#this was really just an analysis of the content of the oath as it evolved

[middle-earth-mythopoeia]

The evolution of the Oath of Fëanor

I was interested in comparing the different versions of the Oath of Fëanor to understand the similarities and differences and how it changed over time. So I went through HoMe and copied all the different versions to look at them side by side.

To start with, the earliest mention of the Oath appears in The Book of Lost Tales, and it was sworn by Fëanor’s sons, but not Fëanor himself, after the Noldor came to Beleriand:

Then the Seven Sons of Fëanor swore an oath of enmity for ever against any that should hold the Silmarils. / The Seven Sons of Fëanor swore their terrible oath of hatred for ever against all, Gods or Elves or Men, who should hold the Silmarils...

The next version appears in the Flight of the Noldoli from The Lays of Beleriand; Fëanor himself now initiates the Oath and swears it in Valinor. This is also the earliest version of the actual words of the Oath:

‘I swear here oaths, unbreakable bonds to bind me ever,  by Timbrenting and the timeless halls  of Bredhil the Blessed that abides thereon— may she hear and heed—to hunt endlessly unwearying unwavering through world and sea, through leaguered lands, lonely mountains, over fens and forest and the fearful snows,  till I find those fair ones, where the fate is hid of the folk of Elfland and their fortune locked, where alone now lies the light divine.’

Then his sons beside him, the seven kinsmen, crafty Curufin, Celegorm the fair, Damrod and Diriel and dark Cranthir, Maglor the mighty, and Maidros tall (the eldest, whose ardour yet more eager burnt than his father's flame, than Fëanor’s wrath; him fate awaited with fell purpose), these leapt with laughter their lord beside, with linked hands there lightly took the oath unbreakable; blood thereafter it spilled like a sea and spent the swords of endless armies, nor hath ended yet:

‘Be he friend or foe or foul offspring of Morgoth Bauglir, be he mortal dark that in after days on earth shall dwell, shall no law nor love nor league of Gods, no might nor mercy, not moveless fate, defend him for ever from the fierce vengeance of the sons of Fëanor, whoso seize or steal or finding keep the fair enchanted globes of crystal whose glory dies not, the Silmarils. We have sworn for ever!’

The next version appears in The Lay of Leithian, The Lays of Beleriand:

They joined in vows, those kinsmen seven, swearing beneath the stars of Heaven, by Varda the Holy that them wrought and bore them each with radiance fraught and set them in the deeps to flame. Timbrenting's holy height they name, whereon are built the timeless halls of Manwë Lord of Gods. Who calls these names in witness may not break his oath, though earth and heaven shake. Curufin, Celegorm the fair, Damrod and Diriel were there, and Cranthir dark, and Maidros tall (whom after torment should befall), and Maglor the mighty who like the sea with deep voice sings yet mournfully. ‘Be he friend or foe, or seed defiled of Morgoth Bauglir, or mortal child that in after days on earth shall dwell, no law, nor love, nor league of hell, not might of Gods, not moveless fate shall him defend from wrath and hate of Fëanor's sons, who takes or steals or finding keeps the Silmarils, the thrice-enchanted globes of light that shine until the final night.’

This is followed by another version of the Oath which appears in Sketch of the Mythology from The Shaping of Middle-earth, after Tolkien stopped working on the poetic Silmarillion and turned to the prose version:

Fëanor and his sons take the unbreakable oath by Timbrenting and the names of Manwë and Bridil to pursue anyone, Elf, Mortal, or Orc, who holds the Silmarils.

The next version appears in the Quenta Noldorinwa from The Shaping of Middle-earth:

Then he swore a terrible oath. His seven sons leaped straightway to his side and took the selfsame vow together, each with drawn sword. They swore an oath which none shall break, and none should take, by the name of the Allfather, calling the Everlasting Dark upon them, if they kept it not; and Manwë they named in witness, and Varda, and the Holy Mount, vowing to pursue with vengeance and hatred to the ends of the world Vala, Demon, Elf, or Man as yet unborn, or any creature great or small, good or evil, that time should bring forth unto the end of days, whoso should hold or take or keep a Silmaril from their possession.

And this is the version of the Oath in the Annals of Aman from Morgoth’s Ring:

Then Fëanor swore a terrible oath. Straightway his seven sons leaped to his side and each took the selfsame oath; and red as blood shone their drawn swords in the glare of the torches.

