Christopher Columbus and So-Called Indigenous Peoples’ Day

Christopher Columbus is one of the great figures of history. He was the explorer who, under the inspiration of Almighty God, opened the Americas to permanent settlement by a humble, Christian, Freedom-loving people. He was an upright man whose memory has been grossly insulted and whose good name has unjustly been made synonymous with genocide, hate, and oppression. As usual, the court historians have fabricated their narrative and the Elite are busy promoting the brutal American Indian culture and history over white, Christian America’s honorable history. This article is a plea for people to celebrate Columbus Day and reject the movement to replace this holiday with “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.”

Columbus11

Standing at six feet tall, the redheaded Christopher Columbus was a first-rate sailor and explorer with a genius for map-making. Columbus was a devout Christian. The sincerity of his convictions led one historian to describe him as “a Christian of almost maniacal devoutness” (in Mark E. Petersen, The Great Prologue, 27). Columbus fervently believed that God was leading him to make great discoveries and do a great work. This conviction is borne out by his writings and the witness of those who knew him.

Columbus wrote:

The Lord was well disposed to my desire, and He bestowed upon me courage and understanding; knowledge of seafaring He gave me in abundance, of astrology as much as was needed, and of geometry and astronomy likewise. Further, He gave me joy and cunning in drawing maps and thereon cities, mountains, rivers, islands, and harbors, each one in its place. I have seen and truly I have studied all books – cosmographies, histories, chronicles, and philosophies, and other arts, for which our Lord unlocked my mind, sent me upon the sea, and gave me fire for the deed. Those who heard of my enterprise called it foolish, mocked me, and laughed. But who can doubt but that the Holy Ghost inspired me?” (in Mark E. Petersen, The Great Prologue, 26).

Apart from his sincere belief that he was being led by God to open the Christian settlement of a new world, Columbus also believed that his discovery of a new world would facilitate the reconquest of Jerusalem from the Muslims. In her paper “Columbus’s Ultimate Goal: Jerusalem,” Carol Delaney wrote the following:

Many people are unaware that Columbus made not just one voyage but four . . . Even fewer know that his ultimate goal, the purpose behind the enterprise, was Jerusalem! The 26 December 1492 entry in his journal of the first voyage . . . written in the Caribbean, leaves little doubt. He says he wanted to find enough gold and the almost equally valuable spices “in such quantity that the sovereigns . . . will undertake and prepare to go conquer the Holy Sepulchre; for thus I urged Your Highnesses to spend all the profits of this my enterprise on the conquest of Jerusalem.””

The famed Washington Irving wrote the following of Columbus’ faith and motives:

He avowed in the fullest manner his persuasion, that, from his earliest infancy, he had been chosen by Heaven for the accomplishment of those two great designs, the discovery of the New World, and the rescue of the holy sepulchre [in Jerusalem]. For this purpose, in his tender years, he had been guided by a divine impulse to embrace the profession of the sea, a mode of life, he observes, which produces an inclination to inquire into the mysteries of nature; and he had been gifted with a curious spirit, to read all kinds of chronicles, geographical treatises, and works of philosophy. In meditating upon these, his understanding had been opened by the Deity, “as with a palpable hand,” so as to discover the navigation to the Indies, and he had been inflamed with ardor to undertake the enterprise. “Animated by a heavenly fire,” he adds, “I came to your highnesses: all who heard of my enterprise mocked at it; all the sciences I had acquired profited me nothing; seven years did I pass in y our royal court, disputing the case with persons of great authority and learned in all the arts, and in the end they decided that all was vain. In your highnesses alone remained faith and constancy. Who will doubt that this light was from the holy Scriptures, illuminating you as well as myself with rays of marvelous brightness?”

These ideas, so repeatedly, and solemnly, and artlessly expressed, by a man of the fervent piety of Columbus, show how truly his discovery arose from the working of his own mind, and not from information furnished by others. He considered it a divine intimation, a light from Heaven, and the fulfillment of what had been fortold by the Saviour and the prophets. Still he regarded it as but a minor event, preparatory to the great enterprise, the recovery of the holy sepulchre. He pronounced it a miracle effected by Heaven, to animate himself and others to that holy undertaking” (Washington Irving, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, Vol. 2, Chapter 4).

Columbus5

Columbus’ Christian faith is not up for debate. However, many Columbus-haters have condemned the man for over five hundred years. The atrocity propaganda aimed at Columbus in his day, as today, was politically motivated and are not grounded in fact. Many, if not most, of the allegations which serve as the basis for modern claims came from Francisco de Bobadilla. Bobadilla was appointed to investigate allegations that Columbus was perpetrating atrocities in the New World. The initial rumors and allegations that prompted the investigation came from a group of Spaniards which rebelled against Columbus. Ironically, they opposed Columbus partially because he would not permit them to abuse the native population.

The leader of this group was Francisco Roldan. Roldan had been appointed as a local mayor by Columbus. Columbus’ son explained that Roldan soon “began to dream of making himself master of the island.” As a result, he “sought to stir up the others and make himself head of a faction.” This faction rebelled and was suppressed. Hardly a reliable source of information!

Yet, based on this information Bobadilla was authorized to investigate Columbus. However, Bobadilla didn’t bother to investigate anything – he made up his mind based on the accusations of traitors. A wonderful article gives us the scoop on Bobadilla. It explains:

That Bobadilla’s bias against Columbus was firmly established is evident from his actions: He arrested Columbus without even corresponding with him to allow him to respond to the accusations.

Upon arrival, Bobadilla forced his way into the fortress, freed the prisoners Columbus had arrested for armed rebellion against the Crown, and professed to believe the outlandish and conflicting testimonies of colonist and criminal alike. He then pardoned the rebels who were tired of the discipline of their Italian taskmaster. These and other farces were recounted with glee by his political opponents in Spain. The Admiral himself was summarily chained and sent back to Castile.

In Spain it immediately became obvious that Bobadilla had grossly abused his authority. Columbus was released and a royal order was issued for his property to be restored. Bobadilla was recalled and died en route home in a massive hurricane. Whether by coincidence or Providence we will never know, but it remains fact that one of the only vessels to survive the hurricane was the smallest and least seaworthy: the ship carrying Columbus’s own effects” (Phillip Mericle, “Why Columbus’ Honor Was Maligned,” January 17, 2018).

In his article Debunking Lies About Columbus: The Story Of Francisco de Bobadilla,” Tommy De Seno also discussed the fact that most of the atrocities alleged to have been committed by Columbus and his men are fabrications written by political rivals of Columbus. Seno said:

Columbus4

In 1500 the King and Queen sent him here to investigate claims that Columbus wasn’t being fair to the European settlers (which means Columbus was protecting the Indians). So de Bobedilla came here, and in just a few short days investigated (with no telephones or motorized vehicles to help him), then arrested Columbus and his brothers for Indian mistreatment and sent them back to Spain, sans a trial. Oh yeah, he appointed himself Governor. Coup de Coeur for power lead to Coup d’ etat, as usual.

The King and Queen called shenanigans and sent for be Bobadilla two years later, but he drowned on the trip home. Columbus was reinstated as Admiral. So what we know of Columbian malfeasance comes from a defrocked liar, de Bobadilla.”

Taking a leaf out of Bobadilla’s fabricated book, people today state that Columbus enslaved, abused, and murdered the local Indians. Far from murdering them, he didn’t even enslave them. During his first voyage, Columbus left behind a settlement of thirty-nine men. When he returned, he found that the local Indians had slaughtered all thirty-nine and left their bodies moldering on the earth. In retaliation to this Indian-on-European genocide, Columbus waged a small war against the Indians. In the war, he captured hundreds of tribesmen – which were later released. This is slavery?

Also, during his first voyage, Columbus brought six Indians back to Spain with him who were voluntarily baptized. These returned with Columbus to the New World on his second voyage. Is this the conduct of a brutal oppressor and slaver?

Christopher Columbus was a good man. He was simply not guilty of the atrocities attributed to him. He was on God’s errand to open the New World to Christian settlement. Atrocities occurred during the colonization of the Americas, of course, but that’s not in question. The issue is whether or not Columbus was involved.

Columbus’ mission was so important in the history of the world that ancient prophets actually saw him and foretold of his discovery of the New World. The ancient prophet Nephi, whose people inhabited ancient America, saw Columbus in vision some six hundred years before Christ. He testified of Columbus’ discovery of America, her subsequent settlement by Liberty-loving Christians, and even America’s successful War for Independence:

And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.

And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations” (1 Nephi 13:12-19).

For millennia the Lord has had His eye upon Columbus. It was God who set the stage for Columbus’ history-altering voyage. As Columbus testified, “who can doubt but that the Holy Ghost inspired me?” Surely he was an inspired figure – a faithful man who helped change the world for the better.

Columbus13

To conclude this portion of the article, I quote from Ezra Taft Benson. I sincerely believe his warning is accurate and I commend it to you. After speaking of great men like Benjamin Franklin, John Wesley, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus, he warned:

When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it” (Ezra Taft Benson, “God’s Hand in Our Nation’s History,” BYU Address, March 28, 1977).

To replace the memory of this good man and denigrate our noble ancestors and their unsurpassed achievements, the Marxist Elite have promoted so-called “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” to celebrate the American Indians. There are numerous objections to this ludicrous, impostor holiday.

The first objection is the title. What is an “indigenous” person? Who is a “native”? Google defines indigenous as something or someone “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.” The Strong family line to which I proudly belong, and which helped establish this nation alongside other better known figures, has been in America for almost four hundred years. If we follow the dictionary definition, then I’m every bit as native and indigenous as the Indians!

At what point does someone, or even an entire people, become “indigenous” to a location? And just because one group is termed “indigenous,” does that preclude another group from becoming indigenous over time? The Indians migrated here, too, after all. The oral histories of our Eastern tribes, for instance, demonstrate that these tribes anciently traveled westward on ships to get to America. And like our forefathers they also displaced the previous inhabitants (one might call them “indigenous peoples”) of the land. Of course, when brown, black, yellow, and red peoples do it, it’s called history; but when whites do it, it’s considered “racism,” “genocide,” and “imperialism.”

The second objection regards the message. What is “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” really promoting? Is it merely promoting the existence of so-called “indigenous” peoples? That ostensibly seems to be the case. Wikipedia states: “Indigenous Peoples’ Day is a holiday that celebrates and honors Native American peoples and commemorates their histories and cultures.” Conveniently, the day chosen to celebrate this “holiday” is the same day we have celebrated Columbus Day since 1869. If the true purpose is to celebrate “Native American peoples,” then why did they provocatively choose Columbus Day as the time to celebrate it? They could have chosen any other day – so why did they choose Columbus Day?

It seems painfully obvious to me that the real purpose of “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” is to displace Columbus Day, downplay and eventually destroy the memory of Christopher Columbus, confuse history in people’s minds, promote inferior, harmful, or anti-Christian worldviews, and weaken traditional American culture. By inventing a holiday like “Indigenous Peoples’ Day,” people are consciously siding with an anti-American narrative – a Marxist version of history that portrays whites as racist, genocidal imperialists who forced the poor Indians off their land, engaged in mass theft, and orchestrated an Indian holocaust.

This narrative is demonstrably false. It flies in the face of history and facts. It is ultimately very harmful and dangerous because it demoralizes Americans by causing them to mistrust, question, and look down upon their forefathers and, by extension, the institutions and ideas they promoted and held sacred. The traitors who have infiltrated and hijacked our society don’t care about “indigenous peoples” – they’re only concerned with tearing down traditional white American/European culture, including our heroes and icons such as George Washington, Lewis Wetzel, Daniel Boone, Andrew Jackson, and Christopher Columbus. I, for one, will not allow the memory of our honorable, patriotic, courageous, upright, heroic forefathers to be sidelined by a holiday promoting Indian culture.

This brings us to the third objection. What are these “histories and cultures” we’re supposed to be promoting on “Indigenous Peoples’ Day”? The myth of the “noble savage” is prevalent in our society today. The fake image of the Indian crying over the white man’s destruction of the environment is seared into our consciousness. Indeed, Indian spirituality is looked upon with something akin to reverence as if it contains ancient wisdom lacking in modern American society.

In truth, American Indian tribes were proudly pagan and exceptionally brutal. They routinely engaged in human sacrifice. They were more warlike than most other peoples in recorded history. The men in many of the tribes lived for nothing other than to make war on neighboring tribes during the next raiding season. No one has slaughtered more Indians than other Indians. The Americas were in a near constant state of warfare before European settlers arrived.

In many tribes, Indian men gained prestige and position through murder or conquest. The chief was often the greatest warrior. And to the victor goes the spoils – including the women. The most prominent Indian braves usually had multiple wives which were frequently treated as chattel, though women in some tribes were more “liberated” in the modern feminist sense. Women could also be purchased or won through gambling or games.

Other questionable behaviors ran rampant. For instance, drug use was common in many tribes (peyote, magic mushrooms, etc.) Indolence was a part of life for the Indian men. Immorality was prevalent and shrugged at. Drunkenness became a way of life. And the Indians, contrary to myth, actually hunted animals to extinction and often tore up the environment they claimed to love so much. Nearly everything Hollywood and leftist academia claim about the Indians is a demonstrable lie. Yet they want us to ignore the good Christian, Christopher Columbus, and instead celebrate Indian debauchery and values that are antithetical to everything that made America great.

Let’s zero in on one particular aspect of Indian culture that is carefully covered up by the powers-that-be. The Establishment “historians” and their agitators don’t want us to remember that it was the Indians who brutalized the white settlers and not the other way around. Of course there were individual acts of white-on-Indian brutality, but there was never a general policy. The context and backstory is also absolutely crucial to understand.

When our Pilgrim forefathers arrived in the New World, it was the Indians who initiated the wars that raged on and off for the better part of three centuries. One of the first big slaughters occurred in March 1622 when the Powhatan Indians murdered 347 settlers and mutilated their corpses. But murder was not enough – torture was also integral to the Indians’ lifestyle.

The Indians had a god named Okee (the name differed according to tribe) to whom they had been sacrificing human beings and animals for centuries. When the white settlers arrived, they became the most prized sacrifices for Okee. Okee was a pain-eater. He fed off of the suffering, pain, and cries of the victims. Consequently, the Indians brutally tortured their lamentable victims for days until death brought relief. Our forefathers were flayed, had their lips and eyelids removed, and other horrific tortures. Children were not spared torture and indiscriminate murder. Even the dead were mutilated for the Indians’ enjoyment. When people comprehend that this is how European settlers were greeted by the Indians, our aggressively defensive posture becomes perfectly understandable.

Sacrificing white settlers to Okee was not the only way the Indians showed their true colors. The Indians loved to rape white women. The accounts are legion. Often white women would be kidnapped or captured during battle and then raped by not one, but any man in a tribe. The abuse would go on and on for days, weeks, or longer, until they finally killed or released the woman. This treatment of our women was not localized – it was a general rule just as Indian brutality and savagery was general throughout the Americas.

Indians1

In his book Scalp Dance, Thomas Goodrich documented that Indian brutality and rapine was as commonplace on the plains as it was in the coastal regions and that our People faced it up through the Nineteenth Century. Goodrich quoted a Sioux chief as stating that his people’s slogan was “death to all palefaces” (Thomas Goodrich, Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879, 168). One Indian atrocity committed in Nebraska was described as follows:

[She] was led from her tent and every remnant of clothing torn from her body. A child that she was holding to her breast was wrenched from her arms and she was knocked to the ground. In this nude condition the demons gathered round her and while some held her down by standing on her wrists and their claws clutched in her hair, others outraged her person. Not less than thirty repeated the horrible deed! While this was going on another crew was trying to stop the heart-broken wailings of the child by tossing strings of beads about its face, and others were dancing about in the brush and grass, with revolvers cocked, yelping like madmen” (in Thomas Goodrich, Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879, 119-120).

These types of scenes played out all across America as white settlers were abused, harassed, robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered by Indians. So prevalent were these atrocities that our Declaration of Independence actually mentions them. One of the colonists’ grievances was that King George III had “excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

During the French and Indian War the French had used the Indians against the American colonists. Then during the War for Independence the British did the same. During that war, the Indian-British coalition raided American towns, brutalizing and slaughtered anyone they could find. W. Cleon Skousen’s superb book The Making of America contains this account of one infamous massacre:

Early in 1778, the British War Office began to carve out for itself a huge black mark in history as it allowed Sir John Butler to mobilize the Indians and lead them forth on terrifying raids against the American frontier. We read:

““On July 4 – to mock American independence – Colonel Sir John Butler struck at the Wyoming Valley in [western] Pennsylvania. Hundreds perished. Men were burnt at the stake or thrown on beds of coals and held down with pitchforks while their horrified families were forced to witness their torment. Others were placed in a circle while a half-breed squaw called Queen Esther danced chanting around them to chop off their heads. Soon the entire frontier was in flames.”

Since Congress did nothing to quench the Indian massacres, they began to spread through the Ohio Valley and Northwest territory” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 94).

In response to the Indian savagery, we took the fight to the Indians. We sent 5,000 troops into the Iroquois settlements and demolished dozens of their villages to eliminate their ability to mercilessly attack our civilians. Historians of course portray this as a senseless massacre against the poor defenseless Indians, but from what you just read you now understand the context.

Most alleged “massacres” against the Indians were usually one of two things: Legitimate battles where both sides took casualties, or retaliation for Indian atrocities against our People. A great example is the infamous Battle of Wounded Knee. More than any other event, this is pointed to by Indian apologists and anti-American agitators as the quintessential “massacre.” The only problem with this narrative is that it wasn’t a massacre of defenseless people.

The Battle of Wounded Knee was just that – a battle. It occurred at the height of the Ghost Dance craze when Indians were rising up to raid and fight against the white settlers moving west. After a small skirmish between Indians and American soldiers where Sitting Bull was killed during an arrest attempt, hundreds of Lakota Indians were rounded up by the U.S. Army as a precaution. Fearing another attack, the Army ordered the Lakota disarmed. The Indians gave up a few of their weapons, but contrary to popular myth, they hid most of them (and it was certainly not “gun control” as some claim!) They then began the Ghost Dance ritual in camp, with one Indian declaring that the soldiers’ bullets couldn’t harm them. At that moment, one of the Indian’s guns accidentally fired. This started a two-way battle in which some 150 Lakota (half of whom were men) and 25 soldiers were killed, with another 39 Americans injured. It was hardly a one-sided massacre of unarmed Indians.

In short, the entire history of white-Indian relations has been twisted and rewritten along anti-American lines. Instead of celebrating heroes like our noble ancestors and Christopher Columbus, we are supposed to celebrate the history and culture of savage Indian tribes who brutalized, raped, and murdered our people for the better part of three hundred years. Only negative results can come from promoting “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” over Columbus Day. We need to remember our history. We need to remember the good that came from Columbus’ discovery of the New World and the Christian settlement of this land that resulted.

Columbus14

I urge you to reject the Marxist political correctness that has saturated our society. Reject the promotion of cultures and histories that are not equal to our own unsurpassed greatness as a society. Remember our history. And let’s remember Christopher Columbus and honor his good name. Happy Columbus Day.

Zack Strong,

October 14, 2019

Truth Offends the Ignorant and Guilty

A truth I learned as a boy from reading the holy scriptures is that “the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center” (1 Nephi 16:2). I also learned that “the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Yet, society at large does not hold these or any truths to be sacred. Few things are as despised and abused in our Marxist-inspired culture as truth. So universally hated and feared is truth that we have collectively conceded that “telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” I submit to you, however, that there are only two groups of people who hate, conceal, or reject truth – the ignorant and the malicious or guilty.

Truth is ennobling. Truth is liberating. Truth is power! In my article “What is Truth?” I observed:

Truth is a knowledge of things as they really are now and in eternity. Truth is eternal. Truth emanates from God. Truth can be learned only through the ministration of the Holy Spirit. Truth will triumph over all lies in the end. And because it reigns eternally victorious over all error and centers in Jesus Christ, the truth shall make us free.”

truth6

Let’s be clear – truth is not subjective. The very definition and nature of truth suggests something that is unchanging and unalterable. Truth does not change. Truth cannot change. The great religious giant Spencer W. Kimball once delivered an address entitled “Absolute Truth.” In it, he gave us these wise words:

There are absolute truths and relative truths. The rules of dietetics have changed many times in my lifetime. Many scientific findings have changed from year to year. The scientists taught for decades that the world was once a nebulous, molten mass cast off from the sun, and later many scientists said it once was a whirl of dust which solidified. There are many ideas advanced to the world that have been changed to meet the needs of the truth as it has been discovered. There are relative truths, and there are also absolute truths which are the same yesterday, today, and forever—never changing. These absolute truths are not altered by the opinions of men. As science has expanded our understanding of the physical world, certain accepted ideas of science have had to be abandoned in the interest of truth. Some of these seeming truths were stoutly maintained for centuries. The sincere searching of science often rests only on the threshold of truth, whereas revealed facts give us certain absolute truths as a beginning point so we may come to understand the nature of man and the purpose of his life.

The earth is spherical. If all the four billion people in the world think it flat, they are in error. That is an absolute truth, and all the arguing in the world will not change it. Weights will not suspend themselves in the air, but when released will fall earthward. The law of gravity is an absolute truth. It never varies. Greater laws can overcome lesser ones, but that does not change their undeniable truth. . . .

If men are really humble, they will realize that they discover, but do not create, truth. . . .

If I can only make clear this one thing, it will give us a basis on which to build. Man cannot discover God or his ways by mere mental processes. One must be governed by the laws which control the realm into which he is delving. . . .

. . . I repeat, these are not matters of opinion. They are absolute truths. These truths are available to every soul” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Absolute Truth,” BYU Address, September 6, 1977).

Truth is simply the reality of things as they are – not as we wish them to be. Truth does not bend to our will – it is eternally self-existent and independent. Popular opinion has zero bearing on truth. All of humanity could gather and vote to abolish gravity and yet gravity would remain. The majority might dismiss the divinity of Jesus Christ, but Jesus is still the Christ, the Son of God, the Creator of this earth, the Redeemer of mankind, the King of king and Lord of lords. Truth does not need your consent or society’s approval to exist.

Truth is one of the major active ingredients in the only remedy that can cure our society. But a remedy is only effective if we properly diagnose the problem, if we take it in time, and if the mixture is correct. Yet, year after year I see a growing antipathy toward truth. Reality has been dismissed. Black is called white, darkness is called light, hate is called love, permissiveness is called tolerance, and lies are called truth. We have wholly disregarded Isaiah’s ancient warning:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).

The religious leader and former judge Dallin H. Oaks made a keen observation about the current trends in our society:

Evil that used to be localized and covered like a boil is now legalized and paraded like a banner. The most fundamental roots and bulwarks of civilization are questioned or attacked. Nations disavow their religious heritage. Marriage and family responsibilities are discarded as impediments to personal indulgence. The movies and magazines and television that shape our attitudes are filled with stories or images that portray the children of God as predatory beasts or, at best, as trivial creations pursuing little more than personal pleasure. And too many of us accept this as entertainment.

The men and women who made epic sacrifices to combat evil regimes in the past were shaped by values that are disappearing from our public teaching. The good, the true, and the beautiful are being replaced by the no-good, the “whatever,” and the valueless fodder of personal whim. Not surprisingly, many of our youth and adults are caught up in pornography, pagan piercing of body parts, self-serving pleasure pursuits, dishonest behavior, revealing attire, foul language, and degrading sexual indulgence.

An increasing number of opinion leaders and followers deny the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and revere only the gods of secularism. Many in positions of power and influence deny the right and wrong defined by divine decree. Even among those who profess to believe in right and wrong, there are “them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20; 2 Ne. 15:20). Many also deny individual responsibility and practice dependence on others, seeking, like the foolish virgins, to live on borrowed substance and borrowed light.

All of this is grievous in the sight of our Heavenly Father, who loves all of His children and forbids every practice that keeps any from returning to His presence” (President Dallin H. Oaks, “Preparation for the Second Coming,” General Conference, April, 2004).

Without question, evil is masquerading as good these days and the enemy of all mankind is persuading us to adopt practices and principles which have proven the downfall of empires and peoples in times past. For instance, transgenderism and homosexuality – two twin mental and spiritual disorders – are being promoted by the Establishment press, Hollywood, and complicit academia as “normal,” “natural,” and “healthy” while heterosexuals are labeled as “abnormal,” “unloving,” and “bigoted.” Drag queens are infiltrating our schools and libraries, holding reading times with students and having children sit on their laps. Society denies the reality that there are only two genders and instead allows people to choose from an ever-expanding smorgasbord of identities ranging from “non-binary” to “pangender” to “gender fluid” to “two-spirit” to “questioning.” And so forth.

Remember, truth cuts the guilty to their core. They inwardly know they’re living a lie, but they don’t want to give up the fantasy. They prefer a comfortable lie to an uncomfortable truth. And truths which, if acknowledged, would force them to change their minds or behavior, are the worst. To indulge their fantasies and neuroses without feeling the sting of guilt, deluded people shout down, cover up, and censor those speaking truth.

guns85

One such example prompted me to write this article. Yesterday, I attempted to share an article from Conservative Media on Facebook. The article is titled “FBI: Over 5 Times More Killed with Knives than Rifles.” The article in part stated:

FBI crime stats for 2018 show over five times as many people were killed with knives and/or other cutting instruments than were killed with rifles.

The FBI data shows a total 1,515 deaths by knives and/or other cutting instruments vs. 297 deaths by rifle in 2018. . . .

Ironically, over 100 more people were killed with hammers and clubs than were killed with rifles in 2018.

It must be noted that the category of rifle includes all kinds of rifles, not just bolt action or semiautomatic, not just pump or lever action. So the gap between knife homicides and rifle homicides or hammer/club homicides and rifle homicides would be even larger if contrasted only with semiautomatic rifles, versus rifles of all kinds.”

These facts, these statistics, these truths, forcefully refute the false narrative that America is plagued by gun violence, that rifles (including assault rifles) are a danger to society, and that gun control is a necessary solution. Apart from socialist-controlled cities like Chicago and Detroit which implement strict gun control laws that disarm and make defenseless ordinary citizens, the United States has virtually no problem with gun violence and ranks as one of the safest nations on earth. In actual point of fact, far more people are killed by knives than by those oh-so-scary “assault weapons.” This is the reality – your daily dose of distortions from the media be damned.

Obviously, the Elite and those mind-addled dupes who promote their anti-Freedom, anti-Constitution, anti-America agenda can’t allow the reality to be known. They can’t afford for people to know the truth that America is a great nation, that we are generally safe, and that guns protect us, save lives, and deter crime and tyranny. So what do they do? They do what they do best – censor the truth, demonize truth-sharers, and spin lies to warp minds. When I attempted to share Conservative Media’s article, Facebook gave me an error message which stated: “Your message couldn’t be sent because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive.”

Screenshot_20191001-151719

Abusive? This is what the truth is to socialists, progressives, and liberals – “abusive.” The Social Justice Warriors and cultural Marxists can’t allow truth to spread. Truth destroys their agenda which is based on lies. So they go out of their way to flag the truth as “abusive,” “offensive,” and “against community standards.” But let’s be honest: Truth is only “abusive” and “offensive” to an ignorant or malicious person.

In this case, there are no doubt some deluded, emotion-driven, bleeding-heart types who legitimately think that either the FBI’s statistics are wrong or that Conservative Media made up the story, and that perpetuating the “lie” would endanger more people. However, in order to fall into this category, you have to almost be willfully, intentionally ignorant and fully out of touch with reality. You can’t claim the appellation “intelligent” if you believe guns are a problem or that gun control would save lives. More likely, the people who reported this fact-based article as “abusive” have malicious intent against our Freedom and desire the triumph of their Marxist ideology over traditional Americanism.

Another example of truth-hating that has dominated the news lately is the story of the Swedish socialist Greta Thunberg and her cacophony of global warming lies. In case you were fortunate enough to miss it, the sixteen-year-old George-Soros-approved socialist Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg, who might have literal mental problems, went viral after sobbing and ranting at a U.N. climate change summit about how her generation has been “betrayed,” how the world will end because of global warming, and how the rising generation will seek vengeance. In her talk vaguely addressed to world leaders (or, truthfully, to capitalists and anyone with sense to oppose communism), she ranted:

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you! . . . .

You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.

“We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”

I’m not exactly sure who is dying because of fictitious “global warming” or how any sane and honest person can claim we’re beginning a “mass extinction” because Americans like to drive SUVs, yet that’s what this little socialist soldier claimed.

It’s the same communist clap-trap, only this time with an indoctrinated, enraged teenager as the poster child. In my books A Century of Red and Red Gadiantons, I made it clear that the environmentalist movement is a communist creation. I call it “green communism.” The end goal of the radical environmentalist movement is two-fold: 1) to get the nations of the world so hysterical with fear that they’ll give up their national sovereignty to the United Nations and allow the U.N. to redistribute the wealth of the West to third world nations (i.e. to local yes-men and despots); and 2) to initiate the world into pagan earth-worship.

global warming3

No matter how many Greta Thunbergs the Elite push forward to tug on our heartstrings, propaganda and hysteria can’t change facts. Whipping yourself into an emotional frenzy and lying about the so-called threat of climate change does not make it reality. The fact is man-made global warming is a myth. We are now at twenty straight years of global cooling – not warming.

