My Cancer: where did it come from? How about yours?

Updated Oct. 7, 2020

When I raised this question with my personal physician (indirectly, with a leading question: "Have you heard about the lawsuits Monsanto has lost from plaintiffs claiming their Roundup gave them what I've got?) he pointed out that people were getting Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma decades before Roundup (with its chief component, Glyphosate), was invented.

I have had two experienced oncologists give me the same diagnosis, N-HL, Stage 4B, and both told me "We can cure you." (with chemotherapy, without radiation.) A good and hopeful sign. They've been curing patients with what I've got for years, and my PET scan came back negative for any solid masses except in my liver (which they had already determined with a needle biopsy, pieces sent to 3 labs including the Mayo Clinic). I feel I am in good hands, but the question remains: if Roundup/Glyphosate caused MY cancer, and the juries made a fair judgment that Roundup caused the cancer of the plaintiffs in 12 cases (so far), at least one of whom has no chance of recovery, is it reasonable to suspect that my personal exposure over the years caused MY NHL?

Hell, yes. Key documentation from the trials from Monsanto's own files (obtained through legal discovery) convinced the juries that Monsanto knew the dangers decades ago, and chose to put profits above human life using any means possible to "prove" that "Roundup was safe and does not cause cancer in humans," despite conducting no data collection or analysis on humans.

Monsanto's documents showed not only that the 80 studies by "independent labs" Monsanto cites as proof of Roundup's safety were all sponsored by Monsanto, and that the conclusions of the reports were all ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, not by the labs.

A chief claim of Monsanto is that the EPA and FDA have approved (and recently renewed their approval) of continuing Roundup use, agreeing with Monsanto that Roundup poses no danger of cancer to humans. These are officials appointed in the Trump administration, some of whom actually worked for Monsanto before they accepted their posts, or were former lobbyists for the chemical industry.

Roundup is the best-selling herbicide ever, in use now for 50 years, and tests detect its presence everywhere they look—in our waterways, groundwater, tap water, food, soil and air. EPA standards of safe levels are just under these current environmental levels. See? Safe. However, the EU has set their maximum safe levels seven to ten times lower than the EPA's. Germany and Sri Lanka (among other countries) have determined that there is no safe level and have banned it entirely, since even trace amounts have effects on the endocrine systems and fetal development of test animals, and hormone levels as well. Does anyone remember Thalidomide, which was declared safe for pregnant women until babies were born without arms and legs? See https://www.momsacrossamerica.com which has found labs that will test for glyphosate (after initially finding no doctors who would prescribe, or labs which would do, such tests). They had the labs test for Roundup in mother's milk. ALL tests were positive. (In fairness, my sister pointed out that anything a mother ingests will show up in her milk.)

My personal exposure to Roundup was occasional use on my own property 10 and 20 years ago, so traces of that exposure is likely undetectable. however, many cancers take that long to develop. A $99 urine test is available, but it only detects exposure for the previous 6 days. I report my own test results below. Why did I bother being tested? I'm interested to see what my current, ongoing exposure is from my local environment. The last six days are likely representative of any 6-day period in the last 5 years, and might also be a good measure also of the exposure of my neighbors, especially the ones who are buying Roundup and spreading it on their lawns (along with weed 'n feed bags of seed/fertilizer/herbicides, many containing another chemical, 2/4-D, half of the "Agent Orange" we used to deny cover and food to "the enemy" in Vietnam (with whom we now trade) which notoriously caused birth defects.

If you get my diagnosis, and wish to join a mass-tort suit against Monsanto (no cost to you unless they win), visit https://www.weedkillercrisis.com and click on the Chat pop-up or look for a link. This site also contains a wealth of related information. UPDATE: many other websites will now put you on a list of potential plaintiffs in a mass-tort suit; get on one list, and you needn't get on any other. They (and you) will all share in the glory (and profit) from any legal victory, and getting on more than one list is counterproductive.

Do you wish, as I do, to avoid any exposure to Roundup (and like chemicals) in your personal environment? Foods labeled "GMO Free" may still contain roundup residue, because they may have undergone accelerated drying before harvest (crops that get ground up before processing into bread, cereal, animal feed, etc. by the time-saving method of being killed by Roundup at harvest time to accelerate the natural drying process. Time is money, you know. Instead, buy only ORGANIC products, which must be grown (and sold) without herbicides or pesticides. The food you eat and the water you drink every day are the chief sources of your current environmental exposure to Roundup and its metabolites, mostly "AMPA."

