Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: School board unanimously votes for ‘mandatory’ student ‘vaccines’, superintendent cancels my committee without evidence of policy violation, ultimatum to teachers’ union to ch

Perhaps the most helpful communication is a summary of events to the most recent article, the specific updates when they occurred, and preview of coming events (articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28).

Summary (links = full documentation): The California “lockdown orders” we were all told were necessary to “flatten the curve and keep hospitals running” have lasted since March 3, 2020. The California Emergency Services Act (ESA) is derived from California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders. Because Californians never received comprehensive hospital data, our government and corporate media “leaders” are lying in omission. Because problematic “positive cases” (and here, here) were substituted for “beyond control” hospitals, our leaders lie in commission. All testimony I’ve received from ~20 medical professionals here in NorCal report all hospitals they know of have been fully within their control throughout the “pandemic.”

As a NorCal public school teacher, at the start of our school year in September 2020 I inquired to our district’s leadership and teachers’ union how their negotiated policy to “obey” county “health” “orders” is legal given the above reasonable limits to dictatorial authority. I cited our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions. I reminded the district I merely ask them as educated professional adults to perform what we expect from all our Californian Middle School students in our State teaching standards: “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.” (page 81).

After two requests, the district contact person responded by ignoring my questions, and that employees are required to obey “California mandates” “to protect you” under threat of being terminated. I emailed our district superintendent, school board members, my school principal and two interested teachers that we teach all high school students in our US History classes that the district’s position of “just following orders” is an illegal defense, and asked again how ESA limits are being honored.

After continued district silence, I filed three legal complaints: federal, state, and a grievance for district violation of worker safety to support apparent dictatorial and illegal policy under direct threat of employment termination, $1,000 fines per violation, and one year imprisonment under Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1).

Our union responded with support to ask the district, and to communicate privately that they wouldn’t pursue the grievance to arbitration because the working conditions were negotiated in good faith. The grievance process finished with district and union agreement the complaint didn’t qualify as a grievance.

I appealed the district’s answer to our community school board for what the district redefined as a “written complaint.” From October 2 to December 18 2020 the district was silent, despite policy promising a response within 30 days of the board’s receipt. After this December 13 reminder they were out of compliance for a response, the superintendent answered that the school board upheld the district response without comment.

I also received a “non-response” after nearly 5 months from my complaint to the US Department of Justice regarding unlimited government. My complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint was fielded with a phone call response in December, with their promise to follow-up, and silence since then.

In March 2021, our NorCal public school superintendent sent all staff an email citing county deaths from COVID nearing 1,300 with 80,000 “cases.” He also asked for our professional responses to an upcoming survey. I responded with three basic questions: how many of our staff and students have died of (not with) Covid, what is the data for overall county deaths given controversy over causes of deaths, and how many staff and students have been injured by vaccines. He ignored my questions twice, which I then shared with our school’s ~100 teachers as Chair of a school Professional Learning Community (PLC) on broad educational topics directly affecting our school’s teaching and learning. A few teachers have communicated support, but our Social Science Department found no interest in this topic when I emailed them in inquiry.

Our district superintendent then answered my questions, and concluded with: “If you do not agree with the state and county guidelines or if you believe we are not following them, please pursue your questions and concerns with the appropriate agency.” I responded I would do so, and report my findings.

I followed up with 14 CA government agencies over 6 weeks, with all ignoring the question of how the limit of “beyond control” hospitals was being honored for “emergency” dictatorial authority, and CA Senator Glazer’s office stating the 60-day limit applied only to “non-safety” related orders. I hadn’t considered an American legislature would surrender forever dictatorial powers to a governor or elected officials without a time limit, as public recourse would be limited to recall (as is happening with Governor Newsom) or electing other legislators.