For generations the climatologists have been wrong. First they predicted an ice age before the year 2000, then they latched onto the global warming myth, and now they have employed vague language like “climate change” to confuse people and promote their lies. Competent scientists have refuted the myth of man-made global warming. Literally tens of thousands of scientists have signed petitions disputing the mainstream claims – destroying the myth of a scientific “consensus.” And does no one remember the major “climate gate” scandal where it was revealed that the United Nations was forging the numbers to make it appear that the globe is cooling when in fact the data tell us that the globe is cooling?

It’s time, ladies and gentlemen, to speak out and refute lies and mental illness when they’re shoved down our throats as “truth” and “reality.” It’s time to admit that truth trumps people’s feelings. Should we lose our country or our Liberty because a sixteen-year-old girl cries and yells on national TV about something that isn’t even true? Should we lose our God-given rights and Constitution because some disaffected and delusional leftists think facts and statistics are “abusive”? When will we say enough is enough? When will we ditch faux “tolerance” and instead promote truth over error?

We have an uphill battle ahead of us. The path will be long and difficult because we’ve tolerated the lies for so long they now weigh us down. But the truth is worth the struggle. In one of my favorite single declarations ever made, Thomas Jefferson stated:

[P]olitics, like religion, hold up the torches of martyrdom to the reformers of error” (Thomas Jefferson to James Ogilvie, August 4, 1811).

We must be the Reformers of Error for our generation. If we who know the truth, whether it be about religion, politics, economics, or what have you, do not step forward and give the truth voice, who will? Our enemies are doing everything they can to burn us. They’re attacking us with the fury of Jesuit Inquisitions. But stand firm – the truth is on your side. And know that if our enemies figuratively burn you for telling the truth, you’re in good company – the company of patriots and prophets, reformers and Freedom Fighters.

The ultimate act of truth-suppression known to humanity occurred when the Jews murdered our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Our Lord testified: “[Y]e seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God” (John 8:40).” The hard-hearted Pharisees, Sadducees, and their fanatical followers hated the truth so badly that they arrested, falsely accused, and cruelly killed the very Son of God, the Messiah, the Redeemer of mankind.

Christ72

The Savior gave us a key to discern whether or not we love truth. He said:

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:20-21).

Light is knowledge and truth. The Lord is “the light of the world” (John 8:12). God is also the “Spirit of truth” (John 16:13; Doctrine and Covenants 93:9, 11). During His perfect life and ministry, the Lord’s light shone so brightly that it illuminated the darkness that consumed the Kabbalistic Jewish rulers. These demagogues were frequently baffled and overpowered by the Savior’s light, wisdom, and truth. They could not continue leading the Jews down their darkened path as blind guides while the Savior’s light beamed for all to see. Therefore, the Jewish leaders conspired to kill Jesus and did just that when the Savior’s mission – His Atonement – was complete.

Today, there are those in our midst who behave like the Pharisaical Jews and wish to silence those whose light exposes their lies, conspiracies, and wickedness. Those who knowingly and intentionally conceal truth have firmly established themselves in Satan’s camp. What the Lord explained to the Jews applies with equal force to liars and malicious individuals today:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. . . .

He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God” (John 8:44-45, 47).

Honest and sincere people, when they hear the truth presented to them in its purity, believe. Those who are not honest in heart reject the truth when they hear it. It is the same in religion as it is in politics. Again I cited Jefferson:

[P]olitics, like religion, hold up the torches of martyrdom to the reformers of error.”

We have a choice to make. We must decide whether we’ll side with truth no matter how uncomfortable or unpopular it may be or whether we’ll shield our egos and fantasies with convenient lies. There is no middle ground between truth and error, fact and falsity, light and darkness. If one is sincere but ignorant, that can easily be corrected. There is nothing shameful about not knowing something that no one has ever told you before. However, once truth is presented to us, then we have a moral obligation to accept or reject it. And this choice shows us who we really are and where we really stand.

patriots3

There has never been a time when Christians and patriots weren’t persecuted and hated. It’s part of the burden of discipleship and patriotism. But if we love our Faith, our Families, and our Freedom, we must shoulder the burden and manfully do our duty. God will support those who love truth more than ignorance, truth more than popularity, and truth more than convenience. Stand for truth, my fellow countryman! Stand and be counted!

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” – Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December, 1776

Zack Strong,

October 2, 2019

The Constitution

May you and your contemporaries . . . preserve inviolate a Constitution, which, cherished in all its chastity and purity, will prove in the end a blessing to all the nations of the earth” (Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Nicholas, December 11, 1821).

September 17 is Constitution Day. In the past, this holiday was noted and commemorated from coast to coast. Today, however, the average person doesn’t even know that September 17 is a holiday. Worse, the average person has never taken the time to study and learn the Constitution and thus does not recognize the plethora of ways it is being violated on a daily basis by the very people – the sly oath-breakers – ostensibly representing him. This Constitution Day, I give a short tribute to the U.S. Constitution and the noble men who were inspired by Heaven to write and establish it.

The British statesman William Gladstone famously remarked that “the American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” I submit to you that this is true. Examine all the systems of government of the past or present and where do you find another that has secured to so many people as many rights and privileges and produced so much prosperity, advancement, and influence? No system in recorded human history has ever duplicated the general benefits that have resulted from the establishment of the Constitution of the United States.

America13

The United States is, by any honest analysis, the greatest, wealthiest, freest, and most powerful nation in history. No other nation has risen so far so fast, produced as much wealth, secured as much personal Liberty, or exerted as much influence on the world for good as the United States. Much of this unparalleled success stems back to the system of limited republican government established by the Constitution.

George Washington wrote of the system set up by the Constitution: “I was convinced it approached nearer to perfection than any government hitherto instituted among men” (George Washington to Edward Newenham, August 29, 1788). Another time he declared that “the Constitution is the guide which I never can abandon” (George Washington to the Boston Selectmen, July 28, 1795). And during his Farewell Address, President Washington again affirmed:

[T]he Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

Why was the Father of our Country so enamored with the Constitution? One of the reasons he was thrilled by the Constitution was that its authority centered in the People themselves, not in a monarchy, oligarchy, or formal bureaucracy. Washington stated:

The power under the Constitution will always be with the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes and for a certain limited period to representatives of their own chusing; and whenever it is exercised contrary to their interests, or not according to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be, recalled” (George Washington to Bushrod Washington, November 9, 1787).

The Constitution in fact was designed by the Founding Fathers to be an act of the People themselves. It had to be, for it would be their government. During the Constitution ratifying debates, however, some said that the Founders were not truly representing the People and therefore should not have used the phrase “We the People” in Constitution’s Preamble. However, a delegate from North Carolina, Archibald MacLaine, stated that the term was perfectly appropriate because it was the American People, and no other, that would ultimately approve the Constitution and thereby put it into force by their consent to its laws:

“[The Constitution] was to be submitted by the legislatures to the people; so that, when it is adopted, it is the act of the people” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 176).

The Constitution was and is the act of the People. The Constitution derives its powers, as Thomas Jefferson had stated in the Declaration of Independence all governments should, “from the consent of the governed.” In his brilliant book The Making of America – my pick for the best book ever written on constitutional interpretation – W. Cleon Skousen explained:

The new Constitution presupposes the complete restitution of all political power to the people, with a subsequent redistribution of certain powers to the states and certain powers to the federal government.

This explanation gives particular significance to the words of James Madison when he emphasized the relative amount of responsibility allocated to each level of government:

““The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperity of the state.”

Of course the people were accustomed to thinking of the states as the sovereign source of all political power, but the Founders wanted to educate the people to understand that they themselves are the source of all such power. James Wilson of Pennsylvania explained it as follows:

““. . . On the principle . . . of this Constitution . . . the supreme power resides in the people. If they choose to indulge a part of their sovereign power to be exercised by the state governments, they may. If they have done it, the states were right in exercising it; but if they think it no longer safe or convenient, they will resume it, or make a new distribution, more likely to be productive of that good which ought to be our constant aim.

““The powers of both the general government and the state governments, under this system, are acknowledged to be so many emanations of power from the people.

The purpose of the Founders was to assign to each level of government that service which is could perform the most efficiently and the most economically. There was a remarkable rationale behind the whole system. It went back to the “ancient principles”” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 176-177).

The “ancient principles” referred to are those which empower the People. Just as the government derives its powers from the People, the People infer their collective power from individuals. Genuine and rightful power does not come from the top down, but from the bottom up. It begins with the individual who receives his rights and prerogatives as an endowment from God Almighty, or nature, and then proceeds outward to families, neighborhoods, communities, counties, states, and, finally, the nation.

JeffersonHengistandHorsa

One side of Thomas Jefferson’s proposed seal for the United States, depicting Anglo-Saxon leaders Hengist and Horsa

This system originated thousands of years ago. It is the system revealed by God to ancient Israel. From there it spread to other areas, such as to the Anglo-Saxons. It was from the Anglo-Saxons that Thomas Jefferson gained knowledge of this near-perfect societal, governmental structure. Jefferson described it thus:

[T]he way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one; but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. let the National government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and it’s foreign & federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police & administration of what concerns the state generally; the Counties with the local concerns of the counties; and each Ward direct the interests within itself.7 it is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great National one down thro’ all it’s subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm and affairs by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. what has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? the generalising & concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the Autocrats of Russia or France, or of the Aristocrats of a Venetian Senate. and I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that Man shall never be free, (and it is blasphemy to believe it) that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher & higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers, in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical. the elementary republics of the wards, the county republics, the State republics, and the republic of the Union, would form a gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding every one it’s delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental balances and checks for the government. where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward-republic, or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs not merely at an election, one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the state who will not be a member of some one of it’s councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner than his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or a Bonaparte” (Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816).

This is the ingenious system that our Constitution was designed to safeguard and promote! It is perhaps the most succinct description of how the American system is meant to work. Each man is meant to personally govern himself, his family, and his affairs. Families were never intended to reach out to the government for help. Rather, a family’s relatives and neighbors, and local church, should be their support net.

If each family takes care of itself, and extended family and neighbors bind together to take care of each other within their wards and districts, the entire nation would easily govern itself with little need for government intervention. What need would we have for a large and invasive national government if each family and neighborhood tended to itself? There would be no welfare state with its massive bureaucratic apparatus, no need for a sprawling police force, and far fewer abuses and excesses.

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. was a lawyer, an experienced statesman who held numerous positions in government, and an influential religious leader. He was an expert in law and had an acute understanding of Freedom’s enemies. He said that our Founding Fathers understood these threats and formulated the Constitution to minimize them. Clark wrote:

We must always remember that despotism and tyranny, with all their attendant tragedies to the people, as in Russia today, come to nations because one man, or a small group of men, seize and exercise by themselves the three great divisions of government, – the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. For now a score of centuries, the nations and peoples of Western and Southern Europe – the bulk of the civilized world until less than two centuries ago – have lived under this concept (sometimes more, sometimes less) and, when the concept has been operative, have suffered the resulting tragedies – loss of liberty, oppression, great poverty among the masses, insecurity, wanton disregard of human life, and a host of the relatives of these evil broods.

The framers of our Constitution knew this history, and planned to make sure that these enemies to human welfare, freedom and happiness did not come to America. They were trained and experienced in the Common Law . . . They were thoroughly indoctrinated in the principle that the true sovereignty rested in the people. . . .

Deeply read in history, steeped in the lore of the past in human government, and experienced in the approaches of despotism which they had, themselves, suffered at the hands of George the Third, these patriots, assembled in solemn convention, planned for the establishment of a government that would ensure to them the blessings they described in the Preamble.

The people were setting up the government. They were bestowing power. They gave the government the powers they wished to give; they retained what they did not wish to give. The residuum of power was in them. . . .

The Framers, in the Government they provided for, separated the three functions of government and set each of them up as a separate branch – the legislative, and executive and the judicial. Each was wholly independent of the other. No one of them might encroach upon the other. No one of them might delegate its power to another.

Yet by the Constitution, the different branches were bound together, unified into an efficient, operating whole. These branches stood together, supported one another. While severally independent, they ere at the same time, mutually dependent. It is this union of independence and dependence of these branches – legislative, executive and judicial – and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document. The Framers had no direct guide in this work, no historical governmental precedent upon which to rely. As I see it, it was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle.

The people, not an Emperor or a small group, were to make the laws through their representatives chosen by them” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Church News, November 29, 1952, in Jerreld Newquist, ed., Prophets, Principles and National Survival, 78-80).

Republic

Some might think that this emphasis on the People means our system is a democracy. Not so. The Constitution explicitly promises a “Republican Form of Government” to the states (see Article 4, Section 4). In a democracy, the People personally administer the government. In a republican system, the People appoint representatives to oversee certain duties that are impossible for a large people to administer in-person. Furthermore, in America we enshrined the rule of law in written documents and constitutions, thus creating our own unique brand of republicanism.

Constitutional republicanism is not democracy. This is a great fallacy. Our Founders despised democracy and considered it worse than monarchy. Our system is also not authoritarian. Our system did not rest in either extreme, but was closer to the middle of the scale if one side is tyranny and the other is anarchy.

Alexander Hamilton said:

We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments – if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy” (Alexander Hamilton, Debates on the Federal Convention, June 26, 1787).

Thomas Jefferson strongly favored republicanism and stated:

The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind” (Thomas Jefferson to William Hunter, March 11, 1790).

Jefferson also told the nation during his First Inaugural Address:

We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. . . .

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government.”

Again, America was founded not as a democracy, but as a republican nation firmly rooted in rule of law as established in a written constitution. Unlike the British system that had no formal written constitution and which was thus very fluid and subject to the whims of leaders – especially the corrupt British monarchy – the U.S. government was set in stone and bound within very narrow limits and could only justly exercise a specified number of powers for limited purposes and in particular ways. Checks and balances, separation of powers, and enumerated powers were all fundamental aspects of our limited federal Constitution.

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. spoke often of the Constitution. He reverenced it, as I do, as an inspired document. He said:

The Constitutional Convention met and out of it came our God-inspired Constitution – “the most wonderful work,” said Gladstone, “ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” . . .

It gave us, for perhaps the first time in all history, a republic with the three basic divisions of government – the legislative, executive, and judicial – mutually and completely independent the one from the other, under which it is not possible for any branch of government legally to set up a system by which that branch can first conceive what it wants to do, then make the law ordering its doing, and then, itself, judge its own enforcement of its own law, a system that has always brought extortion, oppression, intimidation, tyranny, despotism – a system that every dictator has employed and must employ” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Stand Fast By Our Constitution, 187).

In other words, our inspired Constitution set up perhaps the first system that precludes tyrannical abuses, so long as it is strictly followed and the government is kept within its prescribed limits. If our elected representatives followed their oath of office, our government would never devolve into despotism because it could not. It is only when people violate their oath of office and the People let them get away with it that abuses happen. When people criticize our government, as I myself frequently do, they should make sure never to condemn the Constitution, but only its corrupt officers and the unconstitutional laws that we have allowed to be established.

Despite the brilliance of our constitutional system, our government is now a massive bureaucracy that tyrannizes us as a matter of course. It’s full of wolves in sheep’s clothing, traitors, despots, and front men for much eviler people operating and ruling from the shadows. I will cite but one reason for our fallen state: Our collective immorality.

I’ve emphasized this important factor in the past, but virtue and righteousness are essential ingredients in Americanism. I’ll cite four witness from our Founding era and commend their common sense to you with my own testimony of its pressing relevance. John Adams famously said:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798).

George Washington1

Another time he observed:

“The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies” (John Adams to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776).

One of my own ancestors, Caleb Strong, was a close associate of John Adams and is one of our forgotten Founders who participated in the Constitutional Convention and held numerous influential roles. In a speech as governor of Massachusetts, Strong stated:

[W]e are generally apt to ascribe too much to the efficacy of laws and government, as if they alone could secure the happiness of the people; but no laws will be sufficient to counteract the influence of manners which are corrupted by vice and voluptuousness; and it is beyond the power of any government to render the circumstances of the citizens easy and prosperous, if they want the habits of industry and frugality. – Government is necessary, to preserve the public peace, the persons and property of individuals; but our social happiness must chiefly depend upon other causes; upon simplicity and purity of manners; upon the education that we give our children; upon a steady adherence to the customs and institutions of our ancestors; upon the general diffusion of knowledge, and the prevalence of piety and benevolent affections among the people.

Our forms of government, are, doubtless, like all other institutions, imperfect; but they will ensure the blessings of freedom to the citizens, and preserve their tranquillity, so long as they are virtuous; and no constitution, that has been, or can be formed, will secure those blessings to a depraved and vicious people” (Caleb Strong, January 17, 1806, in Patriotism and Piety, 138).

A third witness, John Witherspoon affirmed:

Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue. On the other hand, when the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigor, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed” (John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Man,” May 17, 1776).

Finally, George Washington told the nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).

Only a moral, virtuous, just, upright, truth-loving People are capable of Freedom and ordered society. America was once good and so America was once great. We are still the greatest nation on earth, but we are have noticeably fallen from our lofty position. We need to return to our moral, Christian roots if we are to regain our unique American stature.

At the end of the day, the Constitution is not for the United States alone. Its principles are eternal and sacred. They belong to every nation. It was the Lord who raised up America’s Founding Fathers, who preserved us through the War for Independence, and who inspired the Constitution. He intended the ideas that fired the American soul to fire the world and lead to a new era of Freedom, peace, and prosperity. It is our duty as Americans to be the missionaries of this unsurpassed Freedom system.

I end by citing a rousing statement from J. Reuben Clark, Jr. He declared:

We must come with the loftiest patriotism, with a single allegiance, undivided, unshared, undefiled, for the Constitution under which we live . . . Our hearts and hands must be clean of all foreign isms and alien political cults. The Constitution and its free institutions must be our ensign. For America has a destiny – a destiny to conquer the world, – not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achievement, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole earth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of mutual patience, forbearance, and charity, in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., February 24, 1944, in Jerreld Newquist, ed., Prophets, Principles and National Survival, 60-61).

America14

Americanism is the greatest system in history. This system is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution – the most incredible political document in the world. I repeat that it was inspired by Almighty God and that Americans are the custodians of these superlative principles. It is time for us to declare with George Washington that the Constitution is the guide we will never abandon.

Zack Strong,

September 18, 2019

The Anti-Gun Agenda

[L]iberty must at all hazards be supported.” – John Adams

This article is inspired by Thursday’s Democratic Party presidential debate. At the debate, the Democrats’ anti-gun, and, thus, anti-Freedom agenda was on full display for the nation to see. These traitors openly said they would confiscate firearms and vowed to destroy one of the most fundamental aspects of the U.S. Constitution – our right to keep and bear arms. Enough is enough. This is war. It’s time to decide once and for all whether you’ll stand with red-blooded Americans or with Red traitors.

gun control7

The most flagrant threat against our God-given, constitutionally-protected right of self-defense came from Beto O’Rourke. He openly said he plans to confiscate a host of firearms from the American People, as well as ban various types of ammunition, if he becomes president. Of course a president does not have authority to ban firearms, ammunition, or gun accessories – which is something that someone seriously needs to tell President Trump – but this is the anti-gun agenda he will pursue and advocate. A summary of his menacing threat won’t suffice, so I cite it in full. The debate moderator asked:

You’ve said, quote, “Americans who own AR-15s and AK-47s will have to sell them to the government, all of them.” You know that critics call this confiscation. Are you proposing taking away their guns? And how would this work?”

O’Rourke responded:

I am, if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If the high impact, high velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside your body, because it was designed to do that, so that you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers.

When you see that being used against children, and in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15, and that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa and Midland, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time, hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.

And I want to say this. I’m listening to the people of this country. The day after I proposed doing that, I went to a gun show in Conway, Arkansas, to meet with those who were selling AR-15s and AK-47s and those who were buying those weapons. And you might be surprised, there was some common ground there, folks who said, I would willingly give that up, cut it to pieces, I don’t need this weapon to hunt, to defend myself. It is a weapon of war.”

When this filthy traitor said “hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” the audience burst out into raucous applause. That we have reached a time in American history where a candidate for president openly says they’re going to violate their constitutional oath of office and confiscate firearms, and the audience cheers, should alarm and enrage all real American patriots. Our Freedom is under direct attack. The Republicans are bad enough in their anti-2nd Amendment treason, but the Democrats are leading a full frontal assault.

Let’s analyze O’Rourke’s treasonous statement a little more. O’Rourke said that any weapon “designed to do that,” that is, designed to “kill people on a battlefield,” should be outlawed and taken from us. Of course, the gun-grabbers pretend they only want to take away what they erroneously call “military weapons,” “assault weapons,” or “weapons of war,” but their statements reflect their inward desire to confiscate any weapon that can potentially be used to kill someone.

guns5

Here’s a news flash for O’Rourke: All guns are designed to kill people! All firearms are designed to propel a bullet forward, causing it to penetrate the flesh and mortally wound a target. Whether one bullet creates a bigger wound or inflicts more inward damage than another, or was created directly for military use, is wholly irrelevant – the purpose of all firearms is ultimately the same. The fact that a weapon is designed to kill should never be an excuse to outlaw or confiscate it.

Furthermore, when you aim a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you always run the risk of killing that person. This is why the military and police teach their personnel never to put a finger on the trigger unless they’re prepared to use lethal force. And then when they pull the trigger, they shoot to kill and to totally neutralize the threat. It is the same with normal citizens with guns – any guns. We use them only when we need to defend ourselves and potentially use lethal force. To deprive us of our right to wield a weapon – any weapon – in self-defense because it has the potential to kill someone (as it was designed to do) is the height of stupidity and evil.

O’Rourke and his Democrat cohorts are playing word games. They pretend they just want the “big mean military weapons” off the street. In reality, however, their descriptions can apply to any and all weapons. Of course, any informed person knows that the Elite eventually want to ban all firearms, as symbolized by the United Nation’s vulgar statue of a pistol with its barrel twisted in a knot. But we don’t have to resort to interpreting statues and murky symbols to understand the intent. The Democratic and Republican traitors have been kind enough to tell us that they plan to disarm us.

President Obama frankly stated: “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.” He also made this derogatory remark about average Americans like you and me: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” Democratic Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein, however, was even clearer. She infamously threatened:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them – Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in – I would have done it.”

This is what it’s all about for Democrats – “an outright ban” on your firearms. They want an “outright ban” on your ability to defend yourself. They want to “an outright ban” on your Liberty.

But what of Republicans? I cite just one of many turncoats with an R next to their name, and remind you in the same breath that numerous prominent Republicans and Democrats mime these same flawed arguments. Flip-flopper Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts signed strict gun control laws, stated: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them.” He also used the same rationale that O’rourke used for opposing assault weapons: “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Indeed weapons are for killing people; hence the reason why the American People need them! We need to be able to kill tyrants who threaten our rights and criminals who endanger our families and property. We need them to defend ourselves against traitors who say we shouldn’t enjoy our God-given rights. We need them so we can support our military when our nation gets invaded by hostile forces. We need them to regain our Freedom and to thereafter remain free. The very idea that the People shouldn’t have military-style weapons is at its core totally evil.

We need to also be aware that not only do Establishment Republicans like Romney love gun control, but that President Trump – the so-called swamp-drainer – is also blundering down this same gun-grabbing road with his support of highly-dangerous and wildly unconstitutional red flag gun confiscation laws. Please see my articles here, here, and here, and listen to my Liberty Wolf podcast episode here for more on this pressing issue and our right of self-defense. And read Chuck Baldwin’s recent article for an additional summary of the despotic red flag gun laws popping up in all fifty states.

guns21

The Democrats and complicit Republicans know they are not strong enough to outright confiscate all firearms at the present time. However, like the Fabian Socialists they are, they work by gradualism. They chip away at one part of a right, then another, then another until they have finally dismantled it. They also love to stoke the fires of fear which cause others rational human beings to do irrational things against their best interests, such as giving up their means of self-defense in the face of threats.

The traitors in our government want to first go after what they call “assault weapons.” They think, or at least tell their ignorant, emotion-driven constituencies, that “assault weapons” are strictly “weapons of war” that do not belong on our streets. There’s no real purpose for private citizens to have them, they claim. And besides, they say, our Founding Fathers never could have envisioned rapid-fire weapons and surely would not have included these under the broad “shall not be infringed” protection mandate of the 2nd Amendment.

Let’s debunk these ideas briefly. First, no hypothetical excuses should ever be used to strip us of our God-given natural rights. That one person might misuse a weapon – and remember, all firearms are designed to kill – and harm or kill another person does not give government or society a right to strip the rest of us of our rights. That’s a logically flawed and patently preposterous argument. By that same standard, government could take away our knives, axes, or literally any other weapon or tool they wanted to, because they can all be used to kill and some are designed to inflict damage.

Additionally, no majority ever has a moral right or legal authority to take away the individual’s rights unless he has forfeited them through misconduct that violated another person’s equal rights. Or, as the great Thomas Jefferson put it:

[R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual” (Thomas Jefferson to Isaac Tiffany, April 4, 1819).

Any law that strips us of our rights unjustly is nothing but “the tyrant’s will.” It is arbitrary and despotic, tyrannical and Devilish. To outlaw firearms – any firearms – is unconstitutional, immoral, and wrong. Only anti-American tyrants and their dupes propose such a scheme.

Semi-automatic weapons are the core of our self-defense as a People. Our Founding Fathers were very well aware of the existence of repeat-fire rifles when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Gun-grabbers often say this is not true, thus proving their blazing ignorance. Here’s a short history lesson for people who claim the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to repeat or rapid-fire weapons.

In 1777, at the beginning of America’s War for Independence, Joseph Belton invented a repeat-fire rifle that could fire sixteen consecutive rounds in about twenty seconds. He pitched this weapon to Congress. Negotiations eventually fell through because of a disagreement about compensation, but the technology existed and our national leaders were well aware of it. George Washington, for instance, favored this weaponry. So our Founding Fathers clearly knew all about rapid-fire rifles when they wrote the 2nd Amendment in 1791 and commanded the government that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Let’s return to Thursday’s Democratic debate. In the debate, Joe Biden blundered his way through his own threat to confiscate firearms from the American People. In response to a question about guns, he stated:

I’m the only one up here that’s ever beat the NRA – only one ever to beat the NRA nationally. I’m the guy that brought the Brady bill into – into focus and became law. . . .

Over 90% of the American people think we have to get assault weapons off the street – period. And we have to get buy-backs and get them out of their basements.”

Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Biden wants to reach into your basements and steal your firearms! I’m sure he thinks what the city of San Francisco thinks and recently declared, that the National Rifle Association is a “terrorist” group. These gun-grabbers see you and I as insurgents or “domestic terrorists” in their war to enslave America.

guns9

Joe Biden wants to force you sell your firearms “back” to the government. He lied and said that 90% of Americans want to get rid of so-called “assault weapons.” He jut made up that number to justify his cry for mass gun confiscation. Yet, as I recently pointed out above and more thoroughly in my article “You Do NOT Determine My Rights,” no majority, no matter how large, has authority to strip you of any of your God-given natural rights. Period.

Let’s explain what a so-called gun “buy-back” is. This is where the government forces you, under penalty of law, to give up your guns. They try to sweeten the raw deal by paying you for those guns they’re forcing you to relinquish. But what are they paying you with? Tax dollars. In other words, they plan to force you to give up your guns and then pay you with money that was yours in the first place! Giving up your right of self-defense to get a small part of your tax dollars back doesn’t sound like a good deal to me, yet apparently many Democrats and Republicans think this is a wonderful idea. For some reason we allow these people to vote!

Kamala Harris was another Democratic lackey who called for gun control at the debate. She responded “that’s right” to a query asking if she would take “executive action on guns within [her] first 100 days” in office, “including banning imports of AR-15 assault weapons.” She dredged up the memory of dead cops and dead children, and complained about having to look at “more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you,” as justification for her tyrannical aspirations.

As grisly as crimes might sometimes be, they do not justify taking away the rights of an entire nation. And let’s be blunt: By depriving people of their means of self-defense, you only ensure that there will be more victims, more dead children, and more horrible autopsy photographs to look at. We would be wading through puddles of blood like the people in London, Mexico, or Chicago if we allowed these tyrants to steal away our right of self-defense.

People who support gun control are far more responsible for gun violence than gun owners. We need to finally comprehend an important truth: Only an armed and righteous society is a polite and safe society; a defenseless society is a society of victims. Let’s never give up our God-given rights.

Democratic candidate Amy Klobuchar similarly favored gun control. When asked about it, she made a revealing statement:

Everyone up here favors an assault weapons ban. Everyone up here favors magazine limitations . . . That’s what unites us.

You know what else unites us? . . . What unites us is that right now, on Mitch McConnell’s desk, are three bills – universal background checks, closing the Charleston loophole, and passing my bill to make sure that domestic abusers don’t get AK-47s.”

