by James Hufferd, Ph.D.

Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Donald Trump was supposed to be the first president since JFK to be free of obligations to the high cabal usual funders and owners of American presidents. That’s how he was self-billed and that was his major selling point – that he had very largely funded his own campaign and, with a very successful businessman’s approach, would be more-knowledgeable and success-capable than his politician predecessors. So that he could get things Total Earth Science Skepticdone for and at the bidding of the people, rather than the multi-billionaire plutocrats who were accustomed to bribing and ruling.

And, perhaps strangely, if you google it, you can find purported background information both ways – that he paid for most of his rather sketchy campaign himself, or alternatively, that his elevation was heavily-financed by mega-rich interests primarily on Wall Street.

But, regardless, he is now, as a sudden recruit to the bomb-bomb, waw-waw persuasion, coming over from the presumed militarism-minimization philosophy of regime-change wars being too costly and unavailing. The neocons have got him now, apparently, however they did it, and here we go again – except more than ever.

One current theory, voiced in an online article apparently without an author a couple of days ago, entitled “Is Trump Really In Control?”, conjectures that the other members of the administration, mostly ex-generals, because they, not so much the president, have been mouthing threats in every direction lately, must, thus, be in control. While the president enjoys his golf and holds endless meetings and pep rallies – leaving war “to the generals”, mostly faceless. Whoever they are, all too casually assumed to be human or approximately so.

Whoever it is that is (are) wielding the big stick, who the big, supposed tough-as-a-buffalo guy is allowing a whirl at the tiller prompted by his own sudden apparent lurching to get out of the way of a proverbial train, such a sudden abdication by a leader in a practical way would probably bespeak a good, sobering personal shake-up from some source. My guess is that the shaker or bludgeoner responsible was none other than Bibi Netanyahu, both through Trump’s genius son-in-law, Jared Kushner, via his recent, timely visit to Israel, reinforcing Netanyahu’s own warnings issuing from atop the global pyramid when he was in Washington. And that he has Trump somehow directly by the kajones – perhaps reminding him what would happen to him if he ever went one step further toward clarifying 9/11 for the masses. (Note that Trump rather mysteriously singled out “anti-Semitism, out of all the evils afoot, for special approbation in a special recorded message yesterday.) Anyhow, the dauntingly rambunctious – to say the very least – results this month on the Trump end (awesome bombs and hurling threats against nukes in the hands of boy-wonders) timed precisely since Jared’s return, do fit such a scenario, do they not?

So then, why can’t we ever have a government that is straightforward, its executive and legislature not beholden to heavily-leveraging, usually murky, big-monied others, but simply acting for the good of the nation, the people, reflecting the facts and benefits/liabilities of each issue and case as they come to it, case by case by case? Does it have to be that all the players are but pawns and ciphers, all owned, bought and paid-for, and with every wit of good sense any of them might happen to possess auctioned away? Is that how it’s supposed to work? That is, the will of the governed accounting for nothing?

In fact, tweaks (not tweets!) to the system to make it prioritize the will of the governed much more highly are not even hard to come up with. In fact, I just thought of such a scheme myself yesterday, that I’m sure could work efficiently and fine.

Here’s how it would go – First, we could start with petitions whereby any issue that received over X-number (say, one-million) verified online (or mailed-in) endorsements would be designated a “pod issue” (or some such terminology).

Then, each state’s congressional delegation would select from its members a “point-person”, whose job it would be to gather a consensus of views from all the members of the delegation on all or any of the publicly-selected “pod issues” and write up and publish a concise position on it in behalf, at least nominally, of that state.

Thus, regarding the major features of “healthcare” or “Middle Eastern policy” or “minimum wage”, or “immigration policy”, there could be a “Kansas positon”, a “Maryland positon, an “Arizona position”, etc., etc. Then, voting-eligible citizens could choose from the possibly as many as 50 different state-labeled positions posted online and in print, and endorse the one each liked best. So then, the Alabama position on the “pod issue” of “immigration policy” or “border control” might receive, for instance, 8.2 million citizen endorsements, the Colorado position 3.5 million endorsements, the Connecticut position 1.6 million, etc. – which would inform or determine by weight of support the features of the legislation passed. And the will of the majority would truly mean something again. And, maybe on some issues, you’d get responses from even a much higher percentage of eligible participants. Such as military disengagement.

This fancied solution would combine the best features of direct and indirect democracy. And democracy it truly would be.

Would such a scheme ever have a ghost of a chance of being adopted? Not on your life! Precisely because, democracy it truly would be. Which could never be allowed. The president would probably veto virtually every one of its bills as a “pipe dream” or a “fairy tale”. And the plutocrats would feel like slaves. But, maybe somewhere…

Wouldn’t it be better than the thermonuclear suicide we might be facing?

JH: 4/24/17

Advertisements