If you must buy bottled water, avoid the many, many brands controlled by Nestle, the Swiss multinational company whose CEO insists that people do not, and should not, have access to free water, while Nestle pays municipalities little or nothing to pump and bottle American groundwater (even in drought areas) so they can profit at our great expense. My personal choice for drinking water, above all others I've researched, is tap water filtered at home by technology from Clearly Filtered (clearlyfiltered.com). They have a batch system which filters out dozens of contaminants in 13 categories, including glyphosate and AMPA. It's about $75 for the batch pitcher and one filter, which needs periodic replacement. You can subscribe to automatic replacements for about $50 each. If this sounds expensive, think what it may cost you if you succumb (like me) to Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. It's good to know you're not putting your life at risk by what you're eating and drinking. (By the way, distilled water is a poor choice; glyphosate and AMPA can vaporize and re-condense into the water, and distillation removes minerals which are essential to good health.)

Regarding my test results: the first one (at the beginning of my treatments) put my Glyphosate/AMPA levels in the top 3/4 of all their tests, remarkable for someone with no direct exposure to Roundup for over 20 years. The second test, 6 months later, put me well below their average results, and below the typical level for European test subjects (where Roundup is widely banned). My chemo treatments had no influence on these results; the only thing that changed between the two tests was strict adherence to eating only certified-organic food and drinking only Clearly Filtered water (including in coffee). I will continue this regimen indefinitely (good for me, and cheaper than cancer).

UPDATE: my chemotherapy (six sessions, one every three weeks) was concluded on June 17. My second PET scan, a month later, showed nothing but the slowly-healing liver damage, as expected. Further occasional testing is scheduled. In five years, it's expected that I can be officially pronounced "cured."

What conclusions might be drawn from my experience? Because my exposure was typical of most Americans, we all may be on the cusp of a new and as-yet-unrecognized health crisis of unprecedented proportions. Or, perhaps I'm completely mistaken, and Monsanto (now owned by Bayer, who got so big partly by providing chemical weapons to Hitler) is telling the truth, and nothing but the truth, when they swear that "Roundup is safe, and does not cause cancer." And the FDA which agrees with them, has not become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer...and perhaps the Easter Bunny will put a winning lottery ticket under your pillow.

My Cancer, Part 3

Previously, on My Cancer: "Mr. Spencer, you have Stage 4B Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. Stage 4 means it has spread throughout your body from its origin in your Lymphatic System. The B part simply notes the symptom of soaking night sweats. The good news is, we can cure you."

A new week, a new adventure. Monday (March 20): in preparation for my chemotherapy, a "Port" is surgically installed in my chest. It's a necessity for the chemo "cocktail" I will be served for a total of six sessions, every third Wednesday; the last one will be on June 17, 2020, which will also be the 42nd anniversary for me and Debbie (what a coincidence!).

The necessity arises because of the caustic nature of one component of the cocktail, which is so corrosive it would attack the walls of my veins if delivered conventionally via an IV tube. The Port directs each of the chemo components (delivered separately, in sequence) through a tube to a vein junction where blood turbulence is high, reducing the corrosive effect to a safe level. (Bonus: the Port can be left in my body indefinitely, if I choose, so I'll never need another IV again. The port can be used for any injection, drawing blood, or donating blood.)

Tuesday: I get a long-awaited PET scan (Positron-emission Tomography). I'm injected with a radioisotope (half-life, 90 minutes) that attaches itself to any sugar-laden cells (a hallmark of cancer cells), but not others. My oncologist told me, "the scan will list up any solid mass in my body."

Wednesday: my first chemotherapy session. (By the way, there will be no radiation.) My port is accessed for the first time; it's covered by skin, so the needle has to pass through it but no vein is hit in the way in. I was told that subsequent access to the port would be less and less painful.

My oncologist visits at the start, and brings good news: the PET scan report has come in, he's read it, and Nothing. Lit. Up. (No solid masses were detected, except in the liver, which they already knew from the liver biopsy, prompted by the second CT scan. That's where the initial diagnosis came from.)

