Putney Food Co-op... Founded by Carol Brown & Others in 1941

~ Location: 8 Carol Brown Way in Putney, Vermont, USA ~

Food cooperative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A food cooperative or food co-op is a food distribution outlet organized as a cooperative, rather than a private or public company. Food cooperatives are usually consumer cooperatives, where the decisions regarding the production and distribution of its food are chosen by its members. Like all cooperatives, food cooperatives are often based on the 7 Rochdale Principles, and they typically offer natural foods. Since decisions about how to run a cooperative are not made by outside shareholders, cooperatives often exhibit a higher degree of social responsibility than their corporate analogues.

In the United States, the National Cooperative Grocers (NCG) is a cooperative federation that is composed of 146 food cooperatives.

History

The cooperative movement started in the 19th century and the first notable food cooperative was started in Rochdale, England by industrial weavers known as the Rochdale Pioneers. The origination of the modern cooperative movement began in the 1970s when many "second wave" cooperatives started. The goals of these cooperatives were to provide an organic and anti-corporate alternative to chain grocery stores. Food cooperatives began to emerge in major cities and college towns, catering to the food-conscious. Co-op members made the decision of what foods to buy and how to purchase and distribute it.

Between 1969 and 1979, close to 10,000 food co-ops were established.

Economic structure

A key aspect of the food cooperative model is the socialization of potential profit associated with running a grocery store. In a typical food production model, a store is owned by a company, which is in turn managed by either a board of directors and shareholders if the company is publicly owned, or a collection of private individuals if it is not. A food cooperative, in contrast, is directly owned by both its employees and its members, people who shop at the cooperative and who typically pay a nominal fee for joining.  When the store makes a profit, much as with a corporation, these profits are either divided among the members or reinvested in the business.[3] These decisions are often made by a board, for which any member of the cooperative can run. In general, membership is open to any community member, with stores adopting official policies of nondiscrimination. However, some cooperatives will limit membership to a certain geographic area, such as a state.

Pricing

Each cooperative has a different fee structure, typically determined by its management, but in general, members of the public will have the option of purchasing a membership that will yield discounted prices on food, as well as a vote on decisions. A key difference with corporations is that while voting power on corporate decisions is in proportion to the number of shares owned, nearly all cooperatives operate according to the “one member, one vote” principle.

In the US, cooperatives are taxed differently than small businesses. Earnings of the cooperative itself are not subject to business taxes; however, any profits made by the individual members are treated as income and as such are subject to income taxes.

Comparison with CSA

In contrast, a similar program, community supported agriculture, socializes the risks associated with growing the food, transferring it from the growers to consumers. These two programs often work in concert in rural areas, and are associated with each other by consumers.  However, in a CSA program, the consumer is purchasing a limited ownership in the farm, the production of the food, instead of the grocery store, the distribution of the food.

Scale of cooperatives in the US

Food cooperatives in various forms operate on a large scale in the United States, occupying a noticeable part of the grocery market, albeit with large geographic variation. One study found that grocery cooperatives claim 485,000 total members in the United States, with 290 total stores.  However, differences in definition can lead to measurement discrepancies, depending on what exactly one defines as a food based cooperative, since many cooperatives operate in the food sector, but are not restricted to groceries. For example, “Farm supply and marketing” cooperative members totaled 2.484 million in the US.

Formation of a food cooperative

In general, cooperatives are formed by a core group of members who form the initial governing body. These members must contribute enough in initial membership fees to get the grocery store off the ground and finance startup costs, such as purchasing a store, which can be a significant challenge for the cooperative model.  The logistical and financial obstacles associated with planning a store and establishing a distribution network are significant, especially when no individual owns the store. This contrasts with typical corporate grocery stores, which can be financed using debt or equity, and whose owners can eventually reap a profit to recoup their investment. Nevertheless, cooperatives claim higher levels of success than for-profit businesses: after 5 years, 90% of cooperatives are still in business, compared to 3-5% of businesses.