School district and CA government “answers” are therefore intentional lies of omission to claim they answered a question about ESA to “justify” dictatorial government while leaving out any consideration of crystal-clear letter and intent requiring that our hospitals are “beyond control.” The 14 CA government agencies claim dictatorial power to close businesses, stop social gatherings, force masking, force humans to forever remain no closer than six feet from each other, and with forever power until legislators or governor say otherwise, and while lying in commission that “emergency powers” are authorized by unreliable “positive” “cases.”

At the end of April 2021, I wrote a lengthy and fully documented report of those 14 CA government agencies’ responses, and emailed it with a cover letter to district leadership, school board members, teachers’ union leadership, our PLC members, and school teachers. The district’s Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources immediately responded with threats of disciplinary action for unspecified violations of district policies, as did my school principal. The district has yet to respond to my questions regarding their undocumented complaints as the “foundation” to their threats.

I appealed to our teachers’ union for relief (and here, here). After 4 emails and 15 days of silence from our union President and VP, I sent this email to 14 of the Board of Directors of our teachers’ union. Our President and VP then responded for a next step “to gain clarification regarding matters within our scope and discuss next steps, if any.” We Zoom-met, and our union President met with district Assistant Superintendent of HR on May 25, 2021. The district emailed me claiming my PLC report somehow “harasses or disparages” my colleagues “based on their political beliefs,” yet fails again to provide any documentation or explanation despite the union and my requests.

I filed three employee grievances for apparent contract violations, with our contract requiring my silence of proceedings. On July 8, I spoke by phone with our teachers’ union president, who reported that the district is again considering my Grievances as employee complaints, with HR Assistant Superintendent admitting failure to address my requests for the district to document and explain their complaints.

On July 9, 2021 our teachers’ union held a Zoom conference with ~100 teachers to explain the tentative agreement for work conditions for 2021 – ‘22 school year for staff, students, and families to obey “the most restrictive health measures” “ordered” by state, county or federal government. I asked the first question for our union to explain how the state has ordering authority given the strict limits of “beyond control” hospitals, with union president, VP, and another union board member responding they are still representing my question, but all legal information they’ve received is that there is no requirement to oppose ordering authority until proven in court.

My school district’s final answer to my three employee grievances came on July 21, 2021:
Teachers, staff, students and families will follow “health” “orders” because they are ordered.
“Health” “orders” are whatever is ordered. We will not respond to requests for documentation of what is ordered as “healthy,” nor even acknowledge the question was asked despite our legal obligation to explain how all policies are within the limits of the law.
If teachers ask further questions how our “health” “orders” are lawful or healthy, they will be disciplined up to termination under the “reason” that such questions “harass and/or disparage other’ political beliefs.”
On July 24 I responded to the district’s formal initiation of “disciplinary action steps” that lead to termination for unprofessional conduct by offering the district choice to finally cite their unsubstantiated complaints against me, withdraw the complaints and censorship, or face my attorney. On July 26, the district’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources responded in refusal to substantiate their claims of my unprofessional work; claiming “The District has provided you with the appropriate documentation that has sufficiently responded to your requests. At this time, there is no additional information that can be provided to you that has not already been provided.” Our teachers union President called me with analysis from her conversations with district leadership that the district is unwilling to look beyond their legal orders, and must be forced by court or legislative orders.

I had a productive first conversation with an America’s Frontline Doctors connected attorney, who promised to converse with her team to evaluate my case for possible lawsuit support. I have a second conversation scheduled to hopefully initiate lawsuit against my school district (and perhaps other parties).

On September 4, 2021, I reported to my ~100 teacher colleagues my best “shot” to “red pill” them about dozens of game-changing facts corporate media will never report (my published research on corporate media “reporting” lies known to be false as they were told for the many variants of the Wars on Terror). This report to teachers (at “Update 3”) makes a great essay to share with comprehensive facts of our big picture condition (and here).