‘Be he foe or friend, be he foul or clean, brood of Morgoth or bright Vala, Elda or Maia or Aftercomer, Man yet unborn upon Middle-earth, neither law, nor love, nor league of swords, dread nor danger, not Doom itself, shall defend him from Fëanor, and Fëanor’s kin, whoso hideth or hoardeth, or in hand taketh, finding keepeth or afar casteth a Silmaril. This swear we all: death we will deal him ere Day’s ending, woe unto world’s end! Our word hear thou, Eru Allfather! To the everlasting Darkness doom us if our deed faileth. On the holy mountain hear in witness and our vow remember, Manwë and Varda!’

Thus spoke Maidros and Maglor, and Celegorn, Curufin and Cranthir, Damrod and Diriel, princes of the Noldor. But by that name none should swear an oath, good or evil, nor in anger call upon such witness, and many quailed to hear the fell words. For so sworn, good or evil, an oath may not be broken, and it shall pursue oathkeeper or oathbreaker to the world's end.

And then this is the version of the Oath in The Silmarillion:

Then Fëanor swore a terrible oath. His seven sons leapt straightway to his side and took the selfsame vow together, and red as blood shone their drawn swords in the glare of the torches. They swore an oath which none shall break, and none should take, by the name even of Ilúvatar, calling the Everlasting Dark upon them if they kept it not; and Manwë they named in witness, and Varda, and the hallowed mountain of Taniquetil, vowing to pursue with vengeance and hatred to the ends of the World Vala, Demon, Elf or Man as yet unborn, or any creature, great or small, good or evil, that time should bring forth unto the end of days, whoso should hold or take or keep a Silmaril from their possession. Thus spoke Maedhros and Maglor and Celegorm, Curufin and Caranthir, Amrod and Amras, princes of the Noldor; and many quailed to hear the dread words. For so sworn, good or evil, an oath may not be broken, and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world’s end.

—

It’s so interesting to see the Oath of Fëanor take shape!

First of all, it’s interesting that the Oath was originally sworn by Fëanor’s sons, not Fëanor himself. The greater role of the sons in earlier versions of the story can also be seen in the line about Maedhros, ‘whose ardour yet more eager burnt...’

There are many similarities between the poetic versions, even down to specific phrases: ‘friend or foe’ to ‘foe or friend’; ‘foul offspring’ to ‘foul or clean’; ‘no law, nor love’ to ‘neither law, nor love’; ‘not moveless fate’ to ‘not Doom itself’, and so on. ‘League of Gods’ becomes ‘league of hell’ and then ‘league of swords’.

In the earlier versions, Morgoth could still have ‘offspring’—the idea that the Valar could have children was to be discarded as time went on. Theoretically, ‘brood of Morgoth’ in the version in Morgoth’s Ring could also mean offspring, but it probably pertains to creatures that Morgoth did not directly create, but that he had a hand in making, such as the Orcs. 

(Only the version from Sketch of the Mythology explicitly mentions Orcs, but it stands to reason that they should generally be omitted, because Fëanor would not have known of them while he was still in Valinor.)

All versions of the Oath threaten violence against those who take or keep a Silmaril, but the version from Morgoth’s Ring introduces ‘whoso hideth or hoardeth...or afar casteth’. And whereas the earlier versions threaten ‘enmity’, ‘hatred’, ‘fierce vengeance’, and ‘wrath and hate’, the version from Morgoth’s Ring explicitly threatens death.

The naming of Taniquetil appears in all the versions after The Flight of the Noldoli. The naming of Varda in witness appears first in The Flight of the Noldoli; then in Sketch of the Mythology both Varda and Manwë are named, and this was clearly to become a central feature of the Oath.

The naming of the Allfather first appears in the version from the Quenta Noldorinwa, and again in Morgoth’s Ring, and this was also to become a central feature of the Oath. In the version in The Silmarillion, it is emphasized even further: ‘by the name even of Ilúvatar’.

The Quenta Noldorinwa also introduces the pivotal element of the Everlasting Darkness, which had not been mentioned up until that point, but would obviously persist into later versions. 