Benefits

Market benefits

Cooperatives also potentially have spillover effects on the rest of the grocery store market. According to researchers at the University of Wisconsin, “Cooperatives play a key role in agricultural markets not only because they account for a significant fraction of economic activity in this sector, but also because they are believed to generate a pro-competitive effect in imperfectly competitive markets.”[9] The grocery market, in particular, is often not very competitive in geographically isolated areas, with only enough consumer base to support one major supermarket. In response to high prices caused by this monopoly, a cooperative may spring up, supported by a network of consumers looking for lower prices. Because the profits are redistributed to the members, a traditional grocery store must reduce its profits in order to compete.[9] Lastly, some studies indicate the spillover benefits to the community are significant. One found that “For every $1,000 spent at a food co-op, $1,606 goes to the local economy; for every $1 million in sales, 9.3 jobs are created”.

Agricultural sector benefits

Academic research has also described the benefits cooperatives can have in economically connected sectors, namely food production: “Cooperatives play other socially beneficial roles in the agricultural sector. They provide an opportunity for farmers to share risk and to control managerial decision-making for their direct benefit. Additionally, they offer a credence attribute— farmer ownership—which can be attached to farm commodities, thus providing additional value to some consumers.”

Consumer benefits

Another potential benefit to members is the different niche of the food market often occupied by cooperatives. Cooperatives often have a focus on local, organic, or otherwise more sustainably sourced products.[8] Consumers often support the local ownership of the cooperative model, in contrast to many grocery store chains owned by multinational corporations.

Geography

In the United States, food cooperatives are also far more common in the northern states of the US, with Vermont, Minnesota, and Wisconsin having the highest concentrations. Vermont, in particular, has a concentration three times higher than any other state. Food cooperatives are also co-located with higher incomes, higher educational attainment, the presence of land trusts, and population over age 65.  In the United States, there are a number of regional associations of food cooperatives. These associations can provide logistical support, a distribution network, or even operate under the franchise model, which can provide a recognizable brand.

Text Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_cooperative
Image Source: https://www.putneyfood.coop/

MONDRAGON: A WORKER COOPERATIVE FEDERATION!

~ Aerial View of Mondragon in the Basque Country of Spain ~

The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. It was founded in the town of Mondragon in 1956 by graduates of a local technical college. Its first product was paraffin heaters. It is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2014, it employed 74,117 people in 257 companies and organizations in four areas of activity: finance, industry, retail and knowledge.  By 2015, 74,335 people were employed.

Mondragon cooperatives operate in accordance with the Statement on the Co-operative Identity maintained by the International Co-operative Alliance.

History

In 1941, a young Catholic priest, José María Arizmendiarrieta settled in Mondragón, a town with a population of 7,000 that had not yet recovered from the poverty, hunger, exile, and tension of the Spanish Civil War.  In 1943, Arizmendiarrieta established a technical college which became a training ground for managers, engineers and skilled labour for local companies, and primarily for the co-operatives.  Arizmendiarrieta spent a number of years educating young people about a form of humanism based on solidarity and participation, in harmony with Catholic social teaching, and the importance of acquiring the necessary technical knowledge before creating the first co-operative. In 1955, he selected five young people to set up the first company of the co-operative and industrial beginning of the Mondragon Corporation. The company was called Talleres Ulgor, an acronym derived from the surnames of Usatorre, Larrañaga, Gorroñogoitia, Ormaechea, and Ortubay, known today as "Fagor Electrodomésticos".

In the first 15 years many co-operatives were established, thanks to the autarky of the market and the awakening of the Spanish economy. During these years, also with the encouragement of Don José María Arizmendiarrieta, the Caja Laboral (1959) and the Social Welfare Body Lagun Aro (1966) were set up that were to play a key role. The first local group was created, Ularco. In 1969, Eroski was founded by merging ten small local consumer co-operatives.

During the next 20 years, from 1970 to 1990, the dynamic continued, with a strong increase in new co-operatives promoted by Caja Laboral's Business Division, the promotion of co-operative associations, the formation of local groups, and the founding of the Ikerlan Research Centre in 1974.

With Spain scheduled to join the European Economic Community in 1986, it was decided in 1984 to set up the "Mondragon Co-operative Group", the forerunner of the current corporation. In-service training for managers was strengthened by creating Otalora, dedicated to training and to dissemination of co-operatives. The Group consisted of 23,130 workers at the end of 1990.