After several preliminary injections (through the Port, of course), the first chemo solution is administered. This one always takes longer than the rest (Rituxan, a monoclonal antibody, technically not in the "chemotherapy" category since it is targeted rather than "kill-em-all"). First speed bump encountered: I have a relatively rare adverse reaction (which my treatment team is well-prepared for)—I start shaking like Chuck Yeager fighting the stick during his first-ever, record setting flight where he broke the sound barrier. For a visual, see the classic movie "The Right Stuff." Bring a pack of Beaman's gum.

After they got me back under control, they continued the infusion at a much slower rate, and rescheduled the rest of my first session for today (March 5). I'm almost done: arrived at 9, should leave around 2.

Tomorrow (at 1:30 or 2), I will return for a shot to restore a good part of my white blood cells killed off by the chemo (it stimulates the bone marrow to make more). I have a regimen of pills to take to counter nausea, and other possible side-effects. Next wednesday, I will see my oncologist for a general checkup and Q&A session. I could not be happier with the quality and competence of my care team (Shore Medical and Shore Cancer Center in Somers Point, NJ.)

My Cancer, Part 2

So far, my diagnosis only tells me that it's everywhere in my body, because it's (Non-Hodgkins) Lymphoma, Stage 4B. Stage 4 means it's travelled everywhere in my body, via the lymphatic system, the one that produces white blood cells. Instead of fighting off whatever infection comes along, some of these lymphocytes (see https://www.healthline.com/health/lymphocytes#function) have gone over to the dark side, becoming enlarged and creating, rather than solving, problems. (Caution: underinformed, layperson, allegorical talk.)

The diagnosis came from an oncologist via lab analyses of about five bits of my liver via a needle biopsy. Like many with this diagnosis, my only symptoms have been excess fatigue and vague cold-like symptoms. A test for flu was negative. A week of Tamiflu did not help. Unknown: how long I've had it, where it came from, and if there are any solid masses lurking in my body. (A PET scan should reveal anything of that nature, yet to be scheduled.)

On Feb. 24, I will see a second oncologist, and may be immediately scheduled for the prescribed PET scan. This is being done through the VA; when services such as the ones I need are far from home or outside the VA's ability to handle directly, they authorize third parties in my community to take over my care (and fund most or all of it). When analysis of this scan is complete, my oncologist (at Shore Cancer Center, Somers Point, NJ) can put together a treatment plan. I will consider allocations available to me, and remain in control of my own care. I will avoid unproven or dodgy remedies.

As I mentioned in the last post, the first oncologist told me he thinks he can cure me. My sole reason for switching: that oncologist does not work with the VA, and PET scans can be quite expensive. 

A second, and secondary, matter is the question of how I got this lymphoma. I have joined a mass-tort action with thousands of others who suspect it may have started with exposure, years ago, to Monsanto's Roundup (and now, continuing exposure through environmental contamination). As my VA physician pointed out, people have been getting this disease since long before Roundup's invention in the early 70's. Monsanto, now faced with thousands of lawsuits from alleged victims, continues to assert that Roundup is safe for humans. However, at least 5 plaintiffs have been awarded large settlements by juries; one of them will not live to get any money. Monsanto will doubtless follow Exxon's game plan: appeal until all the plaintiffs are dead, and all their survivors are in nursing homes.

Some eye-opening links for the curious:
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWM_PgnoAtA

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JszHrMZ7dx4

3) https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_5_environmental_impacts_glyphosate.

pdf

4) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969717330279

5) https://www.weedkillercrisis.com/topics/the-link-between-non-hodgkin-lymphoma-cancer-and-roundup/

6) https://www.sott.net/article/328165-The-ubiquitous-presence-of-glyphosate-now-found-in-vaccines

7) https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results

...and many, many more.

Link #1above and several others contain an interview with a Monsanto spokesman* who asserts that "Roundup is so safe you could drink a quart of it and it wouldn't hurt you." The interviewer, being prepared for this statement somehow (or just calling his bluff) says "We have some here. Would you like to drink some? Answers: 1) I'd be happy to...not really. I know it's safe." 2) "I'm not stupid." 3) I'm not an idiot." It's a must-see.

If you seek to avoid glyphosate by avoiding all GMO foods, beware: some non-GMO foods are deliberately killed by Roundup before harvest. Why? to accelerate the natural drying process for crops that must be dried before harvest (animal feed comes to mind). Yet another reason to go vegan; there's no regulation requiring food producers to reveal their use of Roundup.