The element of the drawn swords also first appears in the Quenta Noldorinwa, and their swords shine ‘red as blood’ in Morgoth’s Ring in language that is identical to the passage in The Silmarillion. The phrasing ‘which none shall break, and none should take’ is also identical to The Silmarillion. 

It’s also interesting that the version in The Book of Lost Tales says the sons of Fëanor swore an oath of hatred against ‘Gods or Elves or Men’, but then the versions from The Lays of Beleriand do not mention the Oath being directed against the Gods, but this element returns in the Quenta Noldorinwa and persists to Morgoth’s Ring (which adds Maiar to the list) and The Silmarillion.

Overall, as the Oath of Fëanor evolved, it seems that it became much more dangerous and malicious and took on ever greater significance in the story. It was never not dangerous, but the Fëanorians kept adding to their list of enemies until they were threatening to pursue to the end of the world any creature, good or evil, who should possess a Silmaril. The imagery of the drawn swords shining red as blood, which appears in the later versions of the Oath, emphasizes the intent behind it.

And although the Oath was already called ‘unbreakable’ in The Flight of the Noldoli, in later versions the sense of its finality and binding nature is much stronger because of the naming of the Valar, the naming of Ilúvatar, and invoking the Everlasting Darkness.

I made this chart to show the evolution of the Oath over time:

Also, Morgoth’s Ring introduces the sentence, ‘For so sworn, good or evil, an oath may not be broken, and it shall pursue oathkeeper or oathbreaker to the world's end.’ This raises an interesting problem: if an oath cannot be broken, then there can’t be oathbreakers. But it says such an oath may not be broken; clearly it is possible to break. (This is backed up by the fact that, in some versions of the story, Maedhros foreswore the Oath. That isn’t the outcome Tolkien ended up choosing—but it shows that it was possible.)

On a final note, it’s also interesting that the Fëanorians threaten to pursue ‘to the ends of the World Vala, Demon, Elf or Man...’ and then it says such an oath ‘shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world’s end.’ I think that’s it. The Fëanorians swore an oath to pursue their enemies with vengeance—but the oath turned on them instead.

#Tolkien #HoMe #Silmarillion #Oath of Feanor #my writing #because I am INSANE... I literally did a word search in HoMe (I have a PDF of it) and there are over 300 iterations of ''oath'' #some of them appear inside other words such as loath or loathsome #so I went through and found all the mentions of the Oath of Feanor #there are many more mentions of it than these seven versions #this was really just an analysis of the content of the oath as it evolved #I stayed up to 5am writing this

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

It’s a big day for Robert Mueller and his team: One year ago today, Mueller was appointed to lead the special counsel investigation into possible ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian officials. It’s a miracle, in some ways, that Mueller has lasted this long. President Trump’s relationship with the investigation has grown increasingly adversarial, and at many moments over the course of the past 12 months, it seemed like Mueller’s job was in jeopardy.

So this hasn’t been an easy year for Mueller, but it’s certainly been productive. Since the first indictments came down in the investigation last fall, the special counsel has racked up five guilty pleas and 14 indictments of individuals.1 He also reportedly gave a referral to the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York that led to a raid on the office, home and hotel room of presidential lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, which has turned into its own separate investigation.

We’ve taken a look at how Mueller’s first year measures up against the initial 12 months of other special counsel and independent counsel investigations. In terms of the number of charges he’s been able to file, Mueller is moving quickly. At one year after the formal appointment of a special or independent counsel, only the Watergate special prosecution force had obtained more indictments and guilty pleas.

But the total number of charges doesn’t tell the whole story. To get a sense of where Mueller’s investigation might go in its second year, it’s worth looking at where the three other highest-profile investigations in modern history — Watergate, Iran-Contra and Whitewater — stood a year after a special or independent counsel came on board and how they evolved in the year or two afterward.

These investigations give us three separate models of what Mueller’s first year could mean for the rest of his investigation, and they show how foolish it can be to predict the end of a special counsel investigation based on its beginning. Watergate lived up to the dramatic promise of its first year: It ended Nixon’s presidency and sent dozens of people to jail. The revelations in the Iran-Contra scandal initially seemed like they might engulf Ronald Reagan, but the scandal began to fizzle when it became clear that Reagan wouldn’t be implicated. And Whitewater, which was sleepy at first, eventually resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton — but for reasons that could never have been foreseen after the first year of the investigation.