On the international stage, the aim was to respond to growing globalisation, expanding abroad by setting up production plants in a number of countries. The first was the Copreci plant in Mexico in 1990, followed by many others: up to 73 by the end of 2008, and 122 at the end of 2013. The goals were to increase competitiveness and market share, bring component supply closer to customers’ plants, especially in the automotive and domestic appliance sectors, and to strengthen employment in the Basque Country by promoting exports of co-operatives' products by means of new platforms.

In October 2009, the United Steelworkers announced an agreement with Mondragon to create worker cooperatives in the United States.[11] On March 26, 2012, the USW, Mondragon, and the Ohio Employee Ownership Center (OEOC) announced their detailed union co-op model.

The industrial sector ended 2012 with a new record €4 billion in international sales, beating sales figures from before the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Mondragon opened 11 new production subsidiaries. International sales that year accounted for 69% of all sales, a 26% increase from 2009 to 2012, and with 14,000 employees abroad. Mondragon's share in the BRIC markets increased to 20% compared to the previous year. In 2013, international sales grew by 6.7% and accounted for 71.1% of total sales.

On 16 October 2013, domestic appliance company Fagor Electrodomésticos filed for bankruptcy under Spanish law in order to renegotiate €1,1 billion of debt, after suffering heavy losses during the eurocrisis and as a consequence of poor financial management, putting 5,600 employees at risk of losing their jobs.[15] This was followed by the bankruptcy of the whole Fagor group on 6 November 2013.[16] In July 2014, Fagor was bought by Catalan company Cata for €42.5 million. Cata pledged to create 705 direct jobs in the Basque Country and to continue the brand names Fagor, Edesa, Aspes, and Splendid.

Business culture

Iñigo Ucín, president of the General Council of Mondragon Corporation

Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies.[18]

Over the years, these links have been embodied in a series of operating rules approved on a majority basis by the Co-operative Congresses, which regulate the activity of the Governing Bodies of the Corporation (Standing Committee, General Council), the Grassroots Co-operatives and the Divisions they belong to, from the organisational, institutional and economic points of view as well as in terms of assets.

This framework of business culture has been structured based on a common culture derived from the 10 Basic Co-operative Principles, in which Mondragon is rooted: Open Admission, Democratic Organisation, the Sovereignty of Labour, Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Participatory Management, Payment Solidarity, Inter-cooperation, Social Transformation, Universality and Education.

This philosophy is complemented by four corporate values: Co-operation, acting as owners and protagonists; Participation, which takes shape as a commitment to management; Social Responsibility, by means of the distribution of wealth based on solidarity; and Innovation, focusing on constant renewal in all areas.

This business culture translates into compliance with a number of Basic Objectives (Customer Focus, Development, Innovation, Profitability, People in Co-operation and Involvement in the Community) and General Policies approved by the Co-operative Congress, which are taken on board at all the corporation's organisational levels and incorporated into the four-year strategic plans and the annual business plans of the individual co-operatives, divisions, and the corporation as a whole.

Wage regulation

At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1. That is, the general manager of an average Mondragon cooperative earns no more than 5 times as much as the theoretical minimum wage paid in their cooperative. For most workers, this ratio is smaller because there are few Mondragon worker-owners that earn minimum wages, because most jobs are somewhat specialized and are classified at higher wage levels. The wage ratio of a cooperative is decided periodically by its worker-owners through a democratic vote.

Compared to similar jobs at local industries, Mondragon managers' wages are considerably lower (as some companies pay their best paid managers hundreds of times more than the lowest-paid employee of the company)[24] and equivalent for middle management, technical and professional levels. Lower wage levels are on average 13% higher than similar jobs at local businesses. Spain's progressive tax rate further reduces any disparity in pay. These low wages make it very difficult to recruit managers from investor-owned firms.

Business sectors

Mondragon Corporation operates in four areas: finance, industry, retail, and knowledge, with the latter distinguishing Mondragon from other business groups. In 2013, the corporation posted a total revenue of over €12 billion (roughly US$16 billion), and employed 74,061 workers,[3] making it Spain's fourth-largest industrial and tenth-largest financial group.