Monsanto claims that "over 800 studies" have proven Roundup to be safe. What they don't reveal is a) all these studies were financed by Monsanto, and b) substantial evidence exists (via the legal discovery process) that the studies themselves were ghostwritten by Monsanto employees.

I asked oncologist #1 if one of my liver biopsy samples still out in the field could also be tested for glyphosate contamination. His answer: No Can Do. "I can't order any test (such as a test for glyphosate)  which is not medically indicated." When I persisted, asking if such a test could be done if I thought I'd been poisoned and knew that I'd been exposed to glyphosate (true), his tone changed. "Contact a lawyer." I took his advice, in the form of joining a mass-tort suit to that end. (you can join if you've been exposed. https://www.weedkillercrisis.com will take your info, as will many other sites. Many, many law firms are eager to be part of  the action. There is no cost to any plaintiff; if they win, you will get some share of the settlement. (Depending on the number of participants, it may be quite small.)

While I will persist in my quest to bring justice to Bayer/Monsanto, I will not let this sidetrack me from getting cured. 

What would justice look like? No amount of compensation will bring back the dead. I propose the "nuclear option:" revoke the Bayer/Monsanto corporate charters, liquidate their assets, and use these funds to heal the surviving victims and remediate the global environmental damage these monsters in nice suits have caused, in their depraved indifference to anything other than enhancing their profits. Those executives not sent to prison must be enjoined from holding any corporate or public office forever, and fined for their complicity in their employers' crimes.

Prosecution should extend to those in "our government" (actually government-services corporations, complete with D&B registrations), such as the FDA official who recently presided over the EPA's decision to reapprove glyphosate for use in the U.S. The decision was accompanied by public comments by Assistant Administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Alexandra Dunn, who stated, "There's no risk to public health from the application of glyphosate." Have a quart, Alexandra.

*Update: the interviewee is unidentified in the linked videos. He has been revealed to be 

Anna, Steele, and Trump (Part 2)

Note: see Anna, Steele, and Trump (Part 1) here.

Last year, I wrote an email to Robert David Steele after seeing the video I referenced in "Part 1." Not only did he kindly answer, but asked my permission to post it on his blog, with my name and humble visage!

Sadly, his reply got lost in my overloaded email, and he published it anyway, as an anonymous "alert reader."

My pride has overwhelmed my immense humility, and I post it here for you to appreciate (or not).

Update: after a note to Robert, he updated the post, de-anonymized me, and added n update about my cancer and the Monsanto suit.

2019/12/19 

 (Original URL: https://phibetaiota.net/2019/12/mongoose-alert-reader-on-anna-von-reitz/)

Mongoose: Alert Reader on Anna von Reitz

Corruption, Cultural Intelligence, Government, Law Enforcement

Alert Reader writes in:

I just saw the YouTube interview you did with Anna, and am glad that you have now “addressed her work,” as well as given your readers links to her books.

I agree with your comments near the end of the video that:

“I absolutely respect your knowledge, and even though I don’t understand it, I have a gut-level appreciation for your intelligence, integrity and imagination, and your voice needs to be heard.”

I felt your pain when you said “…my head hurts. Anna von Reitz, let me say, with absolute clarity, I think you are a very important person, you have done some very important research, and somewhere in our future we need to factor in everything you’ve brought to the table.”

From self-reflection, I think the source of that pain is cognitive dissonance. The core of the knowledge Anna seeks to impart to the public is not technically difficult to understand, but it has been masterfully obscured by the most powerful tools available to the architects of the multi-generational fraud she has helped to uncover: semantic fraud and deception. Beyond the tower of Babel, where multiple languages made communication near-impossible, these architects have corrupted the meanings of words withinlanguages, and given entirely different meanings to words and phrases simply by changes in capitalization. Thus, we are led up blind alleys and into brick walls with signs saying “No Left Turn,” “No Right Turn,” “No U-Turns,” and “No Stopping, Standing or Parking.”

We can walk into what we think are “our” courtrooms, stand before judges, and  lose before the trial begins when we “state our names”—because , by doing so, we unknowingly allow the judge to make the legal presumption that we are consenting to “represent” the Trojan-horse names we were “gifted” with shortly after our births, which were registered, trademarked, patented and traded as securities as various kinds of legal-fiction trusts, legally dead and treated by the Queen as “disregarded entities,” unprotected by any of the three Constitutions protections because those entities “are not a party” to any of them. We might learn later that all of our present “courts” are actually military district tribunals still persisting 150 years after our “civil war.”