Watergate

The year after Archibald Cox was named special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation was, to put it mildly, a whirlwind. That’s partially because Cox was stepping into a scandal that had already been unfolding for months. The Watergate break-in occurred in June 1972, and by the time Cox was named special prosecutor in May 1973, the trials of the Watergate burglars were already complete. At this point, the stakes of the investigation were clear: According to a Gallup poll from the month Cox was appointed, 78 percent of Americans said that Watergate was of “great” or “some” importance for the nation. For comparison, in April 2017 — a month before Mueller came on board — Quinnipiac University found that 66 percent of registered voters believed that alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election was either a very or somewhat important issue.

A year after Cox’s appointment, in May 1974, Cox had been fired by Nixon and replaced by another special prosecutor, and it was clear that a wide range of people connected to the Nixon administration had committed crimes far beyond the Watergate break-in, including illegal campaign donations, other burglaries, tax fraud and corruption. Nixon also fortified perceptions of his own guilt during this time by dismissing Cox for trying to obtain tapes from his secret White House recording system and continuing to fight Cox’s successor, Leon Jaworski, over the tapes.

The “smoking gun” tape, in which Nixon ordered his staff to stop the FBI’s investigation of the Watergate break-in, was released in August 1974, and Nixon resigned just days later. It seems unlikely that events of the same magnitude are in the cards for this summer, but it’s impossible to know what information Mueller’s team has already gathered. “By May 1974, Jaworski knew he had enough evidence against Nixon to indict him, if he had been a private citizen,” said Timothy Naftali, the former director of the Nixon Presidential Library and a history professor at New York University. “But he wasn’t sharing that with the American people.”

In other words: If the Russia investigation is truly like Watergate, Mueller’s team may already have the evidence it needs to topple the Trump presidency, and we just don’t know about it yet.

Iran-Contra

It’s also possible that the Mueller investigation will end up looking more like another high-profile investigation: the Iran-Contra affair.

During the year after Lawrence Walsh was appointed independent counsel for the Iran-Contra investigation, he secured only two guilty pleas. But the scandal — which involved the Reagan administration’s illegal sales of arms to Iran and funneling of the profits to right-wing “Contras” battling the socialist government in Nicaragua — threatened Ronald Reagan at the height of his popularity.

As Reagan administration officials testified before Congress about their participation in the arms deal, it seemed possible that the scandal would engulf the president. Reagan’s approval ratings had plummeted in November 1986, when news about the Iran-Contra affair broke, and they remained low throughout 1987. Meanwhile, in February 1987, 81 percent of Americans agreed that the Iran-Contra scandal was of “great” or “some” importance for the country. By the end of 1987, it seemed clear that more indictments were coming, and Walsh charged six more people — including Reagan administration officials Oliver North and John Poindexter — in the first half of 1988.

But unlike in Watergate, the trajectory of the investigation was far less dramatic than the prevailing opinions of the first year would suggest. The convictions of North and Poindexter were overturned, and Walsh was ultimately foiled in his efforts to prosecute a second round of officials for their role in a cover-up of the deal after George H.W. Bush pardoned them a month before he left office.

And perhaps most importantly, Reagan himself was never implicated. “Reagan was able to recover and salvage his legacy,” said Richard Arenberg, who worked on the Senate committee investigating Iran-Contra and now teaches at Brown University. It’s possible that the Mueller investigation could turn out to be just as anticlimactic, and Trump — like Reagan — could emerge pretty much unscathed.

Whitewater

Then there’s the possibility that the events of Mueller’s first year might not matter much — but his investigation could still end up implicating the president. That’s what happened in the Whitewater independent counsel investigation, which began in 1994 and initially centered on a land deal made by Bill and Hillary Clinton in the late 1970s, when he was still the attorney general of Arkansas.

The independent counsel for that investigation, Kenneth Starr, obtained a handful of high-profile indictments in his first year, including of the former governor of Arkansas.2 But Americans were divided on the investigation’s importance at the time — an August 1994 poll showed that 52 percent of Americans thought the investigation was unimportant. It didn’t appear to threaten the president until several years later, when Starr expanded his investigation to include a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by a former Arkansas state employee named Paula Jones. It was in a deposition for the Jones suit that Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, setting up the perjury prosecution that led to his impeachment.