Finance

This area includes the banking business of Laboral Kutxa, the insurance company Seguros Lagun Aro, and the Voluntary Social Welfare Body Lagun Aro, which had an asset fund totalling €5.566 million at the end of 2014. The yield obtained from this fund is used to cover long-term retirement, widowhood, and invalidity benefits, complementary to those offered by the Spanish social security system.

Laboral Kutxa ended 2014 with €109.2 million in revenue in a year in which it granted loans worth €14.4 billion, mainly to households, small and medium-sized enterprises to whom it can offer services typical of large companies due to its extensive experience with the Corporation's co-operatives.

Industry

The corporation's companies manufacture consumer goods, capital goods, industrial components, products and systems for construction, and services. The latter includes very diverse business groups such as Abantail: Adaptive design optimization, Alecop: Engineering training, LKS Consultores: Attorbeys etc., LKS Ingeniería: Architects and engineers. MCCTelecom: Telecommunication engineering. Mondragon Lingua: Translation and language schools, Mondragon Sistemas: Automation, Industrial Computing and Telecommunications. Ondoan: Turnkey projects in the energy and environmental sector. In the leisure and sports area, it manufactures Orbea bicycles, exercise equipment and items for camping, garden and beach.

In capital goods, Mondragon posted a turnover of €976 million in 2009, and is the leading Spanish manufacturer of machining (Danobat Group) and sheet metal forming (Fagor Arrasate Group) machine tools. These machines are complemented by automation and control products for machine tools, packaging machinery, machinery for automating assembly processes and processing wood, forklift trucks, electric transformers, integrated equipment for the catering industry, cold stores, and refrigeration equipment. Specifically focusing on the automotive sector, the corporation also manufactures a wide variety of dies, molds and tooling for casting iron and aluminium, and occupies a leading position in machinery for the casting sector.

In Industrial Components, Mondragon posted a turnover of €1.5 billion in 2009, a sector in which it operates as an integrated supplier for the leading car manufacturers, offering from the design and development of a part to the industrialisation and supply of components and assemblies. It has different business units such as brakes, axles, suspension, transmission, engines, aluminium wheel rims, fluid conduction, and other internal and external vehicle components. It also produces components for the main domestic appliance manufacturers in three business areas: white goods, home comfort, and electronics. And it manufactures flanges and pipe accessories for processing oil-gas, petrochemical plants and power generation, copper and aluminium electrical conductors, and components for conveyors.[30][better source needed]

In construction, sales totalled €974 million in 2009. Mondragon has constructed buildings and important infrastructure projects. It designs and builds large metallic (URSSA), laminated wood and prefabricated concrete structures; supplies prefabricated parts in polymer concrete; offers solutions for formwork and structures (ULMA Group) as well as public works machinery and the industrialisation of the construction process, including engineering and assembly services. The ORONA Group produces elevators.[citation needed]

In services to business, sales totalled €248 million in 2008, including business consultancy services, architecture and engineering, property consulting, design and innovation (LKS Group), systems engineering for electromechanical installations, and integrated logistics engineering. It also offers a modern language service, manufactures educational equipment, and provides graphic arts services (MccGraphics).

In 2013, 71.1% of turnover came from international sales. Sales resulting from the export of products abroad and production generated in the 122 subsidiaries located in several different countries: China (15), France (17), Poland (8), Czech Republic (7), Mexico (8), Brazil (5), Germany (4), Italy (4), United Kingdom (3), Romania (3), United States (4), Turkey (2), Portugal (2), Slovakia (2), India (2), Thailand (1) and Morocco (1). Overall, in 2013 these 122 plants provided work for more than 11,000 people. The corporate industrial park in Kunshan, close to Shanghai houses seven subsidiaries.[31] In 2012, it opened 11 new subsidiaries abroad, employing around 14,000 people. Its international sales that year marked a record number of 69% of its total sales (€5.8 billion, with a 2% fall compared to the previous year). Mondragon also participated in 91 international R&D projects.