There you have it – every single one of the Democratic Party candidates for president “favors an assault weapons ban” and other restrictions on your Liberty. Every single one of them is a traitor who wants to do away with your right to defend yourself and your family. And Republican traitors like Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and Mitt Romney, support many of these same measures and are either wolves in sheep’s clothing or blind leaders of the blind.

The debate moderator next questioned Marxist candidate Corey Booker about guns. He said:

You have argued, if you need a license to drive a car in this country, you should have a license to buy a gun. Gun-owners would not only have to pass a background check, they would have to obtain a federal license to buy a gun.”

guns12

Booker then lied through his teeth and showed his true colors as he expounded on this idea:

So, background checks and gun licensing, these are agreed to by overwhelmingly the majority of Americans. . . .

. . . I was the first person to come out for gun licensing. And I’m happy that people like Beto O’Rourke are showing such courage now and coming forward and also now supporting licensing. . . .

I will lead change on this issue . . . Nobody has ascended to the White House that will bring more personal passion on this issue. I will fight this and bring a fight to the NRA and the corporate gun lobby like they have never seen before.”

Yes, Booker is trying to lead the charge to disarm Americans and made our nation less safe and secure. He is a foul traitor. His extreme treason would make Benedict Arnold blush.

Not to be outdone, Elizabeth Warren, one of the most senile and unstable candidates to ever hold or run for high office in America, stated:

We have a gun violence problem in this country. . . .

And we agree on many steps we could take to fix it. My view on this is, we’re going to – it’s not going to be one and done on this. We’re going to do it, and we’re going to have to do it again, and we’re going to have to come back some more. . . .

. . . 90 percent of Americans want to see us do – I like registration – want to see us do background checks, want to get assault weapons off the streets.”

There is that fictitious 90% figure again. It’s a total lie, yet one-by-one the candidates repeated it. They’re trying to condition everyone into believing that the majority of Americans support gun control when in fact they do not. Yet, even if they did, thank God our rights are not determined by majority opinion! Thank God we have a Constitution which secures our rights! May the Lord thwart and crush anyone who would attempt to strip us of our rights!

Socialist Bernie Sanders chimed in on gun control, too. Predictably, he said:

[W]hat I would support, absolutely, is passing major legislation, the gun legislation the people here are talking about, Medicare-for-all, climate change legislation that saves the planet. I will not wait for 60 votes to make that happen. . . .

I am proud – I am proud that, year after year, I had an “F” rating from the NRA.”

Here you have an open and avowed socialist who literally honeymooned in Soviet Russia and frequented international communist conferences in Europe threatening the American People with taking away, unilaterally and dictatorially, their right of self-defense. He doesn’t care whether the American People want it, whether the Congress votes for it, or whether the Constitution authorizes it – he’s prepared to “make that happen” through executive authority (authority, I remind you, totally lacking in the Executive Branch of government).

Never in our history has a major political party so blatantly campaigned on destroying the Constitution as the Democratic Party has during this current election cycle. The Democratic Party is a party of traitors, oak-breakers, liars, and actual or would-be tyrants. It is a despotic, anti-American organization that hardly deserves to exist. A good case could be made that the Democratic Party, which has recently teamed up with the Communist Party, should be formally classified as a subversive organization.

When will Americans cease to tolerate communist traitors like Sanders, Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, Harris, and O’Rourke threatening to destroy our Constitution, violate our most fundamental rights, and victimize our families? When is enough enough? When will we finally move to silence this fifth column of traitors and agitators? When will we take their vile threats seriously and move to safeguard our Liberty forever?

It is time for us to make our own private oaths to God Almighty to defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom against all enemies – especially against traitors in our government or attempting to weasel into our government. We must “[swear] upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man (Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800). And we must rush forward and take this pledge now before it is too late to regain our Freedom without massive bloodshed.

Oath Keepers is an organization of both veteran and active military and law enforcement personnel who have sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution. In particular, these individuals swear to defend the 2nd Amendment. Their pledge is relevant and I encourage all Americans to make similar declarations:

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.

In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

This pledge is one that all real Americans gladly make, regardless of whether they formally serve in the military or law enforcement. All true Americans defend the right of personal self-defense and the individual right to keep and bear arms. This right comes from God – not the government or the majority. It allows us not only to hunt for food or shoot for sport, but to defend our families and to kill tyrants who would enslave us. The right of self-defense, coupled with virtue, keeps us free.

guns18

John Adams bluntly stated that we have a right to kill tyrants. Please internalize his words:

The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than that to hang a robber, or kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for a worse, unless the people have sense, spirit, and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against tyranny; against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many. Let it be the study, therefore, of lawgivers and philosophers, to enlighten the people’s understandings and improve their morals, by good and general education; to enable them to comprehend the scheme of government, and to know upon what points their liberties depend; to dissipate those vulgar prejudices and popular superstitions that oppose themselves to good government; and to teach them that obedience to the laws is as indispensable in them as in lords and kings” (John Adams, “Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States,” 1787).

If a People have a right to kill oppressors in self-defense, then individuals do, too, because society does not posses any right except those first possessed by individuals. The right of the individual, then, to possess the means to eradicate tyrants must be held equally inviolate as the People’s or militia’s right to maintain those same “weapons of war.” As stated above, yes, guns are designed to kill; and we must retain our right and ability, as a last resort, to kill any tyrant who would oppress us.

It’s long past time to tell the traitors in Washington and in our state capitals that our rights are non-negotiable. Were will not barter away our Liberty. We will not sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. It’s time we remind our public servants that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that they have sworn an oath to defend it, that we will hold them strictly accountable, and that we are freemen and not slaves.

John Adams encouraged us to stop at nothing to secure our precious rights. These rights, after all, come from God and were secured by the blood and sufferings of our forefathers. We have no right to surrender our Freedom to anyone for any reason – and our posterity deserves to have Liberty handed to them intact:

[L]iberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood” (John Adams, “A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law,” 1765).

Are you prepared, as were our patriot forefathers, do sacrifice your ease, luxury, property, and even your blood on the altar of Liberty? If not, then you don’t deserve to be free. Thomas Paine was correct when he stated: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it” (Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777). Are we real men? Will we defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom against traitors and tyrants?

What John Dickinson declared in 1775 must resound throughout the country once more. It is our duty to declare this message with forcefulness:

Our cause is just . . . The arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than live slaves” (John Dickinson, The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity on Taking up Arms, 1775).

Sic Semper Tyrannis! Long Live Liberty!

Zack Strong,

September 14, 2019

How Russia Benefited from 9/11

“Russia is pulling the strings in the Middle East.” Mark Hitchcock, Russia Rising: Tracking the Bear in Bible Prophecy, 5.

While the 9/11 attacks were a great tragedy for our nation, they were a tremendous windfall for our enemies. In particular, Russia benefited massively from our loss – and from our subsequent War on Terror. From day one, Russia has urged the United States to involve herself in the Middle East quagmire. This article will give the bullet points of why Russia and the communist world benefit from America’s disastrous War on Terror.

911#1

Hours after the 9/11 attacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin was the first head of state to call President George W. Bush and offer his condolences. He also became the first foreign supporter of America’s War on Terror. Russia has continuously prodded the United States to bat the Arab hornets nest. Our initial attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was launched largely from Russia-dominated Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and other bases in the region and with the help of intelligence from Russian sources.

In a 2016 article in The Washington Post, we read:

“Several former U.S. officials I spoke with acknowledged the crucial Russian contributions immediately after 9/11 to support the Northern Alliance and provide logistical support and share intelligence to U.S.-led coalition efforts to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. As one official remarked, “Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in 2001 marked the closest alignment of U.S. and Russian interests, and Russian support was as important as that of any NATO ally.”

“Some former Russian officials I interviewed recalled the hope in 2001 that Russia, the U.S. and other partners could establish an anti-terrorist coalition, much like the anti-Hitler coalition in World War II. Vladimir Putin proposed this concept again last September at the United Nations.”

It was “former” KGB agent Vladimir Putin who was so eager to get America into war in the Middle East that he provided “logistical support,” shared intelligence, and allowed the United States to use bases in the Russian sphere of influence. In the September United Nations speech referenced, Putin spoke of the dastardly Yalta Conference where Stalin persuaded his comrade FDR to allow the Soviet Union to take over Eastern Europe and have influence in China, which directly led to China being conquered by the Reds. Putin said that it was at Yalta that the current “world order” had been arranged and that its principles should be maintained today.

I remind the reader that the Yalta Conference, held in the Soviet Union and hosted by mass murderer Joseph Stalin, was nothing but a sell-out of the world to the Soviets. It is fitting, then, that Putin – a man who has publicly lamented the so-called “fall” of the USSR – would appeal to Yalta in connection with the War on Terror. Our costly war has benefited Russia and her allies immensely. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that the War on Terror has been almost as big a boon for Putin as the Yalta Conference was for Stalin.

The ironically-named Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an internationalist-controlled organization, lauded the “qualitatively new level of military cooperation” between the United States and Russia and even recommended Congress fork out “increased funds for Russian democracy.” This should not be surprising. After all, the CEIP was once headed by the Soviet spy Alger Hiss. It was also proved by the Reece Committee that, at least in 1910, the foundation had conspired to get the United States involved in international wars in order to fundamentally transform society domestically during the turmoil. It was another tax-exempt foundation, the Ford Foundation, which told Chairman Carroll Reece:

“The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union” (Robert Henry Goldsborough, Lines of Credit: Ropes of Bondage: The Story of the Financiers, Their Fellow Conspirators, and the Plot to Destroy Western Christian Civilization, 32).

After his investigations into these same foundations which today support the War on Terror and encourage us to work with Russia, Carroll Reece concluded:

“Here lies the story of how communism and socialism are financed in the United States, where they get their money. It is the story of who pays the bill.

“There is evidence to show there is a diabolical conspiracy back of all this. Its aim is the furtherance of socialism in the United States. . . .

“The method by which this is done seems fantastic to reasonable men, for these Communists and Socialists seize control of fortunes left behind by Capitalists when they die, and turn these fortunes around to finance the destruction of capitalism” (Robert Henry Goldsborough, Lines of Credit: Ropes of Bondage: The Story of the Financiers, Their Fellow Conspirators, and the Plot to Destroy Western Christian Civilization, 27).

I digress and leave you to research this dark aspect of the story for yourself. We return now to Russia’s giddy support of America’s War on Terror. The Brookings Institute, another elitist think tank, described the situation in mid-2002:

“When Russian President Vladimir Putin picked up the phone to express his sympathy to President Bush in the aftermath of September 11 and then followed up by providing concrete assistance to the campaign in Afghanistan and quickly acquiescing to U.S. plans to establish bases in central Asia, Washington policymakers and analysts concluded Putin had made a strategic, even historic, choice to align Russia’s foreign policy with that of the United States. It was a reasonable conclusion to make.

“From the beginning of his presidency in January 2000, Putin pushed the idea of a concerted campaign against terrorism with American and European leaders. He was one of the first to raise the alarm about terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and to warn of linkages between these camps, well-financed terrorist networks, and Islamic militant groups operating in Europe and Eurasia. Russia also actively supported the Northern Alliance in its struggle with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In December 2000, Moscow joined Washington in supporting United Nations sanctions against the Taliban and later appealed for sanctions against Pakistan for aiding the Taliban. After the attacks on the United States, Putin went so far as to suggest he had been expecting a massive terrorist strike—it had only been a matter of time.”

Not only did Putin “expect” a terrorist strike, he claimed Russia warned the United States at least two days prior that an attack was imminent. I have no doubt Putin had foreknowledge, for reasons which we will discuss later.

With all of this in mind, we are forced to ask yet again why Putin – a man who spent his earlier life as a KGB agent committed to destroying the “main enemy,” the United States – was so eager to get America embroiled in the Middle East after 9/11? Was it, as he and his apologists claims, because he is truly concerned about the threat terrorism and wants to help the West? Rubbish!

We must remember how Vladimir Putin came to power. Putin spent his early service in the KGB. The KGB later renamed itself the FSK and later the FSB. In 1998, Russian dictator Boris Yeltsin appointed Putin as its head. Putin then, with the help of Russian billionaire oligarchs (who were often former Russian intelligence figures invested with Communist Party funds), got himself appointed president of Russia in the wake of Yeltsin’s sudden resignation in December 1999. Yeltsin’s resignation was precipitated by a tragedy that struck Russia that same year.

Before we discuss the tragedy that led to what we call the Second Chechen War, however, let’s discuss how and why the First Chechen War began. Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian intelligence agent who was assassinated by Russia, spent the last years of his life exposing Putin’s criminality and the fact that the FSB (i.e. KGB) ruled Russia. In his book Blowing Up Russia, Litvinenko wrote of how the First Chechen War in 1994 came about:

Putin7

“a total madman”

“No one but a total madman could have wished to drag Russia into any kind of war, let alone a war in the North Caucasus . . . This war resulted in the isolation of the Russian state from the community of civilized nations, since the rest of the world did not support it and could not understand it. A previously popular, well-beloved president [Yeltsin], therefore, sacrificed the support of both his own public and the international community. Once he had fallen into the trap, he was left with no option but to resign before the end of his term, and hand over power to the FSB in return for a guarantee of immunity for himself and his family. We known who it was that benefited from all of this – the people to whom Yeltsin handed over power. We know how the result was achieved – by means of the war in Chechnya. . . .

“. . . The “party of war,” based on the military and law enforcement ministries, believe that they could afford [to start a war with Chechnya], as long as the public was prepared for it, and it would be easy enough to influence public opinion, if the Chechens were seen to resort to terrorist tactics in their struggle for independence. All that was needed was to arrange terrorist attacks in Moscow and leave a trail leading back to Chechnya.

“. . . on November 18, 1994, the FSK made its first recorded attempt to stir up anti-Chechen feeling by committing an act of terrorism and laying the blame on Chechen separatists. . . .

“It should be noted that on November 18 and in later instances, the supposed “Chechen terrorists” set off their explosions at the most inopportune times, and then never actually claimed responsibility (rendering the terrorist attack itself meaningless). In any case, in November 1994, public opinion in Russia and around the world was on the side of the Chechen people, so why would the Chechens have committed an act of terrorism in Moscow? . . . Russian supporters of war with Chechnya were, however, only too willing to see the hand of Chechnya in any terrorist attack, and their response on every occasion was to strike a rapid and quite disproportionately massive blow against Chechen sovereignty” (Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, 3-5).

Litvinenko explained that the railroad bombing of November 18, 1994, was traced back to an employee, Captain Andrei Schelenkov, of the oil company Lanako. He wrote:

“Lanako’s boss . . . was thirty-five-year-old Maxim Lazovsky, a highly valued agent of the Moscow and Moscow Region Department of the FSB . . . we can also point out the significant fact that every single one of Lanako’s employees was a full-time or free-lance agent of the Russian counterespionage agencies” (Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, 6-7).

The 1994 incident, then, was a false-flag bombing perpetrated by Russian intelligence. This event paved the way for the First Chechen War. That war came to a stalemate in 1996 with Russia promising to grant Chechnya eventual sovereignty. It was another series of false-flag bombings in 1999, however, that justified the Second Chechen War and allowed the FSB to put Vladimir Putin into power as president of the Russian Federation.

At the beginning of September, 1999, a series of apartment bombs rocked Russia, killing several hundred. These were naturally blamed on Islamic Chechen terrorists. Alexander Litvinenko, and other researchers, however, have pinned the blame directly on the Moscow FSB which had so recently been headed by Vladimir Putin. In Ryazan, on September 22, light was shed on who was perpetrating the bombings.

On that day, a man spotted suspicious individuals carrying what appeared to be sacks of sugar or flour into the basement of a building. He called the police who arrived and found these sacks rigged with timed explosives and set near the main support columns of the building. The sacks contained hexogen, a military-grade explosive substance. Had the men not been spotted and the police not called, the bomb would have later gone off and demolished the old building. Like the other bombings, this would have been blamed on “Islamic terrorists” as part of the pretext for launching the Second Chechen War.

In the immediate aftermath of the foiled bombing, Putin congratulated the public for its vigilance and the FSB feigned no knowledge of the event. Yet, two days later, after several “terrorists” had been apprehended in Ryazan by the local authorities, the Moscow FSB claimed the entire thing has been a training exercise and ordered the suspects released. Litvinenko raised obvious questions about this odd version of events. He wrote:

“Could we possibly expect the FSB to say nothing all day long on September 23, while the whole world was buzzing with news of a failed terrorist attack? It’s impossible to imagine. Is it possible to imagine that the Prime Minister of Russia [Putin] and former director of the FSB, who, moreover, has personal links with Patrushev [then head of the FSB], was not informed about the “exercises?” . . . The fact that at seven o’clock in the evening, on September 23, 1999, Putin did not make any statement about training exercises taking place in Ryazan was the weightiest possible argument in favor of interpreting events as a failed attempt by the FSB to blow up an apartment building in Ryazan” (Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, 63).

Litvinenko also observed:

“The FSB department for the Ryazan Region was also not informed about the “exercises.” Bludov stated that “the FSB was not informed in advance that exercises were being conducted in the city.” The head of the Ryazan FSB, Major-General A.V. Sergeiev at first stated in an interview with the local television company Oka that he knew nothing about any “exercises” being held. . . .

“The Ryazan FSB realized that the people of Ryazan had been “set up” and that the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Russia and the public might accuse the Ryazan FSB of planning the explosion. Shaken by the treachery of their Moscow colleagues, the Ryazan FSB decided to provide themselves with an alibi and announced to the world that the Ryazan operation had been planned in Moscow. There could be no other explanation for the statement from the Ryazan Region FSB, which appeared shortly after Patrushev’s interview about “exercises” in Ryazan. We give the text of the statement in full.

“”It has become known that the planning on September 22, 1999 of a dummy explosive device was part of an ongoing interregional exercise. This announcement came as a surprise to us and appeared at a moment when the department of the FSB had identified the residences in Ryazan of those involved in planting the explosive device and was preparing to detain them. This had been made possible due to the vigilance and assistance of many of the residents of the city of Ryazan, collaboration with the agencies of the Ministry of the Interior, and the professionalism of our own staff. . . .”

“This unique document provides us with answers to the most important of our questions. Firstly, the Ryazan FSB had nothing to do with the operation to blow up the building in Ryazan. Secondly, at least two terrorists were discovered in Ryazan. Thirdly, the terrorists lived in Ryazan, if only temporarily, and evidently a network of at least two secret safe apartments were uncovered. Fourthly, just at the moment when arrangements were in hand to arrest the terrorists, the order came from Moscow not to arrest them, because the terrorist attack in Ryazan was only an FSB “exercise”” (Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, 71-72).

Litvinenko recounted that the Ryazan authorities arrested the suspected terrorists anyhow. These men were later released by an intelligence officer from Moscow and taken back with him. The case was sealed and classified after that, and the FSB confiscated Ryazan FSB’s evidence when the latter attempted to conduct their own investigation. In the Ryazan incident we have Vladimir Putin publicly lying, the Moscow FSB changing their statements and claiming the entire thing was an “exercise,” the Ryazan FSB attempting an independent investigation and getting blocked by Moscow higher ups, and evidence being concealed and confiscated. It was a complete cover up. And where there’s a cover up, there’s a conspiracy.

Numerous sources back up Litvinenko’s testimony and it is well known that Russia has always supported, trained, armed, and used Islamic terrorists to do her dirty work. Indeed, Russia invented modern terrorism! The KGB and GRU, more than any other organizations, have fostered the rise of so-called “Islamic extremism” and “Islamic terrorism.” An article by Marius Laurinavičius explained how Russia was behind the rise of radical Wahhabism and even how it managed Chechen terrorism – the very same terrorists alleged to be behind the apartment bombings in 1999:

“In general, the links between Chechen terrorist and Russian secret services cannot be denied even by those Western experts and commentators who tend to call these links a conspiracy theory.

“The fact that the famous Shamil Basayev, Ruslan Gelayev and some others Chechen terrorist commanders began their career not only fighting on the Russian side during the Georgian-Abkhaz war, but were directly trained by the special forces of Russian military intelligence (GRU), was basically never even denied in Russia. The traces of GRU agents were not a secret as well. . . .

“Whether we read Litvinenko’s and Felshtisnkys book ‘FSB blowing up Russia’, David Satter’s ‘Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State’, John Dunlop’s ‘The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin’s Rule’, or the especially popular investigation carried out by Karen Dawisha, professor at the Miami University, called ‘Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?’, it is difficult to deny the tons of odd coincidences and inexplicable actions of Russian government. In the meantime, Putin’s regime closed all doors to any kind of investigations, and many people, who were trying to shed some light on these allegations, were murdered or died under very strange circumstances. . . .

“Russian journalist Sanobar Shermatova, who died in 2011, was considered not only a journalist, but also one of the best Russian experts of Middle Asia and Caucasus. After the events in Chechnya and Dagestan in summer 1999 she wrote a serious analytic piece called ‘The so-called Wahhabis’. . . .

“After emphasising that this Islamic party was merely a ‘branch of USSR Islamic Revival party’, Shermatova continued: ‘Islamic activists played a pretty important role in the opposition. I mean those who were called ‘Wahhabis’ in KGB chronicles. At the time this term was not widely known, and not entirely understood even by those who were called this name. USSR had banned the Islamic literature, and only those few who went to study in Arab countries, had knowledge about Islam history, movements and streams. But these people, as usual, were inspected for their loyalty to KGB, and then included into ‘religious nomenclature’ while constantly being controlled by the special services. Ordinary Muslims were not familiar with Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhabi’s doctrine.’ In Shermatova’s research and in further investigation of Uzbekistan’s and Kirghizia’s ‘Wahhabis’, KGB traces stretch along the story.”

communism513

One of the great anti-communist researchers working today, Cliff Kincaid, also explained what is really behind “Islamic” terrorism:

“Islam as a whole is not the enemy. Islam is an “enemy” only in the sense that it has been hijacked by communists, mostly of the Soviet/Russian variety, to use against the United States. . . .

“. . . we find many people on the political scene today who want to take on “global Islam” without understanding that the Jihadists have been co-opted as cannon fodder in the world revolution. . . .

“. . . International Marxism has hijacked much of global Islam. . . .

“. . . Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky spoke at this [“Lenin and Sharia”] conference and contributed a major report on how the Communists have always exploited Muslims for communist purposes. His report was titled, “Made in Moscow Terrorism. Communists and Muslims: The Hidden Hand of the KGB.” One of the best known examples of this tendency is Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist who converted to Islam.

“”Long before Islamic terrorism became a global threat, the KGB had used terrorism to facilitate the victory of world communism,” he said. He told ASIA [America’s Survival Inc.] that Islamic Terrorism is a “child” of the old Soviet-sponsored terror networks and that Russian involvement must be addressed by the U.S. . . .

“. . . Marius Laurinavicius, Senior Policy Analyst in the Policy Analysis and Research Division of the Eastern Europe Studies Center, argued in his paper, “Do traces of KGB, FSB and GRU lead to Islamic State?,” that it is impossible to understand the rise of the Islamic State without paying attention to the links between Russian secret services and Arab/Muslim terrorists, including in the Russian region of Chechnya.

“Writer and researcher Christian Gomez traced the roots of ISIS to the Islamic Revival Party, created by the KGB. . . .

“The FSB defector said that in order to create ISIS, the Russians selected former officers of the Iraqi army and members of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. All of them had graduated from Moscow-based “educational institutions” (Cliff Kincaid, Red Jihad: Moscow’s Final Solution for America and Israel, 24-25, 27-28).

As a capstone to this section of the article, we quote again from Cliff Kincaid. He had this to say:

“Islamic terrorism in Russia has sometimes been the work of the FSB. This means that the prospect of more terrorist incidents cannot be assumed to be the work of Islamist groups, and may actually be the work of provocateurs connected to the Russian regime. One purpose of such “false flag” terrorism was to frighten the public into believing that Putin and the “new Russia” are opposed to terrorism, and to solidify Putin’s control over the levers of state power” (Cliff Kincaid, Back from the Dead: The Return of the Evil Empire, 41).

All of this might seem tangential. However, it is fundamental to understanding of Putin’s motives. He is not a man motivated by real anti-terrorist feelings. Russia is not fighting in the Middle East to stop terrorism or to help the United States stop Islamic extremism. Russia perpetuates terrorism and actively fosters extremism, war, and chaos all over the globe!

It’s a classic communist tactic to create a crisis and then rush in to pose as the savior. They’ve done this since the beginning. The Russian Alexander Markovsky explained what he was taught about this process during his Soviet indoctrination:

“Indeed, if you want to change a society, here is Lenin’s script: cause the problem. Spread the misery. Send a cadre of professional community organizers to unite all of the angry and disinherited spirits to fuel an organized revolt. Entice chaos and violence. Exploit chaos for larger political objectives. Blame your political opponents, demonize and criminalize them” (Cliff Kincaid, The Sword of Revolution and the Communist Apocalypse, 41).

An anonymous intelligence operative explained the same principle to researcher Cliff Kincaid. He said:

“Great disorder means great reorganization. The greater the upheaval or the greater the disorder and the greater the opportunity for reorganization. If things seem to be sort of becoming unglued in places, keep in mind that somebody is going to glue it together. . . .

“. . . In other words, you want to create disorder because you want to be able to reorganize. So the more disorder you can create within the framework of society the more opportunity you have to intervene and create that. Passivity doesn’t get you very far because everything remains the same . . . [disorder] gives an opportunity for people who are well-organized, who are leading the disorder, to get involved and to recreate the society in a way in which they want it. . . .

“. . . the idea of creating disorder is an opportunity for the intervention of the Communist Party and for communists to get involved” (Cliff Kincaid, The Sword of Revolution and the Communist Apocalypse, 93-95).

Let’s stop being theoretical and list some specific examples of Russia’s use of terrorism, apart from the FSB bombings inside Russia. In his excellent book The Secret Offensive, Chapman Pincher wrote:

“The continuing firm support of international terrorism by the Politburo is inevitable because of the very nature of Soviet Communism which regards terrorism – outside the confines of the Soviet Bloc – as just another aspect of the political war against societies which need to be ‘smashed’ and because of the success it has enjoyed through terrorising its own people. Through the International Department and the KGB, the Politburo has maintained close links with terrorist organizations like the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the IRA, the Rhodesian ZAPU, the Egyptian Fundamentalists and many others which are all projected as ‘freedom fighters'” (Chapman Pincher, The Secret Offensive: The Soviet Challenge to Western Freedom, 287).

It is well established that the Soviet Union trained and armed the majority of terrorists throughout the world – particularly Middle Eastern terrorists. The leadership of ISIS, for instance, were former Iraqi Republican Guardsmen who had been trained in the Soviet Union. One of Al Qaeda’s prominent leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was trained by Soviet intelligence. The various heads of the KGB-created Palestinian state – men like Yasser Arafat and the current puppet Mahmoud Abbas – were trained in Russia. The Iranian Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, was also trained by the KGB at the Patrice Lumumba University. Egypt, Syria, Iran, and a host of nations have received military weapons and sophisticated weapons systems from the Russians (as well as from the Red Chinese in more recent years). The Weathermen terrorists in the United States were supported by Soviet allies (who themselves were trained and funded by the Soviets). Aum Shinrykyo, the Japanese terrorist murderer, was KGB-trained. The Red Army factions, so-called, in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere, are supported by Russia. And on and on.

Chapman Pincher noted the Soviets’ obsession with using others to do their dirty work. He wrote:

“The Soviet authorities are ingenious in distancing themselves from the terrorism they exploit, so that in the event of exposure their involvement can be denied. This has been confirmed by an extensive study undertaken by the CIA which showed that while there are many camps inside the Soviet Union for the training of terrorists, Soviet citizens are not involved in their operations abroad and so can never be caught with a ‘smoking gun'” (Chapman Pincher, The Secret Offensive: The Soviet Challenge to Western Freedom, 288).

I cannot stress to heavily that the communists invented terrorism! Terrorism was a major tactic employed by the Bolsheviks in gaining and maintaining power in Russia. Lenin openly encouraged his comrades to use terrorism and often chided them for not being cruel enough. In a 2017 Forbes article, Victor Rud wrote:

“The U.S.S.R. was established as the quintessential terrorist state, never merely a “state sponsor” of terrorism. Its terror was organized, methodical and above all hyperbolic, eclipsing anything that ISIS can engineer. The very reason for it all was to establish the structure that would destroy the West, more specifically the greatest Satan of them all (as it is for ISIS), the United States.”

Rud also informed us of Russia’s long-standing incestuous relationship with Islamic terrorists and how Russia benefits from continued terrorism:

“Moscow’s Patrice Lumumba Friendship University seconded foreigners to embed Moscow’s agenda in their own countries. Yassar Arafat was one, the KGB’s makeover receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomenei was another. There were thousands. Home-grown, non-Arab terrorists were even better: Venezuelan Carlos the Jackal, Germans Ulrike Meinhoff, French terrorist Regis Debray and former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi. All were either direct KGB agents or KGB-financed.