On Friday September 17, our district superintendent announced the school board will address the question of mandatory student “vaccines” on Wednesday, September 22. I responded to district and teachers’ union leadership with legal notice of their prima facie-crimes, and initiated another employee Grievance for contract violation guaranteeing policies in conformance to law. My attorneys affiliated with America’s Frontline Doctors are watching district and union responses with professional interest, as they choose which cases are best to vigorously pursue.

On Wednesday September 22, the school board voted 5-0 to “mandate” full student “vaccination” for “Covid” (see my essay to ~100 teachers for absolute proofs for quotation marks). The public comment session for 1-minute remarks were ~15 against and ~25 for. Four parents and two employees contacted me, and I’ve initiated our organized work including informing the 3 attorneys paying full attention to these developing cases. I’m also actively engaged in two current employee Grievances, and will give our teachers’ union an ultimatum to honor our contract that all district policies be “in conformance with law” by standing with me against the district’s illegal “mandates” that violate US Codes 21 and 18, and California Government Code 8558 (b) of “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case).

**

Update 1: HUSD vote 5-0 for mandatory student “vaccines”: The nearly 6 hour meeting included 1-minute public comments, with ~15 against and ~25 for.

My comment:

Carl Herman, teacher at (omitted) High School. Email me for full documentation of factual claims.

I have placed (superintendent) and the Board on legal notice for violating US federal law Title 21 which governs all US food and drug policies, including FDA. Title 21 states that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) products can only be offered with “option to accept or refuse.” It is therefore illegal to mandate an optional EUA product.

Covid vaccines, PCR tests, and masks are all EUA. HUSD’s position to “just follow orders” is in violation of US Code 18 Section 242: Deprivation of Rights under color of law.

The US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reports nearly 15,000 US deaths as adverse effects of Covid “vaccines.” In the last 2 months the average is about 70 US deaths each and every day.

**

Update 2: Superintendent banishes my Professional Learning Committee (PLC) informing teachers for their teaching and learning policy choices. Following my email putting HUSD and our teachers’ union on legal notice again, I received the following response from the superintendent, to which I had 3 replies up to the 9/22 school board meeting, and another employee Grievance for discipline without evidence and violation of academic freedom to address district policies that doubled our student failure rate:

Sep 20, 2021, 5:18 PM (6 days ago)
to me, (HR Assistant Superintendent, school Admin, teacher union president)

Dear Mr. Herman,

I am responding to your email below as well as to your email on 9/4 that was forwarded to me about continuing the HHS Solutions and Beyond! PLC. First, in response to your most current question, click here for the state public health officer order of August 11, 2021 requiring that schools must verify the vaccination status of employees and test employees at least weekly by October 15 who have not shown proof of vaccination. We are also following state and county guidance related to managing COVID-19 cases and exposures among students.

Second, your email below is continuing to raise concerns that the district has addressed. Your ongoing issue is that the district is following state and county issued directives and guidance. The district has followed its processes for addressing complaints and has already determined this matter closed and resolved. Please refrain from communicating further with us and your colleagues your concern that the district is following state and county directives and guidance. If you do not believe that the state or county have the authority to issue such directives as the one cited above, please take this matter up with them on your personal time using your personal email.

Lastly, in reviewing this and previous communications, your PLC does not meet the expectations as to how collaboration time is to be used. Per the HUSD/HEA contract, “Collaboration time shall be teacher directed and focused on standards based instruction, and/or school goals, and/or district goals.” Your PLC is not focused on instruction and is not aligned with school or district goals and may not continue. Please communicate with (school principal) how you intend to use collaboration time or participate in a PLC that is focused on standards based instruction, school, or district goals.

Thanks,
(name omitted)
Superintendent

**
My subsequent replies (by contract I cannot share the Grievance content until resolution, but it’s to force the superintendent to cite what I wrote that substantiates his claims):

Sep 20, 2021, 6:01 PM (6 days ago)

to Carl, (Superintendent, HR Assistant Superintendent, school Admin, teacher union president)

(Superintendent),
Your representation of my messages is a straw-man argument:

“Your ongoing issue is that the district is following state and county issued directives and guidance.”

