoid despotism and tyranny; you can work on that now in the interim with perhaps millions of others on the web, by putting together a better picture of the current world and where we can take it.
- after all that is done, perhaps about a generation or so, then you can work on wider state institutional changes toward sustainability on the larger level in Toward a Bioregional State and start running people for elections from multiple parties on this same platform.
- I might run once more after that, though now? Forget it. Most countries of the world are degradative lost causes that should urge their citizens to think of better futures instead of vote or support their current futureless elites ambivalently. There is one exception so far: perhaps Bhutan is making itself a world leader in ideas toward actual sustainability of materials and culture and democracy as interlinked. Learn from it's government, materials policies, education, and financial relationships--and better yet, learn from its culture that holds it together. However, other aspects of Bhutan's culture and state policies toward culture are profoundly dystopian as it is very repressive to minorities. You might learn from Ladakh as well since it is rebuilding itself on these lines. You might learn from bioregionalist Bolivia and some aspects of bioregionalist New Zealand as they are rebuilding themselves somewhat on these lines as well. In other ways though New Zealand is quite a dystopian bad place.  
- after all that is done, start running people for office on the platform of removing any private central bank cartels; on removing corporate citizenship after 'three strikes'; on keeping CEOs from being representatives concurrently while they are in office in the interest of wider checks and balances These are several points in the model Constitution of Sustainability enclosed in Toward a Bioregional State;
- even perhaps re-passing (and revoking) supposed U.S. amendments that have been ignored by the federal government that did pass or others that failed to pass where the federal government pretended that it did. Respectively, I'm talking about the 'original' 13th Amendment--the one many states passed in the 1800s--concerning keeping lawyers or anyone from setting themselves up as a special caste for certain elections only, like lawyers have for judgeships); and I'm talking about revoking others that failed to pass that the U.S. federal government lied in saying actually passed like the federal income tax, since there is some question whether it really passed or was just 'performed' to have passed by the federal government in 1913. Both changes would reveal the true state of US civil politics instead of based on corrupt centralized politics alone.
Inset on this issue:
THEME: There seems to be cases of Amendments being passed and then ignored in state versus federal contention over recognizing them. This would be the original 'hidden' 13th anti-lawyer amendment, against "honors" and even removing citizenship for accepting them (which would in practice both remove lawyers' citizenship if they accept foreign BAR registration, and removing all federal legislation that creates certain 'honors' or differentiations among people, and against limiting public offices to only one 'honored' group (like District Attorneys or judges 'requiring' to be lawyers seems to have been struck down by 1819 at the latest). Moreover, there goes the welfare state redistribution frameworks if the federal government is unable to create differentiation in honor by laws or differences in taxation frameworks. There went slavery you might add by 1819 as well).
On the other hand, there are opposite cases: cases of Amendments that were rejected by states though pretended to be enacted by the federal government anyway--i.e., pretended to be passed (like the 16th amendment: federal income tax, which seems to be the case).
The cases show huge contention over the issue of what becomes accepted culturally and legally as an amendment is hardly always so transparent.
Some information about the hidden 13th:
Hidden ORIGINAL 13th Amendment, 1812, Real Evidence (10 min., pictures of certified/gold sealed 1812 documents from the State of New Hampshire)
He reads a certified copy of this missing amendment that others say by 1870 was ratified/accepted in printed U.S. Constitutions of 23-26 states and territories
[Other researchers say that even more states--37 states--verified this original 13th amendment:
There are two claims here. The news host adds another for two claims.
Adask who is interviewed in the second videos summarizes the 13th amendment claim from its two original discovers in Maine, who contacted him in the late 1980s because they had a lot of information they had assembled. Adask was a publisher of an "anti-lawyer" magazine and summarized the two researcher's works in three articles he said in his magazine over several months by the early 1990s. Adask then with the researchers published a book about it as well, with "60-80" photocopies of the archival research mentioning/documenting the original/hidden 13th amendment. Adask relates in the second video link that the original researchers went back to the same archives a few years later. Across over a dozen states the previous information they found had been scrubbed out and removed.
In short, the first claim is that from 1812-1860, many states published versions of the U.S. Constitution with already 13 Amendments. After the US Civil War, the growing centralized power of the Northern victors removed this amendment and hid it--though it was already a contentious issue that the federal government refused to accept as ratified it seems even then, even as many states and territories did. Read that hidden amendment at the first video link from a certified copy of New Hampshire's record that it passed it. It lists in beautiful longhand of the period the other six or so states that had already passed it by 1812 as well.