“Moscow never renounced its imperatives in birthing and sustaining Islamic terrorism, Putin declaring at the 2003 conference of the Islamic Conference Organization that Russia was Islam’s historical defender. Alexander Litvinenko was the ex-KGB officer who defected and who in 2005 was assassinated by Moscow in London using Polonium 210—nuclear warfare in Magna Carta’s front yard. He had revealed that Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of al-Qaeda, had been trained by the KGB in Dagestan, a region currently controlled by Russia and that was tied to the two Boston Marathon bombers. We know that Al-Zawahiri planned 9/11 with Osama bin Laden. More recently, the KGB has supplied recruits for ISIS from its North Caucasus and Central Asia regions.

“”Radical Islamic terror” serves Russia’s purpose perfectly. Why should Putin refuse its benefit? The smoke had not cleared from the Boston Common before Putin called President Obama to intone his sympathy. Particularly for Americans (and, importantly, as much viscerally as cerebrally), the bombing by two Chechen brothers rebranded Putin’s genocidal war against Chechnya as a campaign against “Islamic terrorism” (Chechens are conveniently Muslim). This, in turn, neutralized Litvinenko’s revelation that the Russian apartment bombings (which were Putin’s pretext for that genocide) had been the work of Putin himself. We were thereby relieved of any moral tug that we may have had over Moscow’s assassination of Litvinenko. At the end, we were presented with seeming proof of Russia’s common cause with America in fighting “Islamic terror.” With preceding circumstances, motive, opportunity and benefit established, history will show the Kremlin’s advance knowledge of the two Tsarnaev brothers’ intentions, and that it could have prevented the Boston horror. It willfully did not. If a dirty bomb explodes in Friendship, Maine, or thousands in Topeka simultaneously die from “natural causes,” the last cry heard may be, “Allah Akbar.” We should then well ponder if that’s as far as it goes.”

As we have seen, terrorism is not merely an old Soviet strategy, but a tactic used today by Vladimir Putin and the FSB-controlled Russian government. Not only is terrorism used in Russia by the communist regime, but they continue to export it abroad or train those who do. It is claimed, for instance, that Iran is the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism. Yet, who sponsors and props up Iran? Russia and China. They supply every major dispenser of terrorism. Without Russia and Putin’s personal approval, global terrorism would decrease to a mere trickle.

We must understand that the false-flag bombings in 1994 and 1999 were not organic terrorist acts. Rather, they were merely blamed on Islamic terrorists and used to justify a “war on terror” in Chechnya. They were also used by Putin to solidify his control – on behalf of the FSB, Russian intelligence, and hidden benefactors – of the Russian government. It should strike the observer as eerie how closely Putin’s “war on terror” mirrors our own. To wit, each was precipitated by an act of terrorism blamed on Islamic fundamentalists, used to justify war and intervention in the Middle East and Central Asia, and cast as a pretext to expand government control domestically.

communism502

Fighting a war on terrorism is a useful tool in the hands of the Elite for many reasons, not least of which it offers the prospect of endless war and conflict which help transform the global chess board and ramp up profits. Let’s focus on what Russia immediately gained by supporting the United States in 2001. Instantaneously Russia’s actions against “Islamic terrorism” in Chechnya became legitimized by her cooperation with the the U.S. “War on Terror.” Instantaneously all attention shifted from Russia’s brutal war to America’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Instantaneously Russia was a strategic “partner” against so-called terrorists and was considered by many as a friend. And that is just for starters.

More importantly, Russia’s strategic position has been amplified in immeasurable ways. Remember that Russia is our enemy. The communist world considers war against the United States as inevitable and they’ve been arming for this struggle at a pace never seen before. The Middle East is strategically important for numerous reasons – oil, shipping routes, Jerusalem, the convergence of major world religions, etc. Inasmuch as the communist goal is global domination, and the Middle East is part of the globe, it makes sense that the Russians would take every opportunity to weasel their way in.

Before the War on Terror, the Middle East was already dominated by socialist states giving obeisance to Russia – Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. However, as the American wrecking ball tore through Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria, it left a void of power that Russia could more easily exploit. And exploit it they have!

It seems clear to my mind that Russia used the United States to soften up countries which they have since come in and won over. We were their bull in the Middle Eastern china shop that caused enough chaos that the Russian “white knight” could ride in and save the day. Russia is now fully entrenched in Syria and has moved into Iraq and Afghanistan in a major way while vastly improving relations with Saudi Arabia and other nations. They have also shored up their long-standing relationship with Iran and concluded an important three-way Russia-Turkey-Iran alliance. China has also used the turbulence to expand their presence in Pakistan, Iran, and Israel, to name only three. None of this would have been easily doable without the War on Terror and America’s blundering ineptness (or, some might say, criminal complicity).

Mark Hitchcock has observed:

“Russia, Iran, and Turkey inhabit the same neighborhood and share many common interests, yet the Syrian conflict that began in 2011 has pulled them closer than ever. At the same time that Turkey is becoming more distanced from the West and Iran’s alienation has pushed them further into the Russian orbit, the Syrian civil war is a driving force in uniting these nations. Russia and Iran both support the brutal regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad against the US-supported rebels.

communism554

“Russia, Iran, and Turkey are getting closer to one another in Syria and very close to Israel’s northern border. The framework for ending the Syria conflict, known as “the Moscow Declaration,” was accepted by Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Christian Caryl of the Washington Post writes, “While Moscow, Ankara and Tehran plot their own ‘peace process’ for the Syrian civil war, the United States is conspicuous in its absence.” Washington’s reticence has created a vacuum, and these powers are all too willing to fill it. . . .

“The Russian bear has roared out of hibernation suddenly and dramatically and dominates world headlines every day. The Bear’s footprints continue to leave their mark all over the world. . . .

“. . . Iran’s Mahdi mentality fuels its expansionist ambitions as it works to hasten the coming of its messiah.

“Turkey is descending into a dictatorship led by an Islamist and is cozying up to Russia and Iran. President Erdogan’s rhetoric against Israel is heating up. Four of the ancient allies named in Ezekiel 38 are located in modern Turkey.

“. . . Syria is a flashpoint that is aligning Russia, Iran, and Turkey into a fearsome triumvirate. Russia and Iran have seized the chaos in Syria as an opportunity to bring in troops and air power, putting them just north of Israel.

“Libya and Sudan are radical Islamic nations with deep animus toward Israel. The deepening turmoil and instability in these nations has provided an opening for greater Russian influence” (Mark Hitchcock, Russia Rising: Tracking the Bear in Bible Prophecy, 74, 142-143).

Author S. Douglas Woodward similarly explained how Russia took full advantage of American incompetence/complicity in the Middle East to occupy the dominant position in the region:

“Russia intends to dominate the Middle East and push the U.S. out of the premier geopolitical position, especially in the so-called “fertile crescent” which begins in Syria, crosses the northern parts of Iraq, and includes much of Iran. As virtually everyone knows, because of the oil-rich lands spread across virtually the entire Middle East, this area comprises one of the most important expanses impacting the entire global economy. Combined with the recent nuclear technology deal made between Iran and five other nations in which Russia played a key part, Mr. Putin now stands tall throughout this region. . . .

“Russia involvement in the region and its overall strategy appears clear to European experts familiar with Moscow. The former head of Estonian Intelligence and a member of Estonia’s parliament, Eerik-Niiles Kross, points out that Russia has a grand plan involving its efforts in both Ukraine and Syria.

“”Experts from the left and right alike warn that cooperation with Russia on Syria can have potentially disastrous consequences for the U.S., but too many Americans still don’t understand how closely linked these two headline conflicts are, and American policy has yet to confront the reality that Syria and Ukraine are part of the same mission for Russia – the destruction of the post-WWII architecture for the West. To achieve this goal, Russia has pursued a clear policy of disruption, chaos and destabilization – in Ukraine and the Middle East – in order to force the West to have to partner with Russia to “resolve” the crises it has created. . . The Kremlin has been opportunistic and decisive in grabbing a position of strength – in the Middle East and in Europe – while U.S. attention has waned and retracted.”

“What Russia has really been up to, has escaped Western pundits. On the surface, Russia worked cooperatively with Western states to conclude the pact with Iran. Unlike other Western nations that celebrate the agreement, Russia like Iran, emerged from the negotiation in a much stronger position. Now Russia eagerly sells military weapons to Iran, (including the anti-aircraft missile system, the S-300) and shows itself a friend to the Shia in Iran, Iraq, and Syria. As Russia exercises its military muscle, the rest of the region has awakened to the fact that the U.S. is not the quintessential player it once was. Mr. Putin will now be calling the shots” (S. Douglas Woodward, The Next Great War in the Middle East: Russia Prepares to Fulfill the Prophecy of Gog and Magog, 116-118).

Truly, Russia is emerging as the dominant player in the Middle East. Everything is shifting in Russia’s favor while a distinctly anti-American sentiment is growing. American weariness for war is only surpassed by Russia’s eagerness to take up the reins. Two additional authors have observed that Russia is actively moving to fill the void left by the U.S. scale-back in the region:

“Not since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1970s and early 1980s have the Russians shown such penetrating interest and military involvement in the Middle East. . . .

“. . . Russia is back in the news, sending troops into Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad. Though paying lip service to the aim of halting the advance of ISIS forces in the region, these troops were really sent to help Assad fight off rebel forces attempting to topple his cruel and corrupt regime. . . .

“. . . Russia sees an opportunity to expand its influence in the Middle East. As the United States pulls back from its historic role as the leader in the Middle East, Russia appears willing to invest its resources in the region – to become the new power in the deadly game of thrones unfolding there.

“The rapidly shifting landscape of alliances and allies have upended a hundred years of assumed reality across the Middle East. Furthermore, Russia appears eager to shape this new reality to suit its own ends” (Charles Dyer and Mark Tobey, Clash of Kingdoms: What the Bible Says About Russia, ISIS, Iran, and the End Times, 14-16).

Yes, Russia has altered the reality in the Middle East and now has the upper hand. Anyone who thinks the United States dominates the Middle East needs to wake up and take an honest look. We have more or less withdrawn troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are openly gravitating toward Russia. The Saudi leadership is becoming friendly with Russia. Turkey, Iran, and Russia have a new alliance. Syria is now an open Russian base of operations. Iran has become emboldened and is sporting new Russian weapons systems. China is butting in where it doesn’t belong and now has a large presence in places like Pakistan. And so forth.

communism585

Earlier this year Putin began claiming that there are thousands upon thousands of ISIS fighters in Afghanistan – particularly Northern Afghanistan near the borders of his allies. Where do you think Russia is sticking its nose now? Afghanistan. As Radio Free Europe put it:

“Security experts have said that Russia has exaggerated the number of militants in order to justify its outreach to the Afghan Taliban and to suggest to Central Asian governments that they need support from Russia to defend themselves.”

Everywhere they claim to find terrorists, Russia interferes and eventually gains power through the chaos of war – and all because of the “War on Terror” excuse that President Bush handed them on a silver platter. It is a blanket excuse that seems to cover any act of aggression, tyranny, and savagery these days.

In a 2011 article “How the War on Terrorism Did Putin a Favor,” Time magazine noted Putin’s exploitation of the War on Terror for his own ends and explained how the “War on Terror” guise is used by Russia:

“Countries around the world realized the practical appeal of a war on terrorism. Over the past ten years, it has become a seemingly permanent call to arms, a kind of incantation used to dodge questions, build alliances and justify the use of force. No one, not even Bush, grasped this as quickly as Putin.

“Even before Putin became Russia’s President in early 2000, and long before the Twin Towers fell, he had invoked the idea of a war against global terrorism to justify Russia’s war in Chechnya. . . .

“There was scant evidence, however, that the Chechen rebels were part of some global Islamist terrorist network, as Putin and his government repeatedly claimed. The leader of the separatists at the time was Aslan Maskhadov, a former Red Army colonel who was closer to communism than Islamism. . . .

“In late 1999, when Bush was campaigning for the presidency, he vowed to start urging an end to the war. “Even as we support Russian reforms, we cannot support Russian brutality,” he said during a speech at the Reagan Library in California. . . .

“But when Bush announced his own war on terrorism, all this rhetoric quickly evaporated. Putin, who had been the first to call Bush with his sympathy after learning of the 9/11 attacks, graciously offered to help with the invasion of Afghanistan. He let the U.S. ship supplies through Russian territory and did not object to the U.S. setting up bases in Central Asia, where the local despots quickly caught on to the opportunity. Uzbek President Islam Karimov, for instance, allowed the U.S. to build a permanent base, perhaps hoping that his new alliance with the war on terrorism would help reduce U.S. scrutiny of alleged human-rights abuses in Uzbekistan. “It all flowed naturally into the picture of a global war on terror,” says Kasyanov, who by that time had been promoted to serve as Putin’s Prime Minister. “There was no more criticism . . . It just ceased to be a thorny issue.”

“. . . the idea of a global war on terrorism remains one of Putin’s key political narratives. It is trotted out to this day after every terrorist attack in the Russian heartland and during most discussions with Western leaders.”

To everyone who is privy to international affairs, Russia’s moves in the Middle East and Central Asia ought to be disturbing. Russian and Iranian troops just miles from Israel’s border should be alarming to everyone who loves peace. The fact that China will soon assume ownership of Israel’s largest port ought to raise some eyebrows, too. The brazenness with which Iran is hijacking foreign ships and targeting foreign drones and aircraft should likewise be concerning. Christians also should immediately recognize the alliance that is prophesied to lead the charge in the future Battle of Armageddon forming right before their eyes.

The entire Middle East has been flipped upside down by the War on Terror, and Russia is one of the only nations to have benefited. Her strategic position in the region is stronger than it ever has been. Meanwhile, the U.S. position is far weaker and Israel, love her or hate her, is in a compromising situation that sets up a future invasion by Anti-Christ forces.

Six years before the September 11, 2001 attacks, Jay Adams foresaw how Russia would attempt to entangle us in wars against Russia’s allies, thus giving Russia a pretext to simultaneously involve itself and demonize the United States. He predicted:

“Moscow plans to shift blame for global war onto the West by underhandedly provoking the U.S. and its allies into taking military action against Russian allies-of-old. With the collapse of communism, the U.S. has taken on the role of “world policeman.” This has provided Moscow an opportunity to lure the U.S. and its military allies into a trap, particularly by using the United Nations” (David N. Balmforth, America’s Coming Crisis: Prophetic Warnings, Divine Destiny, 153).

communism586

This game plan has come to fruition. The communists have managed to rope the United States into endless wars in the Middle East – wars that have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, sewn discord at home, soiled our reputation abroad, and weakened our international position very noticeably. And out of the fog of war, the Russians have emerged on the high ground militarily and, they would like us to believe, morally. We now turn briefly to the event that made it all possible – the cowardly 9/11 attacks.

Who perpetrated 9/11? This has been one of the enduring questions of our age. I don’t know the exact answer and I believe anyone who claims they know precisely who ordered and carried out the attacks is lying or deluded. However, we know that the official narrative is bogus and filled with more holes than Swiss cheese. We also definitively know some of the individuals and entities involved in either carrying out the attacks, assisting in the operation, obstructing justice, or in the subsequent cover up.

We know, for instance, that five Israelis – several of them Mossad agents – were arrested in New York on 9/11 cheering and celebrating while watching the Twin Towers burn. And they just happened to be carrying plane tickets for flights leaving the country almost immediately from various airports, all while driving a van with a mural of a plane flying into the World Trade Centers painted on the side. They later said on Israeli TV that they had been sent to film the event. Immediately after 9/11, we also uncovered the largest ever spy ring in U.S. history operating domestically. Whose spy ring was it? It was Israeli. And we know that Israeli spies have a habit of filtering stolen intelligence to Russia and China. Search the Jonathan Pollard for one of the most infamous cases of Israeli spying.

We also know that demolition charges were used to bring down not only the Twin Towers, but WTC Building 7 which was not hit by a plane and only had minimal fires before it disintegrated and collapsed neatly and quickly into its own footprint. Numerous eyewitnesses heard and even saw explosions not related to the planes hitting the buildings (and at least one that went off in the basement before the first plane struck), and there was extensive damage on the lower floors of the towers. Some of the eyewitnesses have since died mysterious deaths. The owner of WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, also admitted – in a clip which you can find on YouTube – that he agreed to demolish the building hours after the other towers, which he also owned and had recently insured against terrorist attacks, had already fallen.

We know that Vice President Dick Cheney was actively monitoring the situation and gave stand-down orders to the military around D.C. This was attested to by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta who witnessed Cheney confirm stand-down orders to an aide. NORAD was also running a drill that same day which simulated an attack on the United States – yet these prepared and ready military units were ordered away from the real-world events taking place in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.

We know that there was massive insider trading happening just before and during the attacks, proving foreknowledge of the event. The occurrence was so serious that numerous nations around the world initiated investigations into it. Some have even called the extent of the insider trading “unprecedented.” And don’t forget the $2.3 Trillion that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10th, 2001, could not be accounted for. It’s probably a coincidence that the “plane” that struck the Pentagon on September 11th hit precisely in the accounting offices where the investigation into missing $2.3 Trillion was taking place. And speaking of foreknowledge, Willie Brown, the mayor of San Francisco, publicly said that he was warned not to fly on September 11th. Other big-name figures received similar warnings not to be in D.C. or New York, or not to travel, on that fateful day.

We know because of the scholarly research of Dr. Steven Jones, among others, that thermite or thermate was used to weaken the support columns inside the WTC buildings. The molten pools of steel caused by this hot-burning substance have been attested to by numerous credible eyewitnesses including firefighters and first responders (and, indeed, was captured on video footage), yet which has been conveniently denied by our government.

We know that the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and other government organizations have concealed, covered up, and lied about information relative to the investigation. For instance, they lied about the U.S. government and Pentagon never having envisioned terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, and therefore were unprepared. That is pure fiction. Our military prepared for exactly such a scenario on multiple occasions. Indeed, in the 60s, our Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed Operation Northwoods to President Kennedy. It involved hijacking planes and perpetrating bombings on U.S. soil so they could blame it all on terrorists as a pretext for war with Cuba. President Kennedy rejected the vile plan. Additionally, government officers violated the law and shipped out the WTC evidence (i.e. the rubble) on ships headed for Red China. In nearly every way possible, the government violated its own protocols, lied to the public, covered up information, botched the investigation, failed to answer the numerous questions raised by the families of the victims and research entities like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and have concealed the truth at every turn. Like I said in Russia’s case, where there’s smoke there’s fire – where there’s a cover up, there’s a conspiracy.

These are mere bullet points. Entire books can and have been written documenting the inconsistencies in the official story – books such as Jim Marrs’ The Terror Conspiracy. And numerous researchers like James Corbett and Alex Jones have put out documentaries investigating the conspiracy. The focus of this article, however, is not who brought down the Twin Towers or how it was done. Rather, the focus is on how Russia benefited from the attacks. We should also discuss the possibility that Russian agents, or American agents working for the worldwide Satanic communist conspiracy, were directly involved.

From what was detailed earlier, we know that a common communist tactic is to commit false-flag terror attacks and blame it on Muslim terrorists as a pretext for foreign war. This is precisely what happened on 9/11. We know that there was a cover up by intelligence organizations – organizations which have long been compromised by communist agents. Indeed, John Brennan was the CIA’s deputy executive director at the time of the attacks. Brennan was an admitted communist in the past and has been one of the chief false accusers that Donald Trump is a Russian agent. The head of the FBI during the September 11th attacks was also none other that Robert Mueller – the failed and fraudulent lead investigator into the phony Trump-Russia collusion hoax. President George W. Bush was also a member of Skull and Bones, an elite secret society at Yale that is thought to be an off-shoot chapter of the Order of Illuminati. The lead positions in the U.S. government and intelligence community at the time of the attacks were filled with traitors and conspirators.

But before we discuss communist infiltration of the U.S. system, let’s briefly speak about the Israeli Mossad. This elite intelligence/assassination outfit has been blamed by many people, including numerous U.S. military officers, as the guilty party on 9/11. Mossad seems a plausible perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, or at least an ally of the CIA or other shadowy U.S. intelligence cliques. Yet, we need to recognize that the Russians have compromised Israel as well! Indeed, the Russian mafia – which is nothing but the Russian intelligence services with a new name – has taken over large chunks of Israel. Author Robert Friedman wrote:

“Of all the nations where the Russian mob has established a presence, none has been more deeply compromised than the State of Israel, America’s staunchest ally in the volatile Middle East. More than 800,000 Russian Jews have mad aliyah or settled in Israel since the first massive wave of immigration in the 1970s. The Russians took advantage of Israel’s most sacred law – the Right of Return, which guarantees Jews the right to return to their ancestral homeland, where they would receive citizenship and live as free men and women outside the odious yoke of anti-Semitism. ” . . .

communism596

“But just as in Brighton Beach, Russian immigration to Israel has brought a more unwelcome element – the vor v zakonye and their criminal minions. Ten percent of Israel’s five million Jews are now Russian, and 10 percent of the Russian population “is criminal,” according to NYPD notes of a briefing in Manhattan by Israeli police intelligence official Brigadier General Dan Ohad.

“”There is not a major Russian organized crime figure who we are tracking who does not also carry an Israeli passport,” says senior State Department official Jonathan Winer. . . .

“Russia’s criminal aristocracy covets Israeli citizenship “because they know Israel is a safe haven for them,” said Leder. “We do not extradite citizens.”

“”The Russians then use the safe haven to travel around the world and rape and pillage,” added Moody.

“Israeli police officials estimate that Russian mobsters have poured more than $4 billion of dirty money into Israel’s economy, though some estimates range as high as $20 billion. They have purchased factories, insurance companies, and a bank . . . One of Leder’s greatest fears is that the Russians will compromise Israel’s security by buying companies that work for the military-industrial complex. The mobsters, in fact, attempted to purchase a gas and oil company that maintains strategic reserves for Israel’s military. “They could go to the stock market and buy a company that’s running communications in the military sector,” he complained. . . .

“With two decades of unimpeded growth, the Russian Mafiya has succeeded in turning Israel into its very own “mini-state,” in which it operates with virtual impunity. Although many in international law enforcement believe that Israel is by now so compromised that its future as a nation is imperiled, its government, inexplicably, has done almost nothing to combat the problem. . . .

“”Israel is going to have to do something,” says James Moody. “They could lose their whole country. The mob is a bigger threat than the Arabs”” (Robert Friedman, Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America,” 276-282).

The Russian mafia, controlled by the KGB, GRU, SVR, and other Russian intelligence services, has massive influence in Israel. But has Russian intelligence/mafia infiltrated the Israeli government and intelligence services? Some sources say that direct Russian penetration into the Mossad has not been nearly as successful as in other nations. However, other sources disagree. The Jerusalem Post, for instance, ran an article stating:

“The depth of the penetration by the Soviet Union’s KGB and GRU (military intelligence), or of the intelligence services of communist satellite states, has been testified to by a long line of agents who were convicted in Israel from the 1950s through to the 1990s. It is a long and impressive list of “moles,” quality agents that penetrated every important department in Israel.”

The article listed numerous individuals who have been detected as Soviet spies, such as Colonel Shimon Levison, Abraham Marcus Klingsberg and his wife, Zeev Avni, and others. It then went on to say:

“These are the serious and important spies that caused the most damage to the Israeli defense and intelligence establishment. Of course, there were many additional spies, at varying levels of importance, who were discovered and arrested, including Shabtai Kalmanovich, Gregory Londin and Efraim Samuel (who spied for Romania).

“There were those who were discovered, but who did not have their identities published or stand trial due to a lack of evidence or out of other considerations. One such person was an employee of Israel Aerospace Industries who was acquainted with the Lavi fighter jet program in the 1980s and was fired because of the suspicions against him, but was not put on trial.

“It is very likely that there were those who penetrated, spied and were never caught. The Soviet intelligence method was “quantity that becomes quality.” They recruited and ran hundreds, if not thousands, of agents in the hope that a few of them, or at least one of them, would ascend to the elite and become a quality agent. In this way the KGB tried to infiltrate agents into Israel during the waves of aliya from the Soviet Union, which began with a trickle in the 1960s and 1970s and became a heavy flow in the 1980s.”

Yes, Israel has been a particular target for communist machinations, if for no other reason than the extraordinary number of Jews who immigrated to Israel from the Soviet Union. Both the Russian mob and communist intelligence (an oxymoron) have had noticeable success in infiltrating Israel. And while Mossad might not be as compromised as perhaps the CIA, it is verifiably true that the Russians and Chinese have had no problem getting Israeli spies to give or sell them U.S. military secrets and technology. Jonathan Pollard, who was recently released from prison, was an American Jew convicted of spying for Israel. His information, sold by Israel to the USSR, gave the Evil Empire classified information about America’s nuclear deterrent to the Soviets.

How is this despicable traitor viewed in Israel, ostensibly America’s greatest ally? In Israel, Pollard has been crowned a national hero and even had a street named after him! According to Israeli news, Israel’s warmongering leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently under investigation for bribery and fraud, petitions for Pollard’s extradition to Israel every time he meets with U.S. politicians. Perhaps, then, it should not be surprising to know that the two largest spy rings uncovered on U.S. soil have been Israeli and communist. And who is to say that elements within these two nefarious groups did not team up to perpetrate an event that would lure the United States into a Middle Eastern conflict? Or who is to say that Mossad agents secretly beholden to Moscow were not the ones arrested in New York? It is not as cut and dry as some anti-Israel fanatics have asserted.

Now let’s discuss the CIA. From the very beginning, the CIA has been little more than a communist front. From OSS days to the present, the CIA has harbored and recruited communists. Numerous Soviet spies working for the CIA have been uncovered. Multiple CIA heads have even admitted holding “former” communist ideologies or voting for CPUSA candidates. Soviet defector Ladislav Bittman wrote a book titled The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An Insider’s View. In it, he spoke of how the CIA was targeted and thoroughly sideswiped by the communists. He wrote:

“The decade of the 1970s was a period of continuing crisis for the Central Intelligence Agency. The once highly secret agency was plagued by serious internal problems and unparalleled public attacks. Investigations by the House and Senate and disclosures of the agency’s previous attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, spy on Americans, and engage in other questionable activities shook the agency to its foundations . . . These developments left American intelligence operations in demoralized disarray and the intelligence community divided and confused.

“Was the decline a natural and spontaneous event? Evidence presented by the American mass media points in that direction, but it leaves some disturbing questions. After all, one of the major objectives of the KGB is to confuse and demoralize its American counterpart. . . .

“The CIA staff was reduced by several thousand officers during the 1970s . . . The situation provided an extraordinary opportunity for the KGB to recruit several CIA employees as Soviet agents. . . .

“. . . Thirteen individuals were charged with espionage in the United States from 1975-1980, ten of them on behalf of the Soviet Union, and six of the defendants were formerly affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency or one of its contractors. The security system designed by the agency to weed out moles and enemy agents was an obvious failure” (Ladislav Bittman, The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An Insider’s View, 183-185).

CIA3

KGB infiltration of the CIA didn’t start in the 1970s. Before the CIA was the OSS. This organization was totally swamped with communists. M. Stanton Evans wrote:

“[C]lose students of such matters have long regarded OSS as the most heavily infiltrated of the wartime units, with estimates of the number of Communists ranging as high as a hundred staffers. . . .

“Though its posthumous reputation as a den of Communists and Soviet agents would exceed that of OWI, less was known about the OSS back in the 1940s. The secret nature of the service allowed its employees to roam about the globe at will, engaging in all sorts of actions concealed from Congress and the public” (M. Stanton Evans, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies, 92).

Anatoliy Golitsyn, one of the most credible of all Soviet defectors and one of the chief figures to warn that the Soviet Union’s “collapse” was a fraud designed to deceive the West, also testified that the communists had infiltrated the CIA:

“The Central Intelligence Agency was already penetrated in 1958 – by both the KGB and Chinese intelligence. In 1958, the Agency lost its most important source, Colonel Popov of Soviet Military Intelligence [GRU], who could have provided strategic information had he not been compromised by KGB penetration, arrested by the KGB, and burned alive in the GRU’s crematorium furnace” (Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception, 207).

The CIA was so thoroughly saturated with communists that when Golitsyn defected, he was met by CIA traitors working for Moscow. Cliff Kincaid wrote:

“A former government official told me what happened when Golitsyn defected and was brought into a room to be debriefed. He looked around and realized that half the CIA operatives in front of him were KGB double agents whose reports he had read on the other side.

“This has been the problem all along – our intelligence agencies have been heavily penetrated by enemy agents and we have not been prepared for what’s coming” (Cliff Kincaid, Back from the Dead: The Return of the Evil Empire, 35).

As quoted earlier, the communists have an obsession with using others to do their dirty work while they govern or assist from the shadows. CIA agents must be high up on their list of assets to acquire. Imagine carrying out a terrorist operation against a nation using their own intelligence services! If and when the evidence started to come out, it would lead directly back to the government which would only serve to further demoralize a population, fracture the government, and create fear, mistrust, and resentment – a perfect divide and conquer operation. Soviet defector Colonel Stanislav Lunev spoke of this exact point:

“Although most Westerners don’t realize it, the GRU is one of the primary instructors of terrorists worldwide. The Communist Party Central Committee specifically authorized the GRU to train terrorists in order to further the USSR’s political goals and support its allies. After all, what could be better than to have other people commit terrorist actions that further your own goals?