My ongoing issue is that the district is ignoring 3 definitive and cited laws that demonstrate the state and county lack the legal authority to issue any directives/guidance/mandates/whatever with any power other than public option to accept or reject.

You omit important data that I already took your recommendation and fully documented my communications with the most authoritative 14 CA government agencies, and already sent you that report in April (all refused to address limits to dictatorial power, just as HUSD and you have):

“If you do not believe that the state or county have the authority to issue such directives as the one cited above, please take this matter up with them on your personal time using your personal email.”

And finally, you claim:

“Your PLC is not focused on instruction and is not aligned with school or district goals and may not continue.”

I have repeatedly stated these PLC communications directly address district and school policies that doubled our student failure rate last year; likely the worst decline in district history. Explain how this is not aligned with school and district goals, or withdraw your communication that my PLC work is below professional standards.

And in case you need reminding:

HUSD CORE VALUES
Collaborative Leadership: We develop leaders at all levels who creatively tackle our challenges and communicate with integrity and transparency.
Data-Informed Decisions: We use multiple types of data, including stakeholder voice, to inform decisions and monitor progress.

**
My second reply the following morning:

Sep 21, 2021, 5:45 AM (5 days ago)

to (Superintendent, HR Assistent Superintendent, all 5 school board members, school Admin, teachers’ union President and VP, and committee colleagues)
pastedGraphic.png
(Superintendent):
On tomorrow’s School Board meeting agenda (9/22/2021), you entered an action item:

“To approve a resolution proactively mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021.”

You also claim in your email to me:

“Second, your email below is continuing to raise concerns that the district has addressed.”

Question: How is “mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021” a concern “that the district has addressed”?

Question: What is the citation and explanation of legal authority for HUSD to “mandate” an EUA vaccination when US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) clearly states in letter and intent that individuals have “the option to accept or refuse” experimental medicine? FDA has only approved the “Comirnaty vaccine” from Pfizer, with all others under EUA.

Question: Given the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reports nearly 15,000 US deaths as adverse effects of Covid “vaccines” (for the last ~7 weeks = ~70 US deaths per day [and here, here] + over 40,000 deaths from the US, UK, and EU combined), and you’re asking the Board for HUSD “mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021,” how is the Board and you as district Superintendent immune from criminal and civil actions from US Code Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW (see below text) that “makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States”?

In case of student and/or staff death from experimental injection, the reasonable person standard of law may decide that whoever votes or administers forced experimental injections in our community’s children and professional public school employees “may be sentenced to death.”

Here’s 13 minutes of whistleblower testimony by federal doctors and nurses of unreported apparent vaccine adverse effects, including death, and including severe health damage to children that Dr. Wayne asks HUSD Board Members to “mandate” for all Hayward’s public school children. Here’s another nurse’s testimony with 30 years’ expert experience of apparent criminal consequences to “mandate” experimental injections, especially to children.

(Superintendent), HUSD and HEA leaderships: Time to choose a side.

HUSD and HEA can either join my reasonable and OBVIOUS questions about “health” “order” authority, or continue behind prima facie-illegal “just follow orders under color of law.” HUSD and HEA’s time to honor our mutual Oath for limited government under the US Constitution will end when a critical mass of the public recognize the evidence I have professionally explained and documented as objective and independently-verifiably factual.

Btw: regarding the law cited by Governor Newsom for an “emergency” (California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders), here’s CDC’s latest data that seem definitive proof that California and national hospitals are well within control, just as each and every one of the ~20 local doctors, nurses, and other professionals have told me.

Each of you will either stand for limited government or unlimited government “under color of law.”