We have been taught to believe that all Americans are “United States Citizens,” so we are unaware that most of us have birthrights as “American State Nationals.” We are taught (by omission) that there is only one Constitution (not 3), and only one entity with the (partial) name “United States” (not 3), that our government services are (and must be) funded by taxes, that the stuff in our wallets and bank accounts is “money,” that “government” expenditures always come from “the budget,” that our “courts” are not really OUR courts, and many other misconceptions.

No wonder that most of us, most of the time, literally don’t know what we are talking about.

It will take a major paradigm shift (or two) before we can start talking sense to ourselves and others. We are being tripped up by our own cognitive dissonance.

I still have to remind myself of this fact in my own day-to-day internal dialogues. It’s always easier to see this dissonance in others than in oneself.

I see much of this dissonance in reading your blog (where you provide a venue for other writers), but also in your own writing and projects (like #UNRIG). On the one hand, you correctly portray our phony “2-party system” as “One bird, two wings, same shit.” This portrayal is correct, within the context of what goes on in “our government.” Nevertheless, many blog posts focus on which wing of that bird is telling the truth, or should prevail on this issue or that.

In my own political life, I have been a supporter at different times of Republicans, Conservatives, Berniecrats, and Greens for government offices. However, until I encountered Anna’s work, I did not know enough to ask the question, “which government?” The Municipal United States, the Territorial United States (both incorporated subcontractors), or the employer of each, The United States of America (unincorporated)? The new paradigm changes everything.

The latter (unincorporated) United States, The United States of America, while it never ceased to exist, has no elected officers until We The People finally do  the job of Reconstruction (promised, but never accomplished, after the illegal mercenary conflict which most Americans think of as the American Civil War).

A paradigm shift, indeed. This long-delayed “Reconstruction” is Anna’s final step in restoring the America of We The People to actual self-government. The prerequisite steps are 1) repopulating, in sufficient numbers, The United States of America (unincorporated) with American State Nationals (those who have completed the process outlined at https://theamericanstatesassembly.net), reconstituting our actual governments l(state, federal and local) via assemblies, and finally electing the first government of, by and for the people in over 150 years.

This paradigm shift will make many projects you and I have embraced in the past (to borrow a word from the Watergate era) “inoperative.” For example, #UNRIG. American State Nationals can volunteer to as American State Citizens, but neither qualify to vote in “elections” of the Municipal or Territorial United States, on any level (as “State” and “Local” “governments” were effectively turned into franchises of the Territorial US when they accepted “revenue sharing” contracts). As a consequence, I will not be voting again until I can vote for a candidate in the reconstructed governments.

I believe even Anna is not immune to cognitive dissonance. She hopes that “The Orange One” will do the right thing, and “choose to occupy the power position of President of The United States of America” (as opposed to mere CEO of the US, Inc.) since he, and the Congress, can and do wear more than one hat. Sadly, The Orange One only knows how to wear one hat (the red one that says “MAGA”). Likewise, you hope that 45 will pay attention to one of your “big ideas” (at https://robertdavidsteele.com/bigideas/) and “Triumph in 3 Moves,” even though you’ve observed that he’s an extremely poor listener (because he must pretend to himself and others that he already knows everything).

For my part, I will follow Anna’s master plan, detailed at

https://theamericanstatesassembly.net.

Ahh, politics without cognitive dissonance!

Repeating your quote from the fourth paragraph above,

“I absolutely respect your knowledge, and even though I don’t understand it, I have a gut-level appreciation for your intelligence, integrity and imagination, and your voice needs to be heard.”

You and I are more than smart enough to understand the core of Anna’s work. The problem she presents is that accepting the new paradigm requires, for anyone willing to do so, abandoning a tremendous investment in what turns out to have been in error. I look at all the work you have done to change the world for the better and can hardly imagine your anguish at this prospect.

Perhaps we should adopt the attitude of the monks who spend countless hours at crafting beautiful and intricate mandalas of sand, then brush that sand back into one small container (or let it be blown to the four winds). Such is life; such is progress. Admittedly, an UNRIG motor home is more costly than a handful of colored sand, but it could be rebranded and/or repurposed.