“There was also the GRU Special Center for the training of terrorists at GRU headquarters. The KGB provided financial and communications support to terrorists, but the operational training and support was reserved for the GRU. The GRU has trained terrorists from almost every country in the world, including Iraq, Libya, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Italy, Germany, Spain, Turkey, and Latin America. Where no terrorist groups existed in countries inimical to the USSR, the GRU would help to form them, and then provide them the necessary training, funding, and organizational support. So, for example, while the terrorists involved in the World Trade Center bombing [of 1993] may never have attended GRU training, the GRU was responsible for the formation of the terrorist group that they belonged to” (Stanislav Lunev, Through the Eyes of the Enemy, 80-81).

Konstantin Preobrazhensky, a KGB defector, made this interesting observation after 9/11. He stated:

“A key distinction between Russian and American attitudes towards Islamic terrorism is that while for America terrorism is largely seen as an exterior menace, Russia uses terrorism as an object as a tool of the state for manipulation in and outside the home country. Islamic terrorism is only part of the world of terrorism. Long before Islamic terrorism became a global threat, the KGB had used terrorism to facilitate the victory of world Communism.

“This leads to the logical connection between Russian and Islamic terrorism. The late Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned in London in November, 2006, told me that his former FSB colleagues had trained famous Al-Qaeda terrorists Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Juma Namangoniy during the 1980s and 1990s. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, has been responsible for the murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States. Before his death, Juma Namangoniy (Jumabai Hojiyev), a native of Soviet Uzbekistan, was a right-hand man of Osama bin Laden in charge of the Taliban’s northern front in Afghanistan. . . .

“Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic, five months before the attack. But Iraqi intelligence was just a client of Russia’s intelligence service. It brings a new understanding to the fact that President Putin was the first foreign President to call President Bush on 9/11. One may conjecture that he knew in advance what was to happen” (Konstantin Preobrazhensky, “Russia and Islam are not Separate: Why Russia backs Al-Qaeda“).

Due to some interesting research by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I’m skeptical whether the planes that took off from the airports that fateful morning were the same which hit the targets. That being said, Mohammed Atta or other Arab terrorists may have still been involved. And if they were, it is certain they received at least part of their training from Soviet-sponsored entities. A number of the alleged hijackers were also trained by U.S. intelligence services.

Though communists love to recruit others – especially native citizens of their target country – they are also prepared with literal armies of men spread throughout the world to commit terrorism, sabotage, assassination, and so forth when the order comes. I again quote from Colonel Lunev regarding these specialized forces spread throughout our nation and the free world and the type of operations they’re prepared and trained to carry out. Plug this information into our present context and ask whether it is plausible that communist agents either carried out or assisted native-born American traitors, or even Mossad agents on their payroll, in carrying out the horrid attacks on September 11, 2001. In 1998, Lunev testified:

“Though most Americans don’t realize it, America is already penetrated by Russian military intelligence to the extent that arms caches lie in wait for use by Russian special forces – or Spetznatz.

“As a GRU officer, my main mission was to prepare for war. I can tell you that for the Soviet Union and for the Russian Federation, America was and is the main expected wartime adversary. Other countries count only as a means to attack America.

“Russia remains terrified of the power of America, and Russian military intelligence does everything it can to prepare for a war that it considers inevitable. Let me be very clear about this. The GRU is still recruiting agents and is still preparing for war with the United States as we approach the supposedly peaceful, post-Cold War millennium. . . .

communism480

“These elite special forces are under the control of my former employer, the GRU . . . They penetrate countries shortly before a war and perform military sabotage that Americans would call terrorism. Some Spetznatz groups perform as assassination squads. These soldiers are familiar with all types of weapons, explosives, and mines; and they are experts at killing quickly without weapons as well. They are also trained to drive all types of military vehicles, including helicopters and small airplanes. They must be fluent in at least two foreign languages. English is the language of choice.

“During wartime, they would try to assassinate as many American leaders as possible, as well as their families. They would also blow up power stations, telephone switching systems, dams, and any strategic targets that cannot be taken out with long range weapons . . . In Soviet and Russian military doctrine, nuclear weapons are not merely for deterrence; they are to be used, and Spetznatz has them available.

Spetznatz troops are currently training inside the United States. They regularly enter the country as foreign tourists, using fake passports and their knowledge of foreign languages to pass as Germans or Eastern Europeans.

“They are the best supplied troops in the Russian military. One of the GRU’s major tasks is to find drop sites for their supplies of clothes, cash, and special equipment – including even small nuclear devices, the so-called “suitcase bombs.” . . .

“It is surprisingly easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the United States. . . .

“In wartime, many GRU officers – all of whom are men – would go undercover to directly aid the Spetznatz forces.

“These wartime plans were fully in place during the Caribbean Crisis – or Cuban Missile Crisis, as Americans refer to it – and remain fully in place today. In 1962, Spetznatz forces were deployed all over the free world, ready to commit acts of sabotage. When no orders came to “go into action,” they destroyed all evidence of their presence and went home. They were undetected and operated freely during the hottest period of the Cold War. Now, when America is less alert to the danger, think of what Spetznatz could do” (Stanislav Lunev, Through the Eyes of the Enemy, 22-28).

Indeed, think of what militarily-trained secret enemy agents operating among us could do. Could they rig a building to blow in a controlled demolition? Could they support native American traitors in carrying out a coordinated attack against their own country? Could they, in conjunction with traitors in our intelligence services or the intelligence services of hostile nations, perpetrate a “terrorist” attack and melt away into the background while the controlled press blames it on Muslims? A better question is: Is there anything the communists wouldn’t do to take down their “main enemy” in what they consider an active war to the death?

The highly credible intelligence defector Viktor Suvorov, whose books Chief Culprit and Icebreaker should be on every bookshelf, presented a potential scenario of Spetznatz agents using small planes to bomb targets in Washington, D.C. during either peacetime or the first days of a future world war. He began:

I do not know how or when World War Three will start. I do not know exactly how the Soviet high command plans to make use of spetsnaz in that war: the first world war in which spetsnaz will be a major contributor. I do not wish to predict the future. In this chapter I shall describe how spetsnaz will be used at the beginning of that war as I imagine it. It is not my task to describe what will happen. But I can describe what might happen.”

Then Suvorov described a long list of potential terrorist attacks that Spetznatz would commit. He remarked: “The terror is carried out in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of fictitious organisations.” He then mentioned one method of Spetznatz-inspired terrorist attack that is particularly interesting considering what happened on 9/11:

Three men open the doors of the van, roll out the fuselage of a light aircraft and attach its wings. A minute later its motor bursts into life. The plane takes off and disappears into the sky. It has no pilot. It is controlled by radio with the aid of very simple instruments, only slightly more complicated than those used by model aircraft enthusiasts. The plane climbs to about 200 metres and immediately begins to descend in the direction of the White House. A minute later a mighty explosion shakes the capital of the United States. . . .

Three minutes later a second plane sweeps across the centre of the city and there is a second explosion in the place where the White House once stood. The second plane has taken off from a section of highway under construction, and has a quite different control system. Two cars with radio beacons in them have been left earlier in the middle of the city. The beacons have switched on automatically a few seconds before the plane’s take-off. The automatic pilot is guided by the two beacons and starts to descend according to a previously worked-out trajectory. The second plane has been sent off by a second group operating independently of the first one.

It was a simple plan: if the first plane did not destroy the White House the second would. If the first plane did destroy the White House then a few minutes later all the heads of the Washington police would be near where the explosion had taken place. The second plane would kill many of them” (Viktor Suvorov, Spetsnatz: The Story Behind the Soviet SAS, see chapter 15).

While Suvorov stated that his hypothetical scenarios are just that, what we saw on 9/11 was eerily similar. Nothing should be out of the realm of possibility when dealing with communists – the greatest mass-murderers the world has ever known.

Not many conspiracy researchers have looked into the potential connection between Russia/communism and 9/11, yet I believe the connection is strong. It deserves to be explored in all seriousness. While it seems painfully evident that some American higher-ups in government and intelligence were involved with the attacks, could these evildoers have actually been communist agents?

In addition to former-KGB agent Konstantin Preobrazhensky cited earlier, another Soviet intelligence asset, the former head of Romanian intelligence Ion Mihai Pacepca, has claimed that 9/11 came about because of Soviet propagandizing and radicalizing in the Middle East. I don’t find Pacepa to be the most credible of defectors, particularly on the topic of the Middle East, yet his statement is worth sharing. In a March 1, 2004 Front Page Mag article titled From Russia With Terror, that I can no longer find online except in excerpt form, he alleged:

“September 11, 2001 was directly rooted in a joint Soviet/Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operation conceived in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. The object of this joint operation was to repair Moscow’s prestige by turning the Islamic world against Israel and by creating a rabid and violent hatred for its main supporter, the United States. The strategy was to portray the US, this land of freedom, as a Nazi-style “imperial-Zionist country” financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion” (the Kremlin’s epithet for the US Congress), the aim of which was allegedly to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. In other words, the heart of the joint plan was to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States. We threw many millions of dollars at this gigantic task, which involved whole armies of intelligence officers.”

I do not believe that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11, though their hatred of the United States and Israel is genuine. They may have assisted or been the front men for the operation, and certainly they were made into the scapegoat, but there was a greater power at work – the invisible hand that guides the nations. This hand, ideologically, is Red. And frequently it extends from the Soviet Empire to strike others around the globe.

I believe it is extremely plausible that communist agents in high places in the U.S. intelligence community and government, assisted by secret military operatives or foreign assets, acted on orders from abroad to create a pretext to get the United States into an endless cycle of Middle Eastern war that would weaken us in preparation for the communist world’s planned final blow against what little remains of the free world. And that pretext was 9/11 and the unconscionable slaughter of 3,000 Americans. They were sacrificed on the altar of the Satanic Elite in their bid to establish communistic totalitarianism over the entire earth.

Perhaps communist infiltrators or agents had nothing directly to do with 9/11 and it really was a home-grown inside job. Be that as it may, the communists have certainly supported and gained from our War on Terror! In fact, I dare say that Russia and the communist world have gained more than anyone else. Communism is more powerful and prevalent now than it was in 2001. The U.S. government has been plunged even deeper into the socialistic abyss. Russia’s position in the Middle East is now far stronger than any other nation’s. The War on Terror has propelled Russia to the forefront of world politics, made her a seemingly “respectable” mediator in world events, and turned KGB agent and mass murderer Vladimir Putin into something of a hero in the eyes of millions. And meanwhile, the United States is severely depleted militarily, grossly in debt, torn into factions, and viewed as a pariah, as a bully, and as an unhinged superpower that likes to prey on smaller nations and which needs punished by an international coalition (led, of course, by Russia and China).

Sept 11 Attacks Secret Files

As I recognize all that Russia has gained and the United States has lost through our nightmarish War on Terror, and every time I look at a gut-wrenching picture of the World Trade Centers in flames, I’m forced to ask the eternal question that so often leads to the true perpetrator of a crime: Cui bono? Who benefited?

Zack Strong,

September 10, 2019

Updated September 12 and 14, 2019

The Great Betrayal – How China Turned Red

“I have unswerving faith in the re-emergence of my country as a free united nation and in the eventful triumph of freedom over slavery throughout the world.” – General Chiang Kai-shek, Soviet Russia in China, 349.

In 1949, China was conquered by the communists led by Mao Tse-tung. Under Chairman Mao’s iron rule, the Reds slaughtered between 60 and 100 million innocent Chinese and threw tens of millions more in brutal labor and reeducation camps – camps still in use to this day. Naturally, the Red regime in Beijing was supported by the Soviet Union. In fact, the enslavement of China was perhaps the Moscow-based communists’ greatest victory. However, there is an aspect to this sad saga that is often overlooked – the critical role the United States played in undermining China’s Freedom movement and facilitating a communist triumph.

Chiang7

General Chiang Kai-shek

In pre-Maoist China, the legitimate leader was a patriotic general named Chiang Kai-shek. Chiang has been unjustly maligned by the Marxist Establishment as a brutal despot who impeded Chinese progress. In fact, Chiang desperately wanted a democratic government and a free China and was a staunch supporter of the United States. He fought tooth and nail against the communists almost his entire life. Fighting communism is, to the Western Elite, the same as impeding “progress.” It was precisely because of his anti-communist stance that Chiang has been smeared by Western academia. Also worthy of note is the fact that Chiang was a devout Christian – certainly not the sort of man welcome in Elite circles.

In mid-1947, as his Nationalist forces fought the communists under Mao, General Chiang stated of his Kuomintang (KMT) military:

“Regardless of what aspect we discuss, we hold an absolute superiority; in terms of the troops’ equipment, battle techniques and experience, the Communists are not our equal. . . . And we are also ten times richer than the communist army in terms of military-supply replacements, such as food, fodder, and ammunition” (Loyd E. Eastman, “Who Lost China? Chiang Kai-shek Testifies,” The China Quarterly, No. 88, 658, December, 1981).

How did a militarily superior force ostensibly aided by the United States eventually lose a civil war against the Reds? The answer is that the subversive element in the U.S. government did not support Chiang’s movement, but used their positions of influence to undermine it at every step. It was really a case of the U.S. Elite combining with the Soviets against Chiang and his Nationalists.

In his often overlooked book detailing Western involvement in the world-wide communist conspiracy, W. Cleon Skousen wrote of the fall of free China:

“General Albert C. Wedemeyer was the last commander of the Chinese Theater of Operations during World War II, and he has described in his book, Wedemeyer Reports . . . how he assured Chiang Kai-shek that the U.S. would support the Nationalist Chinese in setting up a democratic form of government after the war. But this never came about, because right at the time the delicate process of writing and adopting a constitution was in process, the State Department sent over George C. Marshall to tell Chiang Kai-shek that if he didn’t allow the Communist Chinese to immediately enter his government on a coalition basis, all U.S. aid would be terminated. General Wedemeyer wrote a comprehensive report to President Truman showing how this fantastic demand would ultimately lead to a Communist conquest of 600,000,000 Chinese. The State Department demanded that General Wedemeyer be “muzzled.” Chiang Kai-shek refused to accept the Communists in his government, and General Marshall fulfilled his threat. He wrote: “As Chief of Staff I armed 39 anti-Communist divisions (in China), now with a stroke of the pen I disarm them.” U.S. aid to China was reduced to a dribble. Both economic and military collapse became inevitable.

“We have already discussed the Establishment’s manipulation of the State Department through its Institute of Pacific Relations, which set the stage for the betrayal of China to a Communist conquest.

“By 1949 the whole mainland of China was in Communist hands and a bloodbath of genocidal terrorism was being poured out upon the people. What Americans had fought World War II to prevent the Japanese from doing to China, the State Department had encouraged Mao and Chao to go ahead and accomplish.

China17

“The next task was to keep the American people from discovering how China had been betrayed to the Reds. It was necessary to cover the tracks of the IPR and its agents who were working inside the U.S. government. Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, wrote a notorious White Paper trying to put the blame on Chiang Kai-shek and saying the State Department had been helpless to prevent the Communist coup. However, Acheson’s ambassador to China, John Leighton Stuart, wrote a book called Fifty Years in China . . . in which he admitted that he and his associates in the State Department could not escape their “part of the responsibility of the great catastrophe.” He repudiated the White Paper as a historical document and said it left out much of what really happened. Professor Kenneth Colegrove of the Political Science Department at Northwestern University went even further. He said Dean Acheson’s White Paper “was one of the most false documents ever published by any country”” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, 74-76).

Similarly, researcher John Coleman, in his phenomenal book One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship, which I cannot recommend too highly, wrote:

“Roosevelt refused to listen to intelligence reports about the activities of Owen Lattimore, and insisted on appointing him as his personal advisor to Chiang Kai Shek, which left Lattimore in the enviable position of easily betraying the Nationalists to the Communists. The Chinese Nationalist forces were further betrayed by Roosevelt appointee Lauchlin Currie, who ordered Army supplies intended for the Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalist forces dumped into the Indian Ocean” (John Coleman, One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship, 121).

Currie was acknowledged by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI to be a Soviet agent. And Lattimore was likewise a long-time Soviet spy. Nearly all the men that FDR surrounded himself with were Marxist agents. FDR, my candidate for the worst president in American history, was himself a communist! He gave us four straight terms of communism and not only fundamentally altered our country for the worse, but played a major role in the communist restructuring of the world.

One of the enduring aspects of FDR’s treason against humanity is the fact he loved mass-murderer Joseph Stalin, used American resources to literally save the Soviet Union from Hitler’s anti-communist campaign, and enabled the Soviets to come back from the brink of near defeat at Germany’s hands to spread its Satanic influence across the globe – including into China. China was the dazzling jewel in the communist crown and its conquest would not have been possible had FDR not been a closet communist, had he not surrounded himself – in defiance of intelligence reports – with known Soviet agents, and had he not appointed communists to oversee the management of China. To learn about the shocking communist takeover of our government that occurred during FDR’s reprehensible administration, read Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein.

In his book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Gary Allen wrote of Elites’ efforts to turn the world communist:

“A clique of American financiers not only helped establish Communism in Russia, but has striven mightily ever since to keep it alive. . . .

“At Versailles, this same clique carved up Europe and set the stage for World War II . . . In 1941, the same Insiders rushed to the aid of our “noble ally,” Stalin, after his break with Hitler. In 1943, these same Insiders marched off to the Tehran Conference and proceeded to start the carving up of Europe after the second great “war to end war.” Again at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945, they established the China policy . . . later summarized by Owen Lattimore: “The problem was how to allow them [China] to fall without making it look as if the United States had pushed them.” The facts are inescapable. In one country after another Communism has been imposed on the local population from the top down. The most prominent forces for the imposition of the tyranny came from the United States and Great Britain. Here is a charge that no American enjoys making, but the facts lead to no other possible conclusion. The idea that Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses is a fraud.

“. . . But if Communism is an arm of a bigger conspiracy to control the world by power-mad billionaires (and brilliant but ruthless academicians who have shown them how to use their power) it all becomes perfectly logical” (Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, 75-76).

I want to point out that communism is not an American plot. It actually originated in Europe in 1776 when Adam Weishaupt formed the Order of Illuminati. In my books, I’ve traced the ideology we know as communism back to the Illuminati. I will not repeat the details here. Suffice it to say that communism is Illuminism by another name. It is, therefore, hardly an American plot.

Additionally, many of communism’s financiers come from Europe – not simply from the United States. And Britain’s involvement is so pronounced in world conspiracy precisely because communists and Fabian Socialists took over England. Both Britain and the United States have been used by the international communists to set up bases in Russia and China from whence they carry out their world revolution.

Europe – indeed, the rest of the world – is much further down the communist rabbit hole than the United States. Despite the alarming growth of the communist cancer in our midst, we are still the last best hope for humanity and have the greatest potential for throwing off the Soviet shackles. However, it is absolutely true that Marxists imported their dogma to the United States beginning with the Illuminati-Jacobins just after the American War for Independence. Their existence was acknowledged by George Washington and other informed individuals. It has grown from there, being greatly aided by Jewish and other European immigrants.

communism36

“Bolshevism without the Mask”

Let’s be clear: The global Elite are all Marxists. And the top cadre within this group is a clique of avowed Satanists. I have discussed this at length in my books. These Elites are led by Lord Maitreya and the Ascended Masters of Wisdom – fancy names for Lucifer and his fallen angels. They direct the affairs of Satan’s earthly kingdom. Communism is their chief tool. Be very careful not to describe communism as an American or British plot. It is, rather, a worldwide conspiracy in which the super-rich, academic elitists, and other professional revolutionaries and occultists combine their dubious talents to conquer the world and subjugate humanity.

Texe Marrs has written of how Red China has been set up as another Illuminati-communist base of operations. He said:

“Red China has been chosen to be the poster child and role model for the Illuminati’s Hegelian synthesis of Communism and Capitalism. The United States, meanwhile, is being purposely beat down and suppressed. Alien philosophies and a wave of immorality are being used to destroy peoples’ minds while Wall Street operators continue their Ponzi scheme manipulation. The Federal Reserve, under Jewish banker Ben Bernanke’s direction, is regularly transmitting boatloads of electronic cash to foreign banks in China. Thanks to this infusion of dollars, along with the trillions of dollars brought in from stolen Iraqi oil use and sales, the Chinese economy is galloping ahead” (Texe Marrs, Conspiracy of the Six-Pointed Star, 202).

True it is that the Marxist Elite envision a future communist world order that combines elements of political, social, military, and religious communism with state-run monopoly capitalism (i.e. socialism). As I’ve covered elsewhere, demonic entities that have appeared to occultist conspirators around the world have relayed the message that the coming occult world order will be a fusion of the so-called best of both worlds: “The Masters advise 70 per cent socialism to 30 per cent capitalism as the best proportion” (Benjamin Creme, The World Teacher for All Humanity, 74). It is perfectly accurate, then, to call China the “poster child and role model for the Illuminati’s Hegelian synthesis of Communism and Capitalism.”

Much of what later happened in China was drawn up at the Yalta Conference of 1945 attended by the likes of Stalin and Roosevelt. These comrades essentially decided the fate of China. I take several paragraphs from James Perloff’s superb article “China Betrayed Into Communism.” He explained:

“Fateful decisions resulted when Roosevelt met with Stalin at the Teheran Conference (late 1943) and Yalta Conference (February 1945). Stalin, though our ally against Germany during World War II, maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan. This suited Stalin, as he wished the Japanese to wear down China’s Nationalist forces.

“At the Teheran and Yalta wartime conferences, however, Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his pact with Japan and enter the Far East war. Stalin agreed, but attached conditions. He demanded that America completely equip his Far Eastern Army for the expedition, with 3,000 tanks, 5,000 planes, plus all the other munitions, food, and fuel required for a 1,250,000-man army. Roosevelt accepted this demand, and 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease material were convoyed to the USSR for the venture. Stalin’s Far Eastern Army swiftly received more than twice the supplies we gave Chiang Kai-shek during four years as our ally.

“General Douglas MacArthur protested after discovering that ships designated to supply his Pacific forces were being diverted to Russia. Major General Courtney Whitney wrote: “One hundred of his transport ships were to be withdrawn immediately, to be used to carry munitions and supplies across the North Pacific to the Soviet forces in Vladivostok…. Later, of course, they were the basis of Soviet military support of North Korea and Red China.”

“But Stalin didn’t just want materiel in return for entering the Asian war. He also demanded control of the Manchurian seaports of Dairen and Port Arthur — which a glance at the map shows would give him an unbreakable foothold in China — as well as joint control, with the Chinese, of Manchuria’s railroads. Roosevelt made these concessions without consulting the Chinese. Thus, without authority, he ceded to Stalin another nation’s sovereign territory. The president made these pledges without the knowledge or consent of Congress or the American people.

“The State Department official representing the United States in drawing up the Yalta agreement was Alger Hiss — subsequently exposed as a Soviet spy. General Patrick Hurley, U.S. Ambassador to China, wrote: “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta”” (James Perloff, “China Betrayed Into Communism,” The New American, July 24, 2009).

In his brilliant book How the Far East was Lost, Anthony Kubek devoted a thorough chapter to the fateful Yalta Conference and its lasting consequences. He wrote:

“Roosevelt went off to Yalta, there to buy Stalin’s entry into the war we had already won. We are still paying the price. The needless and bloody battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were immediate costs. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Asiatic civilian populations – acts which have so prejudiced the United States in the eyes of Asian people – was another. Sovietization of China and the Korean War were still others. And the end is not yet in sight. . . .

“No discussion of Yalta by those who were present at that conference, thus far, explains Roosevelt’s generosity to Stalin, why he violated his own principles of the Atlantic Charter by transferring territory from one country to another without the consent of the deprived country, or why he reneged on his promises to Chiang Kai-shek at Cairo. It must be remembered he had promised the Generalissimo all the territory Japan had taken since 1914. Roosevelt gave to Stalin at Yalta effective control of the same territory over which the United States had gone to war with Japan, and by doing so set the stage for the Communist conquest of China, and it was a prelude to the war in Korea” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 91, 111).

FDR1

Comrades Stalin and FDR

General George C. Marshall – the same who disarmed Chiang Kai-shek’s forces – was one of the prominent attendees at Yalta. He used his influence to encourage Roosevelt’s pro-Soviet sympathies:

“One may find some explanation for the Yalta give-away in a review of the men who made up Roosevelt’s delegation. The most important of these advisers was General George Marshall, Chief of Staff . . . He stood at Yalta urging the grim necessity of Russia’s entry into war against Japan. He did nothing to deter Roosevelt from embarking on his ill-starred course which ended in disaster.

“The desire to have Russia’s help in the Far East was constantly stressed by Marshall . . . It was Marshall’s mistaken estimate of Japan’s capacity for continued military resistance, after all signs pointed to enemy collapse, that fortified Roosevelt in his determination to buy Soviet entry into the Pacific war at the price of vast strategic concessions in China. This deal foreordained the loss of China to Communist control” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 94).

Yalta was a communist conference from beginning to end. Yalta was a grimy location in the Soviet Union where Stalin, who had picked it, knew he could control the narrative. And control it he did with the help of FDR’s communist delegation which included communist sympathizers and Soviet spies. And FDR must be directly blamed for the existence of this compromised delegation – it was his administration that had formally recognized the Soviet regime on 1933 when it was on the verge of collapse.

It is truly incredible that the fate of any nation – let alone one like China – could be decided by a group of communist conspirators meeting in the Soviet Union with the full consent and blessing of an American president. Yet, that is what happened. Everything that came later merely followed the Yalta script.

The U.S. government’s attitude toward General Chiang had always been hostile, though it became more apparent toward the close of World War II. A disgraceful incident describes the contempt we had for the man and has anti-communist Nationalist government. In late 1944, FDR and other U.S. military and diplomatic leaders were busy discussing the conquest of Burma which was under Japanese control. They wanted Chiang’s Chinese forces to move quickly into Burma. However, they wanted their own hand-picked General Joseph W. Stilwell to take charge of the troops. Anthony Kubek explains the shameful scenes that followed:

“President Roosevelt again urged the Generalissimo to place Stilwell in command of all Chinese forces. Chiang was willing to agree on condition that the power of distributing lend-lease supplies would remain strictly under his control. But Stilwell confided in his diary: “If the G-mo [Chiang Kai-shek] controls distribution, I am sunk. The Reds will get nothing”. . . .

“. . . Marshall submitted a blunt message to Chiang with Roosevelt’s approval. The Generalissimo was asked (1) to reinforce the Chinese armies in the Salween area in Burma and to press their offensive in conjunction with the British, and (2) to place Stilwell in “unrestricted command” of all Chinese forces. . . .

“The message arrived in Chungking on September 19, 1944, with instructions that Stilwell was to deliver it “in person.” Stilwell was full of jubilation; he had waited for this moment to deliver an ultimatum to the Generalissimo. He noted in his diary: “President’s message arrived. Hot as a firecracker. ‘Get busy, boy, or else.’ ‘Do it now.’ The Peanut will have a red neck on this one.”

“General Hurley advised Stilwell this was not the time to deliver the President’s message. To quote from his later testimony, “I said (to Stilwell) ‘You shouldn’t now, because of this firm language, pile it on him at a time he has felt compelled to make every concession that we have asked. He has made them; he is ready to go; he is ready to bring troops down from the North to reinforce you in the Salween front; he is going to appoint you commander-in-chief.” Stilwell would not change his mind. He wanted to humiliate the Generalissimo and said, “I am directed by the President to hand it to him.

“. . . When Hurley handed the message to Chiang Kai-shek, the Generalissimo read it and Hurley noticed “. . . that he looked like he had been hit in the solar plexus. . . . “ Silence followed; no one moved. Then Chiang Kai-shek reached over to his tea cup and put the cover on upside down. Stilwell, in Chinese asked, “That gesture still means, I presume, that the party is over?” Someone in Chiang’s staff said, “Yes.” Stilwell and Hurley then walked out. . . .

“Stilwell’s lack of tact and his persistent urge to aid and use Communist forces shattered any confidence Chiang Kai-shek had in placing him in command of Chinese armies . . . John Stewart Service, U.S. foreign service officer in China, had some understanding of the true meaning of the recommendations and what Chiang suspected. “This was, in effect, a proposal that the Chinese Communists be armed,” Service later testified” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 214-216).

China23

If this was a one-time event, it could perhaps be written off as a simple blunder. However, the U.S. government’s consistent pattern of behavior toward Chiang Kai-shek and China proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that FDR and his administration favored the Chinese communists and did everything they could to undermine the establishment of a free China.

I quote once more from Kubek. He stated:

“It is a tragedy we did not accept the repeated warnings of Nationalist leaders and others that the Chinese Communists were part of a Marxist movement for world domination. Perhaps some blame should be placed on the Generalissimo for not selling this point to American officials. He saw the Red threat in the Far East far better than many of our foreign service officials. As a result of our miscalculations, deliberate or otherwise, we are today faced with a formidable threat – Red China. It can be said that the serious menace we face in the Far East was not due to our lack of information. On the contrary, our tragic policy in that area can be mostly attributed to the opposition of U.S. foreign service officers and other American officials to Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Government. These Americans frustrated attainment of our traditional and unannounced aims in Asia – preservation of the “territorial and administrative” integrity of China” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 217).