Choose wisely,
Carl

**
My 3rd reply the following day, which also explains the employee Grievance:

Sep 22, 2021, 5:15 AM (4 days ago)

to (Superintendent, HR Assistent Superintendent, all 5 school board members, school Admin, teachers’ union President and VP, and committee colleagues)
pastedGraphic.png
Dear Board Members, (superintendent), HEA Leadership, and HHS colleagues:

I write again because nobody has responded to my obvious and essential questions that soon all our community’s stakeholders will demand answers and accountability.

The Board will vote tonight on (superintendent’s) action item “To approve a resolution proactively mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021.”

Please consider you are all on is legal notice that the reasonable person standard of law may hold Board Members and (superintendent) accountable for violating US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) (Title 21 of US Code governs US food and drug policies) because Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) requires all of you “to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

I admonish that Federal Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW reads: “… and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section … [responsible parties] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

I remind all that experimental EUA injections, EUA experimental PCR tests, and masks are all EUA products according to FDA, and therefore all subject to Title 21 restrictions of use for every HUSD family, student, and employee to have “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” I admonish and remind all that HUSD’s current 3-paragraph stated position quoted in full below of “just follow orders under color of law” is literally taught as illegal to CA public school students in US History, with proponents of that defense executed as War Criminals and complicit propagandists after World War 2.

Nobody at HUSD will be able to argue ignorance of the data I’ve provided for over a year, and most recently: US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reports nearly 15,000 US deaths as adverse effects of Covid “vaccines” (for the last ~7 weeks = ~70 US deaths per day [and here, here] + over 40,000 deaths from the US, UK, and EU combined). Sworn affidavits from expert witnesses in developing lawsuits argue for much higher numbers, as I hope you considered from 13 minutes of whistleblower testimony by federal doctors and nurses of unreported apparent vaccine adverse effects, including death, and including severe health damage to children (another nurse’s testimony with 30 years’ expert experience of apparent criminal consequences to “mandate” experimental injections, especially to children).

I recommend HUSD renounce and rescind all “mandatory” EUA products, or at least finally accept my Grievance and Board appeal remedy to pass my obvious questions of EUA and “emergency” “health” “order” authority to county and state levels. My 6 weeks of work to get such answers from the 14 most authoritative CA government agencies was compiled into a ~35 page report that you all received in April 2021. These are an excellent case study for 12th Grade US Government students in “official” tragic-comic obfuscation, as all refused to address limits of emergency ordering authority of the very law cited by Governor Newsom to declare an emergency (California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control”), Again, here’s CDC’s latest data that seem definitive proof that California and national hospitals are well within control, just as each and every one of the ~20 local doctors, nurses, and other professionals have told me.

HUSD and HEA are at their last call to join my reasonable and OBVIOUS questions about “health” “order” authority, instead of ignore them behind prima facie-illegal “just follow orders.” HUSD and HEA’s time to honor our mutual Oath for limited government under the US Constitution will end when a critical mass of the public recognize the evidence I have professionally explained and documented as objective and independently-verifiably factual.

I have been a good-faith messenger using my academic training and professional experience as a trained AP US Government teacher, and with experience briefing Members of Congress on ~300 policy proposals for ending domestic and global poverty that led to two UN Summits for heads of state. My role is ending soon, as more powerful legal voices and hands will soon replace mine.

I hope the Board considers (superintendent) and HUSD’s ongoing attacks of the messenger and refusal to answer basic questions as important data points to inform your voices and votes.

To address obvious questions HUSD community members will also soon ask that (superintendent) ignores, and is another area of dangerous liability for HUSD, (superintendent) claims:

“Second, your email below is continuing to raise concerns that the district has addressed.”

Question: How is “mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021” a concern “that the district has addressed”?

Following is what HUSD wrote to address my Grievance on October 2, 2020. Please cite where you address “mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021.”

“At this time, the District is following governing protocols as referenced in our Board Policy 5141.22 and Education Code 32282 and 49403, which direct the District to cooperate with local health officer measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in school age children specific to influenza pandemic episodes.