The journalist who is interviewing Adask adds his second claim. His interpretation is that there was a link to this Amendment being nearly passed (Adask says 8 of 9 required then had passed it before 1812 war started) by the requisite number of state legislatures then and the US-British War of 1812. I have always seen 1812 war interpreted as an issue of the US rejecting the private foreign bank arrangement by then, so Britain attempted to get an expensive war going with its ex-colony so as to force the US back into desperate borrowing (i.e., foreign debt, and private central bank) once more. Adask against the journalists just seems to imply that it became less of an issue to pass until President Monroe was elected and he directly asked the remaining states whether they would further ratify the hidden 13th amendment. Adask claims that Virginia did so, through their U.S. Constitution from 1819 starting to show the original/hidden 13th amendment. That would be the total of nine required. However, the federal government it seems refused to accept this judgement and ignored it, even as more and more states passed it over time. When after the U.S. Civil War in 1865, the 'next' 13th amendment was passed by Lincoln's government, effectively sealing two versions of history competing against each other: the original states' initiated and passed 13th amendment and the later federal initiated 13th amendment--now with two different entirely different topics.
It brings up an important question: if the federal government refuses to accept what the states do to change the constitution, what authority can actually force the federal government to submit. No one it seems. That's a big flaw in the U.S. Constitution, if you take this from a constitutional engineering perspective. Or it's a big flaw that it was already that corrupt by then already.
Frankly, I've heard about this hidden 13th amendment before. However, what is interesting here is this is the first bit of historical documentation I have seen about it--so I thought I would pass it on to you as you I am sure continue to wonder what the hell is the U.S. is in the first place. I'll have to read more about this person's research.
And on the 16th amendment:
The inverse seems to have occurred: the federal government wanted an amendment that the states had rejected, so the federal government pretended it was passed (or bribed others or threatened them into compliance). Another constitutional flaw here. On this point, another interesting book to find/read is 'the law that never was' on how the U.S. federal income tax amendment was never really passed by enough states (he did the archival work in all states to verify this).
Instead, it was just 'announced' as passed by the 1910s by some major bankers who were in Wilson's Cabinet then who were involved in the U.S. Federal Reserve plan. Of course the US courts begged to disagree with that author, and jailed him for failing to file a tax return on his income--even if the law itself was questionable as just a federal figment of their imagination. Even if it is a federal figment of their imagination, it is a delusion that is backed up by extreme violence of the U.S. federal government on this issue.
Suggestions for improvement:
Perhaps it is better to have an amendments passed by assembled public meeting in the Capitol with state documents exhibited about any amendments passed/unpassed. I think in this way it avoids both cover up situations of the 13th and 16th occurring in one way or the other way in the future--if there is going to be a future for the United States as a constitutional republic that is, perhaps a rather silly an expectation by now I believe.
Returning to my Presidential campaign platform for resignation and why, I'm hardly the one to argue that complete destruction or removal of the current degradative arrangements is likely, possible or ideal without first establishing better institutional, material, and cultural forms you want to transfer towards. So in other words, if all you do is complain or destroy, all you do is dig a larger hole. Instead, use the hole you are in to build a novel foundation upwards: get to work on building what you want. There is already in place a massive number of people from the world's largest social movement to help you built this better world of greater ecological self-interest expressed across multiple regions of the world first. Only you--in your networking with your neighbors of any political stripe--can work on that building. Get to know them with these suggestions toward a more environmental citizenship.
Destruction alone just creates more instabilities, more desperate populations, and greater crises. If all you work on is destruction or merely passively wait on destruction, you merely are in the volunteer employ of those you dislike by playing into the hands of the dictatorially degradative that you oppose. Creating something beautiful is what is actually revolutionary, transformative, and (ecologically) reformative--while destruction is merely reactionary.
In short, instead of expecting a single leader to save you or expecting that destroying something will save you, invent. Concentrate on novel networks or inventions--material, institutional, and cultural--that would allow you and us greater choices--whether in our ongoing daily purchasing and socializing actions instead of some over-romanticist violent change. This will work to erode and to remove these billionaires' global mafia and their particularly degradative raw material regimes from our lives and regions. Degradation is supported more by ambivalence of consumers and citizens instead of active support, and those people who are ambivalently adhering are waiting for a better arrangement of their lives to adhere to, actually. Provide it, and the dynamics of degradative support erodes away. The wider issue of an Ecological Reformation is required. Forget Presidential politics or which puppet head takes charge of a degradative Punch and Judy beast for the moment. It matters of course, though policy reform directed from the larger levels of jurisdiction is a ridiculous belief at present.
For peace and for a better world, thanks for electing me. I'll resign shortly and get to work on these more important tasks above.
Mark D. Whitaker, Write-in President, Bioregional Party, 2012-2012 (Resigned to Get to Work)