It remains possible that Trump or his close associates could be implicated in this investigation in ways that are unrelated to collusion with Russia, especially if Trump is forced to give a deposition in one of the civil lawsuits pending against him. But this scenario is probably the least likely of the three to transpire now, if only because Starr had much more flexibility and job security than Mueller does. He and Walsh were appointed under a law passed after Watergate that protected the independent counsel from being fired at the president’s behest, but that law expired in 1999. Under the terms of Mueller’s position as special counsel within the Department of Justice, straying from the issues he was charged with investigating could be grounds for dismissal. “Mueller has to be really careful and focused in a way that Ken Starr didn’t,” said Katy Harriger, a political science professor at Wake Forest University and an expert on independent counsel investigations. “So that reduces the likelihood of a Whitewater-style situation.”

As the Russia investigation enters its second year, the most important variable may be how long Mueller can keep his job. Watergate, Iran-Contra and Whitewater all had one thing in common: They lasted at least four years. Given the reports that Trump has already twice considered ordering Mueller’s removal, it’s not clear that the investigation can survive that long — at least, with Mueller at the helm.

Looking at past special counsel probes also highlights the limits of what Mueller can do on his own. Cox, for example, benefited enormously from the concurrent Watergate hearings held in Congress, which was where the White House deputy chief of staff revealed that Nixon had a secret White House taping system. Mueller hasn’t gotten similar assistance from this Congress.

And despite the drama of Mueller’s first year, we won’t know what his slew of indictments really means until it’s clear what additional evidence he’s been able to collect. “The big unanswered question is: Does Mueller have evidence that Trump is at the center of some kind of web of illegal activity?” Naftali said. “If he does, then we may be looking at something like Watergate. If not — then maybe this is as far as the Russia investigation gets.”

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux

[racketnews]

Was Earth invented for souls to learn about evil because a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away 10,000 super-powered Jedi Knights couldn’t recognize evil from just two Dark Side players and lost?

