My judgements are not based just on whether I think people are honest or dishonest. I think you are probably honest, but for me that doesn't make you an ally. Your political views can lead you to act in ways that hinder rather than help, from my viewpoint.

Your thinking is based on morality, not politics. Corruption is a moral category, not a political category.

To me your political views appear to be entirely unrealistic. The American Civil War was won by your opponents over a century and a half ago and if you think you can fight it again and win this time perhaps you had better check this idea out with more Americans, of a variety of political persuasions.

There are Europeans also, Eurosceptics, who have the same "states rights" perspective, equally unreal. The question today is control by the corporate media, and ways of dealing with it. I have floated a number of ideas in this connection:

http://halva.proboards.com/index.cg...alkforever&thread=124&page=1#565

Your "state-by-state" approach will fail from the outset, brought to its knees by the basic fact that you are working from ONE SIDE ONLY of the US political spectrum, the conservative side. The climate change debate is a divisive debate. (Not surprisingly: it has been constructed in order to divide.) The chemtrails debate by contrast is a potentially unifying debate, but only if it is fought on its own terms, not as a sideshow to the mainstream climate change debate.

G. Edward Griffin sometimes says things that hit the mark, and one that sticks in my mind is his comparison between dogs and cats. As he says, if you throw a stone at a cat it looks at the stone. If you throw a stone at a dog, it looks at you.

The climate change debate is the stone that has been thrown at us, and you - catlike - are looking at it, rather than looking at who has thrown it.

To be frank I could not care less which side of the climate debate is closer to the truth. It is a debate for scientists. Once it becomes politicized, as it has been, I look only at the politics. I am not a scientist. Why should I try to compete with scientists, or play the scientist?

I see the climate debate just as a continuation of older and more deeply entrenched strategies of domination, just updated with new blah-blah.

As for your last question, it has to do with work in progress, and all I can say is that I will report on it. That is better than continuing a dead-end argument.