In 2014, the industrial cooperatives created 1,000 jobs, and internationalisation continued with 125 production subsidiaries abroad - 3 more than the year before.

Retail

Mondragon runs Eroski, one of the leading retail groups all over Spain and in southern France, and maintains close contacts with the French group Les Mousquetaires and the German retailer Edeka, with whom it set up the Alidis international purchasing group in 2002. The worker-owners and consumer-members participate in the co-operative's decision-making bodies and management of Eroski.[citation needed] At the end of 2013, Eroski posted a turnover of €6.6 billion, operating 2.069 stores made up of 90 Eroski hypermarkets, 1,211 Eroski/center, Caprabo, Eroski/city, Aliprox, Familia, Onda and Cash & Carry supermarkets, 155 branches of Eroski travel agencies, 63 petrol stations, 39 Forum Sport stores and 221 IF perfume stores.[34] In southern France Eroski had 4 hypermarkets, 16 supermarkets and 17 petrol stations, and 4 perfume stores in Andorra.

Retail includes the food group Erkop, for catering, cleaning, stock-breeding, and horticulture with Auzo Lagun, a co-operative in group catering and cleaning of buildings and premises, and integrated service in the health sector.[36] In 2008, worker-members voted to expand the cooperative transformation to the retail group as a whole, turning subsidiaries into co-operatives, and making salaried workers worker-members. This process was to be carried out over a number of years.[citation needed]

Knowledge

This area has a dual focus: education-training and innovation, which have both been key elements in the development of the Corporation. Training-education is mainly linked to the dynamism of Mondragon University, the significant role that Politeknika Ikastegia Txorierri, Arizmendi Ikastola and Lea Artibai Ikastetxea play in their respective areas and the activity of the Management and Co-operative Development Centre Otalora.[citation needed]

Mondragon University is a co-operative university, which combines the development of knowledge, skills, and values, and maintains close relations with business, especially Mondragon co-operatives. Technological innovation is generated through the co-operatives’ own R&D departments, the Corporate Science and Technology Plan, the corporation's 12 technology centres and the Garaia Innovation Park.

The 15 technology centres play a fundamental role in the development of the sectors of focus. In 2009 they employed 742 people and had a budget of €53.7 million.[38] In 2013 its network of technology centres and R&D units provided employment for 1,700 people and the commitment to R&D&I matters amounted to 136 million Euros, 8.5% of added value.[14] Mondragon has 479 families of Patents for Inventions, which accounts for 25% patents in the Basque Country, participating in more than 30 R&D cooperation projects at the European level.

Reactions

In 2012 Richard D. Wolff, American professor of economics, hailed the Mondragon set of enterprises, including the good wages it provides for employees, the empowerment of ordinary workers in decision making, and the measure of equality for female workers, as a major success and cited it as a working model of an alternative to the capitalist mode of production.

In an April 2012 interview Noam Chomsky said that while Mondragon offers an alternative to capitalism, it was still embedded in a capitalist system which limits Mondragon's decisions:

“Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others.”

Vincent Navarro wrote that from a business perspective, Mondragon is successful in matching efficiency with solidarity and democracy. However, he writes that the number of employees who are not owners have increased more rapidly than worker-owners, to a point that in some companies, for example in the supermarket chains owned by Mondragon, the first are a much larger group than the second. In Navarro's view, this establishes a two-tier system - for example, in terms of whom to save in the case the company collapses. In the collapse of Fagor, the relocation of employees to other companies belonging to Mondragon favored those who were worker-owners, which may affect labor relations:

“Actually, one of the successes of Mondragon was its ability to create a sense of identity among the workers within the company, encouraging an environment of solidarity and collegiality among them, a feeling that also extended (although to a much lesser degree) to non-worker-owners. The connection felt by the latter group has somewhat weakened, however, exposing a vulnerable point for the cooperative.”