*hyperlinks/videos live at source* “How do democracies get turned into dictatorships? The democracies aren’t overthrown; they’re given away... Star Wars was really about the Vietnam War.” - George Lucas, creator of Star Wars “The (Star Wars) Empire is like America ten years from now.” - George Lucas, 1973 Adjusted for inflation, Star Wars is likely the most popular film series in history. Stories are popular because they communicate themes that resonate with the public. Creator George Lucas communicates that a powerful republic is overcome by false flag deception that devolves into the most evil dictatorial empire possible. According to the story, 10,000 Jedi Knights were galactic guardians of virtue after a history of defeating evil. But these 10,000 super-powered beings became blind to the presence of evil, failed to recognize it at the leadership of their own government, and were defeated in orchestrated false flag ambush by just two evil actors. David Brennan’s brilliant 13-minute video explains the false flag themes in Star Wars: “So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause.” Star Wars character Padme Amidala Let's connect this popular story to our real-world of the present “Dictatorship” literally means a government from what is dictated/said whenever government “leadership” says so. The US has lost almost all Constitutional rights to the dictates of “leaders” in government. In contrast, a constitutional republic is limited government acting within its constitution. This is basic high school-level education we all learned, and are demanded to either live or lose. Rome’s empire expanded by always claiming “defensive” wars from such constant “enemies” eventually becoming tragic-comic oligarchy, and Washington’s Blog documents 71 admitted false flag attacks in history using this same false narrative. The United States is devolving into tragic-comedy, with no end in sight. The most accurate description of its government is not limited under our constitution, but a rogue state empire. For just a few examples: When Americans are told an election is defined by touching a computer screen without a countable receipt that can be verified, they are being told a criminal lie to allow election fraud. This is self-evident, but Princeton, Stanford, and the President of the American Statistical Association are among the leaders pointing to the obvious (and here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here). Again, no professional would/can argue an election is legitimate when there is nothing for anyone to count. The facts show Bernie Sanders won the Democratic Primary election, and claims by Democratic "leadership" of Russian election "meddling" are without factual documentation. US military now illegally occupy eight bases in Syria (and here), with escalating bombing of Syria and Iraq of over 4,000 bombs/month and over 84,000 since 2014. The US acknowledges ~500 civilian deaths from these bombs, with independent count of ~750 in just in June 2017. Among dozens of independent writers, I’ve documented that all “reasons” for wars on Iran, Syria, and Russia are easily proved lies (recently, here, here, here, and going back to 2005), with US Department of illegal Wars of Aggression (so-called “Defense”) claiming to have “lost” $65,000 for every US household. The US is a literal rogue state empire led by neocolonial looting liars. The history is uncontested and taught to anyone taking comprehensive courses. If anyone has any refutations of this professional academic factual claim for any of this easy-to-read and documented content, please provide it. Rogue state empire is the most accurate term to describe the US for the following reasons: People around the world view the US as the greatest threat to peace; voted three times more dangerous than any other country. The data confirm this conclusion: Since WW2, Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them. These US-started armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. The US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis. The total deaths caused by rogue state empire for resource control (natural and human) in the last 20 years is ~400 million, more than all total wars and violence in all recorded Earth history. US ongoing lie-started and Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression require all US military and government to refuse all war orders because there are no lawful orders for obviously unlawful wars. Officers are required to arrest those who issue obviously unlawful orders. And again, those of us working for this area of justice are aware of zero attempts to refute this with, “War law states (a, b, c), so the wars are legal because (d, e, f).” All we receive is easy-to-reveal bullshit. The destruction of nearly all rights lawfully guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights within the US Constitution, and in Orwellian inversion of limited government. Corporate media are criminally complicit through constant lies of omission and commission to "cover" all these crimes. Historic tragic-comic empire is only possible through such straight-face lying, making our Emperor's New Clothes analogy perfectly chosen. The top three benefits each of monetary reform and public banking total ~$1,000,000 for the average American household, and would be received nearly instantly. Please read that twice and imagine the connection between having a rogue state empire to enrich an oligarchy combined with internal financial manipulation to maximize those parasitical riches. Now look to verify for yourself. Iran has never threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" and only has IAEA-verified legal energy and medicine programs with nuclear materials. Trump and corporate media continues and escalates easily-verified lies to threaten more illegal war on Iran. Israel engages in lie-started and illegal War of Aggression on Gaza; ironically the largest concentration camp in world history. This is also easy to verify. Philosophical analysis: why does evil exist, and especially so robustly on Earth 'led' by .01% psychopaths? As I "discussed" with Socrates, one thing cannot exist without contrast. A thing is only recognizable compared with something else. Light is only appreciated compared to the dark. Virtue is itself only in the presence of evil. The evil of .01% psychopaths must continue in ongoing acts that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions until We the People evolve enough to recognize it, demonstrate integrity to point to it, and intelligently take action to end it. Because true psychopaths are so few in number, I assess our condition as Emperor’s New Clothes easy to end, although Life seems to provide only enough of us pointing to the facts to optimize ordinary humanity's growth to see reality for themselves when they're ready to look. If Earth exists to spur evolution, at least in part of its purpose, then embrace of virtue over evil must come only with choice. Choice must come only from attentive consideration. Attentive consideration must come only from exposure to both virtue and evil. Exposure to evil is certainly what Earth provides in a robust environment. Perhaps another artistic analogy is Billy Joel's Stiletto, appropriately performed in Russia to suggest these humans, like us, prefer to party far more than engage in war and fear: Are we there yet? Ready to demand lawful .01% arrests for OBVIOUS crimes centered in war, looting, lying, or do you need more exposure? You have a choice. Given the prima facie evidence, it's unreasonable for Americans to "hope for change" from Donald Trump's "leadership." We the People must demand .01% arrests or continue to serve as minions and work animals to rogue state empire. Until .01% arrests prove real leadership to stop ongoing slaughter of millions of human beings, harm to billions, and looting of trillions, it is only reasonable for Americans to embrace the evidence only lightly summarized in this article to conclude ongoing illegal .01% empire under a new "teleprompter reader-in-chief," lying psychopathic puppet, oligarchic tool on the Right hand of one vicious imperial political body. The categories of crime include: Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit). Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths. Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history). US military, law enforcement, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice: Demand arrests, with those with lawful authority to enact it. An arrest is the lawful action to stop apparent crimes, with the most serious crimes documented here meaning the most serious need for arrests. Watch the US escalate its rogue state crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions. In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk): 3-minute video: Police, Military – Was your Oath sincere? ** Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics 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. 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 is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He 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 [email protected] Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work 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. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here). http://dlvr.it/PdPkdW