Volumes of additional evidence could be cited showing the duplicity and pro-communist sentiments of U.S. government personnel and military leaders. However, for the remainder of this article we turn the spotlight on General Chiang Kai-shek’s own witness and account of the Red takeover of China. In his highly-detailed book Soviet Russia in China: A Summing-Up at Seventy, Chiang gave a sometimes day-by-day account of how the communist conquered China. In numerous locations, Chiang’s history shows the betrayal and neglect showed by the United States. I now quote at length from his book, though I’m only able to quote a small portion of what I would like to and shift the burden upon the reader for additional study. Chiang testified:

“It was a matter of great regret that our ally, the United States, should stop its supply of arms to the Chinese Government at the very moment when the Chinese Communists began their anti-American activities. Earlier, in April [1946], following the Chinese Communists’ breach of the cease-fire agreement, the American Government had stopped its US $500,000,000 loan to the Chinese Government. Now it interrupted its military aid to China. At the same time it took no action whatever against the Chinese Communists despite their violations of the cease-fire agreement. In fact, it did not even adopt any measures in the face of Soviet Russia’s arming of the Chinese Communists in Manchuria with Japanese weapons. This dealt a severe blow to the anti-Communist forces and constituted a great boost to neutralism. . . .

“By February 1947 Communist student agitators in Shanghai formed a “Federation of Associations in Protest Against Violence by American Forces in China” as headquarters for students’ anti-American activities in various parts of the country. The federation soon started a “Signature Movement by Chinese students to urge the United States to change her policy toward China.”

“The Chinese Communists launched the “Anti-Violence Movement” when the industrial and commercial circles in the country failed to respond to their agitation against the Sino-American Commercial Treaty. When the people in general again failed to respond to the “Anti-Violence Movement” they switched to a “Boycott American Goods” movement . . . its only objective was “opposition to U.S. aid” and the “expulsion of American forces from China.”

“The American Government obliged by gradually withdrawing its troops from Peiping, Tientsin, Tsingtao and other places, and by discontinuing its military aid to China. Thus, a glorious episode of Sino-American cooperation in the cause of freedom came to an end under the attacks of the Chinese Communists and their international “comrades”” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 185-187).

communism449

A common communist tactic the world over is to request “peace talks,” negotiations, cease-fires, and détentes when things are going badly. These phony “peace talks” and cease-fires serve to buy time for the communists to regroup, rearm, and adjust their strategy. As soon as the communists are fully prepared to resume hostilities, they break off talks and negotiations and violate the cease-fire. We see this tactic successfully employed year after year by North Korea and Russia-backed Palestine, to name only two. Chiang Kai-shek documented this tactic in painstaking detail in his book, giving us many pages of valuable insight. I draw forth just a few lines relative to China’s downfall as examples:

“For security reasons the Government had to conduct military operations against the Communist troops which had taken Kalgan by storm and against the others concentrated around it. Chou En-lai tried to intimidate General Marshall by saying: “If the Government does not call off its military action against Communist troops in Kalgan and in its environs, the Communists will regard it as the open declaration of an over-all rupture.” Shortly afterward he left Nanking for Shanghai to dodge further discussions.

“On October 5 I again accepted General Marshall’s suggestion and ordered a ten-day halt during which the Conference of Three would discuss the military question while the Subcommittee of Five would deliberate on the political issues.

“Simultaneous discussion of military and political questions was originally one of the Communists’ demands. When the Government finally accepted it, they reversed their position by using the Kalgan question as a pretext. Now, after the Government had announced a halt in the Kalgan area, the Communists raised their demands again. . . .

“Chou En-lai also added the following points to General Marshall in a critical tone:

““The Chinese Communists cannot agree to the United States Government giving material aid to the Kuomintang Government at a time of civil war. . . .”

“Thus General Marshall had to return to Nanking emptyhanded. This meant that the Chinese Communists had already succeeded in gaining the time they needed for preparing their all-out insurrection. It also meant that Communist smiles of welcome to American mediation were no longer necessary. This signified the virtual termination of the peace talks and military mediation centered around General Marshall as a result of the Chinese Communist sabotage. As in the six previous instances the peace negotiations, which lasted for more than one year this time, also ended in failure.

“As the Chinese Communists showed no signs of willingness to resume negotiations after the expiration of the ten-day truce, Government troops retook Kalgan. . . .

“At this juncture, leaders of parties other than Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party, and nonpartisan leaders offered to mediate as “the third side.” On October 25, 29 and 30 a series of talks were held. The terms which they produced were likewise rejected by the Chinese Communists. In the meantime the Chinese Communists and the Democratic League launched anti-American movements in Peiping, Tientsin, Nanking and Shanghai.

“On November 10, only two days before the National Assembly was due to open, Chou En-lai said to General Marshall: “Whether the National Assembly is merely postponed or convened unilaterally, in either even there will be no room for any more political discussions.” Thus it became clear that the Communists’ real purpose was to prevent the convocation of the National Assembly and the introduction of constitutional rule.

“Meanwhile, it also became very clear that they intended to sabotage the peace talks and military mediation altogether and to resort to armed rebellion to subvert the country . . . on November 11, on the eve of the convocation of the National Assembly, I made a final appeal to them in the hope that they would, whether before or during the Assembly meetings, submit a list of Communist delegates and have them take part in the deliberations to give national backing to the launching of constitutional rule. . . .

“. . . The Chinese Communists were the only ones who had refused to submit a list of their delegates. The Democratic League, which had up to now posed as an independent neutral, tore off its mask and followed the example of the Chinese Communists by refusing to attend. After the opening ceremony the National Assembly decided to call a three-day recess to wait for the Communist and Democratic League delegates to turn up, but in vain.” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 175-181).

Chiang again wrote of the international efforts to sabotage the establishment of a free China with a democratic government:

“[O]ne could see that behind Soviet Russia’s sabotage of the American mediation was her wish to replace the United States as mediator so that she could manipulate the Chinese political situation.

“In December 1946 the United States announced the end of its mediation effort in China. Shortly thereafter General Marshall went back to America and the Chinese Communists openly launched a general rebellion. During the year which followed Soviet Russia and the Chinese Communists both directly and indirectly kept on asking the Chinese Government for resumption of peace talks. In the autumn of 1947, when Government troops were advancing toward Chefoo, Weihaiwei and Penglai on the southern coast of the Gulf of Chihli, their request for cessation of hostilities and resumption of peace talks became more urgent than ever. . . .

“. . . the Chinese Communists made use of American mediation as part of their neutralist tactics. In other words, they saw in the American mediation a chance for the growth of neutralism, just as they had seen in the cease-fire agreement a convenient cover for their military movements. Once the cease-fire agreement was concluded, their purpose in accepting U.S. mediation had been achieved. After that they no longer considered themselves bound by any stipulations in the agreement.

“On the other hand, the Government’s eagerness to abide by the agreement put its troops in a passive position and made them easy prey for the Communists. Now we know that the Communists accepted American mediation in order to sabotage it and they concluded the cease-fire agreement in order to break it. This created a situation of neither war nor peace in which fighting and peace talks went on side by side. This was the practical application by the Communist International of the laws of dialectics both in its basic stratagem and in its line of action. All through the year 1946 the Communists used this stratagem to gain time to complete their preparations for a final military showdown with the Government.” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 190-192).

China19

Chiang gave us valuable insight into how the communists subverted China. His insight is detailed and specific. The Red blueprint doesn’t change much, so this history ought to wake us up because the same tactics are being used in our own nation. Chiang recounted:

“After October 1948, when the Hsuchow-Pengpu Battle was at its critical stage and when the people and those in the Government were under the spell of Communist infiltration, there came into circulation a slogan to the effect that “Unless President Chiang goes, no American aid will be forthcoming,” and that “Unless President Chiang goes, there can be no peace talks.”

“In these circumstances, I decided to retire from office. I did so on January 21, 1949. The moment I was gone both the armed forces and civilians on the mainland seemed to have lost a symbol of common purpose. Thus, the political situation, social order and the people’s minds all fell under the Communists’ invisible control. The military situation deteriorated rapidly and soon became irretrievable.

“In their political activities and social movements, both the Chinese Communists and their front organizations, especially the Democratic League, had to take certain stands and were, therefore, easily identified. The same thing, however, could not be said of infiltration by these front organizations. They penetrated deep into government organs, representative bodies and civic organizations. They even joined such anti-Communist religious bodies and secret societies as the Kolaohui [a secret society in Szechwan province]. They also got hold of military men who had fought the Communists either in or outside the battlefield and politicians who acted as go-betweens between Kuomintang and the Communists. Through infiltration or encirclement they manipulated these public bodies and individuals directly as well as indirectly in order to attain their own objective.

“It was generally thought that ex-militarists, ex-bureaucrats and merchants and brokers seeking profits through speculation would make poor Communists or fellow travelers. In seeking to subvert the country and to destroy the social order, the Communists found that the more degenerate these people were the more useful they would be in working for the Communists and in running their errands. Their task was to help shake the very foundation of society and demoralize the military and the civilians alike by such slogans as “oppose conscription,” “oppose requisition,” “oppose mobilization” and “oppose civil war.”

“Though the Government knew the latter were acting as the Communists’ jackals, it felt its hands were tied by democratic institutions, and as long as they operated under the cloak of “freedom” and “human rights,” the Government could not take any action against these religious bodies, secret societies, underworld characters, gangsters, disgruntled politicians and profiteers who had come under the Communist grip. It was in this manner that neutralism and defeatism came to spread in the Government and in the armed forces, paving the way for Communist rumors to foment dissatisfaction, to stir up trouble and to create antagonism and disunity between the Government and the people” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 188-190).

Can you see the eerie similarities in recent events in the United States? Can you see how our own so-called “representatives” are selling us out in order to benefit themselves and extend the reach of the invisible hand that controls events? Can you see the same infiltration, the same propaganda pitches, and the same feelings of despair, neutralism, and defeatism that are pervading our society? Can you see the same communist front groups – feminism, LGBT radicals, environmental extremists, Antifa, the Democratic Party – at work today to “shake the very foundation of society and demoralize the military and the civilians alike”? The game plan is nearly identical – and the results will be the same unless we wake up and fight back.

General Chiang was one of history’s staunchest anti-communist fighters. A large section of his book is addressed to the world. He learned from firsthand experience how communists conquer a nation. He personally witnessed and forever mourned China’s defeat. He desired that the rest of the world would use the store of knowledge and experience he had gained regarding communist tactics and deceptions, as well as what works and what doesn’t in the fight against intentional Marxism. Again I stress that I’m sharing only a thimble full of the wisdom contained in Chiang’s remarkable book Soviet Russia in China. Chiang warned us:

“The Communists’ camouflage, deception and propaganda war are practical manifestations of their dialectic laws of contradictions and of negation. For instance, their resort to political assault to disguise their military operations, their assumption of a defensive posture to cover their offensive action, their use of propaganda war containing nothing but casuistry and falsehood, and their combining enticements with intimidation, all these are based on the principle of “unity in contradictions.” Again, for instance, their use of peace talks to negate or undermine their opponent’s morale and their use of hostilities at the same time to negate the peace talks with their opponent, are based on the law of “negation of negations.” In short, the Communists in their propaganda war stop at nothing wicked and mean to achieve their goal, i.e., in creating suspicion and disturbances. They are particularly adept in the fabrication of stories with no factual foundations, in misrepresentation such as “pointing at a deer and calling it a horse,” in distortion and in the forging of documentary proofs all of which they consider legitimate – even virtuous. Whenever it suits their purpose, they represent Satan as God or God as Satan. What the Communists say and what they do are entirely two different things. It is obvious that they had themselves robbed the people under their control of freedoms, and yet they asked the Government for all political freedoms. In areas under Communist control, there was nothing but darkness and regimentation, an yet in their external propaganda they boasted of political democracy and of a bright future for their slaves. In Communist terminology, “people” means the Communists themselves, “liberation” means enslavement, “peace” means another form of war and “coexistence” means exclusive Communist control. It follows that the smile they put on is another facet of their evil nature. The free world should be ready to expose and attack this kind of propaganda before anyone falls prey to it.

“In their “peaceful coexistence” campaign, the Communists have developed two methods of approach, which can easily lead the free world to think that the Communists are really seeking peace, or to consider their suggestions as genuine roads to peace.

“Peace talks. To ordinary people, peace talks represent a transitional path from war to peace. Whenever the Russian or Chinese Communists ask for “peace talks,” people in the free world instantly take it to mean that they will not engage in any more war of aggression. But, to the Communists “peace talks” do not constitute a path to peace, but are just another form of war. They start peace talks not for the purpose of attaining the objective of peace, but for the purpose of attaining their objective of war. The peace talks which the Chinese Communists held with the Government were to serve the following purposes:

“Peace talks could delay attacks by Government troops. . . .

“Peace talks could cover up preparations for armed revolt. . . .

“Peace talks could enlarge the following for neutralism, and expand the reserve strength of the front organizations. . . .

“Peace talks could undermine the morale of Government forces. . . .

“Peace talks could create the impression of “two Chinas” in the free world.

“Therefore, both the Russian and Chinese Communist love protracted negotiations . . . protracted negotiations carried on by the Russian and Chinese Communists represent a method of struggle with them.

Cease-Fire Agreement. “Respite tactics” are often resorted to by the Russian Communists. To secure a needed respite, they will not only negotiate with their enemy but will sign cease-fire agreements with him and, in fact, will even go so far as to conclude a peace treaty with him. . . .

“To the Communists, it is not simply a defensive tactic. They use peace talks and cessation of hostilities to reinforce and replenish their troops in preparation for the next attack; they use them also to start a political propaganda campaign to sow suspicions between their enemy and his allies, to strike at his morale, and to shatter his internal solidarity. To the Communists, all these are positive functions of peace talks and cease-fire agreements. . . .

“If we judge the Russian and Chinese Communists’ proposals for peace talks and cease-fire in the light of the dialectic law of negation, we can immediately grasp their very essence. Why do the Russian and Chinese Communists always want to hold peace talks and sign a cease-fire agreement while at war but violate the cease-fire agreement and resume fighting after it has been signed? We must understand that in their ideology, peace talks and cessations of hostilities are the negation of war, and to sabotage the peace talks and violate the cease-fire agreement is the negation of this negation. When they cannot win by force, they stop fighting and hold peace talks instead, they may even sign a cease-fire agreement. When they succeed in splitting the enemy’s camp, shattering his will to fight and destroying his morale, they will negate their peace talks and cease-fire agreements, for the purpose of waging, and winning, the final decisive battle” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 374-377).

Chiang6

Ladies and gentlemen, you have just read some of the most eloquent and frank descriptions of communist tactics and aims you will ever read. Will you heed them? Will you rush forward to save your own country from similar collapse? Will you finally put aside alternative theories – false theories – that blame anyone else but the Satanic communists for the plight of the world? It is time, long past time, to treat the Reds as a cancer than must be quarantined and eradicated if the world, let alone our own Republic, is to survive. Communism must die if America is to survive!

We can begin on our journey by learning about communism. We can learn the history of communist conquest around the world, most prominently in Russia and China. China’s example in particular provides an excellent account of how American traitors aid the international Bolshevik movement. It proves that conspiracy exists. It proves that the people we elect and send to Washington are not on our side and couldn’t care less about Freedom. It proves that many of our “heroes,” most prominently FDR, are in fact traitors and comrades in the Red conspiracy.

If we are to heal and move forward, we must acknowledge the tragedies of the past – tragedies orchestrated by an elitist clique of Marxist gangsters who want to subjugate the world. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact. Do you have the courage to embrace and help spread the truth? Or will you self-censor because the social media giants, the controlled media, and the raucous chorus of mindless lemmings attempt to shout you down? Unless we want our fate to be Red China’s, we will endure the hate, oppose the efforts to silence us, and push back mercilessly against the communists.

Chiang Kai-shek was correct when he asserted:

“It can be said that the greatest threat posed by international Communism lies in Asia, and this threat stems mainly from the Chinese Communists. The fall of the Chinese mainland was a tragedy to the world and its seriousness is only beginning to be recognized. Had my Government remained on the mainland, there would never have been such calamities as the Korean War and the Communist occupation of northern Korea and northern Indo-China. The place to begin combating Communism in Asia, therefore, is mainland China” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 348).

As the current Hong Kong unrest shows, China’s regime is still brutal and constitutes a direct threat to free peoples everywhere. And the threat will only grow. Already our military generals are warning that China has nearly reached our level of expertise (and Russia has surpassed it in some respects). We should never have to hear the solemn declaration that “[the U.S. military] might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia” (National Defense Strategy Commission, November 14, 2018) or “China’s impressive military buildup could soon challenge the United States across almost every domain” (Admiral Harry Harris, February, 2018). Yet, that is what our generals are telling us.

President Trump, for all his host of flaws, is correct in also pointing out Red China’s currency manipulation and economic subterfuge. For years, China has been taking advantage of the West – and most often with the consent of the big business tycoons. Whether you agree or disagree with implementing tariffs on Chinese goods as a solution, it should be obvious that we must find a solution, and fast. The communist world is gearing up for their end game against the West as we crumble under the weight of Marxist subversion of our Faith, Families, and Freedom.

This war, like the one waged in China in the 1940s, can have only one of two outcomes for us: Victory or defeat. Which will it be? Will be maintain peace through strength or will we allow our nation to be bartered away to Chinese and Russian communists and their dupes here in America? Will we allow our anti-communist fighters to be insulted, denigrated, and smeared while the Elite run roughshod over the will of the People? Will we allow the communist-controlled press to demoralize us or will we catch the vision of heroes like General Chiang and resist communism to the last? Will we win or will we lose? Our fate is in our own hands.

Whatever we choose and however it plays out – and I believe things will get much darker before the light bursts forth – remember that communism is Satanism and that the Devil’s days are numbered. Christ has already won the victory! The only thing left to decide is what part we will play in this epic saga. Will we choose the right team? Will we help minimize the expansion of evil and tyranny by waking up and fighting back in our own sphere of influence? God help each of us to do so! And let each of us have the faith required to see this through to the end when the Red flag will go down and never more rise.

“I have unswerving faith in the re-emergence of my country as a free united nation and in the eventful triumph of freedom over slavery throughout the world.” – General Chiang Kai-shek, Soviet Russia in China, 349.

communism204

Zack Strong,

August 31, 2019.

To Be Prepared for War

Peace through strength is an ancient concept. It was the Roman modus operandi as Rome expanded her influence across the known world. It was also the policy pursued by our very own George Washington. In our modern world of appeasement and surrender to the forces of tyranny, maintaining peace through strength has become a uniquely American custom. It is not only the national policy followed by great American presidents, but that which is followed by American gun owners every day. Peace through strength, then, is part of the true American heritage.

America43

In his first annual message to Congress, President George Washington stated: “To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” In the very next breath, he continued: “A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined” (George Washington, First Annual Message to Congress, January 8, 1790). When you examine the annals of history, whether you look in ancient Israel, manly Sparta, gallant Rome, or in the American Republic, you find that free people have always been armed. Indeed, arms in the hands of freemen distinguishes them from serfs and slaves.

The philosophy “peace through strength” derives from common sense and practical experience. All human experience shows that unscrupulous men, criminals, and tyrants, prey upon the defenseless and weak. Evil people are frequently cowards and their victims are usually targets of opportunity. And no one is more defenseless and presents an easier target than the unarmed and weak. This is the reason why lunatics choose to shoot people in gun-free zones rather than in locations where free men and women are armed and able to defend themselves.

The same is true of nations. An Evil Empire like the Soviet Union preys upon weak nations. They backpedal and try to negotiate (though they only make deals when it benefits them) when a nation presents a strong and united front against them. Instead of launching a risky frontal assault, they resort to subversion, infiltration, psychological warfare, terrorism, and guerrilla tactics in order to demoralize, weaken, corrupt, confuse, and undermine an opponent before they ever attempt conquest by force.

Communist Russia and Red China will never attempt to take down the United States through force of arms unless we have been sufficiently degraded on the inside first. Unfortunately, that horrific day is swift approaching as cultural Marxism (i.e. feminism, LGBT, radical environmentalism, “civil rights” movements, political correctness, etc.) rips through our vital institutions. We are becoming a weak nation because we have been too politically correct to stand up to the Reds and to call a spade a spade. We are so afraid of offending someone, hurting their feelings, or causing a stir that we suffer abuses and reductions in our personal rights and national influence rather than boldly confront the enemy.

When necessary, a free society must use its arms and strength to defend itself. This should be a last resort to preserve peace, but it must be an option. A nation that is not prepared to defend itself presents a soft target to an aggressor. The Red Chinese commonly refer to the United States as a “paper tiger” that doesn’t have the stomach for a long struggle. They think we are weak and will eventually crumble because they have yet to see us stand up and confront them in a meaningful way. Islamic terrorists (which are primarily trained and funded by Soviet Russia) hold this same philosophy. America’s enemies cannot be appeased or bought off – appeasement only emboldens them.

We learned through our experiences with Barbary pirates at the beginning of our Republic that buying peace with tribute makes our enemies insatiable and actually increases the problem. Because of a lack of naval power at the time, President Washington was forced to pay the Islamic pirates who were raiding our ships rather than face them in battle. President John Adams did the same while creating a navy that could eventually contend with overseas opponents.

military7

President Thomas Jefferson was the first president to use our newly minted Navy and Marines to punish the pirates and defend America’s vital international trade. After the War of 1812, President Madison sent the U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean to finish what President Jefferson had started. Our Navy devastated the pirates, ensuring peace between the United States and the Barbary States for generations. We learned from this episode that peaceful relations can only be established with hostile states by standing up to them or crushing them with overwhelming strength. Evil people and regimes only bow to power.

Because of his experience as a colonel during the French-Indian War and as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the Revolution, President George Washington understood this principle perhaps better than anyone. It infuriated him that the United States did not have the means to deal with enemies who ruthlessly attacked peaceful trading vessels and harmed Americans and America’s interests. In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, he raged:

“[H]ow is it possible the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary. Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enimies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence” (George Washington to Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1786).

Washington understood that only an armed society – both on a personal and a national level – could retain their Freedom against the multitude of adversaries and tyrants that abound in the world. He knew that freemen could only remain so if they were strong and projected their strength. Part of this was to always be ready for war so that a potential aggressor would think twice before attacking – and so that he would severely regret it if he did.

At the beginning of our War for Independence, General Washington encouraged his troops to stand firm against British tyrants. He said:

“[T]he hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty—that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men . . . every one for himself resolving to conquer, or die, and trusting to the smiles of heaven upon so just a cause, will behave with Bravery and Resolution” (George Washington, General Orders, August 23, 1776).

George Washington35

The “smiles of heaven” only rain down upon those who take the pains to defend themselves and increase their own human strength. Only the vigorous and valiant are worthy of divine intervention and blessings. Only by “fighting for the blessings of Liberty,” and remaining virtuous, can Americans remain freemen. And all real freemen are soldiers – warriors for justice, truth, and Liberty.

All true freemen are armed and prepared for battle at a moment’s notice – whether against a domestic enemy or against an invader. This is precisely why Samuel Adams envisioned America as a “Christian Sparta” (Samuel Adams to John Scollay, December 30, 1780). Like the Spartans, “molon labe,” or “come and take it,” would be our war cry. It was strict adherence to this principle of preparing for war and being ready to defend the peace, coupled with faithful obedience to God’s laws, that made America great. And the same course can make America great again.

Similar to Washington and Adams, Thomas Jefferson believed that strength was a means of preventing war. He wished every American freeman to be a soldier. He stated:

“[T]he Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. the Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression, as a standing army. their system was to make every man a soldier, & oblige him to repair to the standard of his country, whenever that was reared. this made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so” (Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, September 10, 1814).

This remedy – namely, to arm and discipline our citizens in the art of war – would make America “invincible” to foreign threats so long as we also remain virtuous. A free nation that expects to remain free must be prepared for war. We prepare for war but pray for peace. As Thomas Paine expressed it: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it” (Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 12, 1777).

The phrase “peace through strength,” in its modern context, was popularized by Ronald Reagan during his 1980 campaign against socialist appeaser Jimmy Carter. For eight years, President Reagan preached peace through strength and tried to get America back to her roots. While President Reagan was only marginally successful in his gigantic task, reminding ourselves of some of his inspiring thoughts seems appropriate.

America39

During one of the presidential debates with then President Jimmy Carter, candidate Reagan said:

“Now, I believe, also that this meeting, this mission, this responsibility for preserving the peace, which I believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, that we cannot shirk our responsibility as the leader of the Free World, because we’re the only one that can do it. And therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. And to maintain that peace requires strength. America has never gotten in a war because we were too strong” (Reagan/Carter presidential debate, October 28, 1980).

In a speech to the American People regarding national security, President Reagan explained the need for strength to combat the Red menace – the exact same menace we face today at home and abroad. He rightly observed:

“We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. . . .

“. . . American strength is . . . a sheltering arm for freedom in a dangerous world. Strength is the most persuasive argument we have to convince our adversaries to negotiate seriously and to cease bullying other nations.

“. . . American power is the indispensable element of a peaceful world. . . .

“But it is not just the immense Soviet arsenal that puts us on our guard. The record of Soviet behavior – the long history of Soviet brutality toward those who are weaker – reminds us that the only guarantee of peace and freedom is our military strength and our national will. The peoples of Afghanistan and Poland, of Czechoslavakia and Cuba, and so many other captive countries – they understand this.

“Some argue that our dialogue with the Soviets means we can treat defense more casually. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was our seriousness about defense that created the climate in which serious talks could finally begin. . . .

“Our job is to provide for our security by using the strengths of our free society” (Ronald Reagan, speech, February 26, 1986).

military21

Think about it, who is more likely to persuade a thug to put down his gun – an unarmed negotiator with no leverage or a seasoned police officer with a raised rifle? The answer is obvious. Though the Soviets have broken literally every treaty they ever signed with the United States, they were wary of President Reagan because they knew that he would not hesitate, if necessary, to launch nuclear missiles and a full-scale war against the communists in defense of America and the West.

One of my favorite Ronald Reagan moments demonstrates President Reagan’s willingness to stand up to the communist threat. It occurred on August 11, 1984, when President Reagan told a joke. Though clearly a joke, it contained a large kernel of truth. During a microphone sound check prior to his speech, President Reagan mused: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

I can’t listen to the audio recording of this classic moment without laughing. Yet, the Soviets weren’t laughing – and not because Russians don’t have much of a sense of humor. Rather, these communists – who consider themselves in a permanent state of war with the West – understood that in Ronald Reagan they had a man who would not cower in fear, kow-tow to Moscow, or back down to Soviet advances. Evil regimes like the Soviet Union only gain momentum unless forcibly stopped in their tracks and resisted manfully by one of equal or greater strength.

President Reagan’s views were inspired by his belief that God founded this country and that we are not only exceptional, but that we have a mission to lead the world by our shining example:

“I’ve always believed that this land was set aside in an uncommon way, that a divine plan placed this great continent between the oceans to be found by a people from every corner of the earth who had a special love of faith, freedom and peace. Let us reaffirm America’s destiny of goodness and goodwill” (Ronald Reagan, Thanksgiving message, 1982).

America67

Part of being the world leader is helping to preserve peace when it is within our sphere of influence and duty. President Reagan rightly affirmed:

“We’re not a warlike people. Quite the opposite. We always seek to live in peace. We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance, and only after we’ve determined that it’s absolutely necessary. We are awed – and rightly so – by the forces of destruction at loose in the world in this nuclear era. But neither can we be naive or foolish. Four times in my lifetime America has gone to war, bleeding the lives of its young men into the sands of island beachheads, the fields of Europe, and the jungles and rice paddies of Asia. We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong; it is when they are weak that tyrants are tempted. . . .

“Of all the objectives we seek, first and foremost is the establishment of lasting world peace. We must always stand ready to negotiate in good faith, ready to pursue any reasonable avenue that holds forth the promise of lessening tensions and furthering the prospects of peace. But let our friends and those who may wish us ill take note: the United States has an obligation to its citizens and to the people of the world never to let those who would destroy freedom dictate the future course of life on this planet” (Ronald Reagan, Republican National Convention acceptance speech, July 17, 1980).

Is America today up to the task of being great and exceptional? Are we prepared to increase our unique national strength by fortifying our Faith, Families, and Freedom? And are we prepared to defend these fundamental institutions, and this Promised Land with her unsurpassed resources and beauty and potential, with the strength of arms and military might if necessary? Are we truly prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that the blessings of Liberty we take for granted will extend to our posterity? If today we are not prepared for war to safeguard our peace, our rights, and our homes, we are not worthy of the title American.