As you are aware, our county public health officer has issued public health orders in accordance with the Governor’s declarations of state of emergency as a result of a local health emergency. The health orders as discussed outline “Shelter in Place” and “Face Coverings” in the prevention of the spread of COVID-19.

The District believes it is properly following education code provisions to ensure health and safety for students and staff, as directed by local governance bodies appropriately.”

Question: What is the citation and explanation of legal authority for HUSD to “mandate” an EUA vaccination when US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) clearly states in letter and intent that individuals have “the option to accept or refuse” experimental medicine? FDA has only approved the “Comirnaty vaccine” from Pfizer, with all others under EUA.

(Superintendent): you seem to be proposing an illegal policy to the Board unless you can explain otherwise.

Question: Given the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reports nearly 15,000 US deaths as adverse effects of Covid “vaccines” (for the last ~7 weeks = ~70 US deaths per day [and here, here] + over 40,000 deaths from the US, UK, and EU combined), and you’re asking the Board for HUSD “mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021,” how is the Board and you as district Superintendent immune from criminal and civil actions from US Code Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW (see below text) that “makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States”?

(Superintendent): please explain how your experimental vaccine proposal is not “deprivation of rights under color of law.”

And finally, (superintendent): you accuse me of unprofessional behavior to the School Board and my Admin Team without citing what I wrote, and without explanation how addressing a doubled student fail rate is “not focused on instruction and is not aligned with school or district goals.”

You dictated censorship of my contractually guaranteed “teacher directed” collaboration time. You dictated censorship without addressing contractually guaranteed academic freedom: “The teacher must be free to think and express ideas, … free from undue pressures of authority, and free to act within his/her professional group.”

Moreover, the topic of questioning the legality of government orders is specifically the first contractual stated responsibility of a teacher: “an understanding of our democratic tradition and its method.” The US is only a nation from questioning the legality of government orders.

Therefore again: “I have repeatedly stated these PLC communications directly address district and school policies that doubled our student failure rate last year; likely the worst decline in district history. Explain how this is not aligned with school and district goals, or withdraw your communication that my PLC work is below professional standards.”

(Superintendent): your un-cited accusation against my professionalism follows (assistant superintendent of HR’s) refusal to cite anything from my similar questions when she initiated the first of four progressive disciplinary actions that lead to employee termination. An independent audience might conclude HUSD guilty of per se defamation among the first of other HUSD liabilities if I’m forced to take HUSD to court to answer my obvious and responsible questions, and to rescind and apologize for all attacks on my professionalism, as well as remove all censorship of my contractually-protected professional freedoms.

Make good choices,
Carl

(to date, no responses)

**

Update 3: Four parents and two employees contact me: I’m connecting them with each other so we can work together with whatever legal team we end up with to bring legal justice to the district and teachers’ union should they choose to join HUSD in violation of US Codes 21 and 18, and California Government Code 8558 (b) of “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case).

**

Update 4: Ultimatum to teachers’ union: I can’t disclose Grievance content until resolution, per contract terms. But here’s the latest warning with choice I emailed union President and VP, and will follow up on Monday 9/27 when the district predictably chooses to respond with silence to the Grievance in their allotted 5 days’ response time.

**

Update 5: Three legal teams at full attention: Three teams from the East Coast to West Coast affiliated with America’s Frontline Doctors are being updated with every move, and with full professional attention. Because legal resources are scarce relative to the cases to pursue, they have not committed to my particular case, and will do their best to refer me to an appropriate attorney should their resources be better invested elsewhere.

**

Up next: I’ll report on district and teachers’ union choices as my legal choices of representation finalize.

**
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 [email protected]

Note: My work from 2011 to October 2017 is on Washington’s Blog, which the owner closed from Internet censorship in 2019, and here since. Work back to 2009 is censored by Examiner.com (blocked author pages: here, here). This means that some links in essays are inactive. If you’d like to see those articles, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the search box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive.