The story of how a US President violated crystal-clear treaty, lied to play victim, used US military to invade and capture colossal natural resources, then overcame ‘Truthers’ (and how ‘reasons’ for 1846 War on Mexico repeats over and over): 80-minute podcast with Sofia Smallstorm

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

I’ve appreciated Sofia Smallstorm since I discovered her work in 2014 to explain, document, and prove the “official story” of Sandy Hook is false (Robert David Steele’s organization of briefings for President Trump on Sandy Hook here). Please note: as a professional academic, I use the word prove as a factual assertion of objective and independently verifiable facts that Sandy Hook’s official explanation is contradicted by those facts, and not a possible explanation of what happened. 

You should really look for yourself, if you’re interested.

Sofia appreciated my 2017 four-part interview series with Professor Jim Fetzer on the US being an ongoing rogue state empire, and did an 80-minute podcast with me. The topics Sofia and I discussed:
  • a US History case study: US President Polk violated a crystal-clear treaty with Mexico to orchestrate an attack on US troops 400 miles into Mexico, claim that Mexico was the one invading the US, initiate a War of Aggression to steal half of Mexico, then laugh as “Truthers” were mocked by both political parties’ leaderships who also wanted the resources from war on a relatively soft target.
  • That history connects to lie-started, treaty-violating illegal Wars of Aggression in the present. 
  • .01% parasite financial “leaders” lying and looting to maximize their use of resources (natural and human), and solutions worth ~$1,000,000 per average US household.
  • The human condition of ordinary people too scared and unable to see Emperor’s New Clothes facts evoking cognitive dissonance
  • People like you, dear reader, offering choice to humanity to look at objective data, with our numbers being too few to change policy (yet), and too many for people to ignore.
  • My single best paper, professionally peer-reviewed and soon to be published by the Claremont Colleges: Seizing an alternative: Recognizing ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ as THE STORY of today (1 of 7)
Here’s the 80-minute podcast, with my academic work following from a 11-part series: US illegal: History of rogue empire REQUIRING arrests in the present.


**
Just one of many examples in US history demonstrating the US is a lying, illegal rogue state empire, from the section: Stealing half of Mexico in 1848 despite Congressman Abraham Lincoln’s proof of President Polk’s OBVIOUS lying treaty violation
“At first blush, a man is not capable of reporting truth; he must be drenched and saturated with it first.”  – Henry David Thoreau, I to myself: an annotated selection from the journal of Henry D. Thoreau, 1837. 
Thoreau, like Abraham Lincoln in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives recognized the claimed “reasons” for a “defensive war” against Mexico in 1846 were obvious lies when inspected. Lincoln:
“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”
And Lincoln in a letter to his law partner:
“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’”
The US taking Texas as a state in 1845 was in direct violation of the Adams-Onís Treaty that guaranteed all the land that is now the Southwest US to forever belong to Mexico (signed in 1819 with Spain, and formally transferred to Mexico in 1832 with The Treaty of Limits). The border was the Sabine River, between modern-day Texas and Louisiana.
Lincoln attempted to force President Polk to report to Congress and answer several pointed and brilliantly-worded questions from Lincoln that would prove Polk’s claimed “border dispute” was really ~400 miles into agreed-upon land of Mexico. I invite you to read Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions” for yourself as an example of why Lincoln is considered to be one of the most brilliant writers in all American history.
Consider these maps that prove Lincoln’s points that President Polk violated the Adams-Onís Treaty to lie of a massive land theft of Texas, then lying that Mexico invaded the US when it was the US invading Mexico, and waging a War of Aggression to steal more prime land from Mexico. This initial battle upon which Polk made his claim was at the current border between Texas and Mexico:
Thoreau refused to pay his taxes to support the unlawful war, and was jailed. Despite Lincoln having all the facts on his side, because the president, majority of Congress, and majority of the press wanted this war as an expression of the racist “Manifest Destiny,” Lincoln didn’t have the votes to pass the Spot Resolutions. In fact, Lincoln was called “unpatriotic” and “Spotty” in derision by both parties’ “leadership” and the press.
Lincoln became so unpopular from these intentional lies and propaganda that he had no chance for re-election.
A treaty is the “Supreme law of the land” in Article Six of the US Constitution. In this case, when a US president and Congress had the votes to violate a treaty and the Constitution in order to take land and resources, they lied, went to war, and took the land and resources.
The war killed over 50,000 Mexicans and over 5,000 Americans, and is a clear historical precedent for US “leadership” to choose lies, dictatorship, and War of Aggression rather than truth, limited government under the law, and peace.
Although this history of the Mexican-American War is uncontroversially factual and as far as I’m aware undisputed among professional historians, corporate media-published high school textbooks will only state that the causes of war were a “border dispute” and repeat President Polk’s claims that Mexico invaded the US with “American blood shed on American soil.”
This is a massive lie of omission and commission to not communicate at least the preceding few paragraphs.
If your text explained that a US President was the war-mongering liar that Lincoln exposed in the Spot Resolutions, and that Congress voted in criminal complicity to shred a US treaty, lie to the American public about who invaded whom, and be guilty of war-murdering tens of thousands of human beings, would you look at current US wars from the benefit of that accurate history?
This war is vitally important to understand because it sets the precedent of a US president lying, violating clear treaty, and the US stealing resources at the expense of thousands of deaths of US soldiers, and many multiples of those deaths of the people we attacked. Then, as today, the majority of Americans believed their “leaders” in ignorance of the facts, and without media’s coverage of clear voices like Abraham Lincoln’s to explain the facts.
The result of the war was the US taking almost half of Mexico’s land. Although historians note that freshman member of Congress Abraham Lincoln was/is correct that the president lied and violated a treaty with criminal complicity of Congress, both parties’ and media propaganda allowed the war to move forward without criminal prosecution. The House of Representatives had enough votes to censure the president for, “a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States” (47), but not to impeach.
You may be thinking, “But Abe Lincoln’s life was forever ago and a completely different time!”
Maybe. Maybe not. Consider this story: When I was about 10 years old, my grandfather said, “Shake my hand.” I did. Papa then told me, “You are two handshakes away from shaking Abe Lincoln’s hand. When I was your age, an old-timer would sit at a bench at July 4th celebrations. Everyone would shake his hand because he shook Abe’s hand when he was campaigning for president in 1860.” If you shake hands with me, that puts you three handshakes away from shaking hands with Abraham Lincoln.
You may be more than three handshakes away from the current US president.
Please don’t believe any expert or me if this war on Mexico violated a treaty and therefore the US Constitution; use your critical thinking skills. This is as easy as a baseball rule analogy that when a person knows the rule when a runner is safe or out at first base, there’s no need to ask anyone. If you know that:
  • a treaty is defined in Article Six of the US Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land,”
  • the US had the Adams-Onís Treaty with Mexico (originally with Spain and formally transferred to Mexico in 1831; map here) in crystal-clear language regarding the areas of the now Southwest US (including Texas with all the “border dispute” lands because the Sabine River between Louisiana and today’s Texas was the agreed border):  “The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the territories described by the said line, that is to say: The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories lying west and south of the above-described line; and, in like manner, His Catholic Majesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories east and north of the said line, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, renounces all claim to the said territories forever.”
  • Therefore, the US Supreme Law was to forever recognize Texas and the now Southwest as Mexico’s land.
In baseball, you can (and do) say, “I know where first base is. I know when a runner is clearly safe or out at first base.” In this “current event” of life and death from our past, you can and should say, “I know what a treaty means. I know what a border means. I know when the US is 400 miles over the border that was defined in a treaty that they’re obviously into Mexico and not on American soil.”
You may even artistically add, “Duh.”
Perhaps this famous quote makes better sense now:
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” ~ George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1.
**
I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History (also credentialed in Mathematics), with all economic 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 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: My work from 2012 to October, 2017 is on Washington’s Blog. Work back to 2009 is blocked by Examiner.com (and from other whistleblowers), so some links to those essays 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 (blocked author pages: here, here).



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

45,000 sealed federal criminal indictments is victory for ‘We the People’ if, and only if, followed by .01% arrests and FULL TRUTH as explained by Congressperson McKinney’s 15-minute brief

51,701 sealed federal indictments = trust Q/Trump plan? Patriots should trust until 2018 so-called ‘elections’ for .01% arrests + FULL TRUTH, or add Trump to list of War Criminals, psychopaths, host-killing parasites

65-minute video: Professor Jim Fetzer’s legal testimony for Sandy Hook lawsuit could be bigger than King Family civil trial