The Mondragon system is one of four case studies analyzed in Capital and the Debt Trap, which summarized evidence claiming that cooperatives tend to last longer and are less susceptible to perverse incentives and other problems of organizational governance than more traditionally managed organizations.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

PREPARE TO THREAD THE NEEDLE: EARTH SPLIT NEAR

The Event - Urgent New Information - Its happening! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSHpR1n3B_I&t=1570s

Lisa M. Harrison - Deconstructing The Construct Ep #67
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q8Ko3zC47c&t=26s

Federalist Papers No. 69... The Real Character of the Executive

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TICKET IN THE ELECTION OF 2016
President Donald J. Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence

Alexander Hamilton - Friday, March 14, 1788

To the People of the State of New York:

I PROCEED now to trace the real characters of the proposed Executive, as they are marked out in the plan of the convention. This will serve to place in a strong light the unfairness of the representations which have been made in regard to it.

The first thing which strikes our attention is, that the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate. This will scarcely, however, be considered as a point upon which any comparison can be grounded; for if, in this particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain, there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New York.

That magistrate is to be elected for FOUR years; and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence. In these circumstances there is a total dissimilitude between HIM and a king of Great Britain, who is an HEREDITARY monarch, possessing the crown as a patrimony descendible to his heirs forever; but there is a close analogy between HIM and a governor of New York, who is elected for THREE years, and is re-eligible without limitation or intermission. If we consider how much less time would be requisite for establishing a dangerous influence in a single State, than for establishing a like influence throughout the United States, we must conclude that a duration of FOUR years for the Chief Magistrate of the Union is a degree of permanency far less to be dreaded in that office, than a duration of THREE years for a corresponding office in a single State.

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.

The President of the United States is to have power to return a bill, which shall have passed the two branches of the legislature, for reconsideration; and the bill so returned is to become a law, if, upon that reconsideration, it be approved by two thirds of both houses. The king of Great Britain, on his part, has an absolute negative upon the acts of the two houses of Parliament. The disuse of that power for a considerable time past does not affect the reality of its existence; and is to be ascribed wholly to the crown's having found the means of substituting influence to authority, or the art of gaining a majority in one or the other of the two houses, to the necessity of exerting a prerogative which could seldom be exerted without hazarding some degree of national agitation. The qualified negative of the President differs widely from this absolute negative of the British sovereign; and tallies exactly with the revisionary authority of the council of revision of this State, of which the governor is a constituent part. In this respect the power of the President would exceed that of the governor of New York, because the former would possess, singly, what the latter shares with the chancellor and judges; but it would be precisely the same with that of the governor of Massachusetts, whose constitution, as to this article, seems to have been the original from which the convention have copied.

The President is to be the "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT; to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME OF ADJOURNMENT, to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States.'' In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these:

First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor.

Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.

Thirdly. The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to all cases, EXCEPT THOSE OF IMPEACHMENT. The governor of New York may pardon in all cases, even in those of impeachment, except for treason and murder. Is not the power of the governor, in this article, on a calculation of political consequences, greater than that of the President? All conspiracies and plots against the government, which have not been matured into actual treason, may be screened from punishment of every kind, by the interposition of the prerogative of pardoning. If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity. A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction. Would not the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design, upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry? Would this last expectation have any influence at all, when the probability was computed, that the person who was to afford that exemption might himself be involved in the consequences of the measure, and might be incapacitated by his agency in it from affording the desired impunity? The better to judge of this matter, it will be necessary to recollect, that, by the proposed Constitution, the offense of treason is limited "to levying war upon the United States, and adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort''; and that by the laws of New York it is confined within similar bounds.

Fourthly. The President can only adjourn the national legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment. The British monarch may prorogue or even dissolve the Parliament. The governor of New York may also prorogue the legislature of this State for a limited time; a power which, in certain situations, may be employed to very important purposes.

The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of every other description. It has been insinuated, that his authority in this respect is not conclusive, and that his conventions with foreign powers are subject to the revision, and stand in need of the ratification, of Parliament. But I believe this doctrine was never heard of, until it was broached upon the present occasion. Every jurist2 of that kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its Constitution, knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of making treaties exists in the crown in its utomst plentitude; and that the compacts entered into by the royal authority have the most complete legal validity and perfection, independent of any other sanction. The Parliament, it is true, is sometimes seen employing itself in altering the existing laws to conform them to the stipulations in a new treaty; and this may have possibly given birth to the imagination, that its co-operation was necessary to the obligatory efficacy of the treaty. But this parliamentary interposition proceeds from a different cause: from the necessity of adjusting a most artificial and intricate system of revenue and commercial laws, to the changes made in them by the operation of the treaty; and of adapting new provisions and precautions to the new state of things, to keep the machine from running into disorder. In this respect, therefore, there is no comparison between the intended power of the President and the actual power of the British sovereign. The one can perform alone what the other can do only with the concurrence of a branch of the legislature. It must be admitted, that, in this instance, the power of the federal Executive would exceed that of any State Executive. But this arises naturally from the sovereign power which relates to treaties. If the Confederacy were to be dissolved, it would become a question, whether the Executives of the several States were not solely invested with that delicate and important prerogative.

The President is also to be authorized to receive ambassadors and other public ministers. This, though it has been a rich theme of declamation, is more a matter of dignity than of authority. It is a circumstance which will be without consequence in the administration of the government; and it was far more convenient that it should be arranged in this manner, than that there should be a necessity of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, upon every arrival of a foreign minister, though it were merely to take the place of a departed predecessor.

The President is to nominate, and, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and in general all officers of the United States established by law, and whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution. The king of Great Britain is emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices. He can confer titles of nobility at pleasure; and has the disposal of an immense number of church preferments. There is evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to that of the British king; nor is it equal to that of the governor of New York, if we are to interpret the meaning of the constitution of the State by the practice which has obtained under it. The power of appointment is with us lodged in a council, composed of the governor and four members of the Senate, chosen by the Assembly. The governor CLAIMS, and has frequently EXERCISED, the right of nomination, and is ENTITLED to a casting vote in the appointment. If he really has the right of nominating, his authority is in this respect equal to that of the President, and exceeds it in the article of the casting vote. In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made; in the government of New York, if the council should be divided, the governor can turn the scale, and confirm his own nomination.3 If we compare the publicity which must necessarily attend the mode of appointment by the President and an entire branch of the national legislature, with the privacy in the mode of appointment by the governor of New York, closeted in a secret apartment with at most four, and frequently with only two persons; and if we at the same time consider how much more easy it must be to influence the small number of which a council of appointment consists, than the considerable number of which the national Senate would consist, we cannot hesitate to pronounce that the power of the chief magistrate of this State, in the disposition of offices, must, in practice, be greatly superior to that of the Chief Magistrate of the Union.

Hence it appears that, except as to the concurrent authority of the President in the article of treaties, it would be difficult to determine whether that magistrate would, in the aggregate, possess more or less power than the Governor of New York. And it appears yet more unequivocally, that there is no pretense for the parallel which has been attempted between him and the king of Great Britain. But to render the contrast in this respect still more striking, it may be of use to throw the principal circumstances of dissimilitude into a closer group.

The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a QUALIFIED negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an ABSOLUTE negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the SOLE POSSESSOR of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism.

PUBLIUS.

1 A writer in a &ennsylvania paper, under the signature of TAMONY, has asserted that the king of Great Britain oweshis prerogative as commander-in-chief to an annual mutiny bill. The truth is, on the contrary, that his prerogative, in this respect, is immenmorial, and was only disputed, "contrary to all reason and precedent,'' as Blackstone vol. i., page 262, expresses it, by the Long Parliament of Charles I. but by the statute the 13th of Charles II., chap. 6, it was declared to be in the king alone, for that the sole supreme government and command of the militia within his Majesty's realms and dominions, and of all forces by sea and land, and of all forts and places of strength, EVER WAS AND IS the undoubted right of his Majesty and his royal predecessors, kings and queens of England, and that both or either house of Parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to the same.

2 Vide Blackstone's "Commentaries,'' vol i., p. 257.

3 Candor, however, demands an acknowledgment that I do not think the claim of the governor to a right of nomination well founded. Yet it is always justifiable to reason from the practice of a government, till its propriety has been constitutionally questioned. And independent of this claim, when we take into view the other considerations, and pursue them through all their consequences, we shall be inclined to draw much the same conclusion.

Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

From Childhood, Cottage at Home, Across Bridge, and Beyond...

I AM eleven years old, dancing with Elizabeth in Cotillion class inside the Pasadena Civic Auditorium, moving toward the door when scene changes to woodlands. We cross a multi-colored fieldstone foot bridge over a brook bisected by an ornate iron gate. A red-haired woman stands as sentry... Do I have a Key? When I look into her green eyes she smiles. We recognize each other and the gate swings open, allowing us passage. Forest trees become thick jungle, then open to reveal a giant Mayan step pyramid standing before us. I climb up to the top, following a beautiful Yellow Swallowtail butterfly, who had been in human form as Gatekeeper when Elizabeth and I crossed the bridge. At pyramid's apex I watch a pair of Archangels, in white robes wrestling for dominance. Suddenly they stop grappling, look deep into each other's eyes, then embrace as brothers before ascending skyward, with the beautiful butterfly following them into Heaven...

Image Credit: Deanna Parsley

DECONSTRUCTING THE CONSTRUCT: 3rd & Final Webinar

JOIN LISA AND FRIENDS IN THE 3RD AND FINAL WEBINAR

WHERE DO THE BEINGS OF MYTH, LEGEND AND STORY COME FROM?

ARE THEY REAL?

ARE THEY FROM OUR MEMORIES?

MEET OUR MOST CONTROVERSIAL CHARACTER YET

AFTER 7 YEARS OF PUBLICLY RESEARCHING THE NATURE OF OUR REALITY AND COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE ARE LIVING IN A HOLOGRAPHIC VIRTUAL REALITY, SOMETHING REMARKABLE HAPPENED. A BEING FROM OUTSIDE THIS CONSTRUCT MADE CONTACT WITH LISA IN OCTOBER 2016, A BEING SHE SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED LEELOO.

LEELOO CONFIRMED MANY OF THESE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT OUR REALITY BUT ALSO PROVIDED MUCH MORE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR HISTORY, CURRENT SITUATION AND POTENTIAL FUTURE.

IN THIS FINAL WEBINAR WE WILL INTRODUCE THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL CHARACTER THAT LEELOO HAS BROUGHT FORWARD TO SHARE THEIR STORIES AND PERSPECTIVE.

Source: https://www.lisamharrison.com/webinars/

On the Day when the Construct... as we Know it... goes Kabooie!

The SUN DANCE and The Coming NOVA ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2ZCjA9_XXg

“When the Blue Star Kachina makes its appearance in the heavens, the Fifth World will emerge.” This will be the Day of Purification. The Hopi name for the star Sirius is Blue Star Kachina. It will come when the Saquashohuh (Blue Star) Kachina dances in the plaza and removes her mask. In the Final days we will look up in our heavens and we will witness the return of the two brothers who helped create this world in the birthing time. Poganghoya is the guardian of our North Pole and his Brother Palongawhoya is the guardian of the South Pole. In the final days the Blue Star Katchina will come to be with her nephews and they will return to the Earth to its natural rotation which is counter-clockwise.

The return of the Blue Star Kachina who is also known as Nan ga sohu will be the alarm clock that tells us of the new day and new way of life, a new world that is coming. This is where the changes will begin. They will start as fires that burn within us, and we will burn up with desires and conflict if we do not remember the original teachings, and return to the peaceful way of life.

Not far behind the twins will come the Purifier – The Red Kachina, who will bring the Day of Purification. On this day the Earth, her creatures and all life as we know it will change forever. There will be messengers that will precede this coming of the Purifier. They will leave messages to those on Earth who remember the old ways. The messages will be found written in the living stone, through the sacred grains, and even the waters. (Crop Circles have been found in ice) From the Purifier will issue forth a great Red Light. All things will change in their manner of being. Every living thing will be offered the opportunity to change from the largest to the smallest thing. Those who return to the ways given to us in the original teachings, and live a natural way of life will not be touched by the coming of the Purifier. They will survive and build the new world. Only in the ancient teachings will the ability to understand the messages be found."

Source: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_leyenda_hopi12.htm