General George Washington’s wise words of encouragement to his fighting men should pound once more in our ears. Two days before America formally declared Independence from British tyranny, General Washington wrote to his patriot soldiers to embolden them in their fight. He reminded them what was at stake – slavery or Freedom. He explained that all eyes were fixed on them and that they would decide whether tyranny or Freedom was to reign in America. And he explained the eternal truth that freemen motivated by the just cause of Liberty and aided by the God of Heaven are more fearsome than any conquering army ever can be. General Washington declared:

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army—Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect—We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our own Country’s Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions—The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny meditated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for LIBERTY on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth” (George Washington, General Orders, July 2, 1776).

America106

Today, the eyes of the weary world are upon America. For years we have let them down. Our example has been less than exceptional, not particularly notable, and, in recent times, not worthy of duplication. We have allowed the communist cancer to eat away at our vitals until now we stand on the brink of civil war, mobocracy, economic collapse, open persecution of Christians and constitutionalists, and full-scale societal breakdown.

Notwithstanding how far we’ve fallen through our own neglect and rejection of God’s eternal laws, we have it within our power to step forward, do our duty, and restore our Republic. There will be sacrifices to make – and some patriots will lose their lives because Freedom is never won except at the price of blood – but we must make them for our sake, the sake of our posterity, and the sake of a beleaguered world that desperately needs us to lead.

I close with the rousing words of Ronald Reagan. Each syllable is true. Every vowel applies to me and to you in our present situation. The burden for the future rests squarely on our shoulders. If we shirk our duty now when it matters most, history will hold us in contempt. Let us be real men and real Americans. Let us honor the American tradition of preserving peace through strength and in always being prepared for war in order to secure an honorable peace. Let us be freemen worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as General Washington and his patriot army. God bless us and God bless America!

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. . . .

“Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

“Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender . . . And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. . . .

America104

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.” (Ronald Reagan, “A Time for Choosing,” October 27, 1964).

Zack Strong,

August 28, 2019.

Indispensable Men: George Washington

“[A]n impartial World will say with you that he is the Greatest Man on Earth.” – William Hooper to Robert Morris, February 1, 1777.

Numerous patriots came together to bring about and accomplish America’s War for Independence, write her Constitution, and establish our cherished Republic. Among these patriots, several stalwart figures stand out as vital to the cause. These are the indispensable men America needed and without whom our bid for Independence would have failed. This “Indispensable Men” series pays tribute to these larger-than-life heroes and the role they played in giving Liberty a proper home.

Hundreds of books, biographies, and documentaries have been produced telling the technical details and stories of George Washington’s upbringing, career, family, and home life, and the interworkings of his presidential administration and command as general. I don’t feel the need to reproduce those facts here. I simply refer you to the best book I know of on Washington’s life and achievements; namely, The Real George Washington written by Jay A. Parry, Andrew M. Allison, and W. Cleon Skousen and published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies. My aim in this series is, rather, to highlight the key ideas, crucial character traits, and most notable public achievements of the “indispensable” figures in the story of American Freedom.

George Washington33

No man more deserves the first spot on the “indispensable men” list than George Washington, the great general of the Revolution and the Father of our Country. The unchallenged historical consensus is that no man was more respected and admired in our founding era than George Washington. Washington’s impressive record demonstrates the great trust his countrymen had in him and speaks to the tremendous influence he had in his day.

A brief index of George Washington’s public achievements and prominent positions looks like this:

1) Washington began his public service as a soldier. During the French and Indian War, Washington gained valuable command experience and reputation and was promoted to the rank of colonel in the Virginia militia.

2) In 1774, he was elected as a Virginia delegate to the First and Second Continental Congresses. During the Second Continental Congress, the Continental Army was created and George Washington was chosen as its commander-in-chief.

3) During the War for Independence, General Washington served as the supreme leader of the Continental Army, saved the Army from defeat numerous times through his skill and decisive will power, and brought the conflagration to a successful conclusion.

4) Four years after humbly resigning his charge as commander-in-chief and retiring to his plantation in 1783, Washington helped orchestrate the Constitutional Convention to save the faltering nation. Washington was unanimously elected as the president of the Convention.

5) In 1789, Washington became the first president of our Republic and to this day is the only man to ever be unanimously elected by the Electoral College. He in fact accomplished this feat twice, speaking to the level of admiration and trust given to him by his contemporaries. The later federal capital district was also named in his honor.

Being a successful military general, a unanimously-elected head of state, the president of the Convention which produced the longest-standing national charter in history, and having a national capitol named in your honor, are things that not many other people can put on a resume. On paper, then, there is zero doubt that George Washington deserves a seat at the “indispensable men” table. But there was much more to his rave popularity than merely holding prominent positions during monumental events.

George Washington63

Washington’s positions as general and president, as noteworthy as they are, did not make others respect him. Rather, Washington was appointed and elected to those positions because of the supreme respect and admiration others already had for him. And this admiration was engendered by his strong character and unique spirit. Historian Gordon Wood has written:

“Washington’s genius, Washington’s greatness, lay in his character. He was, as Chateaubriand said, a “hero of an unprecedented kind.” There had never been a great man quite like Washington . . . Washington became a great man and was acclaimed as a classical hero because of the way he conducted himself during times of temptation. It was his moral character that set him off from other men.

“Washington epitomized everything the revolutionary generation prized in its leaders. He had character and was truly a man of virtue. This virtue was not given to him by nature. He had to work for it, to cultivate it, and everyone sensed that. Washington was a self-made hero, and this impressed an eighteenth-century enlightened world that put great stock in men’s controlling both their passions and their destinies. Washington seemed to possess a self-cultivated nobility” (Gordon S. Wood, Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, 34-35).

Yet, it is not what modern historians have said about Washington that is so remarkable. Rather, the fact that the American People and his contemporaries in governmental affairs, and even his enemies across the sea, lavished him with praise. We now rehearse some of the acclaim this man received by those who knew him and were in a position to judge the sincerity and depth of his character.

Thomas Jefferson was intimately acquainted with Washington both before he was appointed general and throughout his time in military and government service. Jefferson wrote to future president James Monroe of Washington’s mass appeal in these words:

“Congress have risen. You will have seen by their proceedings the truth of what I always observed to you, that one man outweighs them all in influence over the people who have supported his judgment against their own and that of their representatives. Republicanism must lie on it’s oars, resign the vessel to it’s pilot, and themselves to the course he thinks best for them” (Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, June 12, 1796).

George Washington46

Another time, Jefferson gave an in-depth evaluation of Washington’s character and many of his traits, including his sense of justice, his reasoning abilities, and his will power. I do not quote everything Jefferson said, but enough to demonstrate why Washington was so revered by his associates:

“I think I knew General Washington intimately and thoroughly; and were I called on to delineate his character it should be in terms like these.

“His mind was great and powerful, without being of the very first order; his penetration strong, tho’ not so acute as that of a Newton, Bacon or Locke; and as far as he saw, no judgment was ever sounder. it was slow in operation, being little aided by invention or imagination, but sure in conclusion. hence the common remark of his officers, of the advantage he derived from councils of war, where hearing all suggestions, he selected whatever was best. and certainly no General ever planned his battles more judiciously . . . he was incapable of fear, meeting personal dangers with the calmest unconcern. perhaps the strongest feature in his character was prudence, never acting until every circumstance, every consideration was maturely weighed; refraining if he saw a doubt, but, when once decided, going through with his purpose whatever obstacles opposed. his integrity was most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known, no motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred, being able to bias his decision. he was indeed, in every sense of the words, a wise, a good, & a great man . . . his person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, his deportment easy, erect, and noble; the best horseman of his age, and the most graceful figure that could be seen on horseback . . . on the whole, his character was, in it’s mass perfect, in nothing bad, in few points indifferent; and it may truly be said that never did nature and fortune combine more perfectly to make a man great, and to place him in the same constellation with whatever worthies have merited from man an everlasting remembrance. for his was the singular destiny & merit of leading the armies of his country succesfully thro’ an arduous war for the establishment of it’s independance, of conducting it’s councils thro’ the birth of a government, new in it’s forms and principles, until it had settled down into a quiet and orderly train, and of scrupulously obeying the laws, thro’ the whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the world furnishes no other example . . . I am satisfied the great body of republicans thinks of him as I do . . . and I am convinced he is more deeply seated in the love and gratitude of the republicans, than in the Pharisaical homage of the Federal monarchists. for he was no monarchist from preference of his judgment. the soundness of that gave him correct views of the rights of man, and his severe justice devoted him to them. he has often declared to me that he considered our new constitution as an experiment on the practicability of republican government, and with what dose of liberty man could be trusted for his own good: that he was determined the experiment should have a fair trial, and would lose the last drop of his blood in support of it. . . .

“These are my opinions of General Washington, which I would vouch at the judgment seat of god, having been formed on an acquaintance of 30. years . . . I felt on his death, with my countrymen, that ‘verily a great man hath fallen this day in Israel’” (Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, January 2, 1814).

High praise, indeed! And higher still coming from a man the caliber of Thomas Jefferson! As Jefferson noted, he was hardly the only person to share these elevated feelings. Most Americans at the time looked upon Washington as an exalted figure – a national savior of sorts.

Benjamin Franklin, a man whose own unique talents and achievements had few equals, had high esteem for Washington. When it came time to elect a new president under the Constitution, Franklin had only one man in mind: “General Washington is the man that all our eyes are fixed on for President, and what little influence I may have, is devoted to him” (Benjamin Franklin to M. Le Veillard, June 8, 1788).

John and Abigail Adams both had high praise for the man. John Adams noted: “He is brave, wise, generous and humane” (John Adams to William Tudor, June 20, 1775). And after meeting Washington in person, Abigail privately told John: “I was struck with General Washington, You had prepared me to entertain a favorable opinion of him, but I thought the one half was not told me. Dignity with ease, and complacency, the Gentleman and Soldier look agreeably blended in him. Modesty marks every line and feature of his face” (Abigail Adams to John Adams, July 16, 1775).

In his autobiography, John Adams likewise praised Washington as the principal man of the age. He wrote: “I thought him a perfectly honest Man, with an amiable and excellent heart, and the most important Character at that time among Us, for he was the center of our Union” (John Adams, Autobiography, 1777).

The Marquis de Lafayette, the famous Frenchman who assisted in our War for Independence, once observed:

“This great man has no enemies but those of his own country, and yet every noble and sensitive soul must love the excellent qualities of his heart . . . His honesty, his candor, his sensitivity, his virtue in the full sense of the word are above all praise” (Marquis de Lafayette to Baron von Steuben, March 12, 1778).

Another French observer wrote:

“General Washington conducts himself with his usual wisdom. It conciliates to him more and more the respect and affection of the people. After a war of eight years, during which he has scarcely ever left his army, and has never taken any repose, he has received the news of the peace with the greatest joy. It made him shed tears, and he said it was the happiest hour of his life . . . He will always be the first citizen of the United States . . . all the world is agreed touching his republican virtues, and agreed that there is no character more eminent among those who have taken part in this grand revolution” (Chevalier de La Luzerne to the Comte de Vergennes, March 29, 1783).

George Washington73

Benjamin Rush, another prominent figure of the day, spoke extravagantly of Washington’s character: “His zeal, his disinterestedness, his activity, his politeness, and his manly behavior . . . have captivated the hearts of the public and his friends. He seems to be one of those illustrious heroes whom providence raises up once in three or four hundred years to save a nation from ruin . . . he has so much martial dignity in his deportment that you would distinguish him to be a general and a soldier from among ten thousand people. There is not a king in Europe that would not look like a valet de chamber by his side” (Benjamin Rush to Thomas Ruston, October 29, 1775).

At the height of the Revolution, Moses Hazen remarked to General Nathanael Greene that Washington “is the very Idol of His Country, and who I love, regard, and Esteem, as one of the best men since the Creation of Adam” (Moses Hazen to Nathanael Greene, July 24, 1780). General Greene had similar praise for his superior officer. Not long after Hazen made his statements, General Greene explained:

“It is my opinion that General Washington’s influence will do more than all the Assemblies upon the Continent. I always thought him exceeding popular, but in many places he is little less than adored; and universally admired. His influence in this Country might possibly effect something great” (Nathanael Greene, January 10, 1781).

In 1791, a newspaper, the Connecticut Courant, gushed with praise for the nation’s first chief executive:

“Many a private man might make a great President; but will there ever be a President who will make so great a man as WASHINGTON?” (Connecticut Courant, June 20, 1791, in John P. Kaminski, ed., The Founders on the Founders: Word Portraits from the American Revolutionary Era, 505).

Shortly after Washington’s death, Timothy Dwight made this observation:

“Wherever he appeared, an instinctive awe and veneration attended him on the part of all men. Every man, however great in his own opinion, or in reality, shrunk in his presence, and became conscious of an inferiority, which he never felt before. Whilst he encouraged every man, particularly every stranger, and peculiarly ever diffident man, and raised him to self possession, no sober person, however secure he might think himself of his esteem, ever presumed to draw too near him” (Timothy Dwight, “Discourse on the Character of Washington,” February 22, 1800).

John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the Supreme Court, shared the sentiment so often expressed that Washington was the “greatest man in the world.” Days after General Washington’s resignation, Marshall stated:

“At length then the military career of the greatest Man on earth is closed. May happiness attend him wherever he goes. May he long enjoy those blessings he has secured to his Country. When I speak or think of that superior Man my full heart overflows with gratitude. Ma he ever experience from his Countrymen those attentions which such sentiments of themselves produce” (John Marshall to James Monroe, January 3, 1784).

These few lines from John Price demonstrate the awe people had for the General of their blessed Revolution: “Immortal Washington . . . has outshined and Eclipsed all Asiatic, African, and European Generals, and Commanders from the Creation of the World, to this Day” (John Price to John Jay, October 29, 1783).

Samuel Shaw, a distinguished military officer under Washington, expressed his keen feelings about his General in these words:

“Our army love our General very much, but yet they have one thing against him, which is the little care he takes of himself in action. His personal bravery, and the desire he has of animating his troops by example, make him fearless of any danger. This, while it makes him appear great, occasions us much uneasiness. But Heaven, who has hitherto been his shield, I hope will still continue to guard so valuable a life” (Samuel Shaw to Francis Show, January 7, 1777).

William Hooper once wrote of Washington’s invaluable role in maintaining and securing the Revolution:

“When it shall be consistent with policy to give the history of that man from his first introduction into our service, how often America has been rescued from ruin by the mere strength of his genius, conduct & courage encountering every obstacle that want of money, men, arms, Ammunition could throw in his way, an impartial World will say with you that he is the Greatest Man on Earth. Misfortunes are the Element in which he shines. They are the Groundwork on which his picture appears to the greatest advantage. He rises superior to them all, they serve as foils to his fortitude, and as stimulants to bring into view those great qualities which in the serenity of life his great modesty keeps concealed. I could fill the side in his praise, but anything I can say cannot equal his Merits” (William Hooper to Robert Morris, February 1, 1777).

Washington’s fame was celebrated throughout Europe as well as America – even in the midst of the War for Independence. While on assignment in France, Benjamin Franklin wrote to Washington: “I frequently hear the old Generals of this martial Country, (who study the Maps of America, and mark upon them all your Operations) speak with sincere Approbation & great Applause of your Conduct, and join in giving you the Character of one of the greatest Captains of the Age” (Benjamin Franklin to George Washington, March 5, 1780).

George Washington75

King George III, the tyrant who abuses prompted the Americans into fighting for their Liberty and declaring Independence from Britain, developed an interesting opinion of Washington after the war. Rufus King recorded a conversation he had with Benjamin West who had spoken with King George III about affairs in America. King’s account reads:

“[I]n regard to General Washington, he [King George] told him [West] since his [Washington’s] resignation that in his opinion “that act closing and finishing what had gone before and viewed in connection with it, placed him in a light the most distinguished of any man living, and that he thought him the greatest character of the age”” (Rufus King, May 3, 1797, in King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Vol. 3, 545).

It is likewise my estimation that George Washington was one of the “greatest Captains of the Age,” that he was an “illustrious hero” whom the God of Heaven raised up to save his country, and that he was the foremost of the indispensable men who established American Liberty. My own religious creed and the impressions of the Holy Spirit on my soul cause me to declare that George Washington was indeed raised up by the hand of the Lord to preside over the founding of this Republic. I am proud to live in a nation founded and shaped by George Washington.

George Washington’s guiding light, the thing that propelled him to the greatness ascribed to him by his peers, was his inner conviction about God. Though it is common today to call Washington and other Founding Fathers “Deists,” or, worse, “atheists,” the fact is that Washington was a deeply committed Christian. Washington issued the following General Orders  to his fighting men on May 2, 1788.

“The Commander in Chief directs that divine Service be performed every sunday at 11 oClock in those Brigades to which there are Chaplains—those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them—It is expected that Officers of all Ranks will by their attendence set an Example to their men.

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion—To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian—The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude & Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.”

Washington not only commanded his soldiers to worship God, but he frequently mentioned his personal belief in God and encouraged his countrymen to be faithful and virtuous. Washington was particularly convinced that God had intervened on America’s behalf during the War for Independence, as were most Americans at the time. One time he affirmed:

“The man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf—And it is my earnest prayer that we may so conduct ourselves as to merit a continuance of those blessings with which we have hitherto been favoured” (George Washington to Samuel Langdon, September 28, 1789).

Another time, Washington observed:

“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations” (George Washington to Thomas Nelson, August 20, 1778).

In his First Inaugural Address as president, Washington was moved to comment that Americans were “bound to acknowledge” God’s hand in their Revolution:

“[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

George Washington by Tim Davis

To Washington, God was the real Founder of America and of her inspired Constitution. During his immortal Farewell Address, President Washington made it clear that his convictions had not changed. He spoke a truth that is as applicable today as it was in 1796:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

“It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

In harmony with his public sentiments, President Washington wrote a letter to Protestant clergy wherein he asserted: “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society” (George Washington to the Protestant Clergy of Philadelphia, March 3, 1797).

For his own part, Washington never failed to acknowledge the hand of the Lord. He noted:

“No Man has a more perfect Reliance on the all-wise, and powerful dispensations of the Supreme Being than I have nor thinks his aid more necessary” (George Washington to William Gordon, May 13, 1776).

By all accounts, General Washington was supernaturally protected in both the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. Washington, and others, ascribed his protection to God. After a particularly harrowing battle during the French and Indian War, Washington observed:

“But by the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me” (George Washington to John A. Washington, July 18, 1755).

The Indians involved in the same battle noted that Washington seemed to be under the protection of God and could not be killed. One Indian chief recounted the following to General Washington:

“I called to my young men and said, mark yon tall and daring warrior? He is of the red-coat tribe – he hath an Indian’s wisdom, and his warriors fight as we do – himself alone exposed.

“Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, knew not how to miss – ‘twas all in vain, a power mightier than we, shielded you.

“Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you . . . there is something bids me speak in the voice of prophecy: Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man, and guides his destinies – he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle” (Bob Gingrich, Founding Fathers vs. History Revisionists, 29-30).

Washington did not utter idle words. As the quotations thus far demonstrate conclusively, Washington was a man who said what he meant and did what he said he would do. He wasn’t afraid to put himself in harm’s way for his beliefs or risk his life for his country. Thus, when Washington said he believed in God, he meant it and did all he could to show his devotion.

As frequently as his demanding public service allowed, George Washington attended Christian worship services. In fact, Washington donated money for the construction of Christ Church near his home. He also attended Pohick Church in which, according to numerous sources, Washington served as a vestryman for some twenty years. Washington also kept a prayer journal and had a personal copy of the Bible which he routinely read and which was donated to Christ Church after his death. It is beyond dispute that George Washington was a Christian who actively practiced his faith.

George Washington79

In addition to upholding Christian values, Washington lived by a strict personal code of conduct. He wrote up this code into 110 “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” Numbers 108 and 110 are the most relevant and give us a peek into Washington’s outlook on life: “When you speak of God or his attributes, let it be seriously & with reverence.” And, finally: “Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”

From all credible accounts and eyewitness statements, we can conclude that Washington was a good, honest, upright man. He was a Christian with a high sense of honor and integrity. He was sometimes brutally honest. He was calculated and exercise wise judgement. He was a man of boldness and bravery. He was a supreme patriot who gave his life to the cause of Liberty.

One final aspect of Washington’s influence will be discussed. More than almost any other Founding Father, George Washington pushed for a new federal constitution to replace the failing Articles of Confederation. Viewing the proceedings of the nation he loved and had fought so mightily for from his retirement at Mount Vernon made Washington uncomfortable. He saw that the Union must collapse unless reformed.

A few quotes show Washington’s apprehensions:

“That it is necessary to revise, and amend the articles of Confederation, I entertain no doubt . . . Yet, something must be done, or the fabrick must fall. It certainly is tottering!” (George Washington to John Jay, May 18, 1786).

“No man in the United States is or can be more deeply impressed with the necessity of a reform in our present confederation than myself. No man, perhaps, has felt the bad effects of it more sensibly; for to the defects thereof, and want of powers in Congress, may justly be ascribed the prolongation of the war and consequently the expenses occasioned by it. More than half the perplexities I have experienced in the course of my command, and almost the whole of the difficulties and distress of the army, have their origin here” (George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, March 31, 1783).

“Let us look to our National character, and to things beyond the present period. No morn ever dawned more favourably than ours did; and no day was ever more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm. Virginia has now an opportunity to set the latter, and has enough of the former, I hope, to take the lead in promoting this great and arduous work. Without some alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been seven years raising at the expence of so much blood and treasure, must fall. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion!” (George Washington to James Madison, November 5, 1786).

Suffice it to say that Washington foresaw the collapse of the fledgling American government unless the constitution was immediately overhauled. Washington urged and encouraged his fellow patriots to step forward and rescue the Republic. Eventually, a convention was called and Washington was adopted as its presiding head. After months of careful deliberation, the convention produced the U.S. Constitution, a document I consider to be literally inspired by Almighty God.

George Washington approved the document and, upon signing his name to it, remarked:

“Should the states reject this excellent constitution, the probability is that an opportunity will never again offer to cancel another in peace – the next will be drawn in blood” (Allison, Parry, Skousen, The Real George Washington, 490-491).

Shortly thereafter, during the constitutional ratification process, Washington remarked:

“No one can rejoice more than I do at every step taken by the People of this great Country to preserve the Union—establish good order & government—and to render the Nation happy at home & respected abroad. No Country upon Earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wonderously strange then, & much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means, and to stray from the road to which the finger of Providence has so manifestly pointed. I cannot believe it will ever come to pass! The great Author of all good has not conducted us so far on the Road to happiness and glory to withdraw from us, in the hour of need, his beneficent support” (George Washington to Benjamin Lincoln, June 29, 1788).

When the Constitution was ratified, Washington became its greatest champion. Of this charter, he publicly declared: “[T]he Constitution is the guide which I never can abandon” (George Washington to Boston Selectmen, July 28, 1795). Another time he wrote: “The Constitution of the United States, and the laws made under it, must mark the line of my official conduct” (George Washington to Edmund Randolph, 1790).

George Washington34

After a successful term in office, President Washington was overjoyed at the success America had seen directly because of the new Constitution. It was the American People’s mission, he believed, to show the world that constitutional republicanism is the soundest system of government ever devised:

“To complete the [A]merican character, it remains for the citizens of the United States, to shew to the world, that the reproach heretofore cast on Republican Governments for their want of stability, is without foundation, when that Government is the deliberate choice of an enlightened people: and I am fully persuaded, that every well-wisher to the happiness & prosperity of this Country, will evince by his conduct, that we live under a government of laws; and that while we preserve inviolate our national faith, we are desirous to live in amity with all mankind” (George Washington to the citizens of Alexandria, July 4, 1793).

The way in which America could show the world the wisdom of the Constitution was, simply enough, to follow it! Indeed, Washington strongly believed that all citizens owed strict obedience to the Constitution. He was most emphatic on this point. In his Farewell Address, which ought to be required reading for all Americans, he declared:

“This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).

Much of our constitutional form of government, and, indeed, the U.S. Constitution itself, came about due to George Washington’s instrumentality. He used his influence to persuade his countrymen to draft a constitution which would enshrine the rule of law, protect natural rights, and limit government while empowering it to fully protect the citizens of the country. He also used his influence to urge adoption of the new Constitution. And, then, he worked hard for eight years as president to enforce and maintain that sacred document.

Yes, it was George Washington, the Father of our Country, who really popularized constitutional government in the United States. His indomitable influence and skillful leadership brought the government into being and carried it through its first eight years. He set in stone the practice of a president only serving two terms and then graciously retiring – a tradition faithfully followed until the Marxist demagogue FDR served four consecutive terms, prompting a formal change in the law. Washington was also responsible for adding the words “so help me God” to the end of his presidential oath. All eyes were on Washington in the nation’s critical moments and he guided her through the rocky waters by following the Constitution, applying his own native judgment, and following God’s laws in his personal conduct.

George Washington was, and remains, a true hero. Few heroes in fact have been as worthy of the appellation as Washington. It is, therefore, a true sign of cultural rot that many Americans are beginning to spurn and despise this incredible man. It is rare in history that a man accomplished so much good for his nation, yet, in time, became so hated. A recent and ongoing incident demonstrates this growing hostility.

In San Francisco – perhaps the epicenter of all that is wrong with America – a school recently wanted to destroy an old George Washington mural painted one of its walls. According to the school, the mural “traumatizes students” and “glorifies slavery” and “genocide.” To allegedly protect their students from the image of George Washington, the school decided to paint over the mural, but then decided to simply cover it. Heaven forbid we allow school students to learn about the Father of their Country, the Commander-in-Chief of the Revolution, and the first president of the United States!

Because of the communist cancer that has almost totally taken over public schooling, academia, Hollywood, the press, and government, our Founding Fathers are being vilified as violent “rebels,” self-serving aristocrats, bigots, racists, and religiously-motivated oppressors. Agencies within our government have even gone so far as to classify the Sons of Liberty and our Founding Fathers as “domestic terrorists,” implying that anyone who believes like they did are also “terrorists.” And now the FBI is calling “conspiracy theorists” an extremist threat.

Yes, fighting for Freedom and truth is extreme and revolutionary, especially when the government is antagonistic to Liberty. Historian Charles Beard is said to have observed: “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence” (Charles A. Beard, in M. Kenneth Creamer, The Reformation of Union State Sovereignty, 265).

George Washington45

This sentiment is, unfortunately, accurate. And there was no more “dangerous citizen” in American history than George Washington. He was the “rebel” leader – the point of the patriotic spear. He was formidable to tyrants and traitors, but a true friend to Liberty. He was a patriot in every sense of the term. He was then as he ought to be now “first in the hearts of his countrymen” (Richard Henry Lee, Funeral Oration on the Death of George Washington, December 28, 1799).

Washington’s shining example will always inspire sincere American patriots. His words will always buoy his countrymen. His spirit will always ride alongside those wishing to rid their country of tyranny and to defend Freedom. God help us remember and emulate George Washington, the most indispensable of indispensable men!

Zack Strong,

August 21, 2019.

You Do NOT Determine My Rights

“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson draft of the Virginia Constitution

In a recent POLITICO poll, an alleged 55% of Republican voters favored an assault weapons ban and a large percentage supported stricter gun control. My immediate reaction is two-fold: 1) I highly doubt the validity of any supposed poll conducted by the socialist news network POLITICO; and 2) thank God that my rights are not determined by popularity, popular votes, or the opinions of the majority! This article discusses why popular support is never a legitimate justification for violating the rights of individuals.

majority2

Let’s dissect an absurd hypothetical scenario to make a point about an important principle. Suppose that 99% of the population got together and determined that anyone with blonde hair should be immediately rounded up and put to death. Is this decision justified? Why not? After all, didn’t a whopping 99% of the population determine that blonde-haired people should die? Doesn’t the majority rule? Don’t the People decide what goes? Aren’t we bound to acknowledge the “will of the majority”?

Any right-thinking person will acknowledge the absurdity of the scenario just presented. Of course society doesn’t have a right to arbitrary kill blondes! Even if an overwhelming consensus wants to or votes to take away your right to life, no one has a right to deprive you of life or limb unless you have violated another’s rights or pose an imminent threat. Additionally, groups cannot be held accountable for, or punished because of, the actions of individuals.

These principles apply to any of our God-given rights, yet let’s extend them to guns and gun owners. Does a majority of the population have a right to ban guns, even just certain types of firearms like “assault rifles” or accessories like 30-round magazines, if it decides that it wants to? Does a majority have a right to deprive you, a peaceable American, of your right of self-defense? Should gun owners as a group be punished and have their rights restricted because an individual wrongly abuses another person with a gun?

And if we can take guns away from gun owners because a mentally disturbed or evil individual kills or harms another person with a gun, can we also take away knives from knife owners when someone kills another with a knife? Why not? It makes as much logical sense to restrict knife use, ban certain types of knives, or confiscate knives from knife owners, as it does to restrict, ban, or confiscate guns from gun owners. Following this illogic through to its conclusion, can we take cars away from people if someone kills another person with a car? If not, then why not? And if you protest this action, aren’t you a hypocrite for favoring gun control?

Let’s look at a few numbers. The following are the FBI’s official crime statistics for people killed by attackers using rifles over a five-year period: 285 in 2013; 258 in 2014; 258 in 2015; 378 in 2016; and 403 in 2017. For the same years, the following were murdered by assailants with knives: 1,490 in 2013; 1,595 in 2014; 1,589 in 2015; 1,632 in 2016; and 1,591 in 2017.

guns27

If the logic of the gun-grabbers is followed, then shouldn’t we ban knives because knives actually kill exponentially more people than “assault rifles” do? If so-called “assault rifles” are supposedly such a huge problem, then knives which claim many more lives than rifles must be a much larger problem.

In a nation of 330 million where approximately 110 million people collectively own over 400 million firearms, doesn’t it speak to the level of maturity and carefulness of gun owners that only 403 people are killed by rifles in a 365-day cycle? In other words, in 2017 only 1.1 person a day was killed by an assailant using a rifle – a miniscule fraction of the number of lives claimed by abortion each day and far fewer than the number killed in daily car crashes.

Though these murders truly exact a heavy emotional toll on the families and friends of the victims, the overall number of people killed by assailants wielding rifles is statistically inconsequential when compared against the enormous population of the United States and the large number of gun owners. This low number is certainly not large enough for honest and informed people to claim there is a problem or to propose that the rights of 330 million people should therefore be stripped away.

Though statistics refute the claim that guns – let alone unjustly condemned “assault rifles” – are a problem, there is a more poignant argument that smashes the propaganda into pieces. The only thing that matters here is that God, or nature, gave us a right to defend ourselves. The right of self-defense does not automatically preclude the use of certain means of defense. In ancient times, people had as much right to defend themselves with the day’s best technology, be it a longsword or a crossbow. Today, we equally have a right to defend ourselves with a sword, musket, assault rifle, machine gun, bazooka, or grenade. And in the future, people will have the right to use lasers, or whatever advanced weapons then exist, in legitimate self-defense. Time and technology do not change our fundamental rights.

guns3

The means is simply not important. The only imperative thing is that we possess the right of self-defense and that this right be defended. This right is an inalienable right. It is God-given. We are born with it. It is the right by which we are enabled to defend all others, such as the right of free speech or the right of due process.

The U.S. Constitution also protects our right of self-defense. Though some might not like what the 2nd Amendment so plainly says, it says it nonetheless. No majority or opinion poll can take away this right guaranteed to us by the Constitution. President George Washington declared a vital principle:

“This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).

guns15

American citizens owe strict obedience to the established law of the land so long as the law protects our inalienable rights. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Our obedience to that inspired document is “sacredly obligatory” upon us. Unless changed by an act of the whole population of the United States through the amendment process or some other means, the Constitution is our standard and we are obligated to defend it – even if we don’t like it or agree with it. This includes the 2nd Amendment which defends the individual’s right to keep and bear arms – any arms – for their own personal self-defense.

We live under a government ruled by law. We are not ruled by the whims of rulers or of majorities. The majority can tyrannize just as easily as the minority may. However, our rights came from God and cannot be justly taken away. We are born with these rights. They cannot be taken from us unless we violate the equal rights of others. Thomas Jefferson stated:

“[R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

No matter how offended you might be by the existence of guns – yes, even big ol’ scary “assault rifles” – the fact is that people have as much right to own them as you have to breathe air. Both are endowments of Almighty God. Both breathing and bearing arms in self-defense are natural rights. And when any law, no matter how much popular support it has, violates the rights of the individual, it is tyranny. Please consider that next time you start to think an “assault weapons” ban is justified.

Let’s restate the principle at play here by appealing to our past example. If the majority rules in all cases as some assume, then it has as much right to take away your guns as it does to kill blonde people. It would have as much right to take away your car, your knife, your gun, or your life. It would have omnipotent power to do whatever it wanted regardless of the law, the Constitution, or any sense of justice.

However, if Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and I are correct, then no majority or supermajority ever has the right to steal away or restrict your rights so long as you’re a peaceable citizen. If majority does not rule, and our rights are not subject to the whims of the majority, then your right to defend yourself with firearms, or any other weapon, is as secure as a blonde person’s right to live.

I maintain the radical idea that your rights are not determined by the majority. Your rights do not come from your neighbor nor are determined by him. And your rights certainly do not come from government. Our rights are non-negotiable. Government was instituted for the express purpose of protecting our rights. No public poll, no popular vote, and no majority of citizens can take away your rights. Period.

guns11

God preserve our rights under and the Constitution He inspired to protect them! Let us be faithful to our Founding Fathers’ vision of a free Republic where rule of law, not rule of men, prevails. May free men ever maintain their arms to defend their Liberty regardless of what unjust laws, tyrants, or deluded majorities decree. And may each American remember this central truth: You Do NOT Determine My Rights.

Zack Strong,

August 18, 2019.

The Red Chinese Regime

October 1, 1949 was the day that the communists formally conquered China and established the People’s Republic of China. It is a day to be mourned and lamented. Led by Mao Tse-tung, the Red Chinese communist regime murdered and enslaved more human beings than any other nation in history, even topping the staggering toll racked up by the Soviet Bolsheviks to the north. In this article, I turn the spotlight on Red China and catalog its ghastly ideology, horrific history, and present threat.

communism17

A government is very much defined by the character of the men who founded it. Knowing this to be a truism, let’s look at the founders of Red China and see what we can discern. The chief founder of communist China was, ostensibly, Mao Tse-tung. From a young age, Chairman Mao was a cold, calculating, ruthless individual with an intensely self-serving nature. Mao bluntly said:

“I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one’s action has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others . . . People like me want to . . . satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me.”

He also stated: “People like me only have a duty to ourselves; we have no duty to other people.” And again: “I am only concerned about developing myself . . . I am responsible to no one” (Jung Chang and John Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, 13).

Mao’s entire outlook was self-serving and me-centered. Naturally, he gravitated towards communism because communism centers all power in the hands of a small oligarchy of individuals who, free from restraint and legal consequence, use that power to fulfill all their carnal and selfish urges and lusts. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on UnAmerican Activities, in response to the question “Why do people become Communists . . .?” answered: “Basically, because they seek power and recognize the opportunities that Communism offers the unscrupulous” (100 Things You Should Know About Communism, 14).

Elder Joseph F. Merrill similarly observed:

“Communism is organized wickedness and crime of the blackest type. Harsh terms, certainly! Its objectives are confiscation of property, robbery of those who have, slavery of its productive workers, and death to its opponents. Its beneficiaries are ne’er-do-wells, those who own nothing, but want everything, especially power and its emoluments” (Elder Joseph F. Merrill, “Some Fundamentals of Gospel Teachings,” General Conference, April, 1949).

Mao fits these descriptions to a T. Mao’s selfishness seems to have been a feature of his life from a young age. His father described him as “idle,” “lazy,” and “useless,” and he was “insolent” both with his father and his school teachers. Mao had an almost overly strong attachment to his mother, but he hated his father – the same as many tyrants and mass-murderers throughout history. In later years, Mao said if his father was alive, he should be tortured. He once got in a verbal fight with his father and threatened to kill himself to end his family line, which caused his father to back down – which Mao saw as a sign of weakness to be exploited. Tellingly, Mao also believed that fathers should work to support their sons and that he specifically should be exempt from manual labor. (Chang and Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, 6).

In his teens, Mao renounced Buddhism – his mother’s devotion. He filled the void in his spirituality with Marxism and Darwinism. Communism is in reality a counterfeit religion. This has been acknowledged by die-hard communists and anti-communists alike. J. Edgar Hoover noted:

“Communism is more than an economic, political, social, or philosophical doctrine. It is a way of life; a false, materialistic “religion.” It would strip man of his belief in God, his heritage of freedom, his trust in love, justice, and mercy. Under communism, all would become, as so many already have, twentieth-century slaves” (Hoover, Masters of Deceit, Foreword, vi).

communism435

Through intellectual study not tempered by God’s law – which is always a dangerous thing – Mao grew into a committed communist. He became a communist, yes, but one who engaged in the conspiracy’s subversive work to fulfill his own ends and to aggrandize himself. Communism was a means to the end of power and control over others and a life of morality-free, responsibility-free ease and selfishness. While Mao gave a unique flavor to communist philosophy, he nonetheless adopted the core tenets of Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, and Darwinism.

Though he spouted hollow platitudes and praise for the working class and peasants, in reality Mao despised them. Mao saw the Chinese – and indeed all people – as soulless serfs to be used to create a totalitarian world state. And if millions of them die in the process, who cares? Chiang Kai-shek, the head of the legitimate Chinese government that Mao’s communists overthrew and that international communist have falsely maligned ever since, understood the reality of communism. He saw through their lies and doublespeak. In his excellent history of the communist conquest of his nation, Chiang noted the communists’ skill in lying:

“They are particularly adept in the fabrication of stories with no factual foundations, in misrepresentation such as “pointing at a deer and calling it horse,” in distortion and in the forging of documentary proofs all of which they consider legitimate – even virtuous. Whenever it suits their purpose, they represent Satan as God or God as Satan. What the Communists say and what they do are entirely two different things. It is obvious that they had themselves robbed the people under their control of freedoms, and yet they asked the Government for all political freedoms. In areas under Communist control, there was nothing but darkness and regimentation, and yet in their external propaganda they boasted of political democracy and of a bright future for their slaves. In Communist terminology, “people” means the Communists themselves, “liberation” means enslavement, “peace” means another form of war and “coexistence” means exclusive Communist control. It follows that the smile they put on is another facet of their evil nature. The free world should be ready to expose and attack this kind of propaganda before anyone falls prey to it” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 375).

In my estimation, this ranks as one of the greatest and most accurate statements ever given on the nature, intentions, and tactics of communism. Communists precisely fulfill Isaiah’s ancient prophecy that men will call evil good, and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). The communists have inverted reality and use constant propaganda to make people think their slavery is Freedom, that hell is Heaven, that Christianity is evil and communism good, and that China and Russia are benevolent while America is evil. And few communists perfected the art of lying and fabricating a false reality like Mao Tse-tung and his Chinese Reds.

Chairman Mao’s real story is a dark tragedy. The things he inflicted upon China are unspeakably horrific. Yet, when Mao’s flawed policies led to mass starvation, Mao called it a “Great Leap Forward.” When his policies of repression and death inverted Chinese culture, he called it a wonderful “Cultural Revolution.” In death and suffering he saw happiness and progress.

As in the Soviet Union, the Chinese communists’ policies led to mass starvation where tens of millions perished. Indeed, starvation was fostered as a political tool for social change. Conditions were so appalling that cannibalism became widespread, as this graphic account demonstrates:

“At first, the villagers tried to bury their dead in coffins but later, when the wood ran out, the living just wrapped the dead in cotton. Finally there was no cloth left, so at night people mounted guard over buried relatives until the flesh had sufficiently decomposed to prevent others from eating the corpse. In parts of Fengyang, officials issued regulations on the disposal of corpses to try and keep the scale of the deaths secret” (Jasper Becker, Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine, 138).

These types of mass die-offs were considered beneficial to communist “progress.” It was a form of cleansing, a Darwinistic survival of the fittest, a de facto Hunger Games for Mao’s amusement:

“The “Great Leap” was actually a kind of experiment in natural selection. Mao forced the Chinese into the most difficult conditions in order to eliminate the weak and those opposed to Communism. On the one hand, he tried to brainwash the peasants by starving them so as to make them dependent on him and the Communist organization. [The] basis of this attempt was Darwinism. At the same time as he began the Great Leap, Mao also initiated a “leap in education.” The dialectical materialism and Darwinism played the main roles in this education campaign. In a speech from this period, Mao revealed the principles supporting his savagery when he said, “The foundation of Chinese Socialism rests on Darwin and the theory of evolution”” (Yahya, Communism in Ambush, 130).

communism489

The history of the “Great Leap Forward” is dreadful. The Chinese regime stopped keeping count, so we will never know the full tally of the dead. However, estimates have ranged up to over 40-45 million in just this one episode alone. Most of these died in the greatest famine in world history – a famine brought on by careless and cruel communist policies. All in all, somewhere in the wide range of 60-100 million Chinese were slaughtered under Mao’s iron-fisted rule. Two of the best Mao historians affirm that he was responsible for “well over 70 million deaths in peacetime” (Chang and Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, 3).

Let’s finally discuss the renewed thirst for war and expansion that Mao stamped China with. Mao loved war – especially “revolutionary war.” The Red Chinese regime was birthed in the blood of communist-initiated civil war. Since 1949, China has waged war in or against the following nations: Tibet, India, South Korea, U.S. troops in Korea, the Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Burma, Thailand, and Taiwan. They even fired shots at the Soviet Union once, though I’m quick to add that the phony “Sino-Soviet Split” has been tragically misinterpreted in the West as being authentic. It was a ruse that worked phenomenally to convince us to aid and build up China in the hopes that she would be a bulwark against Soviet Russia. We were conned by the master con men.

China’s belligerence towards Japan has also manifestly increased in recent years as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe touts the idea of doing away with their U.S.-imposed constitution’s prohibition on offensive military capabilities. The last thing China wants is an offensive-capable Japan, especially considering that Japan, with only defensive weapons, already has the fourth most powerful conventional military force in the world and a high level of specialization. The most obvious point of clash is the Senkaku Islands of Japan, which China claims as her own. The fact that China also claims islands belonging to numerous other nations, such as the Philippines and Taiwan, just goes to show their expansionist and aggressive nature.

Worthy of special note is that China constantly trains and arms for war against Taiwan and has made it clear that they will use force to subjugate the island nation if necessary. Many years ago, I came to believe that the spark that will ignite World War III will be in Asia. The likely flashpoint will be either Taiwan or South Korea as the communists initiate their final push for world government under their control. Whatever the exact spark, keep your eyes on Asia. And watch China’s duplicitous relations with Taiwan like a hawk.

As mentioned, so-called “revolutionary war” is part and parcel of the communist vision of creating a utopian earth. The power to bring about this utopia could only be achieved through force, Mao believed. And the gun was the most powerful force on the planet. He explained:

“According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the “omnipotence of war”. Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad; it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed” (Mao Tse-tung, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, 28).

China5

Please carefully note the final phrase: “only with guns can the whole world be transformed.” Only by bloodshed, war, and force can the world be transformed into a Marxist utopia. Who promotes war and force and bloodshed, God or Satan? The entire Maoist ideology – and Mao took his ideology from Marxism – is Satanic in that it proposes force, war, and brutality to achieve its ends. Red China is still today ruled by this bloodthirsty Asiatic spirit of war and savagery.

The Asiatics have always waged exceptionally brutal warfare. A sense of revenge, viciousness, and disdain for human life seems to be ingrained in their cultures. Yet, even this spirit has been further corrupted by the admixture of Soviet-style Bolshevism which destroys the idea of God, future judgment, and an afterlife. It truly reduces mankind to jungle law where only might makes right. Even though might makes right is a preposterous notion, I take this opportunity to advise you that if the bad guys feel they need guns to dominate the world, then the good guys also need guns to protect themselves. Don’t let the powers-that-be strip you of your God-given right of self-defense.

I reemphasize that communists are destroyers. They are the lords of chaos. They love death and destruction and chaos. Mao stated that “the country must be . . . destroyed and then re-formed. This applies to the country, to the nation, and to mankind . . . The destruction of the universe is the same . . . People like me long for its destruction, because when the old universe is destroyed, a new universe will be formed. Isn’t that better!” (Chang and Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, 15). It is a prevailing idea among the global Elite that in order to build a utopia, they must burn the world. Only out of the ashes of this conflagration can the Red phoenix rise.

Red China’s war lust extends to its own people. While the Soviet GULAG is more well-known, the Chinese GULAG was perhaps even more extensive. And it still exists today, holding millions of political prisoners and dissidents. It is a patent lie that the United States incarcerates more people on the planet than any other nation. Today, entire populations live and work as slave labor in prison camps, often producing the cheap goods that make their way to foreign markets. And somewhere between one and two million Muslims have been imprisoned in western China. The entire nation of China is one giant prison camp!

The description of China as a massive prison camp is more fact than fiction. For starters, the bulk of the population of China is being issued documents with RFID tracking chips embedded in them. All new Chinese vehicles must now contain RFID tracking chips. Additionally, the regime has installed over 200 million surveillance cameras (expected to increase to over 600 million by 2020) to monitor for so-called dissident or suspicious activity. These cameras often include advanced facial recognition software – technology which China is happily exporting abroad to places such as Panama.

Even worse than RFID chips and cameras, the regime has initiated a draconian “social credit” system – a system which some American traitors are beginning to call for. Under this system, Chinese subjects are given a “social credit” score which decides whether they can access public transport and receive benefits. Millions have already been banned from flying, for instance, because they received bad “social credit” scores due to their behavior not strictly conforming to Communist Party dictates. It’s the ultimate in political correctness. Mao would have been proud.

When Chinese subjects become fed up with their oppression and riot, which they frequently do, the communists crack down with a heavy hand. The Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 highlights this perfectly. A group of non-violent college student protesters gathered in Beijing on Tiananmen Square to peacefully protest the abuses of the regime and petition for greater Freedom. They even constructed a thirty-foot tall Statue of Liberty to show their solidarity with the free world.

The Reds could not tolerate this challenge to their usurped and illegitimate authority. So the communists did what they do best – they brought in military units and mercilessly slaughtered thousands of the protesters over the course of several bloody days. They rolled over and crushed them with tanks, machine gunned them down, rounded them up to be shot, and imprisoned others.

Though the regime attempted to stop foreign journalists from reporting on the facts of the atrocities, the truth came out. I quote from pages 28-29 of Edward Timperlake’s and William C. Triplett II’s book Red Dragon Rising: Communist China’s military threat to America:

“How many people were killed in Beijing on June 3-4, 1989, and in the immediate aftermath? . . . we believe the PLA killed between 4,000 and 6,000 civilians. Early on the morning of June 4, the Chinese Red Cross announced that 2,600 had died, and later that day the Swiss ambassador, who has diplomatic responsibility for the International Red Cross, calculated 2,700 civilian deaths. But as Amnesty International points out, PLA troops continued to open fire on civilians for several days after the June 3-4 massacre, so the number of dead and wounded exceeded the Red Cross’s quick count on the morning of the 4th. On June 6, for example, tanks clearing streets for supply trucks opened fire on a group of children, killing two fourteen-year-old boys and a twelve-year-old girl.

“Three days after the massacre, NATO intelligence offered an estimate of 7,000 deaths – 6,000 civilians and 1,000 soldiers. Some Soviet-bloc estimates were even higher – 10,000 killed. A PLA defector in 1996 claimed that a document circulating among military officers had estimated that more than 3,700 people had been killed.”

China2

As of this writing, Hong Kong is undergoing protests aimed at the Chinese government and their puppet administration in Hong Kong. The Communist Party police have violently attacked the protesters, causing protesters to retaliate in kind. Thousands are attempting to flee via the airport as Chinese troops amass at the border and threaten to enter the district and violently quell the anti-communist dissent. Some experts predict that the Chinese military will send in special troops disguised as police units.

If China continues its belligerence and its puppets in Hong Kong continue to sell out the people’s rights to the regime in Beijing, there might very well be a second Tiananmen Square. Yet, the people of Hong Kong continue to wave American flags and denounce the communists while our own woefully ignorant President Trump calls China’s ruthless leader, Xi Jinping, a “good man” and “a great leader who very much has the respect of his people.” God be with the people of Hong Kong.

Oppression of one’s subjects is the rule in communist regimes. The Soviet Union is the prime example of this. While Mao and his fellow Chinese Reds murdered more people than anyone else in earth’s history, the evidence suggests that the mass slaughters in Soviet Russia were even more sadistic and inhuman. The Soviet Bolsheviks crucified people, cut open people’s stomachs and tore out their intestines, gangraped women to death (some while crucified), crushed heads with steam hammers, pried open skulls and took out the victim’s brains, flayed the skin of others, boiled people to death Inquisition-style, deliberately starved millions by taking away their food, and tortured and violated people in every hideous and monstrous way imaginable.

I suspect their exceptional brutality stems from growing up in Christian nations, yet rejecting Christ outright. As I’ve documented, there is much evidence to suggest that a number of the leading communists through the ages were actually Satanists. Weishaupt, Marx, Lenin, and others were almost certainly Satanists. In 1949, a Soviet general asked a Catholic priest: “We are Satan’s elite, but you, are you God’s elite?” (Richard Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, 123).

communism448

Beyond this, a disproportionately large number of the communists – including each of the three men named above – were Jewish. Winston Churchill noted: “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others” (Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920).

These religion-hating Jewish Bolsheviks especially relished attacking and degrading the Christian population of Russia and causing as many as possible to blaspheme the holy name of Christ. Whatever the reason for their boundless barbarity, it was this same Soviet regime that extended its tentacles into China and provided the funding, resources, guidance, and international propaganda which enabled Mao to seize power. China remains to this day the greatest notch in the Red belt of global conquest.

Mao’s dark shadow still hangs over China. The ruling regime follows the path outlined by Mao, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and their fellow conspirators. Harun Yahya wrote:

“From Mao’s death in 1976 to the present, the Communist Party still governs. China adopted the rules of a capitalist economy and has made great economic advances as a result, but its political system is still Communist. And strangely, Mao, the murderer of tens of millions of Chinese, is still regarded by the Chinese as a holy figure. . . .

“Obviously, Maoism still dominates China. It’s not simply an inheritance of aged Communist Party administrators from Mao’s time, but a living inheritance for a younger generation still blindly bound to Marxism. Peasants and the uneducated masses view Mao as a supreme being; most intellectuals consciously espouse and disseminate Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology. Chinese capitalism is simply hiding and strengthening Maoism.

“China is the world’s most populous country, and its economy continues to grow. Its arms production is such that, in the 21st century, it is thought that China will rival the United States as a superpower. That an ever-stronger China is still Maoist, with “Mao-mania” thriving among its 1.2 billion population, shows once against that Communism is not dead but is only hidden. Worse still, this is Maoist Communism, the most barbarous and brutal version.

“Mao is alive not only in China, but internationally. . . .

“. . . The international Communist net stretches back to Red China’s bloody dictatorship and continues as a serious threat to the world” (Yahya, Communism in Ambush, 180, 183-184).

No honest individual can deny that Red China is a fully-committed communist nation and that Maoism still reigns. President Xi Jinping is a communist and the Communist Party rules China. I appeal to the Chinese constitution for proof:

“Since the Party’s 18th National Congress, Chinese Communists, with Comrade Xi Jinping as their chief representative, in response to contemporary developments and by integrating theory with practice, have systematically addressed the major question of our times—what kind of socialism with Chinese characteristics the new era requires us to uphold and develop and how we should uphold and develop it, thus giving shape to Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. The Thought is a continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development. It is the latest achievement in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, a crystallization of the practical experience and collective wisdom of the Party and the people, an important component of the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and a guide to action for the entire Party and all the Chinese people to strive for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and must be upheld long term and constantly developed. Under the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the Communist Party of China has led the Chinese people of all ethnic groups in a concerted effort to carry out a great struggle, develop a great project, advance a great cause, and realize a great dream, ushering in a new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

communism434

Yes, China is still Red, still upholds Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, is still ruled by the Communist Party, and still constitutes a massive threat to humanity. The further evidence for this claim fills volumes. Nevin Gussack’s book Red Dawn in Retrospect contains powerful evidence of China’s evil intentions regarding the United States and the free world. Among its pages, we find quotes like the following from Chinese leaders:

“(As for the United States), for a relatively long time it will be absolutely necessary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance . . . We must conceal our abilities and bide our time” (Lieutenant General Mi Zhenyu, in Gussack, Red Dawn in Retrospect, 185).

“Because the Midwest states of the U.S. are sparsely populated, in order to increase the lethality, [our] nuclear attacks should mainly target the key cities on the West Coast of the United States, such as Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego . . . The 12 JL-2 nuclear warheads carried by one single Type 094 SSBN can kill and wound 5 million to 12 million Americans . . . If we launch our DF 31A ICBMs over the North Pole, we can easily destroy a whole list of metropolises on the East Coast and the New England region of the U.S., including Annapolis, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Portland, Baltimore and Norfolk, whose population accounts for about one-eighth of America’s total residents” (Chinese state media in 2013, in Gussack, Red Dawn in Retrospect, 186).

“In history, the Western powers used warships and opium to colonize China. Now the opposite has happened. We will use our open policy, seize the economic crisis in the West as a historical moment, and use effective measures to turn them into Socialist China’s economic and cultural colonies . . . Our colonization of these countries is the historical process of communism’s triumph over rotten capitalism. We Chinese communists must shoulder the great historical mission, and use socialism to defeat capitalism, eventually liberating the entire humanity with Communism” (Then General Secretary of the Communist Party Hu Jintao, in Gussack, Red Dawn in Retrospect, 187).

“[O]ur national defense policy has taken a 180 degree turn and we have since emphasized more and more ‘combining peace and war’ . . . We have made a tremendous effort to construct ‘The Great Wall Project’ to build up, along our coastal and land frontiers as well as around large and medium-sized cities, a solid underground ‘Great Wall’ that can withstand a nuclear war. We are also storing all necessary war materials. Therefore, we will not hesitate to fight a Third World War, so as to lead the people to go out and to ensure the Party’s leadership position. In any event, we, the CCP [Chinese Communist Party], will never step down from the stage of history! We’d rather have the whole world, or even the entire globe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! . . . .

“Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization. Therefore, solving the ‘issue of America’ is the key to solving all other issues  . . . We need to liberate them [Asians living in America]. Second, after solving the ‘issue of America,’ the Western countries in Europe would bow to us, not to mention to Taiwan, and other small countries. . . .

“. . . Comrade Xiaoping . . . could have sated ‘The relationship between China and United States is one of a life-and-death struggle.’ Of course, right now it is not the time to openly break up with them yet. Our reform and opening to the outside world still rely on their capital and technology, we still need America. Therefore, we must do everything we can to promote our relationship with America, learn from America in all aspects and use America as an example to reconstruct our country . . . The hidden message is: we must put up with America; we must conceal our ultimate goals, hide our capabilities and await the opportunity. In this way, our mind is clear. . . .

“. . . if the United States as the leader is gone, then other enemies have to surrender to us . . . If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack (on the United States), the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the United States. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the United States, China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. . . .

communism313

“It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world” (General Chi Haotian in 2005, in Gussack, Red Dawn in Retrospect, 187-188. The authenticity of this leaked statement is sometimes questioned, yet several experts have verified it and others, including myself, note how well it harmonizes with known communist objective. But it has not been admitted or denied by China. Additionally, various facts can be absolutely verified, such as the existence of a massive “Underground Great Wall” stretching over thousands of miles of China and containing nuclear weapons facilities, railroad tracks to ship troops and equipment, food supplies, etc.).

Other statements could be cited, but these suffice. The Chinese leadership – especially the leadership of the People’s Liberation Army – hates America and fully intends to fight, and win, a future war against us. This war will be nuclear at least at first. It will include terrifying bio-chemical weapons and the most advanced death machines ever devised. Since the communists took over China, the Chinese have planned and prepared for this war because they know, in accordance with the communist doctrine of world revolution, that it is inevitable.

We cannot say we haven’t been warned. The enemy loves deception and are masters of obfuscation, yet any right-thinking person can see through the lies and discern the true heart of Marxism. And our greatest Liberty champions have warned us about Red China’s threat. Ezra Taft Benson, for instance, warned:

“[T]here is little doubt that the leaders of Red China view war as inevitable and await only the propitious moment in which to strike.

“What we face today is not just a cold war, not just a struggle for the control of land, sea, air, and even outer space, but total competition for the control of men’s minds. Unless we meet it and defeat it, we shall almost inevitably one day face the loss of all that we hold dear” (Benson, “Communist Threat to the Americas,” General Conference, October, 1960).

As the anniversary of the founding of the Maoist regime in China approaches, let’s remember what horrors that regime perpetrated and what it is still capable of doing. Let us remember that China is a communist nation ruled by the Communist Party under devoted communist Xi Jinping. Let us remember that this malignant regime did not hesitate to murder upwards of 100 million of its own people to further communist “progress” and that it will not flinch when the time comes to consign hundreds of millions of our people to their graves in pursuit of Marxist world utopia.

communism416

“Make revolution all one’s life, read Chairman Mao’s book all one’s life.”

Red China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and their allies have a horrible fate in store for us if we are blithe enough to walk into their trap. Unfortunately, we already have one foot in the trap! “We have traveled far into the soul-destroying land of socialism” (President David O. McKay, Deseret News, October 18, 1952) and are well on the way to full communism without even realizing it. Yet, there are millions of us who are awake and aware. We will not go down into communist slavery – especially not Chinese captivity – without a fight.

In the end, after war ravishes our beloved Republic and people are forced to confront the communist conspiracy in all its Satanic savagery, have been forced to acknowledge that the “conspiracy theorists” were right, and have humbled themselves before Jesus Christ, then will God deliver a remnant to restore Freedom. While it might look for a season that the Red Chinese and Soviet Russians have won, ultimate victory will be ours. When all is said and done, the Red regime in Beijing will go down to everlasting defeat along with its godfather in Moscow. Let this be the happy thought that fills your mind as you see the communists commemorate Mao’s Red revolution in China.

Zack Strong,

August 16, 2019.