Referenced interview:

My Cancer, Part 1

What's it like to be diagnosed with stage 4 cancer? One week ago, after 6 days in the ER, an oncologist told me the bad news and the good news. Bad: "You have Stage 4B Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma." The good: "We can cure you." I hope he's right.

As you’d expect, I’ve spent some time since researching the problem. Most folks with this diagnosis have swollen and/or painful lymph glands. Not me. Like some, my only symptom so far has been the one we all get: low energy and recurring or constant fatigue. No pain anywhere, and no tumors showing up in CT scans or ultrasound.

The diagnosis came after a CT scan showed lesions in my liver; a  needle biopsy was distributed to at least 3 labs, including the Mayo Clinic. 

I await scheduling for a head-to-toe PET scan which should show everything that’s anything in my body. I’m hoping the VA will cover the cost. A treatment plan will come after the PET scan results.

In the meantime, my research continues. as a “fan” of Anna von Reitz, David Wilcock and others, I’m aware of many alternative cures being deliberately kept secret from the public at large, for a variety of reasons (none of them warranted or legitimate). The ultimate cure is to cure oneself through the power of the mind. I’m confident that such things are possible, not for religious reasons, but based on science.

Questions and comments are welcome from any and all sources. If you feel moved to pray for me, I’m OK with that. If the ultimate news is the worst-case scenario, I’m OK with that too. I’m the only “atheist” you’re likely to meet who believes (based on science) that reincarnation, and the strong possibility of “ascension,” is real. I’ve had a good life, and am ready for whatever comes my way.

A mass thank-you goes out to all those who have already wished me well, even before I finished this comment.

Anna, Steele, and Trump (Part 1)

(Edited on 7/6/20)

I have followed Anna Von Reitz (annavonreitz.com) for years, and am convinced that her overall take on our history and her program for Americans to reassert their actual status as American State Nationals (and the steps she recommends to get there) is the only way forward to regain our sovereignty and fire the employees of our government-services corporations who’ve been pretending to be our actual government. All other attempts to “save” or “take back our government" are  misplaced and futile, as our actual government must be repopulated with American State Citizens as we again become a self-governing people.

She has stated in many articles that, once we Americans assert our status as American State Nationals (ASNs) and reject our Trojan-Horse "gift" of "US Citizenship", we cannot even claim to be eligible to vote in “their” elections; only American Citizens qualify as voters in these elections, and we cannot (as ASNs) hold dual citizenship (although US Citizens can). Indeed, part of any American’s declaration of their status as an American State National is removing themselves from the voting rolls, so they cannot be accused of holding an inconsistent position (or of committing  “voting fraud”).

All of a sudden, all debates about which “political parties” (actually corporate lobbies) deserve our loyalty, whether or not Trump should be impeached, or which Democratic hopeful should win the nomination, become moot. All this brouhaha simply does not concern us.

What should we do to “save the country,” if we can’t vote in these corporate elections? Search her main website (annavonreitz.com), or see the subsidiary site https://theamericanstatesassembly.net for the complete program.

As Anna has reminded us, she is human, not infallible or omniscient. The catalogue of articles on her webpage, growing at times by multiple Facebook posts per day and now numbering over 2,000, is bound to include a few posts containing opinions which, while not necessarily contradicting the main body of her work, might upset some of her “followers” who hold different opinions (such as me, on occasion) and be inconsistent with her core views.

Until now, I have refrained from expressing my differences of opinion, as they have not seemed important or relevant to Anna’s core messages. However, when some of her opinions seem to contradict parts of that message, they may cause some to become distracted from the truth (and urgency) of that core. Therefore, I reluctantly present my concerns about one of these opinions.

None of us are free of prejudice and beliefs colored by a lifetime of dealing with the challenges of swimming in a sea of distorted views, promulgated by powerful members of the media and our educational establishment. I know of no exceptions, including myself. For example, I am the son of an anti-union businessman, a staunch Republican, and campaigned for Goldwater. (Youngsters, look him up.) I later became a Libertarian, was a member of the John Birch Society, and in 2016 became a registered Democrat so I could campaign for Bernie. After the DNC and Co. stole his nomination, I became a Green and campaigned for Jill Stein. Once it sank in that, as an American State National, I am not eligible to vote in our current “government’s”  corporate “elections,”  a great sense of relief has washed over me (along with my looking forward to becoming an elector in our first “real” elections since the “Civil War”).

Here’s the rub: Anna and another person I greatly admire, Robert David Steele, share an erroneous judgment of, and hope for, Donald Trump: that he deserves our support against those who want him removed from office, and that supporters of impeachment are effectively supporters of a coup.

I once emailed Steele, asking if he was familiar with Anna’s work. He replied that he was, but was not prepared to address her work at that time.

Today, I viewed a video of an interview of Anna by Mr. Steele (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tneDSK8w1qE). I believe the video counts as “addressing her work.” While, as far as I know, Steele has not endorsed Anna’s view of her “way forward” out of our current rule-by-kleptocrats, but he has recommended her books to his viewers at the end of the video. 

Steele has endorsed “on a gut level” the core of Anna’s views, but claims to not understand that core on an intellectual level (echoing a  quote from Monty Python’s “Gumby Theatre”: “My brain hurts!”) I empathize with his pain; I have felt it myself, as a full understanding of Anna’s information requires a massive “unlearning” of false paradigms deeply ingrained in our worldview by the self-interested kleptocrats who engineered them into place over the lifetimes of several generations.

What have Anna (and Steele) said about Trump with which I disagree? 

I’ll start with some of her statements in article #2163 (A Reply for "No One”— The Proof is in the Pudding).

• “Donald Trump is unique in my experience of Presidents—and that now goes back sixty years—in that he has kept or made very good faith effort to keep every single one of his campaign promises.“

While this sounds like a direct quote from Trump-supporting talking points, not knowing what promises she’s referencing makes a proper reply difficult. I am familiar with a number of promises which he did not keep, like not constantly golfing (“like Obama”) because “he wouldn’t have time.” (He’s not only spent a record amount of time golfing, at tremendous public expense, but used his own golf courses so he’d profit from his own recreation.) He has, however, kept many promises to his patrons in the corporate world, by appointing opponents of the existence of certain Federal agencies to head those agencies. If he had promised to blame and punish poor people for their poverty, and demonized immigrants for being an existential threat to our nation, he has done a good job of that. (Recently, he attacked “Dreamers” for being an increased risk for criminal behavior, despite statistics showing they are more law abiding than most Americans.)

• “This is not the modus operandi of a ‘rat.’ That is evidence of an honorable man.”

An honorable man would not earn epithets like “Pussy-grabber-in-chief,” pay off women who have claimed to have affairs with him (instead of suing them for libel), use bankruptcy as a business plan, stiff the suppliers and subcontractors of his casinos, turn profiting from his business enterprises while in office into a high art, scam students into paying for making him their mentor in a phony university (then losing a related lawsuit)…I could go on, but calling Trump an honorable man is a stretch.

• “(Trump) has chosen the pedophiles (to take down first), wisely (because they can then be removed from their positions in banking, records administration, Congress, the military, courts, etc.)

A laudable action on his part (to the extent that it's true), and the primary reason for the praise he's received from "Q-anon." However, after firing most of his cabinet, usually as a result of their being exposed for corruption or incompetence, or simply for their refusal to be "loyal" and lie for him (or violate their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution), Trump has replaced them with “acting” appointees, avoiding the bother of having them confirmed by Congress, and put them in charge of the agencies his corporate controllers wish to dismantle (where they are happily doing that job for him). Our national parks are being decimated for the profit of his cronies and sponsors; even the land around the Grand Canyon is not safe from depredation. The Alaska Wildlife Refuge is slated to become another corporate profit center for land and offshore oil drillers.

As Anna has pointed out, Trump is not “our President” as most Americans still think of him, but the CEO of the United States, Inc. She’s stated (in article 2172) that he can, at any time (after correcting his political status), put on the hat of the “power position” of President of The United States of America (unincorporated) and begin to dismantle the corporate “government agencies” which have  no authority from our actual government. (Some, but not all, of those agencies should be cut back or eliminated, but not all, particularly those which protect the environment and public health.) Is Trump a man who might be inclined to take on this "power position?" Perhaps, if only as a defense against being impeached as the elected President of the Municipal United States Government doing business as "the" United States. 

Anna: “In that Superior Office (President of The United States of America), he can order the evacuation and quarantine of Washington, DC. He can also arrest any Municipal Officials caught operating outside the Boundary Stones marking the original "one mile square.” 

Who, other than Anna and perhaps Steele, can imagine The Real Donald Trump carrying out such an act?

In article 2171, “Impeached For Doing His Job,” Anna states, “Biden asked for and got money. Lots of money. All Trump asked for is information regarding possible criminal activity by a former VP ---- which is his right and his job, folks. It's what he should be doing.” So why didn’t Trump do what seems logical and proper: ask his Attorney General, Barr, to investigate? Why pressure a foreign government to do the job, if not to make the investigation look less like a political hatchet job?

I could add other defenses of Trump by Anna which seem out of place in her overall view of our current “political theater,” but these few should serve to illustrate the disconnect I perceive between Anna’s core views and what seem like remnants of an older “legacy” worldview.

Anna’s primary goal, restoring the functioning of our actual unincorporated government, is not well served by her unrealistic hopes for Trump to "do the right thing." Trump reinforces the impression that he retains his grip on his core characteristics: bully, narcissist, sociopathic kleptocrat—while losing his grip on reality with rambling, mad-lib discourses on random subjects such as water shortages. It might be more appropriate for Trump to be removed under the 25th Amendment (see https://www.adutytowarn.org) than by impeachment and removal by our corporate Senate, an unlikely scenario. Even if, as Robert Reich hopes, this scenario can be successful, we will still be in the position of being governed by our corporate employees.

We all need to follow the program Anna has laid out for us to become a self-governing nation again. as Anna keeps reminding us, we must do this job ourselves. No corporate-CEO “president” can do it for us.

My recent court appearance, and what it means for you

What happens when you assert your status in court (as a non-citizen American State National)?

Here I am at the beginning of my "new identity" as an American State National, armed with the documents published in the first post of this blog. As a result of a traffic stop, I was presented with the opportunity to get these documents filed into a court of public record. Here's what happened:

I was pulled over for not signaling a lane change, and issued a warning. However, I was issued a ticket for failing to have my registration card on my person. The fine was $180! The officer volunteered the information that, if I came to court, sometimes the judge was lenient and would waive the charge, and I would only pay court costs (about $30). I got a date for a court appearance, and showed up.

Documents in hand, my name was called ("John Spencer," my "legal" name). The judge said "state your name." I replied with the name family and friends have always used, "Jay Spencer." When asked about the discrepancy, I replied that I was a victim of identity theft ( a very concise way to characterize the situation), and that I had paperwork to enter into the court record which would fully explain the situation.

The judge stated that she could only file papers if I went to trial. I said, "Fine. please schedule me for trial." She did (later, by mail).

When the trial date came, I appeared. I got my name on the list of persons present by showing a clerk my ID (driver's license). The clerk asked the nature of the case; I replied, "identity theft." There was some confusion on his part; "Isn't this your name on the license?" "No," I replied. I repeated that my paperwork would explain everything.

Before it was my turn to come before the judge, another clerk motioned me up to the bar, and quietly told me, "the judge has dismissed your case." "Can I still speak to the judge?" "Yes," she replied.

My turn came, and again the judge said "State your name." I again replied "Jay Spencer." She stated, "You know I have dismissed your case?" I said "Yes, but I would still like my paperwork entered in the record." She replied, "I can't do that, since there is no case."

I asked, "is there any way to get this matter entered into the court record?" Reply: "you could file a police report." I kept a straight face. She said I would be provided a document which would formalize the disposition of the case. Here it is:

Enlargement reveals that the case was dismissed due to "prosecutor's discretion." No fine, no court costs. It's as if the whole thing never happened. They passed on the opportunity to collect revenue (their primary, if not only, mission) of about $210. Why? My "take" on the matter: there was no way they wanted to allow my documents to be filed into the court record, records which they never looked at. I think some bar attorney on the scene knew what they were, and "urged" the judge to dismiss the case.

The reader may or may not agree with me, but I view the whole affair as a validation of the power of declaring one's status as an American State National in the public record, and another reason for me to trust the core material on Anna's websites.

A final observation: the court already knows the identity of the persons (I use that term advisedly, as opposed to 'people," appearing before them). Why do they always ask that "person" to state their name for the official record, verbally? Could Anna von Reitz (and many others) be correct in their knowledge that they must get the subject of that question to self-identify as the person (legal fiction) about which the legal presumption is made that they are (an impossibility) or are the representative (an undisclosed and fraudulent trap) of that legal fiction? Those who reach the same conclusion as does Anna von Reitz may look forward to similar experiences in court.